Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231

Baseball Bugs - Block review and topic ban discussion

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

Resolved

 – Bugs has voluntarily agreed to avoid the drama boards for one month unless he is called here for issues that directly involve is own behavior. If this works, there will be no need to impose any ban; the discussion also had not establised an overwhelming consensus to ban him anyways. It seems the best thing to do is to table this issue until such time as it becomes necessary to take more drastic measures. Yes this kicks it down the road, but if we give this less drastic measure a try, it and it works, it becomes better for all parties.--Jayron32 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Note to closing admin Several issues have come up recently with discussions being closed after only a few hours or less than a day because a "consensus" was apparent after only a few opinions given. Please do not close this until significant time has been allowed for this discussion to fully develop.--v/r - TP 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I am a neutral party who is reorganising this at Risker's suggestion.

NOTE - I have done my best to present the following timeline in as neutral a manner as possible. Please note - reference to other disputes is not an invitation to re-open those disputes. Manning (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The story so far:

1. - (It all starts with all sorts of conflicts involving multiple parties on a myriad of topics. I'm not even going to attempt to summarize).
2. - Bugs allegedly edit-warred on Mistress Selina Kyle's talk page: start here and see the next 13 diffs that follow.
3. - Bugs allegedly misbehaved on AN/I Permalink, a lot of reading here.
4. - Risker warned Bugs (See above permalink)
5. - Bugs allegedly misbehaved on AN/Iagain (See above permalink)
6. - Risker blocked Bugs Permalink of Bugs talk page discussion
7. - Block review took place - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball_bugs_block_review
8. - Toddst1 declared consensus and unblocked Bugs (see previous link)
9. - Several editors questioned the consensus (see links and discussion below)
10. - Other editors requested a Topic ban discussion commence about Bugs and the AN/ANI pages. (see links and discussion below).

Bugs: Block/Unblock review

Also see earlier discussion.

• Request review: At the time of the close, 41% were in favour of an immediate unblock (the option Toddst1 chose as his closure) and 59% supported blocks ranging from 24 hours to 7 days. This was also closed shortly after Toddst1 voted himself in the thread, and after only a few hours rather than letting it run for its normal length. Toddst1's assessment of consensus has been questioned by editors on both sides of the debate and needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Block was stupid, unblock unwarranted. Although I believe (and argue below in the context of a topic ban proposal) that Bugs should not have been punishedd for this, there was clearly no consensus for an unblock. Bugs is used to the rough and tumble and invited it on himself. If necessary some other editing friends and I can visit him and keep his spirit up in Wikmo. Hasty unblocks have been a huge problem around here, and a general erosion of the quality and respect for administrative actions. Blocks shouldn't be issued lightly, but once issued they should not be undone lightly either. Per common sense and a possible ruling in a pending Arbcom case, admin actions or decisions to not act should be accorded some respect, and all should be patient. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• As I have mentioned to Toddst1 and on the AN/I page, I continued to monitor the discussion of the block that I placed in order to determine if the community consensus was that the block should be modified in some manner; whilst the discussion was starting to trend toward a shortening of the block, there was not yet consensus for that, and there certainly was not consensus for a complete unblock. I will note that Toddst1 did not inform me that he was undoing the block I had placed. Neither of these are appropriate actions. Risker (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, you have a strange way of determining a consensus, I guess a good reason why we need a uninvolved Sysop to make the decision. Bidgee (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In actuality, the consensus to reduce was already there at the time the thread was closed. As I look at the comments, I see only 4 straight-forward endorsements which do not mention favoring the possibility of a reduction. Considering that !voting to overturn the block is equivalent to reducing it to time served, the vast majority of the commenters were OK with a reduction. If would therefore probably have been best if Toddst1 had reduced the block rather than rescinded it, but it cannot be said that there was anything like a consensus to keep the block at a week -- in act, quite the contrary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Where was the consensus, Bidgee? About a quarter supported the block as is, about 40% wanted him unblocked, and the rest were in between. There was no consensus. People who thought a 2-3 day block was appropriate were lumped into those who wanted him unblocked. In fact, the unblock was against consensus. People who wanted him unblocked because they missed his entertainment value should probably be discounted from the equation anyway; this isn't a comedy club. I know it's not popular, but administrators are still supposed to weigh the reasoning behind the opinions voiced. Risker (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Risker, I'm am not seeing where "about a quarter supported the block as is". There were 33 serious !votes: 14 of them opposed the block, 4 of them supported the block as is, 15 !votes were in favor of reduction -- that's 6 "reduce" !votes, 6 "endorse but reduce" votes and 3 "oppose and reduce" votes. There was clearly no consensus for the 1 week block, and a healty consensus for a reduction, since 88% of the commenters wanted either a reduction or to have the block overturned, which is equivalent to a reduction to time served. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • (e/c)Risker, You know were the consenus was but you don't want to admit that your block was wrong. There were calls for the block to be reduced but most editors didn't state for how long it should be reduced by, in total he was block for just over four hours. Branding those whom supported the unblock for entertainment is wrong, totally false and unfounded. Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing is 5 endorsements, one extend to indefinite, five straight overturns, three "overturn because excessive" without any indication of what wouldn't be excessive, and about a dozen "reduce length" with various lengths suggested from time served to 5 days, with an average of about 3 days. I also see five comments that basically boil down to "MSK is awful, therefore Bugs shouldn't be blocked." Those last ones don't count because they're about someone else's behaviour, not Baseball Bugs's; bad behaviour on someone else's part does not excuse bad behaviour on Baseball Bugs' part. I was giving serious consideration to reduction; however, we were only 5 hours into this discussion, and people were all over the map. There's a pretty big gap between 5 hours and 3 days. If Toddst1 had said to me "Hey Risker, what say we knock this down to 3 days" I probably would have gone for it. It's not like I wasn't responding to messages. Risker (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your the one stating three days, no one in the "discussion" stated on how long it should be reduced by. I'm not sure why you have a fixation on Bugs but to me it seems like you have a vendetta against him since it is only you who thinks it should be three days. Bidgee (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've striked my poor choice of wording. TechnoSymbiosis and Franamax were the only ones to state three days while AniMate stated two to three days, Purplebackpack89 and Silverseren both stated one to two days. There are far more Reduce (without amount of time stated) and Oppose then there is Endorse. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest you revisit that comment, Bidgee. Franamax, TechnoSymbiosis and AniMate all stated that they supported a block for 3 days. Insinuating that Risker acted maliciously in her block is not at all helpful to this discussion. —Dark 09:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Bidgee - I'll also *strongly* advise you to refactor that comment. Accusing an admin of having a vendetta against anyone is a serious charge, and not brought casually. Manning (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I concur. Unless Bidgee's post was a poor attempt at providing a humorous illustration of the general issue discussed in the thread above, which doesn't seem a very plausible interpretation, the only other reading of Bigdee's post is that it's a blatant misrepresentation of facts and a personal attack. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Struck as moot after redaction of the initial post. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I never intended for it to sound like that I was accusing Risker of a vendetta, I was just making a view point how some people could see the situation. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bidgee - Thanks for your clarification. I'm sure there is no harm done. Manning (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't consider Risker's block to have been vindictive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I generally respect Toddst1, but I think he was wrong both in acting upon a discussion in which he had !Voted and in what seems like a precipate unblock for which there was no consensus. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• By now, who cares: Even though the consensus was against immediate unblock, there were enough people who said 24 or 48 hour block to make the consensus for unblocking him after 24-48 hours. Baseball Bugs was blocked yesterday afternoon/evening (22-2300 UTC), so by the time we've sorted this mess out, at least 24 hours will have passed, and maybe closer to 48. This thread is a waste of time. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Except he'd be unblocked during this entire time period, so your timeline isn't actually accurate. He really only served a 5 hour block. Silverseren^C 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion - Should Bugs be topic-banned from AN and AN/I?

• Support Toddst1 (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support about time --Guerillero | My Talk 06:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yes. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support He needs some time away from these two drama-filled areas. Maybe flesh out his editing capabilities in content-building or something like that. Silverseren^C 06:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The administrator noticeboards do not need an agent provocateur to stir up drama. Bugs' contributions have shifted over time from useful to disruptive. Some time away from AN/* would be beneficial. With due respect to Bugs, this doesn't seem all that healthy. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with his pattern of edits? Where is a statement of your "ideal" distribution of edits? Edison (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think more than 35% odd combined article and article talk contributions would be less worrisome. The bureaucracy in Wikipedia is here to support the goal of encyclopedia-building, not to support itself. When time spent on bureaucratic matters outweighs time spent on productive matters, I think that's cause for serious reflection. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 06:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Over 9500 posts at AN/I and almost none of them are productive. If he isn't inflaming situations he's saying something silly to derail them. AniMate 06:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Heavens no, short-sighted shenanigans pending further evidence. Bugs is one of the most enthusiastic, good faith, doesn't-condone-nonsense contributors to the project discussions, and a staunch supporter of our encyclopedic purpose. If the problem is unwanted nonadminstrative catcalls from the peanut gallery better just ban nonadmins from ANI or take it all to the private listservs. Bugs' exuberance in support of the encyclopedia can be impolitic but he is usually spot-on and never cynical or malicious. His boisterous and universally good-natured even when biting comments always side with those endeavoring to create knowledge rather than those whom he suspects (often but not always correctly) of alternate agendas. He rushes to trouble like a rescue dog to an avalanche, but thanks to his lack of administrative rights he is not allowed to carry a bourbon cask there. What offense has he committed this time against our trolls, sockpuppets, and hot-heads? This appears to be a matter of contempt-of-cop, as administrators were trying to establish order by telling both parties in a lopsided dispute to shut up. As far as I can tell his offense was to express vindication regarding an editor who accused him of something or other and was bocked in course. Do we really need to silence inconvenient voices, particularly at a time when our system is not working very well? I hope not. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question. Besides this most recent incident, have there been other threads about BB's behavior on AN or AN/I? I'm aware that he was blocked on Commons for disrupting COM:AN/U [1] because he takes pride in that [2]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some things I found from a very quick search without any real digging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Baseball_Bugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Personal_Attacks_By_user_Baseball_bugs

Of course, only one of those discussions resulted in a block, so there must be more out there in regards to his block log. Silverseren^C 07:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• At the very least. A condition of removal of the topic ban is that he actually, you know, contribute some encyclopedic content in some way or another. This ain't facebook, with AN/I as Wikipedia's collective "wall". It IS still supposed to be an encyclopedia writing project.VolunteerMarek 07:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely not! Bugs is the only one that actually makes AN/I entertaining to read! -- œ^™ 07:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not the purpose of ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is written, assuming this is an indefinite topic ban proposal. There's really no conditions or anything. Now, sure, plenty of people don't like Bugs, and think of him as a "meddler". Plenty of others don't mind him at all. I happen to support Bugs' right to exist, and if commenting excessively at AN/I makes him happy (and no reversions of his posts, page protections, etc. are needed)... so what? This proposal is half-baked as it is, too "Supermax". Take some time off form the boards? That's a lot different to reasonably ask than what's here right now. Doc talk 07:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bugs is apparently unblockable, but should stay away from the drama boards. Kilopi (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why? It's not his fault ANI is the way it is, regardless of how often he posts here. Certainly this would be no time for such a decision, in the wake of a controversial block/unblock, without discussion of alternatives, time limits, or conditions. I supported the block, and I supported a reduction, following procedure, but this is too much. Begoon ^talk 07:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Though as someone previously involved in this custard-pie fight, my opinion may not be seen as particularly helpful. Bugs is a pain in the nether regions at times, and frequently more concerned with making his presence felt than in offering any deep and insightful analysis at AN/I. But that is exactly what is needed on occasion. Far too often, people seem to think that Wikipedia in general, and the various noticeboards in particular, are some sort of Court of Law, set up to determine objective facts, rather than what it actually is - a website for those who think it matters to attempt to create an online encyclopaedia, which for all its flaws gets things right occasionally, if only by luck. If you are here to attempt this, carry on - otherwise "go elsewhere" (redacted in advance ;-) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - largely per Wikidemon, though with some reservations, and partly because this issue threw into rather stark relief the lie that is "blocks are not punitive." This was punitive, pure and simple, but we should be careful to separate the blocking admin's rather brainfarty lapse in judgement from the ongoing concern that Bugs may generate more heat than light in the more troublesome bits of projectspace. I am largely in agreement with Wikidemon Bugs simply isn't interested in speaking a bunch of touchy-feely passive-aggressive bullshit and would much rather cut through the nonsense and call a digging implement a digging implement. This is a good thing for Wikipedia, as near as I can tell the overwhelming majority of Bugs' constructive commentary in projectspace is directed solely by an honest belief in the value of the project and its utility to its readership. Anything that gets in the way of that goal, particularly anything cloaked in dishonest bullshit, needs to be called out bluntly for what it is so that it may be dealt with as swiftly and effectively as possible and people can get back to writing the whatsit, you know, thing full of articles. That aside, the link provided above is slightly troubling, though one notes nearly 16K edits to articles, which I think many of us cannot claim. That being said, Bugs should be greatly encouraged to interact at the drama boards less, perhaps mostly by way of tilting the heat:light ratio further to the right, and (presuming this topic ban proposal doesn't pass) understanding very clearly that this is kind of a 'here's the rope, hang yourself if you like' situation aka Last Chance For Bugs. I for one would support a future proposal for such a topic ban if Bugs doesn't choose to moderate himself in terms of sticking to more constructive commentary only.→ ROUX ₪ 07:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose too broad and banning someone from AN and ANI isn't going to solve anything. Bidgee (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per big purple Œ Bulwersator (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baseball Bugs is a redlink, so the suggestion for a topic ban is premature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There have been several threads on AN or AN/I serving the same purpose as a RfC/U. It's clear that BB isn't going to change his behavior because of the lack of community consensus. I guess this should go straight to Arbitration. I for one would rather wait to see first how the very similar Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement ends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Its because of the over reaction from Sysops or poorly worded proposals by the community, which is why we are at this point. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • ArbCom has consistently held that, except in the very most extreme circumstances, threads on ANI or AN can not take the place of an RFC/U. In fact, threads on the noticeboards are expected to lead to an RFC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Where has the ArbCom asserted authority over community dispute resolution policies and procedures? So far as I am aware, the community has a traditional right to impose topic and site bans directly at AN/ANI. Has the ArbCom ever overturned any community bans just because it was not preceded by an RFCU?   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
          • @Will: Sorry, I was not clear in my meaning. I using ArbCom's own standard for accepting or rejecting cases, which is where they've consistently held that an AN or AN/I thread does not take the place of an RFC/U. I don't dispute that the community has the power to impose bans through AN discussions (indeed, I said as much below), I was simply using ArbCom's reasoning, which I agree with, that, generally, discussion threads on noticeboards shouldn't take the place of an RFC/U, which is a much more structured and less emotionally-charged venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support six month ban - Six months away from AN/ANI should give enough time to determine if Baseball Bugs is here for the project, or for posting on these pages. Other editors have suggested he has been a positive contributor at the Help Desk, and he has done some perfectly acceptable content work in the past; he should be encouraged to continue in these areas. I am concerned that some of those opposing a ban are doing so because of Bugs' "entertainment" value on these boards. Sarcasm and wit at the expense of other users is not the way to build the project, regardless of how amusing some find it, and becomes disruptive when it detracts from the focus of the thread. The purpose of these boards is to give users a place to request administrator support or other assistance, not to provide entertainment. I'd suggest that the closers consider the thread above, where others point out the toxic environment on these noticeboards, in weighing the opinions expressed here. Risker (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose BB reflects the ethos. If admins and others behaved in a focused, professional and respectful manner here, he would probably follow. To single him out, for behaviour that so many others engage in, behaviour that has been tolerated for years, smells of scapegoating. First, agree to improve your game here and clearly signal it. Then pick off those that can't conform. I suspect BB is quite capable of conforming, given a clear signal, and a good example from those he respects. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you start? "Others should do it first" is an excuse that can be used across the board to stifle change. Bugs isn't necessarily being singled out, he's just the first in line at the moment. Cracking down on inappropriate behaviour has to start somewhere. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. But the "change of approach" to enforcement should precede the punishment/preventative action. Bugs hasn't done anything many others haven't also done on the drama boards, he's just probably done more of it. As Anthonycole says, take some action signalling a change in what is acceptable (or truly, what will be enforced) first, otherwise it can look like "making an example" of someone, which I don't personally think is the correct response in these circumstances. Begoon ^talk 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd announce a change of long-standing standards before enforcing the change. Maybe it's time for WP:RfC/ANI conduct.. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban for anything that has a WP: or WT: prefix. How a non-administrator would manage to get over 9,000 (no meme intended) edits to an administrator noticeboard is beyond me. Baseball Bugs is by far the largest contributor to AN/I, and his presence has become toxic. Time for a break. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "because ... IMO". My76Strat (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I have personally warned him repeatedly for incivility, and I'm not really very active on this page at all. His behaviour seems to regularly fall significantly below the standard required for such a heated environment. A topic ban seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bugs is witty, amusing, intelligent and I frequently share his point of view when it comes down to a !vote. However ultimately we are not here for our own or others' amusement but to write and maintain an encyclopaedia. Until the Mistress Kyle episode I would have !voted oppose but he very naively allowed his chain to be yanked and fed her exactly the opportunity that I assume she had hoped to manufacture. When the entertainment starts getting in the way of the real task in hand, it's time to call a halt to the sideshow. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on the discussion two sections below, which you have so graciously closed, it seems the facts were exactly the other way around with respect to who did what on purpose and who fell for the ploy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I gave the editor a chance to demonstrate some good faith, and they failed. These things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That is the way it read to me, coming to this cold today. pablo 11:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Probably; although some (not least of all Bugs himself) clearly find Bugs amusing, his comments are rarely constructive or heplful. (Admittedly I have not reviewed all 9,000 of them). A RFC/U might be a better way forward though. pablo 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose >.> -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. No matter how wise or good-hearted Baseball Bugs may be, he seems to have developed a habit of lengthening noticeboard threads without necessarily improving them. I encourage BB to devote a greater percentage of his time to improving articles and less of it to commenting on the actions of others.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  There's a reason the horse pulls the cart. And there's good reason to develop the language of a ban before the yes/no !vote. My76Strat (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I put the word "DISCUSSION" in the header. People seem to have dived straight into a vote however, which was not my intent. Manning (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Don't have a strong opinion as to whether this happens, but if you all decide that BB should be banned from AN/ANI, I'd suggest to time limit it, and to have some simple process to respond if he turns up on other noticeboards. If his behaviour on AN/ANI is at issue (again, I'm agnostic on that matter), topic banning him just means he'll pop up at BLPN or RSN or DRN or FTN or to start poking away at content RfCs or RfC/U's. For instance, if the ban goes through, include a provision to allow admins in good standing to modify the topic ban to cover other noticeboards if and when necessary. Again, this isn't an endorsement of a topic ban, just a suggestion for implementation. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Conditional support'I would unconditionally support a ban to be reviewed at the end of six months. I agree with Will Beback that he needs to cut down his comments about other editors. I've had to warn him about taunting blocked editors on their talk pages - that's simply unacceptable. Although I sympathise with what Anthonyhcole wrote, I don't think that's a good reason to allow Bugs to continue unchecked. Let's do this and make it a step on the way to improving discussions here and at ANI. I've had an edit conflict and now see Tom's comments, which would be covered in part by a review (which should give Bugs an incentive to change his behavior). Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• support this is a long time coming. I've repeatedly seen Bugs jump in to various AN/I or AN discussions with absolutely nothing to add other than insults, or some sarcastic remark designed only to stir the pot. Of course, if any threads were started directly about him as an identified participant in an event he should be allowed to participate in those threads.--Crossmr (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The underlying motivation of nearly everything I do here has to do with keeping wikipedia credible for its readers. Maybe you think it's wrong to defend wikipedia. I think it's right to do so. You may not think wikipedia is worth defending, but I think it is. It's the first place I go to, to find out anything about anything - knowing full well that the content may have been compromised, but also knowing that in some small way I can do something about that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The end justifies the means? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you think wikipedia is worth defending? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Do you endorse goading depressed people to suicide to reinforce the notion that depression can lead to death? Or perhaps you endorse exposing some PTSD-afflicted veteran to war-like sights and sounds in order to trigger a panic attack (or worse) in order to reveal their true character, as in mental vulnerabilities under stress? What exactly is this clear and present danger that you are defending Wikipedia from? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think either you or anyone else here should be offering a medical diagnosis of the editor Kyle. That's really over the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
            • My questions were purely hypothetical, but again you jumped to conclusions. You still have not replied what was this extraordinary threat to Wikipedia that justifies your extreme behavior. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Your question is bogus. It's of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety. But feel free to answer my question of whether you think wikipedia is worth defending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Your extremist, absolutist, crusading attitude in this matter is worrisome. The defense mechanisms are commensurate with the level of threat in most civil societies. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • Try that again, in Simple English this time, as I haven't a clue what you're trying to say, although it does have the tone of a severe overreaction. Also, you still won't say whether you think wikipedia is worth defending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                    • Ok. It's almost like saying "pry Wikipedia from my cold, dead hands". Is that simple enough? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                      • That makes even less sense. I'll let you quit while you're behind. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                        • Ok, I'm willing to admit that in a game of feigning incomprehension, you'd win easily. Happy editing and keep Wikipedia safe for us all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                          • I'm not very good at feigning incomprehension, but I'm pretty good at actual incomprehension. In any case, as noted below, I will soon have very little time for wikipedia for the short term. That might be because I'm a severely depressed shell-shocked veteran who's about to run off to join a Weekly Reader survivalist commune. OR, it might be that some new work-related projects are likely to consume most of my copious free time.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Wow.. it's almost as if you buy the crap you're serving. Any time I've seen you being disruptive it's got nothing to "defending" wikipedia. It's simply got to do with you trolling AN/I. I've repeatedly seen you just waltz into the middle of threads simply to pick at someone without actually discussing any of the issues at hand. There is no defense there. It's just Bugs being Bugs and everyone has a giggle at what an outlandish character you are and we wait for the next round. It seems a large portion of the user base has had enough of that behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr—you say "it's almost as if you buy the crap you're serving." You are the problem. You are framing sentences in ways that reach ineluctable conclusions. That is head to head conflict. You say "It's just Bugs being Bugs". Again—simple statement; ineluctable conclusion. I can't tell you how to behave, but expressing oneself in ways that pound away at someone else is counterproductive in a highly social environment such as Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. Needs a break from ANI. --Surturz (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reading developments just above doesn't hurt your rationale here, I confess. Begoon ^talk 12:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting blocking ASCII for "baiting"? That would be going a little far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting anything, BB, honestly. I think you're a lovely, well meaning chap, and I believe that you do everything with the best intent. My comment was an observation, nothing more. Begoon ^talk 12:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Jolly good. You are a gentleman and a scaler. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I try to be a gentleman. I have no head for heights though. I opposed your topic ban above for the reasons I stated, and I stand by that. Begoon ^talk 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
            • You say you're a "precisionist", and that was the best play on words I could come up with. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but they're always worth at least as much as my salary here. :) And I thank you for your support. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Ah, yes, scales of grey, not height at all, I'm sorry. Stay Cool. Begoon ^talk 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I don't spend time much at ANI, because it is generally an unhelpful venue soaked through with drama. When I do read it though, I often notice Bugs making comments which are not productive. They're not necessarily unproductive, but they do waste time. Bugs has more contributions on ANI than any other editor (including Miszabot) and has nearly 3 times more edits than the next human editor ([3]) - I'm willing to be persuaded that the topic ban is a bad idea, but I don't see it at the moment. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Dougweller's assessment. There are regrettably too many negative features to his comments to outweigh the useful observations he often makes. Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Do what you have to. The amount of time I'll have for wikipedia is soon going to be significantly curtailed anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely. He should be barred from these pages for a while and encouraged to do some article editing. Everyking (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Who will defend Wikipedia if not him? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Be assured that shall he fall I will pick up the bloody mantle from the dusty ground, enshroud myself in it, take a weary look over this landscape full of foes, orcs, gnolls and githyaniki, take a heavy step forward, pick up the broken blade from wounded earth of Wikipedia and carry on the struggle. Seriously, I'm having trouble with this - how many of the above votes are serious and how many have their tongue so firmly in their cheek that there's some blood vessels bursting?VolunteerMarek 01:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice my epiphany moment above, so let me explain (although I'm nowhere as good as BB is in that department). ANI and BB are made for each other. BB could take on an army of GNAA blokes and win without breaking a sweat. He is thus the perfect hunter in a wiki-hunter-killer team. And "killing" is easy on Wikipedia: just press the block button. Making the target expose itself is the hard part in this environment. And I've not seen anyone on this board come close to BB's ability to give everyone a chance to demonstrate their good faith and true character. He's even willing to take a rubber bullet for the team (while wearing a type III vest). You have to be pragmatic about these things if you really want to defend Wikipedia. Honestly, who doesn't want BB in their team? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

GNAA??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose A draconian solution to cure something which does not need curing. Collect (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bugs finds the boards entertaining, and many of the boards' regulars find him entertaining. The fact remains, however, that AN and ANI aren't here to provide entertainment for anyone, and when someone's use of them for entertainment purposes begins to interfere with the actual function of the boards, it's time for that person to be escorted away from them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not too familiar with Bugs myself, so I just skimmed through his recent contributions to AN and ANI and failed to find a single constructive edit. Besides, anyone with over 9000(!) edits to ANI in the first place is arguably here for the wrong reasons. Robofish (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially oppose for an extended period of time: Bugs makes jokes. So what? I'm not seeing how he harms the AN/ANI process Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Whenever I read AN/I, BB always seem to pop up with sarcastic and generally unhelpful comments. Skinny87 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Long past time this wannabe comedy king got stuffed back inside his box. Jtrainor (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) I'm not convinced his participating at AN and AN/I are disruptive, let alone disruptive enough to ban him from participating in discussions, a core element of Wikipedia. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Honestly, pick any ANI archive # and you will probably find at least one thread where someone has had to tell BB to stop flicking grease onto the fire. If there's other parts of the project where he is seen as a positive force such as the Helpdesk then enacting this can only help. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think an RFC/U would be a better idea to start with. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and I appreciate Roux's commentary. Sure, Bugs has a tendency to lengthen threads. Sure, not all of it is helpful. But, some of it is. Also, I am entertained. Sure, this thing got out of hand. But, it wasn't all his fault. Etc. Bugs, I'm sure you'll take these comments to heart. Like carrots, they'll improve your vision. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose we need more not fewer such editors. Rklawton (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - long overdue. (See also: Wikipedia:Don't be a rubbernecker) –xeno^talk 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikidemon and Drmies among many others. Bugs ability to ferret out sock puppets and trolls and time wasters on various AN/I and AN threads has been an asset to the project time and again. The assertion that he does not contribute to other articles is ridiculous as anyone who has worked with him on stadium, team or film articles can tell you. Start an RFC/U if you need to but banning editors from AN and AN/I is not the way to go. MarnetteD | Talk 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - My view after examination of the user's Drama-to-Useful-Edits ratio. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Marnette. - Youreallycan 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I like Bugs, and I think his heart's in the right place, but this seems to be the only way to convince him that he doesn't need to comment on every single thread at ANI, and that his participation in some actually aggravates the situation. He should find something more productive to do for a little while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment First, I have to plead guilty to often enjoying Bug's wit and humor - but also admit there's times I get this "ohhhh my ... this isn't gonna go well" feeling to. Rather than support or oppose this ban option - I'd rather see Risker and Bugs try to work out an acceptable solution first (with perhaps some input from Todd). I noticed that BB is going to be less active anyway .. just a thought. — Ched :  ?  19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As Marnette observed above, Bugs has long done yeoman's work against socks and trolls. He has over15000 edits in article space, far more than many of his critics in this thread, as well as his larger number of edits at Ref Desk, ANI and other parts of the project. In many AN/ANI discussions he has pointed out pretensions and logical failings, and the fact that he does it in a humorous fashion in not a basis for excluding him. Edison (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • He isn't being banned from the whole project, only this page and ANI. It should enable him to be more helpful elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - HJ Mitchell pretty well sums up my views. I think Bugs would benefit from contributing elsewhere for a while. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I think HJ Mitchell phrases it diplomatically. AN/I is place to resolve issues but one must be sure not to instigate more--a habit Bugs indulges in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• A topic ban is effectively swatting a fly with a bazooka. I'm not convinced that it would be useful. That said: Bugs, please go work on the main namespace for a week or so and forget AN/I exists for the sake of everyone involved... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Some sort of probation - If forced to pick one way, I would probably support...but this shouldn't be step one. BB should be advised not to contribute to a thread in ways that aren't productive all around. Being rude to IPs just because they are IPs isn't acceptable. Being rude to new users just because they are new users isn't acceptable. Poking isn't acceptable. A strictly enforced AGF on noticeboards of all types. --Onorem♠Dil 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't see it as disruptive Edinburgh Wanderer 20:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Lawful Neutral Baseball Bugs is usually Chaotic Good. WMF should create a BB-button that allows only him to post comments in the margins, like the students' comments in Concrete Mathematics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I stand by my original comment: Topic ban from noticeboards until he writes 1 FA, 5 GAs or brings 10 stubs to B class. Personally, I think this should be a standard ban length... take people away from the drama for a while and put them back where the focus should be. Resolute 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. More gleefully sadistic editors like Bugsy are needed to drive home the point that this is not an encyclopedia but the world's biggest online role playing game, with a peanut gallery to match. And change Wikipedia's motto to read "Your pain = my gain". 82.113.99.160 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per SilverSeren and Xeno. Lara 21:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Frankly, if people are so thin-skinned that Bugs' (and Malleus', and, and, and...) comments get under their skin to the point where they say "let's topic-ban them from the noticeboards", they need to be contribuing somewhere other than Wikipedia. We may be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but we're not the encyclopedia everybody should edit - dealing with prickly characters comes with the job description, and while I agree that everybody, Bugs included, could do with a little more good faith at times, topic-banning here quite frankly comes across as punitive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why on earth shouldn't you be able to be thin skinned? In a professional environment people usually manage to behave with enough decorum that everyone is able to sensibly interact. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Vehemently oppose. If certain other people (who it doesn't matter that I name) get to repeatedly comment on ANI without blocking, banning or topic banning for things that are considerably worse than Bugs's mostly flippant comments, then there is no reason whatsoever that Bugs should be blocked, banned or topic banned for any time whatsoever. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "But officer, everyone else speeds worse than I do" has never been a valid excuse. If others are as persistent as Bugs is, feel free to nominate them for topic bans as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • • Repeated attempts at doing so are inevitably rejected. Over and over again. You learn there's no point in banging your head against the wall. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This entire complaint was driven by lies from a Weekly Reader user. Be proud, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Gratuitous gossip-monger. Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per this. I like Bugs and I was going to stay out of this one until I saw that bit of not-getting-it-ness. When a topic ban gets this many supporters, it should be a clue that "it's not them, it's you." (Although it's too bad we can't implement Kiefer.Wolfowitz's proposal for a BB-button, which I think is brilliant. Sort of like a DVD commentary track you could turn off.) 28bytes (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Bugs provides a great deal of noise to a place that badly needs a strong signal. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to post a bit of advice to Baseball bugs (on his talk page) and ask if he will consider a voluntary topic ban or reduction in posting volume along with dialling back on the off-topic and distracting commentary. Given the support being expressed here, I'm hoping he might agree to that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Moderation is not a throttle setting for BB. Ref Desk Talk Archives show the same inability to cut back when asked. Complaints there are defended as above with deflections and attempts to derail the issue rather than agreeing to curtail. I predict, that before a decision is reached here, he will announce a vacation. A temporary flight from the WP (It will start with an "archiving" to remove any negatives from his talk page, replaced by a Banner of his disdain), After a few days he will be back, and return to the same old behavior. Bred Ivy (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment. I think that starting to cleanup the dramagenerator that too long has ben ANI is a very good process. It is possible that topicbanning Bugs is a good way to begin this - but certainly the task cannot be considered complete with that gesture alone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Demiurge1000's reasoning which basically reflects my own. I think that overall a pause from ANI would be beneficial for the purpose of the board - and an important signal to send about what kind of behavior is expected here. I also think that this should be followed up with other steps to improve the functionality of the board. Also I think it is fully reasonable to expect users here to be willing and able to show that they are interested in building the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia - and not just in playing social network.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Their may have been merit to the block, that's another story, but a topic ban is not warranted. Wikipedia:Request for comment:Baseball Bugs is a redlink. Turn it blue if you want to have along discussion about all this. I might add that I am disgusted by the comments here suggesting we force Bugs to contribute elsewhere if he is to be allowed to keep commenting there. Nobody else has assignments they must complete, when the rest of you are willing to be told how and where you may contribute we can have that conversation. Until then, fuck no on that point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Not so sure about that - I do recall seeing a fair few people told that their further participation will be in question if their "contributions pie" doesn't reflect some arbitrary requirement for %age of contribution to particular areas of the project. (Yes those people had other problems too, but then so does Bugs.) Or is that sort of approach deprecated now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It would have been easy to miss considering the volume of posts here, but there are people who have advocated for a position way beyond "you need to contribute in other areas" making absurd propositions demanding FA quality articles be created before he be allowed to comment there again. I don't believe anything like that has ever been done and I would certainly not support starting now. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support (though I would also support a compromise approach of a six month ban). Bugs may not be the only problem that afflicts ANI, but he contributes a huge quantity of noise in a place that is supposed to have a purpose. ANI is not intended for entertainment. Bugs uses it mainly for entertainment, at such a volume that it affects the entire tone of the noticeboard and has a huge impact on how others behave as well. That is disruptive to the purpose of the noticeboard, and a topic ban is a reasonable and proportionate solution for dealing with that disruption. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He is straightforward. That is not a fault. I don't see the "entertainment" factor referenced above, nor do I see the "volume" factor expressed above. Clear expression is of sufficient volume to be heard. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Bugs's rancid antics degrade the purpose of the various noticeboards he crawls. For the defense of what's left of Wikipedia's governance mechanisms, indefinitely ban Bugs from all Wikipedia noticeboards. Confine him to article editing and his own talk page. He's had 9,000+ edits in these spaces to speak his mind. I'm not impressed with the effect overall. →StaniStani  03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per Maunus (and others; save this diff, though). 9000 opinions on that wp:dramaboard has severed to make it one. The idea that that place needs reining in needs to happen. Alarbus (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think it is time that ANI begins to function again as it was intended - as a place to help rather than exacerbate difficulty...Modernist (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion: Who controls AN and AN/I?

Is the very idea of an AN or AN/I topic ban a discussion to be had by the admins, or is it a discussion for the wider community?
Do admins have final authority over these pages?
Who controls AN and AN/I?
raised as a result of comments above, by Manning (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban discussions are routinely held here and are considered legitimate, I don't see where a ban from AN or AN/I is any different. It's not admins deciding per se, I see a large number of non-admins participating above, including me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should point out that his technique ("admins don't own ANI!") was used to derail the discussion last time when the issue of restricting Baseball Bug's participation was brought up. I suggest immediate closure of this misguided sub-thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's far from misguided. I've yet to hear the argument as to why admins *don't* own AN/I. The page was certainly created with that viewpoint (And yes, I was actually here back then). Manning (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's a genuine proposal for general reform, move it to the thread above: #An overall concern about AN and ANI. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's fine where it is. Thank you for your concern about the proper maintenance of the admin pages however. Manning (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since you're serious, I'll just say that AN is not the proper venue to rewrite WP:policy, particularly WP:CBAN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your objection is duly noted. Manning (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Manning you have clue. I've seen it. You must know the prevailing wind controls things around here. The problem is that a bag of hot air is well received in a cold room; and this is a cold room. My76Strat (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Strat, but I have my reasons for both raising this discussion, and for locating it precisely where it is located. Manning (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia runs on consensus, which is based on strength of argument, not on formal authority or what positions the person presenting the argument is holding. By policy, topic ban decisions are a community process, not one specifically restricted to administrators. Jafeluv (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jafeluv - in general I agree. However there are areas of Wikipedia where this does not apply, such as the Arbcom pages. There are pages there that can only be edited by Arbitrators, and others that are open to the community but where conduct and commentary is rigidly controlled. Furthermore, this is not a topic ban in the conventional sense, but a ban from pages that were set up by administrators, for the purpose of allowing effective discussion between the admin body and the community. I think there is enough difference here from the general concept of a topic ban to warrant the discussion. Manning (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see your angle now. You are asserting that admins are allowed to exert the same level of control over "their" noticeboards as a user has over their talk page. But while we have WP:OWNTALK and WP:ARBPOL#Procedures and roles, I'm not aware of a similar guideline or policy for the admin noticeboards. And as you don't have prior consensus for this, you should propose it at WP:VPP or WP:VPR. If the community decides to grant admins ownership of these noticeboards, that's fine, but you can't just take it on your own initiative. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a proposal. I've thus far been polite, but your constant allegations and badgering have become tiresome, so I'll not respond to any more of your comments. Manning (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Because I pointed out that your views are incompatible with policy, you declared my points badgering and allegations. I rest my case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Manning. There is nothing wrong with mooting this here. It's certainly not ripe for WP:VPR. If it develops momentum, it can move to WP:VPP, but let's see if it's worth that move. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My view is that we don't make decisions as the admin body. The community makes decisions, and admins are responsible for carrying them out (and, in some cases, closing discussions and determining community consensus). There are some exceptions, like WP:AE which you pointed out, but that's a case where admins have been specifically empowered to take enforcement actions per the committee's decisions. The banning policy covers how a ban can be enacted on Wikipedia -- #1 is the relevant point to this discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jafeluv - Your points are at the very heart of my reason for starting this discussion. But it raises the question - when did the admins decide to stop working together as a body? When we created the concept of an admin back in 2002 that was our objective - to work together, to keep each other in check, and to make decisions as a collective where we felt it was appropriate. For some reason the concept of "admins making a collective decision" is now regarded as fundamentally incompatible with "admins exist to act on community decisions". So my next question is - is this really how things should be? Is the community well-served by a non-coherent, largely disconnected set of admins? Manning (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of things so far back -- my first edit was in 2008 :) I see your point about having a more unified admin body, but it's better to make decisions together as a community and not just as a collective of admins. Someone not being an admin does not make their opinion invalid, so they should be not be excluded from the discussion on that basis. Jafeluv (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• They sort of do, in the same way admins "own" AfD. Given that any potential discussion on AN or ANI will eventually have to be cashed out with some form of admin action (otherwise, why is it on AN or ANI?), admins can veto the community consensus by simply not implementing it. Phrasing this as 'ownership' isn't really the most helpful way to think about this. Think of articles for deletion: non-admins can close deletion debates, but given that they can't actually delete, and are told to only close stuff that is housekeeping and non-contentious keep or speedy keep, the admins do effectively control AfD even if non-admins can still close stuff. It's really the same at AN and ANI: the admins don't own it, but given that you need an admin to push the buttons on a block or unblock, the admins do have some measure of control over AN and ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• non-admin comment In my mind, AN and ANI are owned (in trust) by the Admin Corps with the understanding that this is the place for any editor (admin or not) to solicit a random admin for the purposes of looking at a issue (immediately in the case of AN/I). Have the boards strayed from their purpose of Administrator Intervention and actions that will necessitate administrator action? Absolutely Yes. How can we fix it? We need to start knuckling down on the policies of the board, referring topics that aren't explicitly AN to where they need to be, referring disputants into the dispute resolution system, and having a very low tollerance for threads that fall below the Light/Heat ratio of 1. Drama causing threads and editors should be tolerated with a minimum of civility and encouraged to find something else to do. Yes my own posting severely flouts this own policy, but needs to be said. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  One solution could potentially be to require all threads to have some rough idea what exactly it is the poster wants admins to do. If people were required to be a little bit more explicit about what exactly it is they want out of an admin intervention, we can reduce the frequency where someone comes on, spews a bunch of diffs and then watches as all hell breaks loose. If there is the expectation that someone has to at least make a hint at what they want, admins can resolve it, put a block in or not as appropriate, and move on. A good way to prevent never-ending drama threads is to work out what needs doing quicker, and a good way to do that is to strongly encourage people to put all the cards on the table right away rather than play games, bluff and psych people out. Justice delayed means drama replayed. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  I kinda agree. I think that a good first step would be to require everyone wishing to post a complaint on ANI to follow a layout similar to that used on WP:DRN; a section where the reporter explains what's wrong, another where he's supposed to indicate what admin action he wants, another for diffs/evidence and then one for the discussion. Additionally, I'd also like to encourage uninvolved admins/experienced editor to be more decisive when it comes to closing/hatting threads that have become mere dramafests or that belong elsewhere... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• ’’(another non-admin comment)’’ and on any other talk page, I would have hoped that the poster before last or thereabouts had given us a new header – RE the discussion as to who “owns” this talk page, as far as outcomes go, it ain’t over till someone uses the blocking tool or whatever.

  But as to questions of behaviour on this page goes, here’s a hypothetical: If an admin “misbehaves” ON this page, then it would be incumbent upon the Admin group, as peer group to control that miscreant. And this would surely happen, with fairness and discretion and an absence of rancour.

  Now, in the case of non-admin contributions to the page, it seems only fair that the Admin group, as peer group, be given the same duties, and the community accept that right, in the interest of equal treatment of all contributors to the notice board. And, the community accepts the long-established duty to “weigh in” as and where the great and capricious behemoth is wont to ramble, but not before the locals tidy up.

  As to currently debated questions concerning any particular non-admin, or action by an admin, I make no comment, other than may fairness prevail, and let’s not take too much time. NewbyG ( talk) 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: To answer the question: the Community. But to be specific in this situation, as I understand it this is primarily a conduct board not a content board. Where it makes sense to separate content and conduct discussions (eg. article talk pages) then it makes sense to require a separate forum. Thus, the conduct discussion (about conduct here) should proceed here, there is no reason to change the forum. We should limit the drama to here, where it is happening. However, I would suggest you develop future procedures of notification to invite the whole community to come and participate (in a narrow set of situations, perhaps like the one above), if there is not such a procedure already. Also, endorse NewbyG on last paragraph of the immediate proceeding comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Per Asw's first 5 sentences, the community controls AN and AN/I. Any member of the community is welcome to participate in discussions here (providing they do so constructively) and all opinions are, or should be, assessed when determining a consensus. If that is not clear enough to non-admins, it should be made so. I probably made more AN/I edits before I became an admin than after, so I guess I figured it out for myself. As far as advertising more widely, why this particular topic-ban discussion? All community topic ban proposals are important, and that is why they are held at AN, where they have visibility. Anyone is free to watchlist this page and many many editors do. This is not a secret admin-only confab to ban an inconvenient critiv, it's an open discussion. Franamax (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

All topic bans may be important but not all topic bans involve limiting a member of the community in contributing their "well considered opinion" to topic bans or other conduct remedies. It would also actualize the normal notification requirements to the part(ies) affected (here, the whole community). You know, that whole "openess" thang. And undercut the "we didn't know" and the "no ones watching the watchers, because they don't want us to and are obstructing us" RFC's. But really, in the end, what would it hurt?

Well, as I say, if the current ban under consideration was to limit someone's well-considered opinions, that would be a very serious issue. But the case at hand is considering whether Bugs' signal-to-noise ratio is just too low to tolerate. I'm neither supporting nor opposing the ban, Bugs is a pretty good sock-spotter and does make very perceptive comments at times. I would prefer he just self-limit on the jokes, puns, feuds and insisting on the last word when he no longer has anything to say. I just don't really buy the zOMG Censorship! aspect of this, and it's enough of a one-off that I see no need for a whole 'nother infrastructure to handle it. If we get one of these a week, or even a month, or where the basis is not so clear as in this case, that would be different. Franamax (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Most excellent post - that's 2 or 3 in a row lately. Are we headed for an upswing? (one can hope) .. OK .. just IMHO thoughts.

1. Discussions that have an affect on the community, should be open to all in the community. Everybody needs to be treated equally, especially here.
2. My understand is yes. In the sense that we are charged with providing not only advice, but with implementing the will of consensus. Be it protecting a page, providing a sandbox copy of a deleted article (provided there are no issues with it), or blocking a disruptive editor.
3. I'm not sure I'd use the word "control", but I consider it an "admin area". In the end, the "control" rests with the will of the community. thx and cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who should control AN and AN/I? The community as a whole, IMNSHO. Who does control AN and (especially) AN/I at the moment? No-one much. The rubric at the top of AN/I is routinely ignored, incidents that are not incidents are posted, complaints requiring no admin action, failing first to talk with involved editors or even inform them..... One possibility is that the community just collectively starts to exert control and rein AN/I in. Another possibility that's been raised is to have a clerking/moderation system there. Not to act as controllers, but because maybe it's hard for "the community" to act when that actually means some lonely editor sticking his/her head over the parapet. I have started a discussion here on the topic if anyone wants to express an opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree whole-heartily that improvements could be made - and I'm willing to try again too. The couple things that stick in my mind are: 1.) there is often a disconnect between admin and non-admin. 2.) there's often a disconnect between individual admins - we're not all on the same page. People shout "admin abuse", and at times they are right to do so. Much of this boils down to consistency - if it's the same every time .. for every person - then we regain their respect and trust. Asking honestly here, and not trying to be smart... you have a couple years on me in experience - and even in my early days I could see that you had a clue, and were always fair and consistent. What were these boards like when you started? .. How has it changed? .. can we get back there? (and I ask that of any and all you have many years experience). admin burnout, and "what's the use" is so very prevalent here - but you big guns need to help us out. There's a lot of good admins here .. but we need your support, input, and advice too. If you come in, start us down a good path - that's fine, but you need to stick by us too, and not head back to AC, Crat, FA, or whatever. I read through a LOT of "admin reading lists" when I started, but I still messed up. When I said a block was unfair, and I was going to unblock - rather than someone come to me (either privately so as not to embarrass me, or in public gently) .. I got "you do that and we'll take your tools away" period! .. it tends to put one off a bit. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK - I'm also going to add a thought that may seem like the most absurd things posted on one of these boards. (but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more who felt this way) ... There are actually times that I feel like I have LESS power than those who shun the tools. Not sure how to explain that - but I can try if asked I suppose. — Ched :  ?  23:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because admins are (theoretically at least) held to a higher standard of behavior. Some of us take that seriously and try not to act in haste without having thoroughly examined and understood the issues. Some of us, unfortunately, do not and they are the ones that feel free to act like cowboys on ANI, making things worse instead of better. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The zoo reigns, over there. It's absolute chaos. Note the possessive form of the board's name: time the admins who are for-real took the place back. Alarbus (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interim assessment of topic-ban discussion above

I've just done a non-rigorous, non-binding tally of the above votes. The general picture at present is approximately 34:26 sup/opp. However, there is a significant discrepancy between the voting pattern of admins (15:6 sup/opp) and non-admins (19:20 sup/opp). It was in anticipation of this outcome that I opened the above discussion about "Who owns AN and ANI". Clearly there is a major difference in how admins and non-admins are viewing this particular situation. Why this is so remains a topic for discussion. Manning (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If the intention in raising the section was to acknowledge that there are grey area where admins perhaps wonder what is to be done about for instance, such as non-admin behaviour on this page, that’s been successfull. Also, it has brought to light, possibly, that admins may feel under pressure, that their solidarity as wikiprdians, and also as an admin body is somehow a little vulnerable at this particular time. Well, admins are under pressure, I think, through a drop-off maybe in editors contributing to the encyclopedia, and if there are other reasons also. We are asking them to do more, but with less, perhaps. Anyway, I regret the pressure, and do marvel at how well we still, as wikipedians, manage to get things done. NewbyG ( talk) 01:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Admins now need more help than ever. I actually think that instead of banning him, a new position of AN[I] clerk should be instituted and BB be appointed as director of AN[I] clerks for life. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

*Smacks ASCIIn2Bme with a clue stick* --Guerillero | My Talk 03:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no policy-based rationale behind giving administrators' comments here, or in any other general community discussion, greater weight than those of rank-and-file editors. This is, after all, a community discussion about whether there should be a community-imposed ban, not an administrators discussion as on Arbitration Enforcement. The role of administrators in this process is to impose the ban, if it should pass, and enforce it afterwards. The mop does not make admins "super-editors", like super-delegates at a political convention, and the implication that it does is, in fact, a bit insulting to those of us who have not sought out or do not want the admin bit.

Obviously, cogent arguments, wherever they come from, should be given greater weight than casual ones, but that should be true whether they come from admins or regular editors. I strongly urge Manning to drop this path he seems to be on, since one of the strong contributing factors to the supposed breakdown of AN/I is the failure on the part of the admin corps in general (with many exceptions, of course) to enforce civility rules which are already available to be used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Yes, but this is not just a ban discussion here. The other issue is to do with admin solidarity, and that is a private matter that non-admins don't contribute to, so the community is not being excluded, they just have no palce in improving admin morale, or discussing same. Keep the topics separate, cheers NewbyG ( talk) 03:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, please show me a little courtesy here. There is no agenda here, so please stop with the "I strongly urge" comments. My only objective is to point out there is a disconnect between how admins are viewing things and how the rest of the community is viewing things. This strongly suggests that some form of realignment of community and admin corp expectations is required. In future, if you ever are curious about my motives for anything, I would prefer it if you ask a question before you embark on these somewhat insulting accusations about my intent. Manning (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, judging entirely' by your comments and actions here, it is very difficult for me to believe that you have no agenda, considering your insistence on placing certain sections in certain places, and the way you have guided the discussion so that certain opinions have been labelled as unhelpful -- but, if you are telling me that there's no agenda, I will happily extend you AGF and take it as read that you have no agenda.

Nevertheless, I still suggest that your framing of the discussion is, without your being aware of it, pushing it in a particular direction, and I think it might be best for you to allow the discussion to continue without further guidance from you, so it can follow whatever direction it naturally wants to take. You can, for instance, stop creating new sections -- there are enough already for this conversation to develop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth considering that some of the opposes are being made ironically. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Idea

Following up on suggestions made on my talk page, how's about if I try and stay totally away from ANI for maybe a month initially, EXCEPT for issues that involve me directly? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds completely acceptable to me. That approach should basically be the applied by everybody.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs and I will discuss Rklawton's idea via his talk page. If anything worth discussing results, I'll bring it to the community.Manning (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a counter-proposal. Let's merge this issue with the proposal to create a clerk position for AN/I. I for one am unanimous in nominating you for the position. You have the experience, the sense humor, and the interest in doing an outstanding job filtering out the BS, keeping us on target, and lightening things up a bit. And no, I'm not kidding. I value your contributions. I seem to recall that we don't always agree, but that may well be one more indication of intelligence on your part. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC) That is a very interesting idea, I like it. It turns Bugs' strange attraction to ANI into an asset instead of a liability by channeling the energy in a constructive direction. And hopefully the position of trust and responsibility would make him trim some of the behavioral edges. I like the counterproposal as much as bugs own compromise suggestion. (note that this is not support - which would be dependent on many contingencies being clarified first)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC) It is without doubt the most truly bizarre proposal I have ever seen in ten years, yet it has a perverse logic to it. I'm not voting support (I'd need to see the terms and conditions first), but I'm not at this point opposed either. Manning (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict - Manning has said it) Just no. Again, I am totally lost as to where the seriousness ends and the jokin' begins. There seems to be some very very very wide gulf in how people perceive this whole thing. To me, the idea just seems to ridiculous that I cannot see how it could be proposed in good faith. So I assume that people are trying to be funny when they make or support these proposals. But then I realize that ... they are maybe being serious. And then the world and especially Wikipedia, seems like a dark stupid place.VolunteerMarek 04:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think Rklawton is being flippant. His idea is crazy on the surface, but after a bit of thought it does have merit. IMO Bugs is like nuclear energy. Used for good, it can cure cancer. Used for bad, it can destroy cities. Rklawton is being bold, but not stupid. I've offered to work with Bugs to develop a set of T&C to bring to the community for evaluation. Manning (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is not an unknown tactic. One of the most prominent instances in recent US history was when FDR appointed Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., a notorious financial manipulator, as the first head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "Set a thief to catch a thief", as the saying goes. That being said, I don't think this suggestion is all that good an idea, given the BB is, clearly, a polarizing figure, and any clerk/gatekeeper (if we need such a thing, which I do not believe) needs to be trusted by many segements of the community, which I believe would be difficult to achieve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think ANI really needs a short list of officially designated "clerks". Please see my "counterproposal" a few lines below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC) non-admin comment. (ec) It looks like a serious proposal. On Wikipedia, yes. SO, does anyone think user:Baseball Bugs has the technical equipment and know-how to handle such a responsible position as, what was it? ANI clerk/ vetter / doorman, I guess cheers NewbyG ( talk) 04:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Technical equipment - none needed beyond what any editor has. Experience - absolutely. The required discipline and self-control? Well... that's the whole question, isn't it. Manning (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) I have deep concerns about the logic of a proposal to effectively put the arsonist in charge of the fire department solely because he has 'experience with fire'. BB would need to show forethought, moderation and responsibility before he should be considered for that kind of role. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Erm, technical point. Regardless of who we give the job too (and Bugs actually isn't the worst option - there is actually some logic to it), we'll need more than one clark. Bugs can't monitor AN/I 24 hours a day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Right. And as a practical matter, as I said earlier, (somewhere?), my daily time slice for wikipedia in general is liable to become rather smaller for the short term, due to intensified project activity at the office. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Something worth considering about this "clerk" idea is to look at the ref desks as somewhat of a model. There is a lot of flexibility there, but there are certain things that aren't allowed. One is requests for legal or medical advice. Another thing is that there's a moderately low tolerance for trolling-type questions and answers. There are already rules at ANI. Maybe the rules could be expanded or crystalized a bit. And as far as enforcement goes, the ref desk "regulars" pretty much act as de facto "clerks". It occurs to me that the same principle could be applied to ANI: The "regulars" could act to enforce the rules. One thing that happens on the ref desk sometimes is disagreement over boxing or deleting a question. Then, there can be furious debate on the talk page - but generally, not in the direct sight of the OP, unless he goes looking for it. ANI has a talk page too, right? Much of the brouhaha on ANI could maybe be redirected to its talk page, leaving the project page relatively "clean" and focused on specific issues and specific actions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC) non-admin comment) My last comment, I am taking good advice to stay away from here for a month. Suggest to user:Baseball Bugs, remember to do the same, and reply to posts for now only in sections on your talk page, i'ts open isn't it cheers NewbyG ( talk) 06:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TALKNO in this discussion

Since a main participant in this discussion has decided to implement his own system of moderation [4], I'd like to point out that completely removing posts which have been replied is discouraged by the WP:TALKNO guideline (more specifically WP:REDACT). Perhaps replacing them with [comment removed by admin] or something like that would be less confusing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Shall do. For the record, I was actually acting under the directive at the top which says "Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page and note that messages which egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed." Manning (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

that's pretty fucking funny actually, especially how he swooped in and "solved" the problem after the main participants left the discussion and Bugs agreed to a self-ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If he's agreed to a self-ban then there is no problem at all with also making it official. Jtrainor (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development

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.

---

[5] BB is pretty much admitting to baiting on purpose for the "greater good". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Standard. The noble 'taking one for the team' attitude however is ... worrying. pablo 11:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Among mature adults, there is no such thing as "baiting". Only tbe immature and children use the "look what you made me do" argument, to try to blame someone else for what they freely choose to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess some will see that as a violation of WP:BATTLE and/or WP:HARASSMENT. Others might give you the "defender of the wiki" barnstar for your fight against the WP:BADSITES. Business as usual on Wikipedia, I suppose. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The WR editors freely chose to reveal their true character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What if someone serves you that line after harassing the crap out of you, hypothetically speaking, of course? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

They would be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, you're basically endorsing harassment as a test of character on Wikipedia? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not (intend to) harass the editor. I naively assumed good faith that they were sincere and would understand an explanation. When they continued to falsely claim that I had personally attacked them, my dim bulb finally came on and I realized what they were really up to. And it seems that the admins concurred with my conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrote 'Their bogus "look-what-you-made-me-do" argument reinforces that they are at the grade school level of maturity.' Which can be interpreted that you had already made up your mind about their character, thus you were not assuming good faith. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

The 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.

Mingana locked

Resolved

 – Done. No idea why you couldn't create it as there was no history or log and you are autoconfirmed. Fences&Windows 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to link Mingana to Alphonse Mingana since he is the only notable person with this name, but I was surprised to find out that I'm not authorised to do so. Could anyone un-protect it or explain to me why it is locked? Thanks.--Rafy talk 00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You probably couldn't create it because of the title blacklist. And if being autoconfirmed had anything to do with your ability to create the page, this kerfuffle would never have happened. Graham87 03:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be blocked by the blacklist. Were you trying to redirect to a full URL rather than just a page name? --Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The link in the Mount Judi article contained a byte order mark. Peter E. James (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An overall concern about AN and ANI

(relocated from AN/I - Manning (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

I have just returned to editing after a few days of being mostly offline due to real-world commitments. In the course of catching up on my arbitration e-mails, my attention has been drawn to several current and recent AN and ANI threads. As I usually do when I'm on one of those pages, I have skimmed through the various other open threads as well.

I do not want to focus on any one particular thread and certainly not on any one particular user, but my overall impression of what has been going on on these pages is a negative one. To an even greater extent than one would expect on the pages primarily devoted to Wikipedia's backroom arguments and disagreements, I believe there has been a completely excessive amount of name-calling, repetitious rhetoric, trolling, accusations of trolling, harassment, unproductive piling-on, arguments about unimportant things, and generally unpleasant and damaging behavior. All of this is quite unhelpful and even counterproductive to our shared goal of building a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Of course, I am not calling out everyone who participates on AN and ANI frequently or who has participated recently. The comments by many editors to the various threads have been useful and in good faith. But there also seems to be far more than the usual amount of nonsense. I was an "ANI regular" for a couple of years before I became an arbitrator, and I remember lots of unpleasant threads. But I certainly do not remember the atmosphere's being quite as toxic as this.

I would welcome other people's thoughts on this situation. Please note that discussion of this thread may belong on the talkpage, but I'd appreciate this post's remaining here so people will see it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It rather belongs at WP:AN, because it is not an incident - though perhaps with a link from here. Geometry guy 01:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a tad surprised you're just now realizing this, NYB; it's been a very long time since you frequented these pages, and the childish environment on this page has everything to do with the civility arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I was well aware before tonight that the tone on AN and ANI is often bad; my point is that in my experience it has rarely been this bad, and that it seems to be getting worse. As for its having been awhile since I frequented these pages, suffice it to say that I've probably spent wayyy too much of my wiki-life on a set of pages that may be equally God-forsaken as this one.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It varies, from simple swiftly dealt with incidents, to boomerangs, to vicious long term feuds and harassment. It cleaned up a few months back, but it varies... Of note some users only come here to put the boot in. We generally ignore them, we should probably block them too. Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

The fact that we're arguing debating NYB's point being brought up here goes to his argument. As a non admin and avid follower (mostly reader of AN/I, BLPN, Jimbo's page, and other high-profile boards} I will at least say that NYB has a good point, and that more should be done to make this the "encyclodpedia that anyone can edit." That is unfortunately not the case so much these days, and deserves some thoughtful discussion. Though, by the same logic above, I'm not sure this is the board in which to have that discussion. 71.195.156.105 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, that was me above. His point was so close to my own feelings that I jumped the gun a posted without looking at my login status. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wrote this yesterday to a thread above (now hidden, thank goodness), and it seems to fit, however late: Comment: I don't understand a word, not the words, not the spirit. The top of this page says "Are you in the right place?" - I doubt it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"our shared goal of building a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia"

Our what? Isn't that a blocking offence by now? I would support NYB's observation here. Caring about an encyclopedia seems to be the last thing anyone gives a damn about. It's so much more fun to slate a bunch of well-written articles for deletion, because there's a way to construct a policy-based reason to do so, regardless of the relative values of the end results. Even the WMF has given up on the encyclopedia - the farce of WP:IEP instead favours "more new editors, at any cost (including the cost of losing established editors)".

Just what is the point, when the encyclopedia goal has been thrown so far away? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is why a lot of admins and most editors never, or rarely come to these pages. I was so busy on the 'pedia I almost forgot they existed until I was forcefully reminded. One reason I come here is to try and prevent people being maltreated, but with only modest success I fear. Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

My comment here probably pertains to this: [6]. Begoon ^talk 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I try to help out at ANI sometimes. You'll see me above in a couple of places. But many discussions I stay out of because I just don't want to get involved. It's the same reason why I stay out of a lot of nationalist disputes (DIGWUREN sorts of things, etc.). I get a headache reading them, let alone actually trying to get involved in them. -- Atama頭 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I loathe ANI and avoid it all costs, only coming here if I find it necessary, and even then I feel like my time is wasted. I cannot ever remember leaving a thread in which something productive came of it. Most often, if I have a problem and I come here, it's likely I'll be blamed for whatever problem I have by editors who have no idea what they're talking about. Very serious problems get sidetracked by pointless banter, engaged by chronic posters whose time is spent primarily here. It frustrates people who come here looking for help. There is no central focus on what to get done, just a jostling of personalities. There are ways to change this, but I am unsure people actually want that to happen. --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your last point is likely to be a significant factor, yes. A drama board will attract people who like drama, and they will be unhappy if that is taken away. Good things can, and do, happen at ANI, and many frequent posters contribute enormously positively. But the atmosphere is atrocious, and there often seems little sense of purpose, focus, or control. About the only thing I can think of that would "save" the current format is clerks with authority - but honestly, a drama board is just that, so a complete rethink should not be off the table, either. Begoon ^talk 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have full empathy with NYBrad's sentiments though I am at a bit of a loss to what exactly is the proper remedy. I think it's pretty obvious that AN/I has been taken over by some professional drama mongers. The ratio of legitimate complaints to pointless drama has quickly converged to zero. Anyway, the following suggestion is only one-fourth tongue in cheek: put Sandstein in charge of it and give him the powers to police it. It will be cold, impersonal, and detached but it will also be fair, judicious and impartial, with no nonsense tolerated. Like I said, I'm almost serious.VolunteerMarek 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be wildly unpopular, but, you know, if we didn't have articles about living people, or existing companies, at all on this site it would quickly solve a lot of problems. But god forbid we don't have a Barak Obama or Microsoft article, even though they can "write" their own history in the course of things. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about an encyclopedia project that has had to have Arbitration cases filed about the usage of dashes vs. hyphens. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And one about date [de]linking, and now one about capitalization of birds' names (there's parallel ANI thread about that right now). I guess most people outside Wikipedia wouldn't give a flying fuck about these issues. So, I don't know why some are so surprised that the drama boards get owned by petty disputants. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Marek:That's not the first time I heard that idea. Without discussing individuals, what you are suggesting is clerking. I can support that and be totally serious. Begoon ^talk 02:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then let's consider it seriously. How would you suggest clerks get chosen?VolunteerMarek 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't thought it through very much yet. I think they would either need to be admins, or there would need to be a formal mechanism to enforce their clerking decisions, to avoid them being toothless. Other than that, some community selection process would probably need to be created. I haven't thought much further than that. There'd need to be some sort of RFC, so details would get hashed out there, I imagine. Begoon ^talk 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Makes sense. Other problem is: how many people would actually *want* to be AN/I clerks. Would you want to police this sorry mess? I sure as hell wouldn't. The idea that is good in theory might fall on its face in practice.VolunteerMarek 03:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. I think there might be enough volunteers, but I could easily be wrong. Unlike you, I would be prepared to try it, though I'm sure I might come to regret it. I also don't think I'd be particularly suitable, my calm can be dislodged. But since I also prefer it to be admins really, I would also prefer to be ineligible. :-) (that's my excuse) Begoon ^talk 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Solution, in 6 easy steps:

1. Do not try to change AN/ANI. Inertia will prevent it.
2. Create WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Grownups (WP:AN/G).
3. WP/G is moderated by admins who have demonstrated maturity. That's not me, obviously, but I know it when I see it so I can help pick them.
4. Anyone who wants to actually try to solve a problem requiring admin tools can post there.
5. Moderators strictly enforce decorum and productive comments, more strict than CIVIL/NPA/etc. 1 warning, then you're page banned. If you're page banned, you have to go to ANI if you have a problem.
6. Since this operates in parallel with other noticeboards, we aren't forcing the solution on others. If you don't think it's a good idea, don't go there.

Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost perfect, but how do we advertise the distinction to newbies?

• Click here for all the fun of the traditional "ANI" experience, or...
• Click here to talk to mature people who want to get things done.

And here, it's me who's "almost serious", because I recognise the seriousness of the inertia issue. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Or we could always just delete ANI...95% of the time it's more Wikipedia:Place to bitch and moan anyways. Save AN for the real important admin stuff (block reviews, ban proposals), and let the rest of the noticeboards deal with the other issues. Goodness knows we have enough to deal with it, but ANI has become a free-for-all. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI is quite entertaining, so don't change a thing. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could just, as a policy, refuse to comment on any threads (and disallow anyone else from doing the same), unless and until the poster makes a serious attempt to talk about the problem with those involved. That would get rid of, I don't know, half the threads? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a former Arbcom clerk, I think the rules and procedures that have been developed there would easily migrate to this proposed new AN/G. Clerking is very effective when it is (a) completely impartial and (b) ruthlessly intolerant of incivility (employing a system of warnings, page bans and at last resort blocks to enforce page bans). Once people know the ground rules, it is surprising how quickly/easily people adapt. Manning (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, in your opinion, would it migrate as easily to ANI, assuming the inevitable, considerable inertia could be overcome? I know it's a huge assumption, but we're theorising here anyway. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Begoon - in theory it certainly could. We simply post a banner saying "Here are the new rules, and here are the clerks who will enforce them". After that we'll all get in our faster-than-light cars and go visit the unicorns. Manning (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Nice dream for a minute or two, though. Begoon ^talk 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Or how about just all admins avoid the Alphabetsoup? That's one thing that kills feedback from "non-regular" users. Simply provide clear links to what you're taling about. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm....soup. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You've just killed your chances of becoming a Sysop, Steven Zhang. Bidgee (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I like soup or because I dislike drama? People get too wound up at AN and ANI. I don't think a light hearted, jokey comment is bad. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread should be closed or moved to AN (which has since happened) or ANI talkpage. It's sorta becoming bloggish anyways. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem with these noticeboards is precisely that sort of comment—people raise a perfectly legitimate issue, and we end up debating whether or not the concern was raised in the appropriate venue. If somebody raises a good point, we should discuss it regardless of which particular noticeboard they posted it on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HJ - I couldn't agree more. I moved it only because I could see the inevitable argument coming on. That kind of pettiness is part of the entire problem IMO. And Steven, I also like soup. Manning (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've been saying for several years now, ANI should be nominated for deletion. It was created at a time when we didnt have specific noticeboards to deal with specific issues, and now that we do, ANI has outlived its purpose and its usefulness. More importantly, ANI encourages an anti-wiki, anti-community, unfriendly atmosphere, where we are made to believe that we are powerless as individuals to solve our own problems no matter what the status of our user rights may be, and that has always been dangerous. We need to seriously recognize that elevating people based on user rights has always been divisive and goes against the precepts of what this place is supposed to be and how it should function. Anything that separates us from each other, that creates and maintains artificial boundaries, and that suggests that we can't handle our business without a divine authority with admin rights is something that we don't need. We need to encourage personal responsibility and growth, and stop treating people as if they are on trial or need to have a babysitter. The priorities and values espoused by ANI have been FUBAR for some time now. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

After a long, hard day at the office I read ANI and AN in order to get a good laugh. The amount of nickpicking, petty arguing, and otherwise general incivility that exists in astonishing. It's also pretty funny to observe. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

From my quote wall:

“ Another idea I had to reduce the sometimes more heat than light situations that sometimes occur here [on ANI] and pile ons etc is to have on each thread opened here a random article for improvement atatched to the thread and anyone wanting to comment in the thread here would first have to make an improvement edit to the random nominated article. ” — Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

--Guerillero | My Talk 05:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see, is that we seem to have too much trouble blocking or restricting people who are jackasses. I don't care how good someone's "contributions" are, it doesn't give you license to be a jerk. Those who do so are sophisticated trolls, and should be given no more sympathy than any troll. If you really want to make a difference in it, find in the civility case that those who are repeatedly and grossly uncivil can be booted, regardless of what else they've done. The problem isn't restricted here, I've also noticed a general degradation of the tone in talk page discussions, because people seem to know that civility is no longer a basic requirement of participation to this project. People who are generally decent and civil and lose their temper should be warned first, but those who are generally nasty and uncivil should be shown the door, and all of us should help to push them out. Period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the fact that you're still here proves your point. Malleus Fatuorum 06:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I endorse NYB's sentiment. A lower tolerance for snark and off-topic asides, that is, a sharper focus on the matters at hand, would help to cool down hot heads and speed up resolutions. Perhaps a simple general agreement here that the standard of interaction is declining, and a resolution to do better, will prompt improved behaviour. The chan/troll behaviour that too frequently bubbles up here just reflects the poorly conducted debate on talk pages all over the project. If AN and ANI become models of decency and decorum without the imposition of structural change such as clerking, they can act as examples to emulate across those other pages that lack clerks. It just needs you to lower your tolerance and raise your standards.

For instance, I'm inclined to just delete Malleus' above comment as an unhelpful tangent, likely to lower the standard of the discussion, but in the present environment that would be seen as highly controversial. I do wonder, though, how many people would support its removal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

People below support BB because they find him entertaining. I admit a chuckle at what Malleus wrote above. So, what standard shall we apply here? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't stalk either editor but I'd be inclined to delete about 1% of Malleus' talk page and noticeboard comments I've seen, and ninety five percent of BB's. I'm just mooting a culture change, not some new set of rules. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was not making a joke. At ANI, User:Seraphimblade called persons "jackasses and "trolls". WP:NPA mandates rephrasing as comments on behavior rather than on persons, that is, "behaving like jackasses or trolls". Look at insults against Malleus at RfA or at the abuse on BadgerDrink at his RfC, for other examples.

This is late in the ArbCom case on "Civility Enforcement" for these distinctions to escape normally sophisticated editors like Anthonycole.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're overdue for another WP:DRAMAOUT. -- œ^™ 07:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

amen to that .. if you start one, they will come. :) — Ched :  ?  17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Driveby comment: AN is entertaining and horrifying at the same time. As an uninvolved editor who focuses more on content creation and the reader/new user-aimed noticeboards (RD, HD), the impression I get of AN in general is "a place two people go in, where in the best of circumstances, only one leaves unscathed." It seems that even the most minor spats when taken here escalate into something where someone HAS TO get blocked, or else nobody leaves satisfied.

A place where competent editors who made numerous good faith edits on article space get indeffed forever (or bullied into leaving) because of a single high-emotion incident that somehow made its way to AN and got blown out of proportion, with predictable results.

Even as a new editor, I never got the impression of what this place was supposed to be - a place to go when administrator help was needed. It always had the ominous aura of being an execution block, where even the pettiest of mistakes have the harshest punishments. Added to that atmosphere is the Damocles' sword of the user-rights "privilege", where people are never sure when they themselves might be the next to be promoted or the next to be guillotined. All it needs is the sign "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate" at the top.

And no, I believe overall contributions and good faith intent expressed elsewhere is a greater measurement of an editor's worth. I do not understand the almost maniacal obsession AN has with WP:NPA and sockpuppetry, to the point that almost every incident in AN/I always has this as a subtopic as users catch on that these are surefire ways of silencing an opposing party. They have become trump cards in discussions with WP:AGF taking the backseat or ignored altogether.

AN has ceased to be about resolving problems. Rather it has become a place where one goes to find more problems. Where the discussions are more about finding ways to justify who to block, rather than about the problems themselves. Indeed, some of the incidents here are specifically petitions to get someone else blocked, with the ensuing discussions being a gladiatorial arena of which user has more expertise with the art of nitpicking and baiting. Even when everyone gets off scot-free, the parties involved are only more likely to hold long-lasting grudges. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But apart from that, you're happy with it? </evil> I said above that if anyone seriously wants to fix it then nothing should be off the table, including scrapping it and replacing what needs replacing with something else. You could "band aid" it with moderators/clerks, and that might even be enough, but given the enormous amount of inertia you'd need to overcome, why not go the whole way and RFC ANI properly, if we're serious? Yes, I know why not - we're serious. Catch 22. Begoon ^talk 09:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a position. And as a bystander, I don't have the inside knowledge that regulars have of the mechanics anyway. Much of what's going on here is probably the result of cynicism given that the same issues probably crop up again and again. That said, the only thing I wish could be fixed is the loss of editors in artificially protracted spats and the (imo) too gung-ho application of indefs. A bit of perspective perhaps?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

After yesterday's performance I'm attracted to the idea of simply deleting AN/I. As someone suggested, what's the worst that could happen? Most genuine requests for help already have their own boards (requests for page protection, vandalism help etc). However I don't think that's likely to be agreed to. Making it subject to more formal clerking might work, but at the expense of a new layer of bureaucracy and some (possibly legitimate) complaints about concentrating power further in the hands of the cabal. A third possibility is simply for the rubric at the top of the page to be enforced. It says stuff like: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents ...that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. .... Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.... You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.....Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

Numerous AN/I reports are not about incidents, or neglect diffs, or fail to discuss first with (or notify) the person complained of. What if the convention became that those suggestions became rules, rigorously enforced? That diffs should be posted of genuine attempts to resolve before a case were accepted? What if complaints that failed the above test were summarily deleted from AN/I? I'd be willing to be held accountable for anything I did along those lines, provided there was the support of the community for a stricter line. Would other editors be willing to join me? Would this be an interim approach we could try more or less immediately? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're onto something there. For example, all too often lately I've seen where posters at ANI have to be reminded to notify the party they're complaining about. I have often taken issues directly to a trusted admin. The main purpose of ANI is presumably to generate broader discussion about an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to be careful it doesn't get too loaded towards the reporter of an incident, who might be a newbie. You'd remove a lot of malformed complaints, and a few would just give up. If it's a well intentioned report, I see no problem advising and helping to fix it up. Enforcing in general that non-productive comments/trolling/other undesirable stuff will be reverted on sight across the board with warnings/enforcement as appropriate is my take on a meaningful interim (or forever, who knows) fix. Begoon ^talk 11:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point Begoon, and I'm not proposing simply defending the page by erecting impossible bureaucratic hurdles for people to leap. But I see VERY few AN/I reports from genuine newcomers and would agree that in that case a helping hand to produce a well-formed complaint would be the way to go. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm another admin who generally avoids AN/I. I would support any of deleting AN/I, putting it under moderation, or creating a moderated forum for serious issues. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am another admin who is in exactly the same position. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

+1. Happy to start an MfD for this. It often seems like a kindergarden. --JN466 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

+me Not an admin, but anyway, I support, in order: moderation, deletion (with alternative venues clearly marked), separate moderated forum. I think an RFC might be an alternative route, if it could be handled in a constructive way. Begoon ^talk 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tempted to agree with either option, though I'd enjoy that MFD - if it was kept civil. I mean, there's a reason that WP:DRAMA used to redirect to WP:ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Revised - I meant to support Moderation or Deletion, and God be with the poor bastard who tried to moderate this circus. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okayyyy... I'll leave it to others to start the MfD but tonight (about 5 hours away) if there is still support for moderation, I'll draft a proposal for discussion at the AN talk page. I hesitate to do this as I've never been involved in developing policy before (which I think this amounts to) - hence another reason for waiting a while to see how this flies. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've even less experience, but I'd be happy to help, in that event, where I could. I agree that waiting a while to let people who haven't seen any of this yet comment first is wise, though. Begoon ^talk 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Much as I agree with Obsidian Soul's comments on ANI, and tempting though outright deletion would be, it does still have some uses. Inevitably, the problem is with the users. As an alternative, how about applying an equivalent of 3RR to ANI: anyone who makes more than three edits to it in one day is automatically blocked for a week? That might do something to calm down the insanity. Robofish (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I have started an MfD. Nothing brought up at ANI can't be handled at other venues. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm This will end well. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That being the case, I'll delay drafting any proposal for moderation until we see what happens at MfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What if there was just simply were hard and fast with closing any thread that was not an "incident" that demanded immediate attention? There are cases where the action of an admin is needed quickly to prevent disruption, or handle other issues that don't require long debate and simply the admin bit to resolve. If the "incident" clearly becomes personal or the like, any non-involved admin should be able to slam close the thread and direct to the appropriate venue. Yes, that means WP:AN will be where many of these will thrive, and that still creates another issue, but at least we won't have admin action requests get buried under discussion at ANI.

As to what happens at AN, we need to do the same thing when the request is clearly better handled by RFC/U or some other dispute area. If it clearly is not something that needs discussion among administrators, there's no point in bringing it there. Yes, RFC/U and these other processes take time to set up properly if you're filing a complaint, but really, that should be the case: the problem is that AN/ANI has a low barrier of entry to make a complaint known. If you have to actually work out through a form what the problem is, maybe you'll recognize its not really a problem WP worries about, or there's a different approach to take, or the like.

The idea of clerks to keep both AN and ANI clear of discussions that should not be happening there makes sense; the body of clerks just needs to be large and broad enough to avoid having any single closure smack of COI problems.

By quickly stemming any inappropriate, premature attempt of dispute resolution at AN, we create a clearer picture of what AN's purpose is for, and likely will prevent editors from running here first. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

My post is in reply basically to the OP. First, I am very encouraged to see both members of AC, and some very seasoned veterans around these parts again - I hope you folks can pull things back from the brink. Now, this is only my own personal view, and not directed at anyone, or group. Back in the old days, 02-06ish .. before the site was as popular as it is now, it was a smaller group of people working together - hence, you all knew each other, and developed a camaraderie and spirit of working together. As it grew, more people were introduced, very easy for folks to get lost in the shuffle. The "originals" also grew, moved on to other things, either here or in real life. I think some of the unwritten common-sense rules of fair play, decency, mutual respect, and accepted ways of doing things, and the value of "lessons learned" fell by the way side and were forgotten. New admins. moved in, took their place - we did the best we could, but lacked experience. AN and ANI (or drama boards in general) was and is a natural starting place for admins. In a sense, I see Wikipedia as that unruly, know-it-all teenager. We're growing up, but we still need guidance - and have to be willing to accept it. If we don't, then we're going to sneak out of the house for being grounded - jump in a car with our "I haz friends" buddies - and drive off a cliff. It should be made very clear (and I know that AC has tried in the past to address this), that calm rational discussion is needed when problems arise. Sometimes love must take a firm hand. If an admin. "blocks" .. they should be addressed politely. If they don't respond in some period of time - a discussion should be opened for at least 24 hours (given all timezones and schedules a chance to respond). That's how consensus works. Already tl;dr I suppose - so I'll take a break here. — Ched :  ?  18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

addendum Oh, in proof reading that .. the "address admins with respect" .. I most certainly did not mean to imply that the same isn't required of the non-admins. Non-admins deserve every bit as much, if not more respect, fair treatment, and allowed their fair discourse in due process. — Ched :  ?  18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've hung around ANI for years. It's always been a cesspool but (as far as I've noticed) doesn't seem any worse than usual recently. It has ups and downs like anything else. AN has more drama than I'm used to, because of what seems like an increased tendency to move longer-duration discussions from ANI to AN, that in the past might have been handled with ANI sub-pages. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A few things to consider. A reason people come to ANI, aside from its high-visibility and as opposed to other noticeboards such as the dispute resolution board, sockpuppet investigations, requests for comment, or any other dispute resolution venue is because of its relative lack of structure and rules. It's very accessible to a lot of people, which adds to its appeal.

Another reason people come to ANI is because of its authoritative undertones the noticeboard has. I have been argued for some time now that since users bring any and all issues to ANI that it should be renamed to Wikipedia:Community forum or similar. However, I'm afraid that if we did something like that, the "drama crowd" will migrate to another board that has an authoritative undertone such as this noticeboard, the Administrators' noticeboard. As some other boards or Jimbo's or other admins' talk pages have been similarly labeled, ANI serves as a "run to mommy" place when problems arise. --MuZemike 07:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I rather see the "drama crowd" migrate to Facebook - but I guess that's a different subject. But yes, good points all. There's always going to be a need for a place for concerns to be addressed. The thing is that that needs to be done consistently, firmly, but with the kindness that encourages people to stay and keep trying. We can say, I'm sorry, but this isn't something that's actionable here, but you can xyz. By the way, the person that deleted your post, changed your article, or blocked your friend was doing so in order to improve the project. What we simply can not have is one administrator acting in good faith simply being dismissed because "I haz buttons too". We need to be respectful of each other and follow mature protocols. It's fine to disagree, but it has to be done in an adult fashion, not some cowboy "revert your block" style. Personally I think we could well do with less "blocking and banning", and a little more guidance, but there are times that blocks are needed. Part of the problem is that some folks are simply not doing enough research into the big picture, which takes time. I noticed one the other day, and by the time I clicked links, read, decided that the person had legitimate complaints but was in need of a warning and got there to warn them ... they had been blocked for over half an hour. Absolutely no way the blocking admin had time to read anything other than the visible "leave me the fuck alone" comment. sigh .... — Ched :  ?  04:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for clerking/moderation

I have started a new section of the WP:AN talk page with a proposal, as it looks likely that the current MfD will not result in any deletion. I think that (rather than this page) is the right venue for discussing the nuts and bolts so may I suggest people who are interested head there to have a look and comment? Any help in publicising that discussion would be welcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's closed as withdrawn now, but there was considerable support for the implementation of some sort of moderation system. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It was the MfD which was withdrawn. My proposal is still under discussion at the talk page linked above. I have moved 2 contributions from below here over to that page, I hope nobody objects to my boldness! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request at Template talk:Infobox scientist#Website parameter

 Done There appears to be consensus for an edit request at Template talk:Infobox scientist#Website parameter.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie and User:Pluie lite

Resolved

 – Indef block is not the same as a ban. Indefinite is not a time-frame. It is a lack of a time-frame. At some point, User:La goutte de pluie may convince the community to allow her to return to editing. She has not shown abuse of the permissions that are being requested to be removed and so if she were to return, she would be allowed to continue using those permissions. There are no security concerns as would be in the case of a sysop or checkuser. No evident block evasion on alternate account. No admin action is needed here.--v/r - TP 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

{{resolved|This is not a crisis, and will be handled (by someone who finds your request less distasteful than I do) on one of the other 10 pages you've posted this. having a thread open here too is forum shopping, and that should be discouraged. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)}}

I note that all other fora have been closed, so this is the only active one, so I'm unresolving this even though I don't think anything needs to be done. Not sure what the {{hat}} is about, either, but that wasn't me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'll pretend that WP:AN is moderated and de-snarkify my initial response. That probably didn't help anything. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Administrators, need to inform you that the user account User:La goutte de pluie is currently blocked indefinitely and as a general and security precaution, user account's that have been blocked indefinitely should be stripped/removed of all their user permissions to none. Thank You. (Administrators please take action as soon as possible). TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) User:La goutte de pluie currently has autopatroll and rollback rights which need to be stripped/removed. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) User:Pluie lite has declared on their user page that they are the same user as User: La goutte de pluie. It was User:La goutte de pluie which had given 5 user rights, namely reviewer, rollbacker, confirmed user, autopatrolled and file mover without any valid reason. Seeing as the user has been blocked indefinitely, the user can potentially misuse the other account by sock-puppetry and therefore all user permissions from this account also need to be removed. It can be checked from the User rights log page that it was indeed User:La goutte de pluie who had changed user rights of User:Pluie lite just the next day when the account was created. Administrators can also consider if they wish to block User:Pluie lite too. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I have also posted the thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions but it hasn't received any timely response. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) As I see it there is no cause for action here. I am very confident that La goutte de pluie will not evade the block. Neither rollback nor autopatrol has been abused. And blocked users are not generally removed from all user groups. Amalthea 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC) No, this request has not been resolved. How come indefinitely blocked users will be allowed to keep the user permissions, when they have been blocked for disruption. The main account User:La goutte de pluie has been blocked, and there seems to be no reason why user permissions should be retained by that blocked account. Okay, i get your statement that User:La goutte de pluie has not evaded the block by using account User:Pluie lite and the user rights be retained by that account, but there isn't any valid reason as why should an indefinitely blocked user account User:La goutte de pluie be allowed to have rights when there will be no editing from that account. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a brilliant response that i got from the Administrator's noticeboard for a simple but an important matter. Well done. Really never expected this. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And how would it be a helpful use of admin resources to revoke permissions? It isn't like they can be used while blocked.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not sure what you were expecting then, considering we (1) do not have a policy on removal of permissions from indefblocked editors and (2) were told by Amalthea above that we generally do not do so. What is your interest in this particular editor? Syrthiss (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment that I don't think this was deliberate forum shopping on the part of GeneralUser - I saw he's left the request on my page and that of several other admins, and presumed he wasn't aware of this noticeboard. I therefore suggested he try here instead, as I didn't have time to investigate the request.  An optimist on the run! 16:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they made the request on the talkpage for request for permissions, and then ~20 minutes later started asking on admin talkpages. I assume good faith reasons for that, but I question the IMMEDIATE BURNING NEED. Syrthiss (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If that were so, then there would have been no need to remove administrator rights of a person who has been blocked indefinitely, isn't it. They are removed so that the user does not unblock himself/herself, right. Same applies to all other user rights, when the account is blocked indefinitely and not going to be used the user permissions also don't have a valid reason to stay there, do they ? Furthermore, many people look out for other users for in a particular user group asking for help where they have user rights for. When a person is looking for a checkuser then they will go to the checkuser group, when looking for bureaucrats they will go the to bureaucrats group. If any user having these type of rights would have been blocked indefinitely then surely these rights would have been removed, but not the other rights which is really not fair. And then when another user who is looking for help requests something and later on finds that the user they requested was actually blocked needs to recontact someone else or someplace else which leads to time and energy wastage. Also this means that user's who have been blocked indefinitely will not be using the right and should be stripped/removed from them, as all user permissions say that when right is not needed-It can be removed when requested by the respective user (In blocked cases be removed). All users need to see that this is a genuine request and need to assume good faith. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, this request doesn't apply to just User:La goutte de pluie and User:Pluie lite, but to all user's who have been blocked indefinitely and have user permissions with them. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference being that if an administrator is indefblocked, they could unblock themselves so the userright needs to be taken away. If a checkuser was indefblocked I assume they could still indeed look at private information. However, I don't believe that it is a standing policy that either of those two actions take place on a simple indefblock. You can argue that it should be so, but that is outside the scope of this discussion. Now, I realize that you may intend this for a bigger target than just La goutte de pluie, but I am asking you specifically why is this user the focus of your complaint here, today. Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And in fact, admin rights are never revoked just because an admin is blocked. If said admin would unblock themselves though then they might find that ARBCOM may have it removed. Amalthea 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what i said above in my answer above your post. The indefinitely blocked administrator can unblock itself and an indefinitely blocked checkuser can misuse the tool by looking at private information, and a indefinitely blocked Steward can also misuse the tools. This applies to all other permissions too (whether a indefinitely blocked user is capable of using them or not). I stand in support of my request and there is no valid reason as to why this type of request should not be considered. When a user account is indefinitely blocked it is because so that it does not misuse it's editing and other kind of privileges. The indefinitely blocked user is stopped from editing but some of their user rights (for example - autopatroll, rollback, importer, file mover, IP block exempt, etc. just to name a few - if some of them do not get removed) are not removed makes no sense. If i can get support from numerous users including administrators and anyone else that supports my claim which is fully valid and genuine, then i am pretty sure that this matter can Really become an official Wikipedia policy if it doesn't exist right now. Thank you TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Admins typically fight any community desysop process tooth and nail, which is why all previous proposals have failed or resulted in no consensus. It took MANY years to just come up with a policy to desysop administrators who have been completely inactive for more than a year. I have my own opinions about why that is, but expressing them here will just make me enemies. You may draw your own conclusions. The points you are making are logical and reasonable, which is exactly why they will be shouted down. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Then what solution do you and all other users suggest should be done ? Even after i have given out valid, true and genuine points, if these things are not looked upon, then this is a big drawback which seriously needs to be addressed and corrected soon. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If a blocked user continues to use functions provided by advanced user groups then it can and I'm sure will be dealt with by the community. There is no need to set up policies or guidelines for all eventualities. WP:NOTBUREAU. Amalthea 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• FYI I have blocked the alt account as is normal in such situations. I've left any userrights it may have had undisturbed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you all for helping and clarifying out this matter. TheGeneralUser (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie has been confirmed of sock-puppetry (see below). Now this is a Fully valid reason that all user permissions need to be removed from both accounts, namely User:La goutte de pluie and User:Pluie lite. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible block circumvention

Resolved

 – Sockpuppetry confirmed by CheckUser

Moved here from User talk:Amalthea
Saw your comment on the admin noticeboard. I have strong reasons to believe that User:La goutte de pluie has been evading their block. The editing patterns of the users below are very similar to his.

• 128.143.1.58 (talk · contribs · email)

This IP resolves to the University of Virginia (which is where La goutte has previously identified to be from) and was found editing the same articles inserting content right after La goutte's edits after the block.

• 207.114.92.78 (talk · contribs · email)

Later this IP was found re-inserting controversial edits into the articles on Lee Hsien Loong and City Harvest Church. The IP, however, resolves to Baltimore, but I there is a high probability that this was La goutte too, given the pattern of editing. I'm sure one can find more evidence if they look deeper. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think these should probably be investigated before the case is closed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway. If you have a case, file it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it [7]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser investigation proves that La goutte de pluie has been evading the block: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/La goutte de pluie. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BarkingMoon sock tagging

Related to the above section about Rlevse, Gerda Arendt has pointed out to me that User:Raul654 has just tagged User:BarkingMoon as a sock of Rlevse. Has it been established that this is the case? 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there was some suspicions that he was, but there was no solid evidence. In his departure statement, BarkingMoon vehemently stated that he was not Rlvese. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed it when they changed policy so that we just take a suspected sockpuppet's word that he's not a sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That principle was established in 2010: [8] [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone that denies that BarkingMoon is not a quacking gaggle of quackers clearly does not want to accept the obvious for some unexplained reason - Youreallycan 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Barkingmoon left and two days later Pumpkinsky (who admits he is Rlevse) appeared. That's hardly a coincidence. According to an arbitrator, Rlevse admitted that Barkingmoon was "associated" with him. Raul654 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So file an wp:spi. Nobody Ent 18:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The people that know already know - its so obvious as to not need a SPI - Tag him or not - thats also by the bye. Youreallycan 19:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An SPI was already filed. The arbitration committee refused to comment on the Barkingmoon-Rlevse connection at the time. Asked about this today, they said the evidence was inconclusive (there was some supporting it and some against it) and that we should rely upon behavioral evidence, which (in this case) is pretty clear-cut. Raul654 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already been an SPI; per that and the discussion at the arb page,[10] I can't think of any logical reason to deny the tag correctly applied based on both. If Rlevse is ready to move forward and be rehabilitated, disputing the tagging seems counterproductive. In addition to the curious article overlap mentioned by Geometry guy: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? Some conduct is so obviously spawned by bias that credibility becomes victim. I've seen some of this and support it as detrimental. My76Strat (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The stalker tool is fun and all, but comparing the overlaps between PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky and me, and PumpkinSky and you, I'm not sure what it tells us exactly. 28bytes (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparing anybody with me via the stalker tool is useless, since there's pretty much no place I haven't been, and my fingers have been in just about every article to ever be on the mainpage. I overlap with everyone who edits. It's more helpful to use the tool to look at the specific edits within the articles identified (for example, in my case, you discover I almost always did some sort of cleanup when the article was at FAC or DYK or on the mainpage). Then explain that overlap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? - that's only true if the horse is actually dead. Other people here seem ready to welcome him back with open arms, in which case I want every last bit of his misbehavior documented. At least then all the paperwork will be in good order the next time he takes a dump on our porch and then declares he's leaving wikipedia forever. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is are only 30 similar pages. All of them DYK related, or AN/BN related. Many editors overlap on these places. I don't really see an strong evidence here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There are. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

you can lead a horse to water ...

• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=BarkingMoon&page=Noel+F.+Parrish&server=enwiki&max=
• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=PumpkinSky&page=Noel+F.+Parrish&max=100&server=enwiki

Tools. Sample. Perhaps that will help. Now, look at any of my overlap with anyone, and you'll find in almost every case that my edits are explained by FAC, DYK or mainpage presence, and usually amount to cleanup only, not content addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Get the facts straight. BarkingMoon is not Rlevse, but is associated in some way; on the other hand, Rlevse admitted to being PumpkinSky. Therefore...BarkingMoon is probably not Rlevse. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some of us do have our facts straight. Some of us don't believe everything we read, particularly when there are no conclusive facts. There is evidence, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC x 3) What I find sad is that editors are warring to remove the sockpuppet tag from the Pumpkin Sky userpage even though checkuser confirmed it was Rlevse [12]. Now what's that about bias and explanations for why the Rlevse sock categories weren't populated? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That as a good-faithed misunderstanding: the tag that was placed on the page claimed that the user was "blocked indefinitely" which hadn't been the case at the time. Amalthea 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the two accounts being two different persons is as probable as live brain cloning having been invented in Montana. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See also: [13] and [14], both of which concern the BarkingMoon/Rlevse connection.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're basically saying that someone spent a considerable amount of time studying Rlevse's mannerisms, topic interests, and grudges in order to impersonate him. I find that much less plausible than the alternative that he is simply Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in particular with:

The BarkingMoon account came to our attention in late June 2011, when we were asked to look into the open SPI on that account. The technical evidence regarding the account was ambiguous; while the CheckUser data was suggestive of a connection to Rlevse, it was inconsistent with other information available to the Committee. When directly asked about the BarkingMoon account, Rlevse denied that it was operated by him, and provided an alternative explanation that was consistent with both sets of technical data. The Committee was divided as to whether this explanation was sufficient; however, as we were discussing the matter, BarkingMoon left the project. Given that our (almost exclusive) focus at the time was dealing with the arbcom-l leaks—indeed, many arbitrators did not participate in the discussion regarding BarkingMoon due to concerns regarding the security of the mailing list—we did not pursue the matter further.
— User:Kirill 04:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not as adamant that they are "completely unrelated". Perhaps someone should resign their CheckUser bit for lack of professionalism? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the edit summaries

On talk pages in particular. High similarity between BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky in the terse style, and particularly the use of "start" as edit summary for talk page posts [15] [16]. I've not seen other editors do that insofar. Maybe there are some who do, but on top of all the other correlations, it's highly improbable for it to be just a coincidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's as blatant a duck as if it were Daffy himself dancing around and teasing Porky Pig. The denials and overt bias are just sad. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel my tendency in this regard quacks as loudly? [17] My76Strat (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

False protagonist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Burpelson, the comments about "denial" and "bias" are completely unhelpful. What SandyGeorgia and ASCIIn2Bme are doing – providing evidence and analysis for us to look at – is helpful, and frankly pushing me in the direction of agreeing with the tagging. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a very small point, but they add up: My76Strat would fail as an obvious Rlevse impersonator on account of the frequent capital letters at the start of edit summaries, which none of the other accounts use. One would have to argue that this change was a deliberate deception... Geometry guy 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That and using full sentences like "Add comment to talk page". By the way, if anyone can imitate My76Strat's elaborate phrases on talk pages, I'd "buy" them a wiki-beer or two. I suspect User:Floquenbeam might succeed if they set their mind on the task, but few other have a snowball's change in hell of coming even close, no matter how hard they'd try. Some editors do have very distinctive on-wiki communication style. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It would not be such a stretch for me. :) I tend to write compressed but long sentences, often with moralistic or confessional asides! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another telling edit summary is "tks" used by both accounts. [18] [19] They also both refer to the DYK queues using the same notation e.g "q5", "q6" in the edit summaries [20] [21]. Another commonality is that both accounts use "ps" as edit summary when they append to an existing post [22] [23]. It's highly improbable that two random Wikipedians would exhibit all these commonalities. I'd very curious if anyone can find another account to match all these elements. That would take some database trawling, and I don't have a tool server account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Next, you start on these; it's not the number of articles where there is overlap (I overlap all over the place with everyone), it's the nature of the articles and the nature of the individual edits that you have to look at. There are some pretty obscure articles there that need examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's enough to note that BarkingMoon also had an interest in obscure places from Montana: [24]; more. The interest of PumpkinSky in that is well established. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Keegan: Isn't it correct that CU is not pixie dust? My understanding is that it can prove two accounts are used by the same person, but that it cannot disprove sock puppetry. In light of this recent thread, I came across circumstantial evidence that user:PumpkinSky used a proxy. Rlevse had CU rights and presumably knew how to evade CU detection. If someone uses a proxy server (open or closed) and a different computer then CU can't find them -- right?   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Add BarkingMoon to CCI?

Looking at the list above led me to this:

William Temple Hornaday (a scouting article, Rlevse territory, also edited by Rlevse)

• Source: [25]

• In 1885, President Theodore Roosevelt sensed that the buffalo would become extinct and sent Smithsonian taxidermist William Temple Hornaday to harvest buffalo specimens so that future generations of Americans may remember what the American buffalo looked like.

• Article:[26]

• Hornaday, working for the Smithsonian Institution, harvested specimens from the region in 1886 so that future generations would know what the buffalo looked like.

Also, 1885 became 1886 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sandy, if the source says Theodore Roosevelt was president in 1885, I have certain issues with it. But as the next sentence in the source says "With the help of the U.S. Army, Hornaday got his skins to the rail head at Miles City in the nick of time to avoid the historic blizzards of 1886." I think that's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Per this, the blizzard most likely being spoken of happened in November 1886.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you caught the logical error and found additional info that explains it before I came 'round again. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

""That is a copyvio? Not. [27] uses the same words. "Harvest" is the common term for game in those days so that is not of any special concern. And so I do not see the violation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You might find a thorough read of this Dispatch helpful; copyvio is not just a matter of looking at one or two words. At any rate, since there is strong behavioral evidence that the BarkingMoon and Rlevse accounts are operated by the same persons, the question remains: should someone look at BarkingMoon's edits and should BM be added to the CCI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Similarities etc.

(work in progress)

• Edit summaries:

  "tks" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

  "ps" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

  "q#" –

  Rlevse:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

• BarkingMoon:

1

• PumpkinSky:

1 2 3

• Page editing overlaps:

  Rlevse and BarkingMoon

  Rlevse and PumpkinSky

  BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky

  The three together

More to come. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Without tools: it's not so surprising that PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon overlap on Noel F. Parrish, after the former was asked to help improving the latter's article and then helped bringing it to GA. Abbreviations: I use "tks" and "appr" myself. You use what you see and like, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but look who asked him, user:Ched Davis. BarkingMoon said he confided his real identity to the only admin he trusted, Ched. In that light, the thread about Parrish does more to confirm that they are all the same user.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Which begets the question what Ched knew all along about the three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And you think he would ask male or female then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible he shared the newer account(s) with relatives/friends in order to confuse potential investigations. But clearly a subset of edits by all three accounts were performed by the same person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying that possibility. If a subset, which subset? Aren't the individual accounts at least as coherent within themselves as they are with each other? That suggests at most one editor (or main editor, but exceptional edits need to be identified as such) per account. The question is whether those three (main) editors were three different people: so far, we know that two were the same person, which is a huge clue towards understanding the third. Geometry guy 23:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd best address that question to people who introduce[d] evidence that subsets are strict. I have no such evidence. According to Raul654, John Vandenberg (speaking for the whole Arbitration Committee) said that BarkingMoon might be someone else because he seemed to know German and had a "completely different focus". [28] Furthermore, Arbitrator Risker said that "there was also some contradictory and pretty-well-impossible-to-fake technical evidence against" BarkingMoon being the same as Rlevse [29]. So ask ArbCom what contradictory evidence they have. Although I have presented evidence which indicates that at least some of the edits of BarkingMoon are very similar to those of Rlevse, I make no claim to have exhaustively checked all edits of BarkingMoon against those of Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The thread makes for very interesting reading with the benefit of hindsight (e.g., "Someone put a lot of work into that. Sorry about your friend." and "I'd rather people on the 'net know as little about me as possible."). Note also that Ched spotted PumpkinSky for working on a similar article to his departed friend, BarkingMoon. However this thread does not suggest that Ched thought PumpkinSky was BarkingMoon (unless they were both acting out a script, an assertion impossible to prove), and at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#stopping by, Ched has stated that to the best of his knowledge, BarkingMoon was "a former IP who registered". On the other hand Rlevse told Arbcom that BarkingMoon was related to him in some way. At the very least there is some economy with the truth going on here somewhere, if not outright lies. So far, it seems more likely to me that Ched was among the deceived, not the deceivers. Geometry guy 23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Add to the "coincidences" copious uses of just "oops" as edit summary [30] [31] [32]. And also "ref seq" [33] [34] [35]. BarkingMoon and Rlevese also used "punct bef ref" [36] [37] and "recycle" in conjunction with "ref" [38] [39] The fanbois need to call it quits at this point. I've found a few more rare and interesting ones, but I'm stopping here per WP:BEANS, in case he creates a new account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me add one more smoking gun to the evidence. BarkingMoon's 24th edit (as an obviously experienced editor) was this contribution to an ANI (!) thread about User:Damiens.rf where he commented "If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped."

Of course BarkingMoon couldn't stop Damiens.rf without help, but Rlevse certainly did. Geometry guy 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Which number the ANI edit was is even less impressive than the fact that it was made less than 3 hours after the BarkingMoon account was created. I think the wiki-phrase for that is "obvious sock is obvious". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have looked through the user talk history of Damiens.rf for some "Former IP" who might have been as interested in this as Rlevse was, but have failed to find a convincing match.

My opinion (based on my understanding to date) is that Rlevse created and edited the BarkingMoon account, but somewhere along the way he became trapped in one of his own lies. He could not come clean because it would undermine a lie that would be very damaging/embarrassing to him. So he dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole as BarkingMoon (explaining the very insistent denials towards the end) and had to quit. When he came back as PumpkinSky, he had learned a lesson: to keep the lies under control. Consequently, when challenged, he was able to admit to the lie, and did.

As ASCIIn2Bme notes, he may find these discussions rather informative, should he try to give it another go with a new account. Handling that possibility is the next challenge the community needs to face. Geometry guy 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, isn't it correct that Checkuser is not Pixie dust? My impression is that it can prove someone is a sockpuppet, but it cannot prove they aren't. Rlevse formerly had CU rights so he was aware of how to avoid being caught by it. Just today, in light of this discussion, I came across circumstantial evidence that PumpkinSky used a proxy at one time. Isn't it possible that BarkingMoon may have also been masked through the use of proxies, different computer agents, etc?   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about all of these questions. We're account specific here, so there's only so much I can say about technical details. What I can say is that the technical details returned from CheckUser make it highly unlikely that this was use of a proxy or a false useragent return. I'm very, very comfortable in saying that this is two different users editing from unique computers without even a veil of shade. I'm confident that BarkingMoon is a different individual from Rlevse. They may share an off-line or off-wiki connection and Rlevse may have educated the user on Wikipedia, but several other CheckUsers and myself found no probability that they are the same user based on the information we can gather, and this matter was extensively discussed when it occurred. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Again without tools, and from someone who joined only in 2009, so has no memory of old stories: Rlevse is on my talk 31 times, 30 of those were the signature of a DYK, the only other (and last) was pointing out that there was a question raised on DYK, you don't have to look it up, the question was if I really wanted a Bach cantata DYK among the Halloween ones. BarkingMoon entered my talk with a wordy lengthy greeting which I keep on top because it still keeps me going. It feels different. Rlevse signed "Peace", BarkingMoon didn't. Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As said above, it is not impossible that the account was shared, so that some edits were made by someone else. But other edits surely do have the Rlevse signature: topic interests (Montana places, railroad pics of Rlevese, immediate desire to vote in RfA/RfB/ban discussion on positions matching Rlevse's), tons of edit identical obscure summaries (plase find another editor matching all those discussed here, or just "punct bef ref") these can't all be argued away because he no longer signed with "Peace". That's extremely myopic. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It beggars belief that different people using completely different computers as you say can produce identical obscure abbreviations in such large numbers. Or that they hold the same rapport relative of a number of other users. Different computer does not necessarily imply different person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Mantamoreland use a similar method of having a "completely unrelated" DSL line in another city for his socks after his proxy editing was discovered? I find it very interesting that technical evidence is taken to be an absolute proof of innocence in the Rlevse case. Keegan, you will have to be somewhat more explicit as to what makes the evidence so exculpatory because the behavioral overlaps are similar in nature to those from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Cool Hand Luke. There are in fact more dimensions of correlation here than were presented there. We can even tell apart Rlevse from his wife by just analyzing the edit summaries, never mind topic interests. And I'm sure technical evidence would have the two confounded. I do have the nagging feeling that functionaries are not acting in an unbiased fashion here, and that old friendships are acting as a distorting lens. You can't comment on the behavioral evidence? Seriously? Is that never used in SPIs? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Threatening"? Seriously, what the fuck? I've watched this whole Rlevse issue for a couple of days now, and I consider myself quite apathetic as to who's right and who's wrong here, but both you and Raul have repeatedly misinterpreted comments from various editors disagreeing (or not entirely agreeing) with you to an absurd degree. Please, stop that. There was no threat involved in any comments above. None whatsoever. Saying that there was is just.. weird, quite frankly. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly Conti, since you're an admin, you might not be as acutely aware of how statements like "do not continue down this line of thought" are aimed at non-admins. They generally translate to: if you continue this line of thought, you will be blocked for disruption. Happens all the time, everywhere, particularly at the AN and ANI noticeboards, where non-admins don't have the same right to speak as admins. Yes, it's a threat, because that's how it's often used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you missed the part that says "...without taking that into consideration". I think it's pretty fair to take the results of CU's into consideration, and I think that's all that sentence meant. You are, of course, still free to disregard that (You cannot prove the negative, after all, and with enough effort it is always possible to avoid a checkuser), but I think it's certainly worth noting. Anyhow, I am perfectly sure no threat was intended here, and if you are blocked for saying that you think the above mentioned account is a sockpuppet of Rlevse, I will personally unblock you myself. --Conti|✉ 15:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned response, Conti-- I've been threatened many times, so I probably see it differently than you do, and I remain concerned that Keegan's statements here were strong enough to stifle any remaining investigation and discussion (which is still needed). For the record, I have little doubt that some cowboy freshly minted admin will be drummed up on IRC to block me over this whole matter, I could care less, and I do not EVER want another admin to unblock me when I'm unfairly blocked. If someone unblocks me, that will prevent me from going to the arbs lest they also came under fire. If/when some cowboy IRC admin blocks me for trying to get to the bottom of this, I want to stay blocked, so there's a clean case, no wheel warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I remain quite doubtful that you will be blocked over this in the first place. :) Time will tell, I suppose. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your statement is a detriment to you. It brings concerns of baiting and pointy editing directly to the fore. That is the danger of overzealous motives, which you seem to have identified. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, baloney-- that I get unfairly threatened based on zero evidence or policy or reason all the time-- because I'm a high profile editor-- is fact. Nothing baity or pointy at all in stating the fact for the record, so that someone won't unblock me if it ever happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I apologize if you felt threatened. My message was in no way meant to convey that, and Conti has summed up my position well. I don't do hostility or threats. My intention was to note that based on CU, there is nothing. Behavioral evidence stands as the subject. But as this topic has devolved to notice, the BM/Rlevse issue was six months ago and a red herring. I seemed to have sparked a passionate debate that is moot. That was not my intent. Keegan (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More: "u r": [40] [41], "hey" [42] [43], "rofl" [44] [45], "brit" and "yank" [46] [47] [48], "avoid redir" [49] [50], "after punct" [51] [52]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence is extremely strong, really. If it's not Rlevse then it's someone who has closely studied and is deliberately copying his editing habits, which seems extremely unlikely. There are many ways to produce false technical evidence to throw off checkusers. I could give all kinds of examples here, but WP:BEANS. Checkuser evidence can't establish completely that an account is NOT a sock of someone else and every time it's a judgement call in reading the results and interpreting them. In the face of obvious behavioral evidence, it is illogical to keep saying that checkuser technical evidence cleared him because that's not possible. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests

1. Can someone check if the Rlevse account edited articles of Playboy centerfolds? Because the BarkingMoon account surely was interested in that too. Alas, if you hit me with a list of Playboy model names, I wouldn't be able to recognize one in a hundred off the top of my head, so this sleuthing job is for someone else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Does anyone know anything about the relationships between Rlevse Δ/Betacommand and Damiens.rf? I'm asking because of this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did randomly spot a nude model edit from 2008[53] but I only see one edit mentioning Playboy by name,[54] and it's not about a centerfold. Checking the actual centerfold names is hard because they're generally not articles. I don't see many likely ones in the edit comments but I didn't look closely. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Found a few more from early on:

• [55] See mention of models Donna Evans in diff and Lynn Thomas in edit summary
• [56] [57] Jayne Mansfield
• [58] Pamela Anderson
• [59] [60] [61] Deanna Brooks

67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't look like a topic of major interest for either account, but from the above and the first 20 or so edits of BarkingMoon, I tentatively conclude that both made minor content additions and gnoming in that area. Perhaps more of a reader than writer role. And both accounts disliked editors who wanted stricter inclusion standards for this stuff, as Geometry guy pointed out above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked for Penthouse Pets too. There's not much:

• 2010-07-10T21:57:45Z [62] Taylor Vixen in edit summary
• 2009-01-24T02:46:59Z [63] Traci Lords
• 2009-01-24T02:46:18Z [64] Traci Lords
• 2008-05-29T21:20:01Z [65] Jenna Jameson
• 2008-05-29T21:19:05Z [66] Jenna Jameson
• 2007-02-12T20:24:28Z [67] Jenna Jameson in edit summary Jenna Jameson
• 2006-11-23T13:01:55Z [68] Briana Banks in edit summary
• 2006-11-23T13:01:53Z [69] Briana Banks

67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way

Since we've been introduced to User:JoJo as the spouse of Rlevse, it's interesting to note that although she tks'd a couple of times [70] and also oopsed twice [71] (although one of those was an oopsy something that Rlevse never used [72] despite using oops more times than I can count), she never ps-ed (same link as before) or "recycled" [73] refs (in the edit summaries). So, even in the family, the edit summary patterns are different between JoJo and the other three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary addressing concerns over specificity

I understand the concerns that "this could be anyone" raised by Gerda Arendt. Granted a single correlation proves little if anything. But have look at the multidimensional one considering Gerda Arendt's edits as the witness:

String/pattern	BarkingMoon	Rlevse	Gerda Arendt	Comments
"tks"	Yes [74]	Yes [75]	Yes [76]
"appr"	Yes [77]	Yes [78]	Yes [79]
"oops" alone	11 of 12 [80]	240 of 296 [81]	1 of 6 [82]	Even that is not really alone in GA's summary.
"hey"	Yes [83]	Yes [84]	No [85]	Used on talk pages.
"rofl"	Yes [86]	Yes [87]	No [88]
"ps"	Yes [89]	Yes [90]	No [91]	Used when extending prior comment.
"ref seq"	Yes [92]	Yes [93]	No [94]
"punct bef ref"	Yes [95]	Yes [96]	No [97]	Also, a single use of "punct" ever by GA.
"recycle"	Yes [98]	Yes [99]	No [100]	Referring to refs. GA never used the word.
"u r"	Yes [101]	Yes [102]	No [103]
"brit"	Yes [104]	Yes [105]	No [106]
"yank"	Yes [107]	Yes [108]	No [109]
"avoid redir"	Yes [110]	Yes [111]	No [112]

Brought to you by ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

German

In the BarkingMoon SPI Arbitrator John Vandenberg said that BarkingMoon speaking German [113] is an argument against him being related to Rlevse "if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start, with a completely different focus and now demonstrating proficiency in German". [114] I think this was an error in judgement because CheckUser Amalthea stated with respect to the PumpkinSky investigation "I only remember talking to few people in German on my talk page, one of them was Rlevse" [115], a reminiscence brought up by this conversation. So, BarkingMoon speaking in German is an argument for rather than against him being Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume this is what Amalthea was referring to. Does that qualify as "proficiency"? I dunno, I don't speak the language. 28bytes (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Amalthea was closer to the truth upon writing "it was probably a native English speaker who also knows German". The aspect that matters to this discussion is that all three accounts – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, and PumpkinSky – used German one-liners to socialize on en.wiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have "used Deutsch" on occasion - and it means absolutely nothing - most literate folks know several languages to that degree. Collect (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, BarkingMoon's and Rlevse's German is about equally crappy. Very, very similar type and level of crappiness, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I never talked to one of them. BarkingMoon's German made me smile a lot, still does. PumpkinSky is proficient in understanding and translating (for example Guido Dessauer). - I can't compare, had no time to ever ask BarkingMoon for help with translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's more of a comparison of the German stuff:

• PumpkinSky:
  • [116] "Oder, man kann ein Admin-Freund zu fragen"
  • [117] "sind deine Ohren brennen? Bitte anschauen"
  • [118] "Ich auch verstehe nicht"
• BarkingMoon:
  • [119] "Guten Tag Gerda. Wie geht's?" [not precisely ungrammatical, but not very idiomatic either]
  • [120] "Sehr geehrte Gerda"
  • [121] "Ihre Arbeit ist grossartig. Weiter schreiben, eien lange Zeit. "
• Rlevse/Vanished 6551232
  • [122] "Danke"
  • [123] "wider noch einmal meine Fruendin"
  • [124] "Amalthea, ganz gut nicht wahr?"
  • [125] "Am besten, Amalthea auch eine "arbitratorin"."

All three accounts have the same pattern of using German for socializing with the same wikifriends. All three show the same poor grammar and the same level of unfamiliarity with German idiom, even in the use of simple stock phrases. I'd say it's as compelling evidence of their identity as you're likely to get.

By the way, if BarkingMoon was Rlevse, then in retrospect I feel rather pissed off about this [126] post, which in that case contained a blatant lie ("knowing nothing about this", said about an old Arbcom case where Rlevse was the drafting arbitrator). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As a German, I can confirm that the examples listed above are all pretty darn similar, and it wouldn't surprise me if they'd all come from the same person. --Conti|✉ 12:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised about "Guten tag" etc. being un-idiomatic (although I can believe it) since it's precisely what I was taught to say in highschool German class in the US. My guess is Rlevse's German is typical of people who studied some German but not enough to be fluent. There are lots of such folks out there. 64.160.39.72 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't look here on the weekend. Adding to your collection So du glaubst. So you think. "Guten Tag" is still the formal greeting of a stranger in Germany. My father used to say: "der Hauch eines Zweifels wäre wohl angebracht". A "whiff of doubt" were beneficial, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Is it really necessary to edit-war on User:BarkingMoon while this discussion is ongoing? 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest someone protects the wrong version. Geometry guy 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 01:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI

This investigation should be moved to SPI, I think. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? So, some Checkuser/Arbitrator can close it again as "disproved" by technical evidence? That was done once before, so no thanks. Let's establish the community consensus on this, after the evidence is presented. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with ASCIIn2Bme. This was already moved here from AN/I per WP:CBAN, moving it again is just going to confuse people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with ASCIIn2Bme. Too much conflicting information from checkusers, arbs, everyone involved-- CUs asserting as *fact* things that can't be conclusively known, arbs saying when CU evidence isn't clear to let the community decide on behavioral evidence, which is what is happening here. No, keep this open, let the folks examine the evidence (and let admins stop trying to close this off within minutes of new evidence coming to light). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Revise. Suggestion. Folks, editors who are so addicted to Wikipedia that they can't stop socking Will Be Back. The evidence is clear, but the more of it you put out here, the easier you make it for Rlevse to evade scrutiny the next time he socks. I've found several more tells, but I'm not going to say what they are, per WP:BEANS. We've got conflicting info from CUs, the arbs tossing it back to the community, a tight case here that the BarkingMoon account was at least partially operated by Rlevse, and a community of strange supporters who don't want to see the effects of his disruption-- that doesn't matter until/unless the next time he socks. So, I suggest putting out no more evidence now, since that will only make it easier for him to evade scrutiny. I suggest that we're done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is enough by now to prove whatever, though I don't even see what the proof accomplishes. Other sock operators besides Rlevse may have also been helped. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the section below was closed without a conclusion, I am considering filing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rlevse, with the main purpose of producing a finding on BarkingMoon. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but you should link it to his renamed account and also be sure NOT to request checkuser. A checkuser was already done with ambiguous results, so this will have to be done based on behavioral evidence only. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to tag BarkingMoon as a sock of Rlevse

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 another one of those situations where someone just needs to go and start the proposal and get it over with, to have a decision made in one direction or the other. So, here we go. Based on the copious amounts of behavioral evidence above and regardless of the technical evidence, I propose that the page of BarkingMoon is tagged as being a sock of Rlevse. Yay or nay? Silverseren^C 02:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra note: The point of this is really to have a community decision once and for all, rather than letting the above discussions go on forever. If this goes with no, as it seems to be, that's fine, but that also means we can zip up this entire discussion and go work on something else. Silverseren^C 06:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Morto-equine percussion. Seriously, why bother? We don't know if its absolutely true, and the editor is currently inactive anyway. If BM returns we can examine it closely. Until then all this impassioned argument and evidence gathering is largely pointless. Manning (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Manning Bartlett nailed it right off the bat. My76Strat (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Manning. Begoon ^talk 03:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support based on convincing behavioral evidence. This tagging is important for recording Rlevse's conduct. BarkingMoon – whether Rlevse's associate or sockpuppet – is probably not coming back, but Rlevse likely will. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• We vote on such things now? That's pretty messed up. 28bytes (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And !voting on whether to label an account as a sock? Seems past being "odd" from here! Collect (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is silly to vote, either the SPI uncovered it or not. Also Morto-equine percussion. I agree. User was here a short amount of time, minimal impact. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't dig holes in the equine-blood-soaked-ground. Do something useful, people. Alarbus (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • SNOW this one for mercy's sake. When the page gets protected because of tagging, it's time to move on for a bit. Doc talk 06:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was called a witness on this page, I don't have to say more, right? (Adapting from Rlevse:) Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely - although I don't agree with voting on it - User:BarkingMoon was and is an account controlled by and edited by the same person that controlled the Rlevse account - the investigated contribution history is absolute proof. Why the user is receiving such loyalty is beyond me - the account is totally disruptive and has gone native. - The user does not see close paraphrasing as a problem and will continue to repeats such editing in its next sock account. Youreallycan 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse 'loyalty' with a belief that 'a lot of effort is being wasted'. I have no loyalty, but I think the huge amount of nitpicking above does nothing to deal with the risk of future disruption (which I think we all agree IS a genuine issue). Just my opinion though. Manning (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Collect and Alarbus. The user is blocked since July 2011 as per a self requested block and do not think will return .Please let us leave it without a tag and move on. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Next time when someone complains of double standards for behavior on Wikipedia, I'd be less inclined to dismiss them off the bat. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• You got that part :) The work you did was excellent, ASCII, in spite of some misplaced loyalty and other stuff up above: perhaps I can convince you to help on another case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's ridiculous that some people are using the claim that there's no tagged sockpuppets to argue he's not sockpuppeting, and then those same people argue against tagging patently obvious sockpuppets like this one. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And the first shall become last.[127] Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It appears to me to be a sock per the KB of behavioral evidence above. Tag it like any other sock. Why should it matter that the account is inactive? If a sockpuppeteer abandons a sock account it is still tagged, generally. This allows people to keep track of sockuppets for months and years down the line after discussions have ended and people with immediate and cleark knowledge of said puppeteer have moved on. Simple bookkeeping, really. Night Ranger (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• lmFao ... sure .. by all means. If it makes the 'pedia a better presentation to the public, then of course we should do this. This indeed would encourage people to join us in building a vast storage of knowledge. All those "this user was banned" tags most certainly would make any new editor feel like we are such a warm and welcoming group of people. whatever. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding, if I may: I consider the user page of BarkingMoon as exemplary: clear, informative, presentable. Readers of his articles want to know about its author and his work, not see a tag. - Everyone concerned can just keep a watch on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Manning. Everyking (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ched Davis. I could say it again, but that'd be kinda pointless, wouldn't it? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The account is either a sock or it isn't. What the hell does this vote accomplish? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Closer needed

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 13

Any helpful admin like to help out and close these? - jc37 17:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reduced block requested for Doncram

Per the discussion on User talk:Doncram and the positive casual support (17 votes: 11 yea vs. 3 nay, and 3 abstains), and that given the circumstances we request that the length of Doncram's block be reduced to time served, or to 6 weeks (unblock on Saturday, 11 February 2012) as the six month block is being used contrary to point #3 of Blocks should not be punitive: that it is a punishment not befitting the events which transpired. There is some concern among the dissenting vote regarding Blocks should be preventative, but is felt by the majority that this is being applied more against the user in question than this particular incident. In short, Doncram is in this case is similar to a parolee whom has served two sentences for grand theft auto, but is then caught stealing a pack of gum and is incarcerated for 20 years. Some say the point of escalating blocks is to change behavior. To which, I would respond: if there is no context in the doling out of "punishment", said punishment does not fulfill any purpose. Here the edit war was between two editors with a long adversarial history on article that was newly created. Both editors should have known better, and both were blocked, which is fine. What is not right is that Doncram's block is being applied without regard as to why the situation happened. Thank you & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, mostly just restating here what I already posted on my talk page when I was asked about the block.

I've noticed that Doncram (talk · contribs) hasn't even posted to their own user talk page since Jan 21st - and their edits at the time seemed more focused on justifying their violation of WP:EW. Before I can support an unblock request (with or without conditions), I need to see evidence that the user is willing to take ownership for their own actions and that they have a plan for how to disengage in the future before their editing might again escalate to the same conclusion in a content dispute. I wouldn't have escalated to the 6 month block myself ... I probably would have placed a 3 month block. However, once the block is in place, any question of unblocking or reduction of a block begins to hinge around the question of if the behavior is likely to recur. If I see evidence that they are taking ownership for their own actions and can demonstrate their respect for site policies by suggesting behavior changes or even unblock conditions that would reduce the likelihood of their disrupting Wikipedia again in the future - then I would support reducing the block, possibly even removing it. The problem is that, as yet, I'm not seeing that on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All of which is fair. Doncram just posted on his talk that he will reply in the next couple of days. Thank you again, Markvs88 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with placing a page at: (A)mid(st) Toil and Tribulation pages??

Hello, I wanted to put in a "placeholder" (for lack of a better word) at the following two pages:

• Midst Toil and Tribulation (novel)
• Amid Toil and Tribulation (novel)

In both cases, I was only going to enter a redirect to this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safehold#Plot.

Can one of you inform me as to WHY these two pages have been put on some sort of a restriction?
and/or
Could you place the redirect at these pages for me?
LP-mn (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you couldn't create them yourself, but redirects created to [[Safehold#(A)mid{st} Toil and Tribulation]]. GiantSnowman 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do this: #REDIRECT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safehold#Plot]

...instead of this: #REDIRECT [[Safehold#Plot]], the edit filter will prevent it, as external-link style redirects don't work. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dance Moms! Woohoo!

Hey dancers, did any of you recently block an editor who had an interest in that show? If so, I may have a socky for you... Drmies (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How about User:TheSimsBadGirlsClub (11 edits to the article), who is a sock puppet of User:Shannon9077 (39 edits to the article)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm not bad--but Shannon was mostly editing Bad Girls Club, and I didn't see them adding the fan sites to Dance Moms. It's possible that they started the fan sites plugged also at http://twitter.com/DanceMomsFanWeb. I made this post in reference to my block at User_talk:Dancemomsfanweb, but didn't want to give it away too quickly. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but SimsBadGirlsClub mostly edited Dance Moms, with only 2 edits to Bad Girls Club. I think this is the person you want. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam attack

I hae encountered three brand new Users advertising an external link on their Talk pages. I've removed the spam on all of them, but I imagine there are more I've missed and more will be coming.

Aureliorosal615 (talk · contribs), Ashleymerrit511 (talk · contribs), Earlemcknigh112 (talk · contribs)

The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Robtillman716 (talk · contribs) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Santiagoaver410 (talk · contribs) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the spammers' usernames are a regular name followed by 3 numbers. →Στc. 07:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to stop now, there's no point in my continuing this fight without a spam filter. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I created a spam filter for this link, if you found any other with different link, please let me know Petrb (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All accounts above are indef'd. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Analytics ID: UA-25833520 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

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

Also:

• Barthoover513 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Rodgerking24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

FYI, the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is more suited to blocking spam than the AbuseFilter. Adding \bfincamietenmallorca\.com\b will do the trick. MER-C 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is something I am definitely not sure with, because the abuse filter has several advantages, for instance it allows us to track the activity of spammers. It's more sophisticated tool, and I think it would make sense to use that instead of spam-blacklist, it is easier to maintain, faster, more secure (you can test the expression before making it live) and it's friendlier for newbies who see a template with warning rather than a system message related to action-exception. However if there is a consensus to use the blacklist for this, I am willing to move the definition there. Petrb (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Other than that, I acted here as a holder of abusefilter permission, I am not a sysop on english wiki and even if I have the technical ability to update blacklist, I think it should be rather done by some admin, so I will leave it up to them for now. Petrb (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam site blacklisted, further accounts blocked, filter disabled (it uses up resources), and {{checkuser needed}} to block the underlying IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What uses up resources means? The abuse filter entry should eat less resources than spamblacklist. Petrb (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. The marginal cost of spamblacklist entries is approximately zero, since the regex of 1000+ URLs was going to be run (nor not run) anyway. The marginal cost of abuse filter entries is far higher, since each edit gets run through an additional filter. Unless I misunderstand? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know the details of both extensions, but I hope the regular expressions are run separately in blacklist, anyway if they were or not, the cost of run the definition I made, which contains only one strpos call and check if user isn't confirmed, is surely lower than cost of run of any regular expression. But you may be right that the blacklist is somehow cached or optimized. Petrb (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit filter has a limit of 1000 conditions that can be run on any given edit, so when an edit uses up those conditions, it is automatically allowed. The spam blacklist has no such limitations. Additionally, the edit filter has to be run on the entire specified variable rather than only on the links. You could easily use the 'added_links' variable, but then you might as well just keep things organized and move it into the spam blacklist. The regex code you used, (new_wikitext contains "link #1" | new_wikitext contains "link #2") is extremely resource-intensive and slow due to two string searches being run on the entire edit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed explanation. This string you copied from my definition, is not a regex. Actually it should be significantly faster than a regex search, given to how the regex library used by php works. Question is, how is that implemented in abuse filter, I will check it soon. I assume that search for a string as it is, uses strpos or something like that, or that's how I would implement it. I will definitely take care next time, and leave this up to you guys. Petrb (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that—I wrote the wrong word. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is, yeah: URLs are clumped into big /(...|...|...|...|...)/ sections. Besides, you have to remember that *all* edits get filtered, whereas only those that add URLs (a tiny proportion) end up being checked against the SpamBlacklist, giving the latter a natural performance advantage. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I took care of the checkuser actions.. I blocked two additional accounts with similar behavior & the underlying IP. --Versageek 14:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking to one's Pie chart

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but can an administrator link me to my pie chart & have the link on my talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Um...your pie chart? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit thingy - Xl's pie chart with edit percentages - I think has issues - http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=GiantSnowman&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia - Youreallycan 18:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that was what was meant ... but it's an external link, re-generated when you click it. Some templates include it as a link for contribs (I think there's one on my User page) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Its seems to be inactive - See https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/~soxred93/ec - Youreallycan 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all of the Soxred tools are offline now that X! has retired. It's being discussed over at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#X!'s bots. 28bytes (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ta for the link to the discussion - lets hope someone takes the tool on. Its a useful one. - Youreallycan 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is also being discussed here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#.22Edit count.22 and .22Articles created.22 links and probably several other places. I add this one as it has links to a couple other edit counters - although none with pie (mmmm pie) charts. MarnetteD | Talk 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, it's good to know it's not just my pie that went offline. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was told there would be punch and pie. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:TParis has obtained a copy of the edit counter's source code. (See User talk:TParis#User:X!'s Stuff.) He has a version of the tool set up here. With that now done, could an admin please go around the project, updating all of the templates/gadgets/pages that use the script? (i.e. the edit count link at the bottom of Special:Contributions, ect.) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have updated many templates and userboxes and one mediawiki gadget script page. But there are still quite a few more tools: ec, pages editsummary rfa etc that need conversion/activation, so still more work after tparis get the other things going. So if things have gone wrong you know who's contributions to check! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An idea in lab

I've posted an idea which would significantly impact the admin corps so I presume there might be interest in commenting.[128] - My76Strat (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What position of trust is that about? Do you mean you're on the mailing list for account creation requests? That would mean you're seeing personal info of the email senders, which might explain the ID request. I could see having the same requirement for admins on that list (if it's not already in force), but admins who don't ask to be on the list shouldn't be affected. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Strat is talking about WP:ORTS, which requires volunteers to provide proof of age and identity. I'm a member of the account creation team, and I've never provided ID. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I just logged into the account creation tool and saw a new message about providing ID to the foundation. Guess I better scan my driver's licence... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting review of block

I blocked Nflfacts2k2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for purporting that her account had a "team" of individuals behind it (here) in violation of WP:NOSHARE. The user had opened up a Wikiquette case against me after I reverted her addition of copyrighted text to Stanford Routt. After blocking the user, she posted on her talk page that she "runs the publicity for the aforementioned Stanford Routt." An editor has asserted that I am involved (to which I disagree), and requested that I open this thread to review my actions. Nflfacts2k2 has since said that only her personal assistant has taken a look at her edits to see if they are copyright-free. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Endorse - Looks like a good block to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• The user has clarified that only one person is operating the account, and I'm willing to accept their explanation for what they meant by "we" in the diff above, so I've unblocked. There are still some issues about conflict of interest here, but nothing requiring a block at this point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U closer needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ has been running since 26 January (for the record I am not involved in it in any way). There is no consensus on any proposal and no prospect of a consensus forming. It's got seriously out of hand, with the posting today of a discussion about the alleged sex life of the target of the RfC/U - possibly the most inappropriate and intrusive discussion I've ever seen on Wikipedia, which is saying something. It has clearly degenerated into an unproductive and pointless slanging match between different editors. A majority of editors on the talk page has supported a motion by H.J. Mitchell to close the RfC/U (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Motion to close). It badly needs to be closed, so could someone please do the job? Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• - I don't see this as being correct. I am sure any admin will weigh up the discussions but - There are 12 supports for closing on the talk thread and eleven opposes - clearly as I can see A majority of editors on the talk page has supported a motion by H.J. Mitchell to close the RfC/U - a majority of one? Also - the numbers of editors opining on that talkpage thread are a small percentage of the users that have opined in the rfc user - imo - it needs a proper resolving close and not a no consensus for anything type close. Youreallycan 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since the issue of closing was brought up here, and because the community is highly divided on the underlying issues, I'd like to request that a panel of three experienced, uninvolved Wikipedians be appointed to close that dramafest. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Having a hard time seeing the good faith in the close request. The motion to close, with a recent position switch, is at 12 support, 10 close. A numerical advantage, yes, but for all intents and purposes of gauging consensus, an even split. It is also more aimed at the sniping at the talk page; the rfC itself is relatively straight-forward so far. If someone wishes to put a halt to the talk page antics, then that is a separate issue that should not short-circuit the rfC. Second, while "not involved" may technically apply to the RfC, Prioryman has been very involved in the Fae/Ash topic overall, i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your last point is misleading. I have been involved in the narrow issue of the campaign of harassment and outing that Delicious Carbuncle has mounted on Wikipedia Review but have had no other involvement in "the Fae/Ash topic", nor have I passed any judgements on that topic. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your post just above is a perfect illustration while a single person claiming uninvolvement cannot be trusted to close this RfC/U fairly. WP:GAME. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• re: the ASCIIn2Bme post (of 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)). Not all that long ago, there was an RfC closed in exactly that manner. (the topic escapes my memory at the moment). My point being, it would not be entirely unprecedented. No opinion on the Fae matter, at least not one I'd share other than the fact that I very much agreed with Balloonman's assessment of the situation in many cases. — Ched :  ?  21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be unprecedented but why would three closers be needed in this instance? ASCIIn2Bme acknowledges that "the community is highly divided" so there clearly is no consensus in the RfC. That would be still true with one closer - it doesn't need three to recognise that fact. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)My assessment being that the RfC is winding down and unlikely to invoke any sanctions against Fae and that the discussion is rapidly degenerating. I personally do not see the need to keep this open as it has simply become a place to cast dispersions and tie Fae's name to a heap of deep seated bitterness---which at this point is no longer about Fae, but rather about specific individuals involved in the RfC. It is turning into a discord about why specific users were or were not justified in saying/doing certain things here and elsewhere. (now that summary is a little more than what Ched endorsed, but the point is that the RfC has lost its focus and is now turning south.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I understand it - RFC users are not about sanctions at all - they are more about, urging of the community that the user do this or that a bit better and are better resolved if the users makes some kind of comment that they understand the communities issues and will do this or that a bit differently, and from the other side a closing comment from the community that they appreciated this and that good aspects and so on - good faith agreements and urgings rather than sanctions is the RFC user dish of the day. Youreallycan 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And the only issues that have garnered a significant amount of support are 1) Themfromspaces/ReverendWayne which simply says that Fae's RfA would not have passed if his prior account had been known (but neither makes a call to relinquish the bit) and 2) Hobit's view which explicitly says not to relinquish the bit. 3) We also have Russivia and HJs views questioning the motives/substane of the RfC. Beyond that, not much support for anything.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Outside_view_by_Themfromspace - forty three editors support this view - those opines sure seem worthy of some kind of decent resolving closure to me. Any closure should focus on the RFCuserpage and not the talkpage. Youreallycan 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 43 users support the view that if the facts were known when the RfA occured that he wouldn't have passed. 4 of those users explicitly state the view is not contradictory with Hobits view (supported by 31 users) or that they are not calling for the bit. So the closer can simply say, "There was a strong sense that had his identity been known during his RfA he would not have passed, but there is no consensus that he should be forced step down or undergo another rfa." Themfromspaces view is a statement of fact, not a call to action.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Although you are too involved to assert closure, you make some good points worthy of inclusion in the close. I do not think user fae would stand down or take another RFA if one hundred or two hundred users opposed the issues surrounding his first RFA - that is not included in his recall standard. Please lets not derail this now - the RFC is open a couple of weeks and there are attempts to discuss and get consensus for a positional close. -Users that have contributed and opined in good faith need a decent close, attempting to force closure at this stage will create a poor resolution. - wait, relax, the fat lady has still to sing, as they say. Youreallycan 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks ;-)
      • That being said, I had explicitly not commented in the call for closure because I agreed with you. Unfortunately, the tone in the RfC has taken a decidedly downward turn over the past 24 hours. It's turning into more bickering and bellyaching than anything material. Unless that changes, the RfC will lose all semblance of credibility and as the RfC spirals out of control, Fae's name is now being attached to the whining. I'm also not saying Fae gets a free ride or is without guilt. I just don't see anything happening when the 3 major areas of agreement are: 1) Fae would not have passed if his past was known 2) that being said he shouldn't be forced to stepdown/undergo a recall and 3) questions exist about the motives of the rfc. And I don't think anything will change in the next two weeks.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes - your probably correct - Youreallycan 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Wow, were starting to agree to something, see the RfC has had at least one potential synthesis ;-)
          • My final argument for early closure, again stemming from the downward turn in the RfC over the past 24 hours, as the bickering continues, the issues are moving more and more away from Fae and more and more onto 2 or 3 specific users involved in the RfC (representing both supporters and detractors). This makes it harder to identify the real issues surrounding Fae. It also becomes a barrier for any meaningful new input into the discussion. If a person isn't already involved, I doubt they are going to dredge through the crap that is accumulating on the talk page and proposals page. This might make it easier for special interest groups to game the system. In other words, I don't think keeping it open for 2 more weeks will result in new productive input from people not already involved.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
            • While some obviously inflammatory material has been posted (and WP:REVDELeted), I think, as a rule, we should not allow such a tactic to derail RfCs. Some substantive and civilly expressed views on the community's expectations with respect to ArbCom involvement in such cases has been posted not so long ago by User:Tryptofish. I'd like to see more editors weigh in on that rather than the WP:BADSITES drama that seems to capture the lion's share of attention. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking that it was a discussion at WP:V regarding V vs. Truth, I think this] is what I was thinking of. — Ched :  ?  21:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the rationale here. The RFC/U has not been running for the standard 30 days, yet Prioryman is arguing it should be closed because it there seems to be no consensus yet? Surely that is an argument for leaving the RFC/U open, not one for closing it...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The RfC has taken a nasty turn away from Fae and towards others. You've made a "view" relative to your motives and a sense of being attacked by Wnt/Rich. Wnt/Rich have made allegations against you and WR. You've made allegations against them. Cla's made allegations against them. Wikipedia Review is now under discussion. Cla has his list of non-personal "personal attacks". If the discourse was on Fae and his behavior, I would have no problem leaving it open... but over the past 36 hours, the dialog has moved away from Fae and onto you and several other editors... and has turned nastier. Constructive dialog seems to have disappeared under the weight of inuendo and allegations. It's turned into a drhama fest and I can't see anything changing between now and the next 2 weeks. If I thought something beneficial might come out of it or if I thought the bickering and bellyaching would disappear, then I might support keeping it open. As is, I don't see much value in the RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Things have gotten out of hand on the talk page, but that could have (and still can be) handled by judicious application of guidelines like WP:NPA. Additionally, people who have already expressed their opinions, such as yourself, would be well advised not to belabour discussions by repeating those same opinions. I think many of the people involved in discussions have intractable views and no amount of discussion will be productive. It would be far more useful to hear from editors who are undecided or who have legitimate questions about what has been presented in the RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by the above that the RfC should stay open. My rush to close was prompted by the appalling talk page. There is so much off-topic comment there, about the motives of editors and their off-wiki behaviour, that incidentally "necessitates" detailed discussion about an editor's sex life, that I just wanted to shut it up. But the right step would be for a genuinely uninvolved editor to strip all such inappropriate filling out of the talk page. Revdel or suppression of some comments would be in order. What is and isn't appropriate for a discussion about Fae's editing of BLPs and arbitrators' treatment of clean start and arbitrators' behaviour at RfAs is pretty bloody obvious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't close it prematurely. The good news is that there continue to be productive views that are being offered. The bad news is that the talk page has become a morass of claims and counterclaims about WR that may well end up with some users finding themselves at ArbCom, but that's not a reason to close the RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close was properly posted (and failed) on the RFC/U talk page -- requesting a close here seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING Nobody Ent 00:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ent, I wouldn't call it forumshopping---I think Priory was hoping to get somebody to go to the section and close it based upon the section which was still open and the degregation of the discussion on the talk page. It would be forum shopping if this had been opened after that was closed down. But coming here to get an admin to review the section and close, is standard protocol. But I agree, if that section is closed, then this one should similarly be closed as this was a call to action based upon that one.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple "Would an uninvolved admin please review Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Motion to close." would have accomplished that goal -- the fact the editor is continuing to argue to point here is why I characterized it as shopping. Nobody Ent 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Ent here. The motion to close was effectively a no consensus; that much is clear. I also agree, to a point, with the following statement, though gramatically misworded: "There is no consensus on any proposal and no prospect of a consensus forming. It's got seriously out of hand." People are so sensitive in that talk page, as well, that my attempt to archive some of the older discussions to a second page was quickly reversed because someone thought that those discussions might actually be used in the closure of the project page itself. Rolling eyes CycloneGU (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on appropriate enforcement/handling of WP:NFCC policy #9

NFCC policy #9 says that non-free images aren't allowed outside content pages and specific limited administrative pages dealing with them. It doesn't say anything about how they should be handled or best practice. Sometimes deletion might be needed, perhaps sometimes it isn't and just removing (via editing) is enough. This RFC is to ask for users interested in NFCC to help draw up brief guidance in WP:NFCC for appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach policy #9.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File-related help and guideline pages

Am I the only one who finds our current set of file-related help and guideline pages extremely confusing? Currently we have as many as eleven different pages that all compete for the role of a first-step guidance page about images and other files, plus multiple redirects that lead to any one of them in more or less unpredictable ways. Many of these are outdated, redundant with each other, or deal with stuff quite different from what their titles say. New uploaders will often be led round in circles between all these pages until they find what we want them to find:

General file-related guidance

• Help:Contents/Images and media (redirect from Help:Image tutorial)

mainly a link list. First overview link ("Overview of Images") goes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images

• Help:Files (H:IOUF):

short page, links to Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial through section headnotes

• Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

extensive technical guidance on positioning images on pages

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (redirect from Wikipedia:Images and WP:FILE)

contrary to its name, this also contains extensive technical and copyright policy advice

• Wikipedia:Image use policy (WP:IUP)

contrary to its name, this also contains technical and style advice that's not "policy" by any standard

• Wikipedia:Uploading images

duplicates much material also in Wikipedia:Image use policy

• Help:Viewing media (redirect from Help:Images)

brief page, almost entirely redundant to others above

• Wikipedia:Extended image syntax

technical, largely duplicating Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

• Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files

deals largely with non-image media

• mw:Help:Images and other uploaded files

central help page on MediaWiki

• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and Illustrating Articles/Adding Images

yet another page that attempts to cover everything at once

Copyright-related guidance

• Wikipedia:Copyrights

mostly deals with text copyright and licensing issues, external re-using etc., but is also linked to as the central policy explanation from many image-related templates

• Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:NFC, including WP:NFCC)
• Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline

Specialized pages

• Wikipedia:File copyright tags
• Wikipedia:Gallery tag
• Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload
• Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission
• Help:File page (redirect from Help:Image page

(also duplicates much material from Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images)

This stuff should be consolidated into probably no more than five main pages:

• WP:NFC
• one page dealing with all other file copyright and related policy issues (including the core contents of WP:IUP, WP:FUR and Help:File page and an overview of related CSDs), with Wikipedia:File copyright tags as a sub-page
• one page dealing with technical matters of file formats, resolution etc. (Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files, portions of Wikipedia:Uploading images)
• one page dealing with technical guidance on how to display files (merging Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, reduced to that core content that is really style guidance and nothing else

Thoughts? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that: The Racepacket case is supplemented as follows:

The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need Help

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

---

Can Someone Protect Page List of Secret Mountain Fort Awesome episodes Or Tell 74.88.23.45 (talk · contribs) To Stop Adding Unnecessary Titles I Have Undid His/Her Information 3 Times And Him/Her Has Not Found Any Source For It. Thanks d} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aozz9 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll look into it--but this is not a matter for this board. Requests for protection are at WP:RPP, but there is no need for protection in this case. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Help request

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

---

Can anybody elp me in making a Men in Black (franchise) portal. I think it's a good franchise, and most of all, with the upcoming 3D movie, many articles in the franchise need updating. I hope anybody or somebody can help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.217.185 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

TV Syndicated Shows

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.

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

We have a MAJOR MAJOR problem here! Users keep adding syndicated shows to TV Station articles! This information is irrevelant!!! I demand that we need to stop adding syndicated shows to TV station articles! And that's final!!! 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs)

This is not the appropriate place to deal with issues involving content. Kevin (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Please see dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

(Moved) Issues at Cold Fusion

Moved to ANI: [129] IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on caste articles and more

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

Community Authorized Discretionary Sanctions on all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Every editor who has ANI oh his watchlist must know this: articles about Indian castes are particularly sensitive. Unhelpful edits and general disruption (POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks etc.) permeate the entire topic area and it is difficult for admins to successfully keep all this in check. For this reason, I'm asking the community to impose the standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages (changed to "pages" from "all articles and templates" on 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)) about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc., explictly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Diffs of assorted disruption can be provided upon request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Edited to specify countries. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Castes are one thing, and political parties are another thing entirely. Can you explain your reasoning for including the latter in your proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio has been chatting with me and others on my talk page. Many of the political parties are caste-based. The classes listed above have been taken from my suggestion. I've no idea how widely the "article" term applies, but I intended it to include related templates also. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just added templates to my proposal. The reason I included political parties is because Sitush suggested they should be, because they're often caste based, as he says here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics is very much linked to caste equations, and I think this sanction is needed there as well. Lynch7 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While I accept your points about the linkage between caste and political parties, I can't help feeling that this is nevertheless over-extending things a little. Effectively, you'll be putting all discussion of party politics within the subcontinent under discretionary sanctions, and I think we'd need to be certain that this is really necessary before proceeding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I've been leaning towards this for some time. I dislike the concept of such sanctions but "needs must". NB: I was involved in pre-proposal discussions, per my link above. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is a much needed sanction, regrettable as it is. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: It would make sense if you link to evidence of some disputes and tenacious editing, so that participants who are unaware of this can analyze the proposal appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the recent need for semi-pp at Template:Caste Groups of India (Kongu_Vellalar); practically everything that has gone on at Ezhava, Nair and Yadav during the last 12 months. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kongu Vellalar has a long history (along with the associated SPIs). Lynch7 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rajput, for a long time but just since Christmas will suffice for an example (includes socks). - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support.This is needed.Pernoctator (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - far too many petty disputes regarding this arise time & time again, and it's time we nipped it in the bud. GiantSnowman 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Can we say "pages" instead "articles and templates", as well as "general sanctions" instead of "discretionary sanctions"? Minor bureaucratic wording for the latter (DS is generally limited to ArbCom sanctions), but the former is important, I think. NW (Talk) 18:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the former, go ahead, I have no objections. Regarding the latter, if they are basically the same thing, again I have no objections. I just had never heard about "general sanctions". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Pages" is no big deal; WP:General sanctions seems to be rather more than WP:Discretionary sanctions, eg: 1RR. Am I misunderstanding? - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• General sanctions does not include 1RR unless an administrator specifically imposes it. The two are identical except for the process by which someone is sanctioned. There is a dedicated noticeboard for discretionary sanctions, but that is "owned" in a sense by the Arbitration Committee and community-based sanctions like the ones being proposed here generally are discussed elsewhere if it is not a unilateral decision. NW (Talk) 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fine by me, then. I was a bit concerned about 1RR because of the number of new users who edit this type of article, coupled with the availability of admins who take an interest. It doesn't matter how manner notices appear at the top of an edit box, newbies in my experience tend to dive right in there. I can see the day when 1RR might become necessary but it would be nice to feel our way forward here. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Actually, I like the concept of "discretionary sanctions", meaning that any admin can unilaterally impose a sanction on someone disrupting Wikipedia after warnings have proven to be useless... And I believe that the community has the power to impose them just as much as the Arbitration Committee... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Woah, I am lost now. One person seems to be saying that the two are for all intents and purposes the same, barring a reporting issue, and another appear to be saying that there is more to it. This is above my (non-admin) pay grade but it seems clear to me that some sort of consensus-based clarification is required. I've read both pages and, as with my comment about 1RR above, there are substantive differences in the wording. Help! - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dumber than the average bear: I have remained blissfully ignorant of the whole area of discretionary sanctions, and having read the page linked above, I'm not reassured that I want to continue to work on restoring featured articles to status at the WP:FAR pages of articles like Kolkata until I understand what exactly the issue is. I've been questioning a lot of the text at Kolkata as part of the FAR and there are currently three Indian articles at FAR: would some kind person please explain on my talk page or here explicitly and directly what I have to be aware of and avoid? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, is what you are talking directly related to castes? :) Lynch7 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  ummm, I don't think so, in the case of Kolkata text, but it could be in other cases, so generally, what is the issue I need to be aware of? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• POV-pushing, usually in an attempt either to glorify or denigrate a social group; edit-warring generally; repeated insertion of unsourced content/OR etc; repeated violations of BLP re: ethnicity/religion; absurd and extreme personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries ... that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's all I needed to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Badly needed. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support; a glance at Talk:Burki should tell you about all you need to know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support but it would be even better if only bastards get the sanctions - I took a look at Burki as suggested by Northern Lights and that is disgusting. Yeah, NPOV and all that... but per my long standing opinion that wikipedia has to stand up for certain values, could admins please do yer best to work within the rules to cut a user who appears to be trying to get rid of the hate more slack than the primitive shits that cause this problem in the first place. Egg Centric 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• That would be me, then. Not the primitive shit, but the other fella.<g> - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you need to refactor this Egg Centric. It's pretty hard to convince users in these articles that we are dealing fairly with them when editors are calling them "primitive shits". Completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A fair treatment for bigots is far more than a block. The misery they create is enormous. I appreciate that a fair number, if not majority, of the peopel they are harming are also bigots, but this is a developing world problem. Of course they are not shits, they are merely primitive peopel acting like shits. The ones who are not primitive are in fact shits, for then they have no excuse. Egg Centric 22:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my levity. I think that AniMate does actually have a fair point. Caste is an extremely difficult concept to grasp if you are outside the system. To those who are then, sure, it has the appearance of bigotry etc but it is a way of life. I do occasionally boil over because (I think, and in the en-Wikipedia sense) I can see the wood for the trees but obviously if you are living in that situation then all you see are trees. My lighthearted comment was inappropriate. I had just had "one of those days" dealing with the fall-out. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that any discretionary sanctions need to be applied carefully, as we have some editors doing great work in that area against the POV pushers and we don't want them chased away. AniMate 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I avoid areas like those in question, yet I still see the fallout from the POV warriors. As mentioned by AniMate, admins should go to some extra trouble when confronted with an established editor who is supporting Wikipedia's principles—rather than a quick block, please tell them clearly on their talk page (without the official warning) that they must stop for a day or two to avoid sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support except that like AndytheGrump, I do not support putting political articles under the sanctions. Yes, some political parties in India are explicitly linked to caste groups, but many are not. To me, that would be like putting US political articles under sanctions because of the existence of the American Third Position Party. As for the general question of why...these articles are just a minefield. The primary problem comes from people in Group X, who want to assert that their Group is descended from high ranking castes, which are themselves descended from high ranking kings, who may very well be descended or related to Gods (this is not an exaggeration--much of the arguments on Yadav (modern group) is whether or not they are directly connected to the Yadava (ancient group) which was mythically founded by Yadu, from whom Krishna is said to be descended). Now, including mythical claims are fine (so long as the mythical connection is covered in reliable secondary sources, and the fact that it's a mythical claim is fine), but the problem is that many editors in these groups refuse to allow anything else in the article, including reliable sources attributing less glorious histories to these groups. Thus, Sitush in particular is often accused of very very heinous things, because he's insisting that our articles actually say what reliable sources say, as opposed to what people may have been taught since they were very young. And there's really nothing we can do in many cases to ease problem editors into Wikipedia's culture; some have, and have become great editors (or at least functional ones), but some are simply unwilling to adjust to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In many ways, the area is very similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in that one's fundamental world view may simply make one unable to interact comfortably with our rule set. Discretionary sanctions will help (if enforced) keep out the worst of the POV warriors, and allow us to more quickly say, "Please adjust, or please find another site to edit on". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as it's used with due diligence and caution. Anything that assists our productive editors in this sensitive and contentious area is a positive move. EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Caste related articles have stirred up almost unbelievable amounts of shit, and I'm honestly kind of amazed that sitush and the other productive content editors we have in the area have stuck on through it. Discretionary sanctions would be a good way to cut down - somewhat - on the amount of drama involved with this article set. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support for goodness sake, yes. I too have observed issues in caste articles, which 99% of the time have editors citing 5000 year old texts and attempting to delete reliably sourced information on the basis of it. To quote another editor (I can't remember who said it), if all these caste claims were true, everyone in India would be a king or a warrior, with no one doing other stuff (like cooking, farming etc). Discretionary sanctions would hopefully bring some sanity to these articles. Steve Public (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you're referencing my comment about everyone being "kings" and nobody claiming to have been farmers. It's a riff on an American joke: "the reason we lost in Vietnam is because we didn't have any cooks or truck drivers because everyone's uncle was too busy being a sniper or a helicopter door gunner." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'd close this myself but I've gotten drawn into trying (and mostly becoming daunted) at wading in among clashing editors with the hope of NPOVing many caste-linked topics over the years. These can be the most "tendentious," sloppily-sourced and WP:OWNed/WP:SOAPBOXed articles on en.WP. Be aware, however, there are also deep language woes in this topic area: Broadly put, sub-continental English, written in the context of sub-continental cultures, is not the same as American or Commonwealth English, let alone trying to deal with translations from sundry old texts in dozens of dialects, the translations themselves sometimes being heavily spun (or "edited") one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have fairly extensive support, and I don't see any indication that it's going to trend any way other than support for the ban...but could an uninvolved admin decide if it's time to implement this, and, if so, make the necessary entry on the sanctions page? I don't think we need to go through and pre-emptively tag all of the target articles (there must be hundreds or more), but we may want to tag the ones with the worst history and leave info at the India-related topics noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Lack of notice to community

Holding this AN discussion away from community notice is a travesty of open-ness. In no way can this be called a community consensus. It's a given in Wikipedia discussions that the parties involved are informed. Caste based articles impact South Asian countries especially India. It is entirely logical and common sense that WikiProject India be informed about the discussion, besides other WikiProjects.

It is hard to assume good faith when some participants of the discussion on WT:INB also discussed discretionary sanctions here without intimation to the WikiProject noticeboard. How are we to assume good faith on behalf of all those people especially as they all subscribe to one viewpoint only?

I am in full agreement with the need for discretionary sanctions and I am not looking for a change to the policy but but I completely do not condone forum-shopping and lack of transparency. Under such circumstances, it is incorrect that this consensus be considered a community consensus. The discussion needs to be revisited with advice to all stakeholders concerned. AshLin (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your views AshLin, the India noticeboard should have been notified. Lynch7 07:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects have no jurisdiction over articles in their scope, and they are not representations entitled to speak on behalf of the community of editors in an area. While I fully agree it would have been a good idea to notify them, I can't agree that the lack of such a notification invalidates the process. You could just as well demand that every talkpage of every single article within the scope of the proposal should have got a notification, or every user talk page of every user who ever edited one of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a completely specious argument, Future Perfect. The issue is not who has control. WikiProjects do not say that they have control over articles any more than any other part of the community. However, in this case, the WikiProject community are the stakeholders in this discussion. They have a right to be informed and participate in the discussion as much as every other editor. The very edit box of this page declares in brilliant yellow that "you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion". No attempt of any kind has been done.

Oh yes, (disclosure) I am an unpaid Special Interest Group volunteer in Wikimedia India chapter for working on WikiProject India and I am as entitled as any other Wikipedian to speak out against things perceived to be wrong.

The issue is not trivial. Over a thousand articles are affected which are edited by hundreds of users. If this Noticeboard has some governing principles which have not only been violated but that violation also defended by you, how do you expect us to have faith and abide by the decisions which have come about here? If not following your own principles does not invalidate your decision, then what do you think is the outcome? Imho, this is tainted.

I fully agree with you that every user need not be informed but it is equally clear no attempt was made to intimate the few easily identifiable stakeholders. One can understand a lapse on the part of admins who are not on INB that this never occurred to them and they were unaware of the debate raging there, but what of those users who were arguing on both pages, aware of the move to place discretionary sanctions to which the WikiProject was oblivious?

I am not quite aware as to how this is to be resolved but I felt "that something is rotten in the state of Denmark" and I am protesting very explicitly for the reason that that undermining fair play and established procedure is not the way things should be done on AN especially at a time when the AN is introspecting on how to resolve disputes better. AshLin (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It probably would have been best best to notify WT:INB. I just assumed that with so many admins being involved, the appropriate procedure was being followed (I am not an admin, and the whole process of sanctions is new to me). We could start the process again but, IMO, it was always going to produce this result - we'd likely just create a "more heat than light" situation. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We cannot undo the past. I am assuming good faith here that no one intended this to happen and in my individual capacity I accept the discussion and its conclusions. If I had participated I would have been a party to the proposal. My only request to all admins/people who participate in Wikipedia is that the norms and principles of Wikipedia are vital principles which need to be followed at all times, definitely in spirit if not to the letter. Incidents like these give cause for trolls and POV warriors to contest the sanctions on grounds of legality. In my humble opinion, so serious an issue as discretionary sanctions need to be done with greater deliberation and care than as if it were just another dispute at AN - probably the systemic cause for this lapse. From my side this issue is closed as people accept the point I have made. AshLin (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ban discussion from ANI

Resolved

 – Unaniomous community ban enacted after 48 hours long discussion. Night Ranger (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved from ANI Nobody Ent 22:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Proposed community ban of the Beatles IP Copyvio Vandal

I would like to propose a formal and official community ban of User:Crazy1980 (which was, as far as can be determined, the first named account created by this chronic copyvio offender) and all IP socks therof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support don't know if it's really necessary but to avoid the possibility of future dispute I'm willing to support. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support til I'm 64. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - also a 'lol' at Sarek. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fervent support - this is the worst case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU I've ever encountered that was not linked to a cult (religious or ideological). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've dealt with this yahoo before as well. There is no sense in ever engaging in conversation with this person, a complete case for WP:RBI has never been more plain. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know what practical difference this ban makes since even contributory copyright violations are to be removed regardless of who adds them, but it never hurts to reaffirm the community's stand on this matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Of course. Block all socks on sight and revert all their additions on sight. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - is good to have it as a formal decision (though a ban is not a solution to a problem). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - rather obvious at this point. Calabe1992 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I already voted support above but from User talk:Mike Linksvayer, I think the user should be banned due to overusage of colour alone :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A massive net negative to Wikipedia, the project is better off without this person. -- Atama頭 18:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A user whose sole purpose is spamming links that the community has overwhelmingly determined to be not appropriate for the project. A site-ban isn't a solution for the problem, but it does give us another tool for dealing with the disruption more efficiently. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe we can sick [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff Drmies (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - user who has spammed links and WP:IDHT issues, unfortunately, has no place on Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - yes. Swarm ^X 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Repeatedly adding links against community standards and against consensus is very disruptive, and experience shows that no amount of discussion would resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed community ban

For clarification, is the proposed ban on if the user adds links, or also for when the user makes demands or any other comment regarding the links? The reason I ask is that 95.29.70.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has only one edit, which was not adding the link ... but is obviously the same user. Note: regardless of any outcome here, I wouldn't take action myself in blocking this IP as it would be a COI given the IPs comments directed at me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Although, given the same COI reasoning, I shouldn't have earlier placed a block on 78.106.94.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm mentioning it here now in an effort to be fully transparent in my actions regarding the user. If anyone feels that block should be discussed/reviewed, feel free to start a new thread so as to not muddy the discussion here with the secondary topic). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Being threatened by a user does not make you involved. That would be too easy, make sure I first threaten all admins and then start vandalising, good call if s.o. dares to block that user. That is not what WP:INVOLVED reads, Barek, that block was a good call. Please continue making them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that's appreciated. Although, it still leaves the original question: is the above proposed ban on any disruption related to their demands/comments/etc related to the addition of the links, or only a ban on adding the links themselves. It appears to be on any disruption, but I just want to be sure that I'm clear on the scope of the proposed ban before supporting it (although, I will be supporting it regardless ... just want clarification before I added it in the section above). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The ban is for anything. Banned means banned. Anything and everything the vandal does should be reverted on sight and all of their accounts should be blocked on sight. See WP:BAN. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear now that the intent is a project-wide ban on anything identified as being the same user.

However, just to point out a minor bit of semantics in the meaning of a ban - while ban means ban,the scope of a ban can vary. Per WP:BAN, "Though a Wikipedia ban may extend to the entire project, it is usually limited to an article ban or a topic ban." ... which is the reason for my question regarding scope. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly this should have just been called a "site ban" because that's what it is. The term "site ban" only has one meaning... Banned from all of Wikipedia. There are many kinds of bans... Interaction bans, page bans, topic bans, but "site ban" is pretty specific and only refers to one kind of a ban, a ban from any activity anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, our policy here states, "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") but that's not really accurate. A "community ban" usually means that the editor was banned by community consensus, as opposed to a ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee, or through discretionary sanctions, from WMF or from Jimbo Wales. You can be community banned from a page or topic. The policy should probably be corrected but I know how fussy people can get about editing even a single word in a policy (let alone the policy on bans). -- Atama頭 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I assumed community ban made it clear it was a site ban, but yes, a full "ban ban" is what's being called for here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CBAN links to a section that states, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." That in no way makes it clear that it's a site ban. :p I figured it out in context, though, based on the discussion preceding the ban, which is why I supported the ban. -- Atama頭 22:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Very relevant

I've posted this in a couple of very high traffic places before: This individual has previously admitted to me he is a troll (link). De facto ban or full ban (as it will now be), I recommend in the strongest possible terms that he is reverted and blocked on sight. His only purpose is the deliberate waste of precious volunteer time, and when people respond to him, he is succeeding. WilliamH (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

RevDel requested

It's late, I'm sleepy, and I can't rightly remember how to get the IP address removed from the history of the text of my talk page--see recent history, please. And pardon my being braindead right now. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done delete revision text option. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Block Review

I'm asking for a block review. Yesterday, Balloonman asked for some attention at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ. He requested a neutral admin review a long list of "personal attacks" that User:Cla68 had posted. To be clear, these were "personal attacks" by others and Cla68 had collected the diffs from about a dozen people. I hatted the discussion because the "attacks" were not attacks at all or so weak that a reasonable person would not constitute them as attacks. Cla68 didn't unhat the discussion, but felt it necessary to summarize what was in the hat and repeated his attacks. I hated the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

Cla68 alledged that although I am "previously uninvolved, that I have now taken a side and so my action was dishonest. I pointed him to WP:INVOLVED. I then suggested several times that if he has a problem with it then he come here and seek wider review of my actions. Cla68 summarized again, I undid. I left a final warning not to return the attacks. This morning he sumarized again, and I wrapped the hat around it. I then blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. Please review.--v/r - TP 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Given that you edit-warred with Cla68 over his leaving a summary of the discussion you hatted [130][131][132][133][134], I would say it wasn't your call to block Cla68. --JN466 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So you suggest that next time I should block at the first incident rather than WP:AGF that the editor will heed warnings from an uninvolved admin?--v/r - TP 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't ask for a review of your actions if you're going to be snarky with people who respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No. (edit conflict)What I mean is that you're not the only admin able to assess and deal with the situation. Once you'd engaged in an edit war – you reverted Cla68's summary three times, I think – you had become involved IMO, and would have been better off at that point taking a step back and letting another admin look at it. Just my two cents; perhaps others will see it differently. --JN466 14:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was considering just waiting to let someone else respond but suggested an uninvolved admin cannot block because they took admin actions to enforce a policy and gave the user ample opportunity to stop their behavior before a block just seems completely unreasonable. But maybe I've completely mistook WP:INVOLVED.--v/r - TP 14:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was collecting those diffs in good faith from what I can see - it is a personal attack to allege someone is a homophobe and there was plenty of that going on - there is no way that user Delicious Carbunkle is homophobic or he should be called a homophobe by people here. User:Cla68 should be proud for being blocked for pointing that out and presenting the diffs of it happening and for asking the users that did it to retract. Youreallycan 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me how the following are personal attacks:

• Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable.
• The "only way out" is to support Fae here. If you "compromise" and leave him under a cloud, you're not ending anything. The exact same Inquisition will be in session tomorrow, with someone else in its sights. Besides, what kind of jury works on the basis that you compromise and say "guilty" on some counts just to get along?
• I hate that I'm signing on to this view, but I think I must. The focus on Fæ and his past incarnations does in fact feel a little homophobic
• The stated context for this RfC is disingenuous, the primary motivation is harassment.
• This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing
• I have not verified everything in this statement, but I verified enough to confirm that Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues.

These are just some of the shorter edits being cited. The point is that according to Cla, if you disagree with Cla/DC, if you think the dispute feels a "little homophobic", if you question the motives of the rfc---then it is a personal attack. According to Cla's reasoning, we have to fully accept the motives of the people who brought forth the RfC and to do otherwise is a violation of civil. In 5 years of editing WP, I've never seen the bar for civility set so low as to what Cla is claiming it should be here. Per Cla's reasoning, my opening the ANI report yesterday is a breach of civility.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Really, really bad block (disclaimer: I'm involved in the RfC, though I have not expressed any opinions regarding the thread or the personal attacks against Cla or others). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I am not a big fan of civility blocks, but when the civility issue in question appears to have the effect of squelching discussion or intimidation, then that changes matters. Cla started a list of people who have made "personal attacks during the RfC" and used examples consisting of the flimsiest examples I've seen labelled as personal attacks and violations of civility in a long time. The list was strictly those people who disagreed with Cla or DC. Most of them were not attacks at all, but rather comments and opinions. I don't want to accuse Cla of intentionally attempting to squelch dialog, but by compiling a list of trivial complaints it had that perception. So I brought it to ANI. Two admins reviewed it and both agreed, it was inappropriate---TP and Atama. TParis appropriately hatted the section. Cla unhatted. TParis, as an uninvolved admin, gave Cla a final warning. Tryptofish warned him that Cla should "drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good". To which Cla responded, "There is a method to my madness." User_talk:Cla68#Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ. Cla's collection of edits are not personal attacks. For example, this is one of the so-called violaitons Cla cites, "Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." If that is a personal attack violation of civil then we are doomed. By claiming that that edit and similar edits by other users is a personal attack, Cla's edits have the effect of squelching discourse. (I will note that as of the last time I checked I have not been included in his list of people who have made personal attacks.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just so I understand: if I want to, I could come to this thread right here, say "as an uninvolved admin, I declare this thread is a personal attack" and close it, and if someone disagrees with me I can then edit war with them, warn them, and block them myself because I was previously uninvolved? See, that's why the idea of having admins more vigorously patrol ANI is a well-intentioned but bad idea. There are too many admins who think they have good judgement, when they don't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - well said - this block was not a resolving solution, it was and still is a punitive part of the problem. Youreallycan 15:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I think the point of being uninvolved is that I don't know Fae or DC or Cla68 at all and the turnout of the RFC has no impact on me. I'm as unbiased as it comes. I reviewed the diffs, could not see how many of them were personal attacks at all and others were so weak that the term attack couldn't convey their actual meaning, and hated the discussion. Cla68, directly involved, felt differently. Do the involved see things more clearly than the uninvolved? If you, reasonably, feel this thread is a personal attack, then I strongly encourage you to do what you must to enforce WP:NPA. (After conflict) Youreallycan: If stopping the unhatting of those attacks is not preventative, then I missed the redefinition of the word.--v/r - TP 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If an uninvolved admin takes action as an admin that you disagree with, you don't edit war with them. You bring it to AN/ANI for review. You appeal the situation--especially when people on WP:AN, your talk page, and the admin's talk page all agree with the admins actions.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support <non-admin> editing warring with someone when they are taking an admin action is certainly blockable. I personally don't think hatting was needed, but that's a different issue. If Cla68 felt the hatting was inappropriate, they could have come to AN for a discussion. 24 hours feels about right to me. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm involved in the RfC too. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support If an editor is given a "last warning" by an admin and they respond by immediately repeating the exact action that they've been warned about then they should be blocked. Exok (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hated[sic] the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

  "hatting" a discussion is not an admin action. Admin actions are blocks, bans, deletions and undeletions. Any neutral person could have been asked to give an opinion of the links. Admins are no more special than other users, except for a (rebuttable) presumption that they are level-headed and sensible. You got into a pissing contest with Cla68 because he disagreed with your "admin action". Cla68 was also being a bit of a dick, as far as I can tell on short examination. The real question is, what was Cla trying to prove by posting that collection of links. He doesn't state a motive but he must have had one. Is it that there is a double standard regarding personal attacks and enforcement? Or something else? That's what you need to focus on, not a pissing contest over a collection of third party statements.Thatcher 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said to JN466, hatting is in the toolbox. I could've taken a more direct admin action such as blocking right away but I opted to WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What "toolbox"? Hatting is a function available to every editor. Are you referring to some automated script? If so, realize any editor can "hat" an article manually. The biggest source of unforced errors by admins is admins who think they have more power than they do, deciding to prove it on some "upstart" who doesn't respect authority. If you even have 2 seconds of consideration that blocking Cla68 outright before discussing the issue might have been reasonable, then you have no business being an admin, at least not on the Wikipedia that I originally joined. The first thing to do is to find out why he posted the links, what he was really up to, and seeing if there wasn't some better place to have that discussion. Thatcher 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you aware of the discussion at WP:AN/I#unnecessary section in an RFC? Prioryman (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The admin also opened threads on Cla68's user talk page, and it continued to the admin's talk page. The block didn't occur out-of-the-blue without prior discussion.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • For the record the extensive discussion before the block, in which Cla68 was involved, is at User talk:TParis#Hatting.
• Overturn. Inappropriate block. Everyking (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Wholly appropriate. Balloonman's comments are spot on; this is not the first time that Cla68 has compiled lists of this sort. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - I'm starting to become really concerned that in this case as well as couple of other recent controversies, a person who is the subject of personal attacks or slurs or who brings these to the attention of the community is quickly silenced through one means or another under the excuse that pointing out the errors in the behavior of others is a "personal attack" itself. And of course, all of this takes place in an environment where advocacy, grudges, and "involvedness" are rampant, which is why none of these have much support. And yes, hatting other people's comments is neither an admin-exclusive privilege-that-must-not-be-messed-with, nor is it a particularly collegial thing to do (in most cases, one's own talk page aside, it's simply obnoxious and overbearing).VolunteerMarek 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm way, way too involved to express an opinion here, but as I said at the RfC, it is not a "personal attack" to say that somebody has been subjected to homophobia or harassment. It would be a personal attack to make an unfounded allegation of such homophobia or harassment against a particular editor or group of editors, but very little of that is evidenced in Cla68's diffs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oy come on, while nobody was stupid enough (most of these folks have been around long enough, under one username or another, to know how to make personal attacks without "making personal attacks") to come right out and say "so-and-so is a homophobe", the insinuation that DC and others are homophobic is pervasive in some of the comments. Particularly Prioryman's. I do think Cla included some folks in there that probably were not making personal attacks, but that's farther down the list.VolunteerMarek 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

VM---I will ask you again to explain to me how those examples I cited above are personal attacks? How are we to have reasonable discourse if people can't express what they think/feel? I mean the entirety of an edit that is deemed a personal attack is, "This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing" Or another one where a person says that it "does in fact feel a little homophobic"---not that it is. Or the person who says that they don't buy the anti-gay agenda, but finds the "harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." Sorry, if the examples used by Cla are personal attacks, then 90% of the posts on ANI are personal attacks. Citing differences of opinion as personal attacks is a personal attack which appears designed to quell dissent--to which I'm more concerned about than the actual civility issues of making such allegations.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• • HJ Mitchell, for better or worse accusations without evidence are prohibited by WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." The alleged evidence in this case was REVDELETED by functionary Fred Bauer. I think that perhaps something akin to OTRS tickets should be developed for these situations. E.g., someone should be able to say on-wiki "I have off-wiki evidence that Editor:XXX has engaged in homophobic attacks against YYY. Evidence is available in ArbCom ticket 123." I'm actually going to float this ticket proposal to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. These edits are typical of the battleground behavior for which Cla68 has been guilty of in the past.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock. With all due respect to TParis (who is a good admin), my concerns are more about the general notion that admins can hat discussions and remove posts when it suits them, and no one else can challenge those decisions. I'm not speaking of this case specifically, but all too often we see abusive admins close off discussions that shouldn't be closed off-- in ways that escalate disputes-- and the hatting or closure often should be challenged and reversed. I don't want to see the idea that admins can control the flow of information in the form of evidence take hold (I've been on the short end of that stick many times at ANI, where abusive admins can prevent the accused from speaking, even in their own defense, even when the accuser gives no diffs, even when the accused responds with a query and with diffs). If TParis closed, Cla re-opened, then TParis hatted again, he is reverting to his own preferred version, hence is involved, and should not block. And please, let's stop this notion that admins can stifle evidence that is taking over ANI. Yes, it's a circus and some controls are needed there, but the accused have the right to speak. I don't think Cla's block is right. I realize this occurred at an RFC-- not ANI-- but it's the idea that admins can control the presentation of evidence at either place that is worrying me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sandy, did you actually look at the "personal attacks" Cla has cited? The personal attacks that Cla has cited are along the lines of "I think this RfC is harrassment." While I am not a big fan of Civility/NPA blocks, Cla's allegations of NPA appears to be nothing more than an attempt to stiffle discussion at the RfC by accusing anybody who has called out Cla/DC as making a personal attack. Cla's level of civility would have every editor involved in the civility case cited for NPA/Civil attacks.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of it is indeed like you say, but other stuff is far more direct, e.g. 2nd diff in Cla's list:

    • == Harrassment by Delicious Carbuncle == This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already.
      — User:Russavia 23:36, 26 January 2012

    • Apropos of nothing (if I may lead with a phrase favored by Arbitrators): Some people have become experts at poisoning the well with insinuations while introducing just enough conditionals in their phrasing so that it can be technically disqualified as an attack on a specific person. One such expert has recently received a one year enforced vacation from Wikipedia, thanks to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • IF Cla had listed Russivia and possibly even Prioryman, then this would never have reached this point. Whether you agree or disagree with their edits being personal attacks, one can see that there is animosity there that predates this rfc. (Just as one can see animosity between Cla/DC and Fae that predates this rfc.) The problem is that Cla didn't leave it at the low hanging fruit or the people with whom there is a history, instead he decided to attack everybody who questions the motives or perspectives provided by Cla/DC/the RfC. By casting such a broad net with such a low bar for inclusion, it shifts from a reasonable discussion to what appears to be an effort to squelch disagreement. "Can't say that it feels like homophobia because then Cla will include me in his NPA violation lists." By only highlighting those people who disagree with him, he is not listing people who have made personal attacks. Hell, reading the RfC, you can find a lot more vicious and straight forward attacks against Fae---but Cla doesn't include those. As for the people who are questioning the motives of the RfC... that is common practice. I suspect that 4 out 5 RfCs which generate discussion have people challenging the motives of the people who are engaged in them. Standard rhethoric seen on every level from RfC to presidential debate. (Again, I'm not that worried about Cla's personal attacks as I am about the apparent affect of trying ot stiffle dialog.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It's worth pointing out that I've not even participated in the RfC, so listing me under "personal attacks during this RfC" is complete bullshit. I also have to point out that Fae has unquestionably been the target of homophobic attacks prompted by the discussions of him on WR - you have only to look at the top of his user talk page for evidence of that (much more has been revdel'ed). DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes. So in short, Russavia's comments are entirely factual. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm not neutral here, because apparently I've been accused of making personal attacks. At no point did Cla68 approach me to discuss this, and frankly reading over what I wrote at the RfC, I don't see any personal attacks either. I've never even interacted with Cla68, except for agreeing with several other editors above that he should stop his crusade to get Will Beback to answer three questions whose answers were obvious. AniMate 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If this block was intended to show that "the admins" will indeed circle the wagons to protect "whatever it is admins are protecting", it does a darn good job of it. OTOH the wording of the unblock request completes the circle of silliness. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Noting that accumulation of evidence is a protected activity on Wikipedia for use in dispute resolution, that claims without sourcing about other editors is found in abundance from other editors on that RFC/U and that there is a reasonable likelihood that such evidence might be used in a future ArbCom proceding, the block is improper. Improper blocks do not gain propriety by being supported by BATTLEGROUND protagonists against the person blocked. Collect (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong meh. I wish people voluntarily stopped making a drama out of a genuine Catch 22 policy issue involving accusations that cannot be backed up by evidence without violating Wikipedia policies like BLP and WP:PRIVACY. I was so annoyed by the feud around that issue that I even added a view to the RfC/U about it. I don't know what else to say besides repeating my sincere request that everyone involved in that drop the WP:STICK on-wiki and pursue whatever needs pursuing in that respect through the private ArbCom channels set out in policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn for the reasons set out by Flo, Sandy, and Collect. Totally agree with ASCII. Appreciate that the admin brought this here, it must be said. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, I've submitted a proposal to ArbCom for introducing a system of tickets for private evidence that they may be referred to on wiki without violating BLP/PRIVACY policies, while allowing precise references to concrete evidence instead of vague remarks which are sometimes perceived as mere insinuations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk)
• Although not a clear consensus, the majority of responders here appear to agree that the block was incorrect. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 has resumed his "naming and shaming" campaign.[135] Mathsci (talk)

• So let's summarise. He posts a list of so-called "personal attacks" which uninvolved admins say are clearly nothing of the sort. The list includes comments which have nothing to do with the RfC - as in my case, since I've not participated in it. He posts them to the RfC, even though it contributes nothing to the discussion. Predictable drama ensures - in fact, I would suggest that Cla68 is aiming to provoke drama. Uninvolved admins review and hat it. He unhats it. It's hatted again. He reposts a summary outside the hat. It's hatted yet again and he's warned. He's advised by someone else to drop it but replies "There is a method to my madness" - in other words, I think he wanted to get blocked so that he could cause more drama. He reposts it again and he's blocked. Drama ensues on AN/I and AN. As soon as he's unblocked, he reposts it again. And so the drama continues. In short, drama and disruption isn't a byproduct, it's being caused deliberately. It speaks volumes about what kind of editor he is. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, you might should check the diffs again. I didn't unhat the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Ballonman implicitly requested admin intervention, so in a sense Cla was edit warring against an Admin action. More than 1 day would have been heavy handed, Tparis got it just right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that that is more tenable in retrospect than it would have been at the time. Barring an existing consensus that "hatting" was (or could be) an admin action, it's not reasonable to have expected Cla to have seen it as such. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - In trying to prove that the first diff of mine he cited was unfounded, I blundered into violating WP:Linking to external harassment. There wasn't really any way I could have disputed what he said without adding fuel to the fire, but I regret distressing Fae by taking the bait. While it is true that this is just one of a variety of policy-based ad hominem impeachments flying back and forth among RfC/U participants, this one was particularly irrelevant to Fae's situation. Hatting the thread (more importantly, formally discounting its relevance) was justified. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors

Following the expiry of his block, Cla68 is continuing the disruption by posting "warnings" to various editors relating to his bogus claims of personal attacks (see e.g. [136], [137], [138]). This is a rather obvious escalation of what Balloonman has rightly described as intimidatory tactics aimed at stifling discussion. This can only cause further drama and disruption. Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's actions seem comical but their underlying intent is divisive and intimidatory. She clearly has little interest in the ideas or opinions of her fellow editors and has openly flouted the guidance and sanctions of an administrator. It's time for a clear line to be drawn. Exok (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 is not and never has been an administrator. Prioryman (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the three editors Cla68 have warned have enough sense to just ignore it.--v/r - TP 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 warned 8 editors at one time (10 if you count Russavia and Prioryman), out of 13 people who he attacked in his enemies list. These "warnings", spammed across multiple namespaces, are nothing but intimidatory tactics designed to stifle dissent at the RfC/U. I stand by my comments, and I stand against intimidation. To any user on the fence about the allegations against Fae: this is what happens when the community allows a user to be harassed by an external website. They are only emboldened and expand their targets. Shrigley (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, are you trying to disrupt attempts by an editor to engage in the dispute resolution process? Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, why didn't you notify me of this discussion on my talk page? I haven't banned you from my talk page as you have me from yours. You are free to post there whenever you like. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Not too bothered about Cla, they're no worse than the other WR accounts. Wouldnt want them blocked as have a feeling they honestly believe they're doing whats best the encylopedia. Do wish someone would delete the RfC. Everytime a reasonable editor makes a point the accounts seem to treat it as an excuse to say even more hurtful things about the subject. As they often repeat his real name, the inevtiable result of prolonging the discussion seems to be even more real world damage to one of our most productive volunteers. Doesnt seem to be a plus side either. The common sense free walls of text from the swarming WR accounts make it useless as a consensus forming exercise, has to be the worst RfC/U ever, which is saying something. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think that either WP:CANVASS should be repealed in its entirety, or else it should be applied to the recruitment from WR. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 posted on my talk page. I responded to him there. I have nothing to add to this discussion which has not already been said. Thanks everyone for participating in this talk; I am satisfied with the things I see. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is utterly ridiculous, Blue's edit for which he is getting a warning is for declaring in an RfC on Fae, that ""Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues". That is it. Cla's bar for personal attacks is so utterly ridiculous (and self selective) that it litterally stiffles discussion. Cla cited another user for saying that while he didn't buy the anti-gay agenda, that the attacks "feel a little homophobic", another editor for saying Fae was being "harrassed", and other editor for calling the RfC "cyber poofery". Most of the "attacks" are not "personal attacks" but rather perspectives on what is going on---he just doesn't like the idea that people are questioning the motives. Cla was recently blocked (in a disputable block) but his actions appear to be nothing more than acts of intimidation. (Note, I haven't been cited as making personal attacks. But I am surprised that I haven't because I'm calling his actions acts of intimidation.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To be completely honest, as an editor who has expressed his opinion on Fae's handling of his clean start and RfA, I find claims that the RfC is just "cyber poofter bashing" slightly annoying. That too is an attempt at stifling the discussion. Granted, it's nothing particularly serious; after reading, I logged out and forgot all about it, but other editors have been singled out in a more insidious way. I don't think that what Cla is doing is useful in any way and is only likely to generate drama, as we're seeing here, and not every diff he has collected actually contained personal attacks, but it is undeniable that people who have criticised Fae have been described as a bunch of homofobes. That should not be overlooked when reprehending Cla's reaction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyber Poofery---Annoying? Yes. Childish? Yes. A violation of civil/npa warranting an warning or to be highlighted as such? No. There are sooooooo many other comments made here and there that are much more deserving of being labelled violations that if we kowtow to accepting this as such, then we are in trouble as a community. And BTW, you should now be getting a warning from Cla for making a personal attack, because this is the exact type of comment that Cla targets.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see that saying something seems "a little bit homophobic" differs significantly from saying something seems "a little bit racist" or a "little bit sexist". Conversations in to which such phrases are dropped tend to degenerate into shouting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't, but is it a personal attack to say that something "feels a little bit racist/sexist/homophobic?" No, it is an opinion.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA no longer protect editors from serious unsubstantiated allegations?

Among the things that WP:NPA lists as personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It notes "Serious accusations require serious evidence". I have been accused of many things lately from harassment to homophobia, all without the evidence that should be required for such charges. How can I possibly respond to allegations such as "DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes"? It is true in one sense, since an editor here was able to interpret comments I made there to mean almost the exact opposite of what I said and labelled them as "anti-gay" despite the fact that they had nothing to do with homosexuality. To make it worse, the specific comment they found to be "anti-gay" wasn't even expressing my opinion, it was putting forth what someone might say. It may be useful to remember that the narrative that my actions are motivated by homophobia was started by the user involved in the RFC/U when they edited along side User:Benjiboi as User:Ash. I recall insinuations that I was homophobic even while I was suggesting that Ash create stubs for gay porn performers (to address the issue of links on lists of gay porn performers and award winners pointing to the wrong people). Apparently advocating having more articles about gay porn performers is something a homophobe does. I hope that reasonable people will see it for what it was - a smokescreen to deflect criticism.

Prioryman's latest comment are much more nuanced than the misleading and inflammatory comments they made when they were attempting to have me banned (one example of many). Despite the fact that they knew their statements were false, they refused to retract or strike them. (This thread on Atama's talk page contains a discussion of the specific details.) Nor were they blocked, and now here they are making more comments in the same vein on the administrator's noticeboard where they are read and ignored by the very people who ought to be enforcing WP:NPA. I understand that some here are angry with me at the moment, but history shows that selective enforcement of policies generally leads to more problems. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The section TParis hatted is clearly in violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:Attack page and should be deleted and/or revdeleted. Unfortunately the conversation has become so rancorous and undisciplined it appears the community has just thrown it's hands up on managing it, and the discussion of DCs alleged off-wiki conduct (there and ANI) is farcical Star Chamber stuff:

• "DC said bad things somewhere, ban him!"
• "Do you have evidence?"
• "No, we can't link to bad things, just trust me and block him." Nobody Ent 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Amen Ent---which is why I think the discussion has degernated enough that the RfC should be closed. It is no longer about Fae, it is now about Wikipedia Review, Editors from WR, Civility between WR editors and the rest of the community, etc. The RfC is no longer about Fae's actions... and the vehemence and side issues that have arisen over the past 72 hours pretty much ensure that no new independent voices will join in. And it's happening on both sides.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I saw that happening several days ago, which is why I suggested that the RfC should be closed... Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be feeding the troll - again - here, but: Is it a an unsubstantiated personal attack to point out, when I'm called out to substantiate an example of homophobia on WR, I quote a certain person arguing that a director who engages in "risky sexual behavior" could put Wikimedia at legal risk? Sure, maybe this editor wasn't speaking of homosexuality; after all, it was said he was talking about legally risky "sex in a public place", as amply documented by that PG-rated picture of someone standing all by himself in a room. And maybe he wasn't really saying that, maybe he was just saying he could say that. I suppose editors should be very careful of these small, crucial distinctions in discussion.

But you'd think then that we could expect more caution from editors about "public sex" allegations which are completely unfounded, or when they suggest someone had a picture of a naked child on his web page when in fact that image was altered from a PG version a few days after the person's account on Wikipedia was closed down, retroactively altering how his pages appeared in the history. You'd think it would be wrong to hold an RfC about somebody who occasionally omitted a source for some trivial, correct, factual detail, then representing that as there being "no question that" he "was caught faking sources". You'd think a "no personal attacks" policy would protect the person who is describing real personal distress from abuse and harassment, not just the person leading a process against him which so far has revealed no real wrongdoing whatsoever except possibly by ArbCom. You'd think a process like that would be closed with a resounding community statement of support for its beleaguered member, rather than people coming now and then to beg that it just be deleted and forgotten about because it can't go anywhere, and not even getting that. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, we've already had this discussion on the RFC/U talk page. I addressed all of your points about my comment on Wikipedia Review. Short version - you are simply wrong. It is not there anymore because it was all revdeleted or otherwise removed. You know that I am hindered in my ability to respond without linking to my comments on Wikipedia Review. In light of that, I ask you to remove your comment above and my response. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The revdeling was less than thorough (see here); besides, this is the admins' noticeboard, and they can read it all. Also, we're not even arguing about homophobia but whether it is wrong for people to allege homophobia (somewhat the mirror image of the gray zone between you saying this argument can be made and actually saying it). In general, I think that efforts to impose civility on Wikipedia, as we see here, can be counterproductive; people just end up arguing more and more about who is being uncivil. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with civility. This section is about personal attacks in the form of unsubstantiated allegations. Prioryman made allegations that were not only unsubstantiated, they were provably false. No action was taken, even though this is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You are making a number of allegations in your statements above. In order to show the inaccuracies in your statements and defend myself against your charges, I will need to discuss the "public sex" comments as well that images. I suspect these are subjects that Fæ would rather not have discussed here. You have opened up a can of worms (again). I am giving you a chance to close that can. The choice is yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then, my reply is below. Apologies to Fæ, but discussing the specifics here was forced upon my by his supporter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The comments of mine that Wnt references were made in a discussion of an article which had appeared in Examiner.com entitled "Wikimedia UK trustee finds his hands tied". The article featured a copy of the now deleted image File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg, which had been uploaded by Fæ when their account was known as User:Teahot (later renamed to User:Ash). That image shows a blindfolded man with his wrists shackled to a chain above his head. His pants are around his ankles, exposing his aussieBum underwear and his shirt is pulled up to his armpits. Written on his chest is "4.11.08" and underneath, "slave". In reference to the article, a WR contributor asked "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?". My response is below:

I agree that Van Haeften's sexuality is a distraction in this discussion (although as Ash, he had no trouble using it as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic).

I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk. In this case, we have what appears to be a man chained up in a public place. Note that it was Van Haeften who uploaded this image to one of the world's most-visited websites and Van Heaften who added it to articles so that it would be seen. If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?

I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften should be mocked for his sexual proclivities, but I am suggesting that this isn't perhaps quite as simple as you would like it to be.

My comments were in relation not to homosexuality, but to bondage, which was discussed in the Examiner piece. (Another image uploaded by Teahot/Ash/Fæ was File:Hogtied male.jpg which showed a man, naked from the waist down, in hogtie bondage.) Note that I am saying that Fæ's sexuality is not the issue and is a distraction. Note that I qualify my comment with "there is a case to be made..." which should indicate that I am not offering my own opinion. Note that I say Fæ should not be mocked for their interest in bondage. I do not know if this is a language issue or some other deficiency, but no reasonable person could interpret my words the way Wnt has.

As for the image on User:Ash, it was a photograph of a naked adolescent male inserting his finger into the mouth of a flying fish taken by Wilhelm von Gloeden, who has a known association with paedophilia (as any Google search will show). (I do not know what other images were on earlier versions of the user page.) The version that was on User:Ash was this. As you point out, the image itself was later replaced with this full-length image. The user page was deleted on 25 March 2010 and the image was replaced on 28 March 2010, so the full length image would never have appeared on the page, despite how it appears on the Internet Archive site. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Fæ is unaware of von Gloeden's associations and placing even the cropped image on his user page was probably ill-advised.

I'm not trying to stir things up here, but Wnt has made serious charges and I feel I should be able to defend myself. I gave them every opportunity to remove their statements, but they chose not to do so. While I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to Fæ, it should be said that I am merely commenting on actions which he took of his own volition. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, all this was in the RfC history and even revdeled would be visible to admins! (same would be true if that should happen here...) But if we're repeating ourselves, I'll repeat that Fae was accused of something he simply didn't do. And regarding the fall-back argument, our article on Wilhelm von Gloeden calls him "the most important gay visual artist of the pre–World War I era". Yeah, sometimes he started up with boys somewhat younger than is now permitted in some states (of course, back then it was illegal either way), but the pedoes' claims are a fringe argument. If a person can look up to Muhammad he definitely should be allowed to admire von Gloeden as a gay pioneer. I don't think it's right for the WR editors to try to tar Fae in such an outrageous way, get called on it, then take a fallback position and keep making the same outrageous association. Heck, von Gloeden's lover was cleared of "pornography" charges for those photographs under the Mussolini regime. If only Wikipedia were so liberal!

I also think this revisionism about "risky sexual practices" strains my credulity. The photo described is not sexual. Nor is it risky. Nobody gets HIV from being photographed by himself in a mock dungeon stance. Nor do they need to catch it in other ways, if safe practices are used. I still think by far the most plausible interpretation is as a straightforward anti-gay canard everybody's heard a hundred times before.

I should not take it amiss if this thread finds a watery grave somewhere. If you revdel it and post a link a neutral admin can still find it. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You made allegations about me on a widely watched noticeboard. Those allegations are nonsense. Anyone can read them, but the only ones able to read my earlier rebuttal are admins, if they know where to look and bother to take the time to do so. At this point I would object to any attempt to hide my response here because it is clear that you have not learned anything from the earlier episode. I find it surprising that you think an image of a blindfolded and shackled man stripped to his underwear is non-sexual and I doubt a reasonable person would agree with you. I hope it is clear to people reading this that you have introduced something that was not in my comments -- HIV transmission -- and accused me of using some "anti-gay canard" that you yourself pieced together from misinterpretations of what I wrote. At this point, I find it difficult to believe that you are acting in good faith. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, all that I can ask is that people look at this process for themselves, ask whether there is any documentation of any actual wrongdoing by Fae, and support appropriate action to put an end to this campaign against him with our deepest apologies. Wnt (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, that is exactly what people should have been doing from the very beginning. Everything else was an unfortunate distraction. I started this sub-thread in part because not dealing with it at the offset lead to more disruption. Not enforcing WP:NPA when serious unsubstantiated allegations were made in this case will come back to haunt us. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 response

Now that I have your attention, and I appreciate Prioryman's help in bringing everyone together, let me repeat that all Wikipedians from now on should avoid using ad hominem or other logical fallacies when they debate an issue. It's lazy and dishonest. Unfortunately, I myself have probably used such debate tactics in the past, and for doing so I apologize. If I ever do again, I expect to be called on it. All of you should also expect to be called on it if you use a logical fallacy as an argument. Ad hominem is probably the worst, such as the examples that Delicious Carbuncle discusses above, because it also violates WP:NPA, but using any logical fallacy is wrong. Ad hominem arguments are beneath us, and I'm sure we can all behave better is we set our minds to it. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we repeal WP:CANVASS? It doesn't seem to be being enforced against WR anyway. Also, we should allow users in good standing to repost the arguments of blocked users from their userpages (if they have access) or elsewhere online. Some parts of WP:Child protection could be thrown out when we evaluate editors only on what they do, not what they are. Indeed, much of the current fixation on "sockpuppetry" could be ended, as long as people don't actually cheat on votes with it. I'm sure there are a lot of other instances here I haven't thought of, but yes, getting rid of the focus on ad hominem arguments would be a good thing. But right now, complaining about them here is on the list of things comparable to "handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500". Wnt (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What in the world does WP:CANVASS have to do with avoidance of ad hominem attacks brought up by Cla68? Ever heard of a red herring (actually should use plural here since you manage to pack a full barrel of them fish in the above)? It's sort of funny that a post requesting that users watch what they say and avoid logical fallacies is immediately answered with a stack of logical fallacies.VolunteerMarek 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "Canvassing" rule is a one-size-fits-all mechanism for a narrow faction to defeat broad debate and broad consensus. I agree with the (sarcastic but correct) comment above that it should be completely abolished. It's anti-democratic. I vote yes for democracy. That said, what are you all arguing about here? I honestly have no clue. I DARE each one of you who have commented in this thread to check out your last 500 edits. If 50% aren't in mainspace — STOP SCREWING OFF AND GET TO WORK. Now shut this idiotic diversion down... Carrite (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

- Hmmm, I get 23.4% mainspace, 8.6% mainspace talk, 27.8% RefDesk, 22.0% other WP, 8.8% user, 8.4% template, 1.0% lost in the count somewhere. No idea how that scores with you. Volunteer Marek should note that each of the policies I cited judges edits according to the source, i.e. officializes ad hominem. But it's still true this is a diversion. Wnt (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect from the deafening silence surrounding this discussion so far, that Carrite isn't the only one reacting with some bewilderment to it. All of you, do some reading at the logical fallacy article, get educated, then say "No! No more!" to logical fallacies. Administrators, the next time you see someone use an ad hominem argument, as several such have, to their shame, attempted to use against Delicious Carbuncle at the Fae RfC, I urge you to block them for it. You will see an immediate improvement in the level of discourse in debates in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is the reason you have had no replies. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing users of engaging in personal attacks seems like an ad hominem attack in itself, since that's irrelevant to the issue of Fae's editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Will, for the turtle. I now declare it's turtles all the way down. →StaniStani  07:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason to keep this thread open? No action required? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kinda "Strange"

A new article Peter Latham (born 1937) was created with biographical information that actually matched a subject named Nigel Doughty I reported it as a potential hoax/attack/vandalism. The article subsequently completely changed the biographical prose away from the false subject. I suppose it is now correct and don't know what happened at first. It is unusual that the article creator was able to remove the CSD tag without the bot replacing it? And the article does fail inclusion standards. My76Strat (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was intended to be a memorial page based on the creator's username, RIP Grandpa 1937-2012. I've deleted the page per A7 and left a note on the user's talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted now as stated, but anyway, my good-faith-o-meter says the article's creator started with a copy-paste so he could copy the layout of the infobox, as well as the style of the lead sentence. Looking at his other contributions, I don't see anything concerning. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points. Originally I was looking for sources to hopefully let the editor's article remain. When I was confronted with the disquieting possibilities, and possible impact on the remaining living members of the Doughty family I did want the matter reviewed. I am still curious to how he removed the CSD tag without it being replaced which I have seen to be common. My76Strat (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot probably skipped the page because you placed a customized speedy template on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. I suppose this is otherwise resolved. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not one of X!'s bots, is it? Those arn't working.--v/r - TP 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Anupam and Lionelt

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

Mathsci requested 24 hours for additional input. 24 hours have passed. Reclosing, with the recommendation to use RFC/U as several others have suggested if the concerns remain unaddressed. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Anupam and User:Lionelt. These two users should not be allowed to edit any article pertaining to American politics or criticism of religion. It's clear that these two users are motivated on Wikipedia by the primary purpose to subvert the aim for neutrality of the project and to manipulate the good will of other editors in order to advance their Christian conservative agenda, which includes hate speech and libel against living people. Both these users made multiple edits over past few days at Militant atheism to enforce libelous content about Richard Dawkins and others. User:Mathsci has laid out Anupam's history of moving content at will between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, where his work has been honored for advancing their political agenda. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems with Militant atheism and WikiProject Conservatism. Lionelt founded WikiProject Conservatism, which as User:Saddhiyama has pointed out, has become a haven for "declarations of battleground mentality and biased editing". Just a few hours ago, Lionelt removed details of an embarrassing event for conservative congressman John Fleming as "trivia" even though the event was well-covered by mainstream news outlets (e.g. CBS) and properly cited. His actions here are clearly damage control in defense of his political agenda. Anupam and Lionelt have compromised the quality and integrity of Wikipedia for too long. It's time we put a stop to them. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this payback for reporting you for edit warring? I didn't know you were so vengeful. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is to defend Wikipedia and its users from your malevolent aims and those of Anupam. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It'd be best to start with an RFC/U.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to topic ban the admin who blocked you and the 6 that declined to unblock? You accused Fastily on "being in on it" and the other 6 are unfit for adminship. Don't they also deserve topic bans? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the John Fleming edit did you realize that the edit had consensus on talk?? You're being disingenuous to say the least. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just admit it, Jweiss, this has nothing to do with the pedia... this is personal.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback, you should start a RfCU first. There may well be problems, but start with an RfCU detailing them and saying what the remedy should be, which probably at this point isn't the topic ban you are suggesting. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if someone would close this thread because the topic ban isn't going to happen here, nor is it going to happen based on the evidence provided. That's not to say it isn't justified or shouldn't happen, but Jweiss11 seems to be unfamiliar with the process, and well, this isn't the right way to do things. I've only had a brief moment to look at the problem, but as far as I can tell, it isn't time for a user RfC just yet. I think the real discussion we should be having is about whether WikiProject Conservatism meets the community standards for a WikiProject, and whether it is being used appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that arguing about Jweiss11's motives is a red herring. Whether Lionelt and Anupam need to be topic banned is wholly irrelevant to the perceived motivations of Jweiss11. He wrote a statement worth looking into and that is what needs to be discussed (or referred to RFC/U). Lionelt should respond to the concerns brought up rather than attempt to obfuscate the issue by pointing the finger at the OP - even if Lionelt is right, it doesn't erase the concerns expressed. It is also not uncommon to hold topic ban discussions before an RFC/U. Lastly, I know that this was referred here as part of the effort to clean AN/I of drama, but it seems to me that a board with wider community input is important when discussing any sort of ban. N^oformation ^Talk 09:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Some form of editing restriction on Anupam is probably warranted, but needs to be precisely formulated and more carefully justified. As others have said, it can only happen if preceded by an RfC/U where he can comment himself.

There is no reason to restrict the editing of Lionelt. It is regrettable that he gave the appearance of supporting Anupam's POV-pushing, but that point is now moot in view of what seems to be happening to the article. Perhaps Lionelt might consider separating WikiProject Conservatism from all articles relating to religion. Why Anupam labelled Militant atheism as being part of WikiProject Conservatism is still puzzling. All it does is bring that WikiProject into disrepute. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think an RfCU on Anupam is probably called for now. I've mentioned my concern with a possible association of Wikiproject Conservatism and religion, specifically Wikiproject Christianity. And I agree with the statement " I think the real discussion we should be having is about whether WikiProject Conservatism meets the community standards for a WikiProject, and whether it is being used appropriately." Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article on Conservapedia, and I cannot find any attribution to Wikipedia. Thus, we also seem to have a case of, in the best case, "incomplete understanding of copyrights". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone hat this please? Vituperation, in the best of times, is part of what brings this noticeboard the reputation it has. Collect (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have unarchived this thread, because Collect interrupted the discussions concerning a possible RfC/U (four comments, three by administrators). Please allow these threads to run their normal course in a timely fashion, bearing in mind time differences for editors in different time zones (at the very least 24 hours). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci, you've now reverted people's closures of this thread twice. Please consider that we've been hatting it because there is nothing that can be accomplished in this thread, whether it runs for one hour or 24 - the issue must be resolved via RfC if it is to be pursued, so the point of leaving this thread here for people to snipe at each other is...well, there doesn't seem to BE much of a point. As you yourself said, any movement toward topic bans and the like must be "be precisely formulated and more carefully justified", which means RfC, and AN is not an RfC. What is it that you think further discussion in this thread will accomplish? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please allow 24 hours. The assumption that most involved editors are from the USA is unreasonable. Although the orginal posting was probably phrased in non-neutral language, it is still reasonable to leave time for editors from different parts of the world (Fiji, Tasmania, Devil's Island, Scunthorpe) to comment. I haven't been involved in editing this article or its talk page and nor have many others commenting so far. It is reasonable to allow those with more experience to comment, if only to know how to formulate possible RfC/Us. I personally don't think Lionel (who, all appearances to the contrary, has been a wikifriend) should be the subiect of an RfC/U, but please let others comment. No need to rush things. Thanks, 18:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see any need for bans here. I think that both users need to give some thought to how they edit, and I agree with other comments here, particularly those by Mathsci and Dougweller, that RfC/Us would likely be constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• No evidence given here for ban being required at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Tryptofish and Sarek on this one. Wekn reven 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• While RFC/U is the appropriate next step—as an editor from a non-dominant anglophone culture located in a timezone of activity radically different to the dominant anglophone cultures—I appreciate non-SNOW closure discussions to be open for at least part of my waking cycle. North American and European editors in particular need to remember that they have culturally distinct opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree on process. This thread was hardly getting out of hand, and it's not even that long. Remember Europe, North America, Australia and Asia (in particular the sub-continent). Hopefully, some Anglophone Africans, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Rename

Hello, in order to complete my SUL, I would like rename my english account but I forgot my password and I don't register an email. How can I do? --82.234.134.207 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not much we can do to recover your account. However, if you haven't made any substantial edits on the English Wikipedia with your account, you can usurp it (follow the directions on the linked page). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I usurp my english account (Jesmarsan) and, after, change my username Jesmarsan in Jesmar. I can't create a new account with pseudo "Jesmar" because wiki says "Jesmar is already used". --82.234.134.207 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey report released

Hey guys! Just a note to tell you that (finally) the report on the NPP survey we ran late last year has been released. All comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :). I'm really, really sorry for the delay; I finished this in early December. I'm not too happy about the long turnaround time either ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment / Community ban proposal

Note: Non-Admin closure. Mbz1 community banned per near unanimous consensus after 24 hour discussion. If this closure is too controversial, feel free to revert me and ask an uninvolved admin to review and close. Night Ranger (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could we get an admin to close this discussion. It seems unlikely that further discussion would change the result. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC) moved from ANI Nobody Ent 13:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Please see m:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale, history http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale&action=history. Meta wiki is not a place to appeal disputes from en-Wikipedia. ArbCom is the final level of dispute resolution. Two editors are carrying a dispute way beyond it's logical end, and have created an attack page on Meta for the sole purpose of defaming a Wikipedia contributor. I would like the community to confirm that the following indef blocked editors are community banned from en-Wikipedia. This will help put an end to their activities on Meta. Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [139] (NOTE: Already community banned and logged at the WP:List of banned users).) (stricken as redundant - jeh) Thank you. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I'm really puzzled why the folks over at meta are allowing that RfC to proceed there. It seems like a really bad precedent to set. 28bytes (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC) About filing the request on meta.It states Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed. So according to this description, it looks as I submitted it in the right place. I also provided on wiki differences for every statement I made. Thanks --Mbz1 02:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Above statement copied from m:User talk:Mbz1. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC) This is a misinterpretation of policy. Meta wiki is a place for users from the smaller wikia with few to no dispute resolution processes to have their disputes resolved. English Wikipedia has robust dispute resolution processes. ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution. Users, especially banned users, may not carry a dispute from here to meta. Jehochman Talk 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) We have an official response from a m:global sysop [140]. Basically, it's allowed. I think the next logical step is to go on meta and start a RfC on the purpose of [meta] RfCs. Any single editor apparently can start a RfC on meta. Not even a co-certifier is needed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That global sysop needs to have their bit removed by WMF. Meta is not a place for defamation of character. ArbCom is the final appeal on en-Wikipedia, not meta. A banned user may not carry a gripe from here to there. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC) RFCs should not be defamatory, regardless of where they're located.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC) A user's global sysop-flag has no bearing on the import of his/er statements, either way. So there's no flag to be removed. (I also removed the section-header, as this is no "official" response.)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Okay, so global sysops are not meta sysops? How can we get a meta sysop to respond? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Indeed they are not. Meta-sysops are few, list is here. But they hardly ever do anything about the RfC's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) The place to contact Meta sysops is m:WM:RFH, although they're certainly aware of the RfC since Mbz1 has linked to it themself on that page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC) In fact a number of them have made comments in the RFC. E.g. Billinghurst, Philippe (WMF), WizardOfOz all 3 of which have some experience here. However I'm pretty sure there as here, the meta sysops speak for themselves and don't represent the community or make 'official' statements so it's largely a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Before you start a new Votes for Banning, consider this. Our collective inability to ignore silliness probably causes more "drama" on Wikipedia than anything else, by an order of magnitude. A meta RFC is completely meaningless; it will have zero effect here. Let anyone who wants to waste their time on it do so. Creating a similarly powerless section about it here was 100% the wrong tack to take. See Streisand effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Disagree. We need to take a stand against the harassment of our editors. Anybody thinking of copying Mbz1's tactics needs to understand, clearly, that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole. Ignoring such harassment is not a good idea. Jehochman Talk 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ignoring such harassment hasn't exactly had good results for the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) In fact, it had a huge Streisand effect. If not for this circus with its deletion, the RFC would become stale in a few months and then would be archived and forgotten (by few people who have actually known about it). Ruslik_Zero 09:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Support community ban for Mbz1. An editor whose positive contributions were warmly appreciated here and all over the world, but, sadly, also an editor who does not fit into en.wiki's model of working together to build an encyclopedia. The negative contributions - in terms of disruption - were repeated and overwhelming. The involvement in the off-wiki email canvassing ring and the DYK fraud was the last straw as far as I was concerned, but the off-wiki (and on-wiki?) hate campaigns have continued unabated since then. It's time to draw it all to a close, I hope. I have never encountered the other named editor. If it's the same person, a community ban applies to both of them and any futher accounts they may make, so it's irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support Full siteban for both Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha. I vaguely recall the latter has been a part of other offiste harrassment and threat campaigns in the past, and in spite of this it looks like someone was nice to him, renamed his account and added noindex tags to his userpages. (UPDATE: I see Malcolm Schocha is already community banned from Wikipedia via his User:Kwork account. Of course, nobody realizes this because someone went around and hid all the evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm undoing this. Night Ranger (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Unless they are handed a m:global ban from all WMF sites, this won't make any difference in their activities on meta. But I suppose a local en.wiki ban is a necessary first step in that direction. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That's what I meant, I don't think a ban from en-wiki extends to meta, but that's for them to figure out over there. Night Ranger (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Night Ranger, when you say "someone went around and hid all the evidence", do you mean on English Wikipedia? I remember being told that I would likely be banned if I posted the evidence about the canvassing ring and DYK fraud, but were administrative actions taken on this wiki to hide that sort of thing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Well, it sure appears someone went out of their way to hide his identity and connection to the Kwork account. I'm not provy to what happened, but as far as I can tell from looking back through the block log and userpage histories: (1) The account Kwork was banned in 2009. (2) The editor later came back with the Malcolm Schocha account and proceeded to get involved in the I-P areas, apparently taking part in some off site harassment of administrators (this last part I also read about on WR of all places, where Schocha briefly participated). Anyway, the MS account was blocked, then it was later apparently renamed to Kwork2, and the MS account was recreated and blocked. I also vaguely recall him lobbing some legal threats around to try and get the MS account renamed... who knows why. This is all going back a couple years or so and I wasn't really active here at the time. Anyway I tagged the sockmaster and sock accounts appropriately so people can see the connection. If you look back through the edit histories you can see what was done and who did it. Night Ranger (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (ec) That's right. This discussion won't have any effect. So you need to go to meta and institute a global ban. As far as en.wiki, they are already dead, but you can't make anyone "deader". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Mbz1 is stating that they are not banned.[141] I want to make it absolutely clear that they are, to terminate that avenue of wiki lawyering. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Oh. — ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support site ban for Mbz1. It's clear that when an editor continues a dispute after all en.wp DR means have been exhausted, and this includes our ArbCom, [142] they effectively place themselves outside of the English Wikipedia community. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Request. Can someone provide more information on the User:Malcolm Schosha situation? Did he do something similar? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) According to the WP:List of banned users he was banned in 2009 for abusive sockpuppetry. Seems he came back with a new account Malcolm Schosha, which was then blocked and at some point it was renamed to Kwork2 and then someone went and added noindex tags to the userpages. Anyway, I added the sock tags so now people can actually see the connection between these accounts instead of staggering around blind. Night Ranger (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Schosha, aka Kwork and Kwork2, was just a run-of-the-mill I-P topic area troll/warrior and frequent enabler of Mbz1, little more. He showed up at Meta just to assist. Honestly the entire site there is like some bizarre Dances With Wolves-esque outpost that pretty much everyone's forgotten except for the loyal ones left behind. I tried to make use of their deletion process to bring and end to the harassment but it lasted all of 6 minutes. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support - Users are a net negative to the WMF as a whole, not just en.wiki. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I will support a ban for Mbz1 since I remember their time-sinking, unhelpful, and beyond-tedious battles, but a quick look around has failed to find the pages I recall. If anyone has some links (particularly for the other editor), please post them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Comment - Thanks to someone for finally informing me of this discussion. While I am a global sysop, my opinion nor the opinion of any Meta administrator is important. One of the primary reasons that RfCs exist is to resolve unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, and I personally believe this to be one of them. While I do not necessarily agree with the comments being made (or more correctly their relevance), I do see this as an issue which is being dismissed here off of hand. I don't edit here so I could easily be mistaken, but either way, surely a simple refuting of the evidence presented there would solve the problem. On a related note, quite a few Meta sysops also agree with me as seen here. On aside, this has nothing to do with my gs flag which is only used to fight vandalism and maintain small wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, you are seriously uninformed and mistaken. This is not an unresolved dispute. It is an obsessive, harassing, banned user going after a good faith volunteer beyond all reason and fair process. This dispute has no reason at all to be heard on meta. As a sysop, you should not take a decision without first fully informing yourself of the facts. In this matter you have enabled serious harassment. Please correct your error. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC) No, s/he has not enabled anything, it's not in Ajraddatz's scope as I pointed out before. So drop that "sysop"-talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Comment If folks can be sanctioned for what they do on other websites then there are a bunch of WR contributors who'll have a lot to answer for. I think that might be a good idea, but I just want to make sure that folks know the proposed action here would set a precedent.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Users can be sanctioned for serious off-wiki harassment. Moreover, I dispute the idea that en-wiki must ignore harassment occurring on a sister WMF project. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban. Carrying disputes across Wikis does seem to be a problem here; just recently Mbz1 badgered me on Commons about a past grievance related to this project.  Sandstein  08:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose ban Draconian solutions do not work, and, in the case at ahand, all it does is indicate a spitting contest between meta and here. Since it will not solve anything, and since it may well cause more problems, it simply is not a wise action. Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban for Mbz1 - I have seen enough of this persons off-wiki harassment and comments to indicate to me that they are not able to edit positively in a collaborative environment, and are therefore an overall negative on this project. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban - seems like highly inappropriate behaviour to engage in - and the concerns raised here seem quite legitimate (and therefore the thread is appropriate). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia. (This comment should be taken as a neutral when weighing consensus)--v/r - TP 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban on Mbz1. This endless crybaby crap has gone on way too long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban of Mbz1 per ASCIIn2Bme. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban also per ASCIIn2Bme. Kcowolf (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban per ASCIIn2Bme as well. Aslso, trouts all around for those on Meta who allowed the RfC to go forward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban per ASCIIn2Bme's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose in light of Will Beback's precedent and per Collect's draconian solutions. Also I am glad of the disclosure of information (and supporting diffs) about this administrator, much of which gives me cause for concern. Writegeist (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Since you are not blocked on enwiki, why don't you start a RfC/U on Gwen Gale here given that you are concerned about her behavior? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the considerate suggestion. An en.wiki RfC/U might be rather a tall order if she's indeffed the peeps with the evidence and blocked their UTPs. Maybe it's something you'd like to pursue? You're a lot more active here than I am. Nearly 40 edits today alone - admirably energetic for a "semi-retired", "burnt-out" editor! Writegeist (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the vote of confidence. I hate to disappoint, but I have my way of faking a higher level of activity by copy-editing each post of mine a few times . I'm not as persuaded as you are that the issues mentioned in the meta-wiki RFCs are a cause for action. Several enwiki admins stated over there that Gwen was merely doing here job, at least with respect to the contested admin actions. I don't know what the deal is with the previous identities. I haven't looked into that. However, a google search for "Gwen Gale" immediately finds some SEO-friendly blogs dating back to 2008 discussing her past accounts etc. So, it seems the matter was well known for at least 4 years. I don't know if there have been any on-wiki discussions about that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Update. Even Encyclopedia Dramatica was less biased than that meta RFC/U, by linking to this explanation. So, I think the matter of past accounts was disclosed and resolved at the time of the RfA. Is there anything else that concerns you? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, it's interesting that the ED entry on Gwen and the meta RFC use similar language. ED has a heading: "Gwen Gale - a bully administrator". The RFC demands that she "stop being a bully administrator, and, if for some reason she cannot do it, stop being administrator at all". Also, the structure of the meta RFC and ED article are eerily similar, almost as if the latter was a draft for the former. Not surprisingly, the ED article was largely written by the single-purpose account "Lyuba" in September 2011 (can't link because of the spam filer.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban. Mbz1 has been harassing Gwen Gale for literally years. Her ban from Wikipedia was a positive outcome but it evidently hasn't stopped the harassment, so we need to go further. With regard to precedent, Jehochman's point about bans being possible (and imposed in the past) for off-wiki harassment is valid, but I'm not sure it's even relevant as I'm skeptical of the claim that other WMF projects are "off-wiki." ((Non-administrator comment)) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Per request, here, I'm reclosing the ban discussion as uninvolved admin. Mbz1, you are hereby indefinitely community banned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the systemic concern

• I have started m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: The above discussion contains a quote that was taken from a comment I made about the origins of Meta. Few Wikipedians would know that Meta was originally set up to handle all policy, policy discussions, noticeboards, disputes, etc for Wikipedia. This was around October 2001, several months before we had the Wikipedia namespace. When the Wikipedia namespace was created in 2002 there were a few of us (eg. Larry Sanger, myself) who actively campaigned for keeping all non-article-related material on Meta. Obviously we lost that debate, all policies moved into the WP namespace, Larry left the project (for unrelated reasons) shortly afterwards in mid-2002, and it's never been an issue since (so much so that most people don't even know that was ever the case). I was quoted as if I was currently agitating for a fundamental change to how WP works, whereas in reality I was simply relating a bit of ancient history. Manning (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is all of this kerfluffle-promotion now of any actual benefit to anything? Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing our productive volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That meta-meta-RfC seems to have caused quite a few users banned from en.wp to come out of the woodwork over there to oppose the demise of their soapbox. Meta gives Wikipedia Review a good run for the money in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it a place to go around attacking and harassing our unproductive volunteers? Nobody Ent 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you one of them? Them who created the page are to blame for the ruckus. It is not okay to stand around and watch when an innocent person is attacked by thugs. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing anyone; your unnecessary "productive" qualifier implies some category of users (IPs? Socks? Trolls?) are fair game. Nobody Ent 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing a logical fallacy. I mentioned "productive" to highlight the different between "banned" and "productive" as this is an exacerbating circumstance. One "productive" editor harassing another is also not good, and even a "productive" editor harassing a banned user is also not good because that sort of goading can create negative results. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anything in the allegations worth looking at?

Checking this out. My personal opinion is that there was nothing biased or outrageous about Gwen Gale's actions. There's never been an RfC on Gwen Gale, which would seem to suggest that she's not a problematic admin. But I know some sections of the community are keen that admin conduct is examined. Having said that, Mbz1's allegations are way over the top, and from my long experience in dealing with complaints, once things have got to this stage nothing will satisfy the complainant except someone's head on a pole, so looking at it here probably wouldn't resolve anything. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider this mess to be a systemic failure. Meta needs to understand that they do not have the power to review ArbCom decisions. At times I've been very critical of ArbCom, but the way to address that problem is to vote for different members at the next election. We need to have a process to globally ban users who engage in cross-wiki harassment. I'm not sure how to go about that. We should not allow grudges to be carried from one wiki to another. Any advice would be appreciated. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A m:global ban is possible for a user banned from at least two projects. However, given the self-righteous mission of meta admins to review en.wp ArbCom decisions, I doubt that's going to happen in this case or ever. Meta-wiki is basically a WMF-sponsored Wikipedia Review in that respect. Whether they'd ever have the balls to do anything overriding en.wp decisions is another matter though. Right now they seem content to enable banned users to soapbox endlessly over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I intend to change that situation, if necessary by WMF office action. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we hold an RFC to tell Meta that they can do whatever they want, we don't really care what they come up with on there and they're wasting their time? (You see that? I used all three).--v/r - TP 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta could have a useful role in evaluating whether dispute resolution processes work correctly on WMF projects, and advising WMF with well-considered opinions when it is necessary to reform or reset their administration. There is always a chance that any wiki will fall under the control of some clique that abuses its power, even en.wiki. (On the other hand, the same could happen to WMF...) But arguing RfC/U cases about specific users on other wikis seems unreasonable. As with an appellate court, the question should be whether the process was flawed, not what the verdict should be. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta does not have any power to overrule a local decision, not even with global bans. When it comes to problems with one user on one project, RfCs really won't accomplish anything other than raise awareness. We do get quite a few banned enwiki editors on Meta, although this is the first RfC I've seen made by one of them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The war of rhetoric is building up [143]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we put the feud with Meta aside for a minute Assume they are just a bunch of clucks who will let anyone graffitti their wall. I posted this question because I don't want anyone to say that allegations about an admin were being swept away because of a feud with Meta. Instead, we have Tom Paris suggesting that the complainat should be banned here for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia - which rather left me shaking my head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the clarification, that was more an expression of my frustration over the arrogance it takes to think they can dictate dispute resolution to use rather than a real !vote which is why I said it should be taken as a neutral !vote in parenthesis. I just feel that en.Wikipedia has the most complete dispute resolution process and tougher sysop prerequisites than any other project and some sysop on meta who didn't have to go through half the RfA that any of us did, then an additional month long vote and (ceremonial) appointment by Jimbo to the role of Arbcom shouldn't feel they have the right to judge and jury the English Wikipedia. Besides, they have no technical capability to fulfil their decision anyway (besides the global sysops) and they should stick to their own sandbox. As I said, it was in frustration and not a honest !vote that I said what I said and I made that clear in the first edit (no subsequent edit to clarify what I meant) that it was in actuality a neutral !vote.--v/r - TP 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have some sort of red telephone you can use to call Meta and straighten things out? There's a rule if you send more than two emails trying to straighten something out, pick up the phone instead to avoid misunderstandings. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no such "red phone"--project-to-project leadership coordination is actually quite lacking, and essentially accomplished only through informal links among those who participate in multiple projects. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, meta-wiki doesn't have an ArbCom or a Jimbo, so there's no clear "supreme" authority. m:WM:RFH (their AN[I] equivalent) is already swamped with threads related to mbz1's RfC on Gwen, so it's not awareness that's lacking over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, my experience is en.wikipedia to other project communication can often be poor with many users from other projects not always happy with the way en.wikipedia people approach their projects or agreeing with our blocking and banning policies, and en.wikipedia people confused by the rules or allowance of banned/blocked users and their content in other projects. (One thing of course is that very commonly many people in other projects have some experience at en.wikipedia but of course most en.wikipedia users have little or no experience with the other projects.) Of course usually they stop any attempts to comment on people at en.wikipedia but I guess it's more difficult here given meta's purpose. As with EotR, I'm not convinced the way we're approaching the situation there is helping anything, in fact it seems to me it's just going to further convince them that perhaps there are problems at en.wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's cut to the chase: which concerns about Gwen need addressing, and how do you propose we address them? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said any concerns about Gwen need addressing. What gave you the idea I did? I have little experience with GG, but the consensus here and at the meta RFC by meta participants who I presume have analysed whatever evidence was presented appears to be that there's no legitimate concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkay, so are we supposed to have some sort of show trial then, in which nobody [on en.wiki] believes the concerns are real, but we do it anyway to appease someone at meta? WP:BURO? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm further confused by your comments. No one at meta seems to think the concerns are real either as I've already said. However it's clear that the way we're (well at least some people from here) approaching this is not helping convince those at meta with less experience of our systems that our dispute resolutions systems actually work or that we're fair to every user. Quite the opposite. (Note that I'm not saying either is true, simple that our approach is giving that impression.) And for those who already have a poor view it further re-enforced that view.

In other words, rather then helping shut down the RFC quickly and efficiently, what we've done is made it worse. And we're far less likely to convince them to change their policies and how they handle RFCs in the future or at least not in a way many here desire. And whatever we do achieve, it's likely to be a much more torturious process then it had to be.

This isn't exactly surprising, treating people like they're an enemy that needs to be destroyed rarely get them on your side. Of course what it does do is get their backs up and make them disinclined to believe anything you say, and think that perhaps those complaining about you may have a point. To put it in a mildly rude way, being an arsehole to someone just makes them think you're an arsehole. (If we're supposed to be the 'better' wiki, we definitely haven't shown it in this dispute.)

There's no reason why we couldn't have approached this in a clear and even forceful but calmer, politer, well argued way, following their rules as much as possible and treating them as fellow wikimedians rather then an enemy. If we had done so, I suspect a much better outcome would have been achieved and perhaps they would now be actively considering a better RFC policy, rather then the insane crosswiki mess we have now where it's not clear that anything productive is really going to come out of this. Perhaps even that RFC would have been deleted or blanked by now.

P.S. I'm not saying they've been perfect. But I don't really regard myself as a metadians and have very limited experience there so it's not for me to comment. Further, while 'they started it' may be a childish argument, it is IMO the case that we seemed to be the primary instigator of the mess we have now. In any case I agree with Bobrayner, it's generally better to discuss metadian actions on meta; on meta. Which is after all what we're asking for here.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how "following their rules as much as possible" could be done when they simply reply that we are misreading their written rules (like m:WM:NOT # 11) without further explanation as to how they interpret it, and when they edit war and block people right and left for merely stating disagreement with them, as they've already done to two enwiki admins in this case. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the developments below, but a meta-wiki admin and crat promised to go on a vandalism spree after losing the argument and was globally locked. Is that the kind of people that we can hope to convince with rational arguments if only they were more elaborate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction aside, hasn't ArbCom reviewed this already? From the not-so-confidential-anymore email that ArbCom sent to mbz1, [144] I would have thought so. If someone who isn't blocked on en.wiki wants to bring a RfC/U here on Gwen Gale for the multiple accounts stuff or anything else, I'm not sure what's stopping them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wyss account was begun in 2004 and blocked at the user's request in 2006. That's an incredibly long time ago. Those matters can't be reopened now. Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If there was ever a justified "tl;dnr", this, and the barrage of words on Meta, must be it. I make no judgement here about any of it except Jehochman's assertion above that matters between 2004 and 2006 cannot be re-opened now. In general terms, if a behaviour or set of behaviours started then and is continuing into the present, it would seem to be very important to know just how long it has been going on. Bielle (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The matters were hashed out long ago. The complaint was raised by a chronically disruptive, community banned editor. Sorry, no, they do not get the satisfaction of putting a good faith user through the wringer. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am astonished by the abusive, nasty behavior of the admins over there. I would fully expect ArbCom to hand my head on a plate if I acted like that over here. I know they aren't used to en.WP style uber-drama over there, but an admin participating in a discussion and then edit warring over a deletion tag, and threatening to block anyone who dares to revert him? And conversations just shut down while people are still adding comments because those admins don't think the request is valid, regardless of what consensus is arrived at? The whole affair makes me sick. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The same admin just indef blocked me without talk page access over there. Something is very rotten in Denmark when the guy defending a banned users right to attack someone over there for things that happened here can indef block me for saying something he didn't like. And I can't even appeal it on-wiki because he cut off my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess they are very fond of playing overlords when "admin abuse" on some other wiki is brought to their sérénissime attention, but they have a giant blind spot for their own petty, autocratic behavior. Meta = Animal Farm. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He isn't involved in the discussion, he is involved in keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama as possible. Your personal attack were why you were blocked, not the fact the you were arguing on the opposite side as him. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's totally fair, an indef block with no talk page access and no email access, applied by the very user who was the subject of said attack. I linked to WP:DICK, which is hosted at Meta and this is the fair result from a good faith admin just doing his job? Bullshit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had a bit of experience with that user; at the infamous bug 30208 at bugzilla, he came out of the woodwork to join the WMF people in patronizing us as if we didn't know how to run en.wiki and he was somehow graced with infinite knowledge (Dunning and Kruger could hardly find a better example). So I can't say I'm shocked over him doing something like that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Yeah, right. He is "keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama" by abusively closing early the deletion discussion multiple times so that actual user consensus can't be formed. And blocking users who protest that action. And the "RFC" your metapedian wizard is so carefully protecting [from enwiki drama] contains soapy commentary like "self-pitying" and "shameful, childish, dishonest and cowardly retaliation", words penned by author of the RFC. I rest my case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on meta:User talk:Nemo bis#Deletion closure is also instructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also m:WM:RFH#Involved_block.2C_WizardOfOz_and_Beeblebrox. It looks like there are some sane admins on meta after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the original drama-thread is an obvious cross-wiki problem, secondary discussions here about edits on metawiki process by metawiki editors could be unhelpful; we don't need even more interwiki drama. Having read through a lot of diffs there (and tried to contribute to the RfD) I was very disappointed, and moved to make a rather frustrated comment, but specific criticism of metawiki activity should preferably be done on metawiki. It's possible that I'll get banned there, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... bobrayner (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Floating an idea

Since there's no ArbCom on meta-wiki [to appeal to] but they love RfC/Us so much, how about we start a RfC/U on User:WizardOfOz and User:Nemo_bis, both of whom are responsible for abusively closing the Gwen "RFC" deletion discussion multiple times. I'm not sure what the best venue would be. Meta might not be a good idea unless you want to get blocked over there for "intimidating behavior". Given that off-wiki harassment is actionable on en.wiki, and the two meta admins have clearly taken sides in that, a RfC/U on en.wiki has cause, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I intend to appeal my block, if they will grant me a way top even do that, and I certainly think Wizard is an absolute disgrace of an admin, but just as the discussion there will have no effect here, no RFC here can influence anything over there. I find it comical that an admin who was acting the bully and openly threatening to block anyone who reverted him would turn around say I was the one doing the intimidating and proceed to block me for it. And he took the coward's route, denying me any avenue of appeal right off the bat. It is clear to me that Meta is severely dysfunctional if this sort of abusive admin behavior is considered acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your reduced to twenty two hours - congratulations - oh noes ...there is clearly something wrong in Denmark - Youreallycan 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be so sure about the opposite direction. A sizeable number of users from en.wiki asking the WMF or Stewards to relieve these two guys of their bits has some chance of succeeding. Hopefully, they'll see reason before it comes to that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let's not do that. They are probably doing many useful things. This matter is outside their area of expertise so they have fumbled it badly, but we can forgive them if they will agree to be more clueful in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We all know...

...that no matter what "consensus" Meta-Wiki comes up with in regards...well, anything, we have no reason to follow it. And, seeing what's going on over there, I don't feel we should follow any decisions they make whatsoever unless there is a clear consensus here to do so. At this point, I really see no purpose to Meta-Wiki at all. They just seem to be a clique of people who fancy themselves rulers of all language Wikis, while having absolutely no power as it is. Silverseren^C 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they do have some practical power over all wikis, like via the global abuse filter and probably a few other bits. So we can't just let anyone be in charge over there. The meta-wiki pages have the same high google juice as most other Wikipedia sites. Let meta turn into soapbox where banned users can attack whoever they want with impunity? Their RFC/Us aren't non-indexed by default. True, almost everyone can put a blogspot page up and get practically the same result on google. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we clearly need to take some sort of action about this abuse of power and, really, the abuse of the trust of the English Wikipedia community. Silverseren^C 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot even find anything about a de-adminship procedure on Meta. The only kind of de-adminship their process pages say anything about is for inactivity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocking administrator on Meta has an account here as WizardOfOz. Is it not possible to request arbcom to review his actions on other WMF sites if they are directly related to en.wikipedia? He saw fit to leave Gwen Gale a note here which seems a little bit odd.[145] Does this not count as acting as a proxy for arbcom banned users? Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy I have informed WizardOfOz about this discussion.[146] Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears he is not very active here, his primary user page is on the Bosnian wiki here, perhaps leave him a message there. Youreallycan 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Leaving a user notice is not proxying. Let's focus on getting the deletion discussion restarted. That would be more productive than starting tangential issues like this. Jehochman ^Talk 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you've been shut down on that count again. They sure don't like dissenting opinions over there, do they? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Irony alert. Apprently he expects a higher standard from our admins [147]. This guy likes making with the accusations, as he accused me of edit warring (with him, but he leaves that part out) threats (actually he threatened me) and trolling, which is just odd but not unexpected. Luckily cooler heads have prevailed in regard to my block there and it's been reduced to one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole thread on User talk:Kwamikagami [148] is surreal. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, WizardOfOz would probably not pass a RfA on enwiki if his usual demeanor in a dispute is like in that content conversation. We can tell he isn't exactly acculturated to enwiki polices on sources, verifiability, and no original research, besides exhibiting hostility and edit warring. This part was funny:

It is obvious edit warring, and you just did it again. I will give you a chance to revert yourself (I'm going to bed now), but if you continue I will report you and ask to have you blocked. I contend that your sources are not reliable. [...] — kwami (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a threat of an involved sysop. [...] I´m not going to revert myself as it is a edit in good faith and acceptable by all rules of the project. And as a sysop and crat, I can´t imagine that there will be someone who is prepered to block me because of one edit that is sourced and improvement. Good night, and ping me tomorrow when you are awake so we can end this discussion and find a way out. Just leave me something on meta or bswiki. --WizardOfOz (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No wonder he prefers that dispute resolution on meta be used to overrule enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like he has decided to crash and burn [149]. The block is totally worth it if it results in him not being an admin there anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The powers that be seem to have talked with WizardOfOz over there.[150] (PeterSymonds reverted his post there in the next edit.) Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Plus [151] Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The user has also removed his crat and admin rights on meta - you couldn't make it up. Youreallycan 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Background to that [152] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this comment suggests that the meta-wiki RFC conflict might have been seen by some as an opportunity to force a change in m:Stewards policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, and FYI...

I don't see M's RFC as a particularly productive enterprise, but discussing it "here" and then going "there" to make waves isn't particularly productive either. The "regulars" at meta (or commons, or pretty much any other WMF project) tend to have the same reaction to a bunch of WP admins (and noticeboard surfers) suddenly showing up as the WP admins (and noticeboard surfers) tend to have when a huge contingent from WR shows up here. Some of you are also behaving like stereotypical American Tourists and loudly bossing people around there as well.

The stewards aren't going to barge in tomorrow and start taking away people's block buttons willy-nilly in any case. Relax. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a substantive difference between the two scenarios you mentioned. Wikipedia Review is non-WMF site where some people discuss, rant about, and occasionally outright attack some Wikipedia editors. Although it sees some (occasional) serious participation from enwiki Arbitrators etc., nobody in their right mind thinks that WR has any sort of WMF mandate to solve problems on Wikipedia. In contrast, Meta-wiki is a WMF-run site that vaguely claims to be the wiki to rule them all, and where some admins assert a nebulous right to host somewhat official reviews of editor conduct from other WMF wikis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the analogy is singularly inappropriate. Meta is a place that has no "community" and no autonomous purpose of its own, other than that of serving whatever members of local projects "suddenly turn up" to get their business done. Its "regulars" are truly just janitors, whose job it is to make the place work for those who, like us, come there maybe once or twice a year, or once in a wiki-lifetime. And if they don't do that job properly, they indeed deserve to be "bossed around", as loudly as the situation requires. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is, Fut Pref, that our sysops and ArbCom members go through a much more thorough process to confirmation and authority than theirs. More is expected of our sysops and higher standards of conduct are required. WMF has constant and direct involvements with out sysops and Arbcom. There is no reason that a project of tougher qualifications should be judged by a project of easier qualifications for authority. This is like a circuit court of appeals being judged by a local high school student court. And WizardOfOz's martyrdom (the request for global block, not the self desysop which was respectable) is exactly the behavior that a 'crat and sysop shouldn't have. The analogy is accurate and appropriate.--v/r - TP 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a misunderstanding here – were we talking abut the same "analogy"? :-) I was referring the comparison made by SB Johnnie above, between Meta admins objecting to an invasion of en-wikipedians, and en-wiki admins objecting to an invasion of WR'ers. On what you just said, I quite agree. – By the way, I note with considerable amusement that I too have now been blocked on Meta, by an admin directly involved in a dispute with me, who is now claiming he "didn't remember" we had a dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the analogy is actually pretty accurate, but it's an analogy about the perceptions of the local communities. The more you accuse them of being incompetent and/or power-hungry and/or corrupt (which are rather similar to "WR-ish" criticisms of the regime here), the more they'll circle the wagons (which is -- again -- what happens here). Try putting yourself in their shoes for a moment. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, they are really twitchy over there when it comes to criticism of their wikiturf. [153] Apparently you get tagged as a WP:SPA [154] over there if you don't troll the place all day long like users banned from enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked Courcelles on Meta to look into FPaS's indefinite block on Meta. The blocking adminsitrator, Nemo_bis, does not seem to have an account on any part of wikipedia in any language, but I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not an indef, just 48hrs. Or at least it was the last time I looked. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Most sincere apologies :) Mathsci (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that it was for disagreeing with Ottava rime that you were blocked. [155] TMathsci (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again User:Nemo bis has an account here. It's hard in those circumstances to understand his conduct on Meta. (I have left a notification on his talk page here.) Mathsci (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fut Perf - Yeah, we were talking about different analogies then. I was referring to the One wiki to rule them all reference.--v/r - TP 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments about other wikis "not having a community" are generally wrong. Certainly so in this case; Meta has a steady and active daily community, on top of the groups that use it for one specific function or another. – SJ + 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And WizardOfOz is globally locked. Good riddance. Goodvac (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't endorse "dancing on the grave" of any wiki- or meta-pedian, but the lock summary "Self proclaimed future vandal. locking per self request." is worrisome. WizardOfOz was an admin and crat on meta (meaning he could promote others to adminship over there). Someone invested with that kind responsibility promising to become a vandal the day after losing an argument rings all sorts of alarm bells about the meta-wiki regulars. Note a farewell message left on his page [156] mentioning "some idiots who have arrived recently". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is now clear to me that Meta, in addition to its stated purpose, is a gathering spot for malcontents who have been banned or indef blocked from this project, along with users from other Wikipedias who have grudges against this project because it is the largest and most well known Wikipedia. However it has also become clear that these users are not in total control of that project, there are some in the administration there who possess common sense and ability to judge things objectively. I think the problem is that is such a small project that if only one or two admins are around, and they happen to be in the camp that dislikes en.WP, their obvious contempt for users from this project and their rejection of our opinions on subjects germane both to this project and that one can cause serious problems. Not that I acted like the paragon of civility either, I tend to react badly to being bullied. What i find ironic in this whole episode is that some of the Meta users, and indeed some users right here are complaining about us barging in to the clubhouse over there when the reason most of us showed up was exactly because we didn't believe a dispute from here should be allowed to continue over there, and those very same users were defending the right of these banned users to do so, some going so far as to suggest that is actually part of Meta's purpose, to give people we kicked off a place to bitch and moan and endlessly challenge the outcome of disputes here. As we all know there is in fact a website specifically created for that purpose, but Meta is not it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like Avi is not getting through to some metapedians. [157] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

    ? Avi is indeed getting through to metapedians. Mbz1 is not acting as a metapedian; simply the antagonist in this situation. – SJ + 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

    • Even if we discount the three [temporarily] departed metapedians (Malcom, Mbz1 and WizardOfOz), Ottava Rima is also on the barricades defending metapedia on that board, and so is Herby who is an admin over there. You can find a nice quote from him on my talk page over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

      • I'm getting a kick out of seeing so many en-wiki banned users popping in at the votes for deletion. Guido den Broeder, Ottava, and others. It's almost like old times. To make it truly complete they just need some Russian/Ukrainian/Bosnian/Serbian nationalist POV pushers, someone paying MyWikiBiz to puff up peoples keep votes, a shouting match over whether Larry Sanger was a co-founder, and Willy on Wheels to move the whole thing to Meta:Requests for deletion/ONWHEEEEELS!!! Night Ranger (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What does meta even do?

My only participation at meta thus far has been to join in the related GG discussions. In the meantime I've been looking all around and trying to figure out just what purpose meta serves beyond global account locks, the global blacklist and hosting WP:DICK. As far as I can tell, it's some kind of obsolete governing functionary group that has been dead ever since Wikipedia was granted self rule nearly 10 years ago. Like the Queen of England, a leftover anachronism, but without even the respect and ceremony that position holds. Can someone explain to me exactly what they do over there? Night Ranger (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to invite some folks who are active at meta to answer your question. It might also be beneficial if more of us went over there and helped out. There are lots of tasks that are common to all the Wikipedias, such as software upgrades. Meta has an important role to play coordinating those activities. We should also suggest more productive methods of handling cross-wiki disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as I understand, there are a few actual decision processes done on Meta, like closing or opening new projects. Also, the field of global RfCs or other global dispute resolution processes is something that there is certainly a need for (though rarely with individual user RfCs as attempted here). For instance, there's certainly a need for a big meta-RfC to be held one day about all the smaller projects that completely refuse to play by foundation rules when it comes to image licensing, non-free content and fighting copyvios. In situation where the whole admin corps of a project collectively and systematically refuses to enforce common policy standards, the possibility of a binding meta-process would be sorely needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I was genuinely confused about their function. Night Ranger (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The also host a "process" by which confusion in interwiki links is supposed to be solved, m:IS, although that's mostly broken. And they host cross-wiki efforts like the m:Controversial content stuff (reports and referendum on the image filter etc.) and m:Stewards elections (which are currently ongoing, by the way). More details here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Jimbo for his comments in this matter? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see this discussion (now archived automatically by MiszaBot III. Goodvac (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• It amazes me that all of this has been going on while people seem to have no clue what meta is or why it exists. Meta serves many roles, including translation organization, fundraiser organization, global policy determination and implementation, assigning and removing global groups, mediating conflicts on smaller wikis. As I have said before, Meta does not govern enwiki in any way. There are some technical features, such as the spam blacklist and the title blacklist which affect all WMF projects, but other than that Meta has no editorial, political, whatever control over enwiki. The point which seems to have been avoided by just about everyone here is that the Gwen Gale RfC would not have resulted in any action - it is well outside of the scope of Meta to be screwing around with enwiki affairs. RfCs around unresolved issues on large wikis serve to facilitate further discussion on the matter, not result in a definitive course of action. RfCs are more for smaller projects that do not have the facilities to handle such things - and yes, that means that the Gwen Gale RfC was a waste of Mbz1's time. It amazes me how often people forget than the WMF hosts hundreds of wikis - about 515 open ones right now. Meta is more for about 400 of the smaller projects than it is for large wikis. What Meta is not is an outdated system in place from the first years of Wikimedia - it is an active body which coordinates many cross-wiki activities. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason most users here don't know much about Meta is that, as you say, we really don't need it as it is intended to help out smaller wikis. Which makes one wonder why some admins there fought so hard to stifle discussion of deleting said RFC and why there is such a large contingent of users who are openly hostile to this project hanging about over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, their purpose is not so much helping as it is bossing around. It's just that now that en.wiki gets a taste of it, you guys take note. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

View from uninvolved, random guy

This meta vs en.wp showdown is patently ridiculous. I think the en.wp needs to formulate a local policy as to the relationship between meta and their so-called "rule" over all other projects. Possibly this policy needs to be endorsed by ArbCom so as be unified in this view. This sort of dramamongering on the part of some meta admins is really disruptive to this project. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

View from semi-involved, not-so-stochastic guy

As much as I try to refrain from commenting on the drama boards, I feel a need to respond to the concept of a "Meta-EnWiki" showdown. I am lucky enough to be able to have perspective both as a Wikipedian and as a Wikimedian, and I think most of what went on here could have been prevented. For better or for worse, the English Wikipedia is the 800 lb. gorilla of the Wikimedia projects. We have the most articles, the most editors, the most readers, the most coverage, and the most reach of any Wikimedia project. Unfortunately, we also have a pretty unique culture, specialized rules, and more space dedicated to procedure, as opposed to content, than any other wiki. To navigate these issues, most EnWikipedians develop certain techniques to handle process and policy. When we go to other English-speaking projects, it is natural and human nature to continue to behave in that fashion. However, the other projects often have different policies, guidelines, or even unwritten cultures than we do. So it is very understandable that when a group of EnWikipedians starts commenting in another project in a fashion that would fit in with WP:ANI, that would engender resentment. Our "drama boards" have, unfortunately, become very argumentative, and respectful discourse is the exception not the rule. As much as I would like to take that kind of behavior and excise it from our project, it is there. Other projects may not be as confrontational as we have become, and using the "EnWiki" style of demands and proclamations will only serve to further the idea that "EnWikipedians are a bunch of rude oafs who try and bully everyone around them." For goodness sakes, read the WP:ANI or WP:RfAR archives and see how confrontational we can be.

To place the shoe on the other foot for a moment, think about how we would feel if a group of Commons editors came en masse and starting posting images that we would feel violate WP:BLP, but not Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and then complain when we take them down. Did any regular reader of this board who is not a regular on the Commons know that that our BLP policy is local, not global, and that the Commons has a looser view when it comes to images of living people? Meta's m:Biographies of living people policy is even looser. It is incumbent on editors to understand the policies and guidelines of the project they are in before making suggestions.

The primary among Meta's purposes is to be a place where matters relating to all wikis are to be discussed. It also serves as the place where various wiki-processes are performed for projects too small to have full processes of their own, be that RfA, RfB, CU, OS, opening and closing projects, AND dispute resolution. Similarly to EnWiki, there is an unwritten culture that has developed over the years at Meta, and one element of that culture is that Meta tends to view itself as a forum of last resort, so being banned on a project does not automatically make one banned on Meta. Personally, I think that this is an important escape valve to prevent small wikis from being taken over by a cadre of people who start banning anyone who disagrees with them. So for someone to make a complaint on Meta about something that happened on another project is not unheard of. It isn't that Meta is going to "take over" EnWiki—that is not going to happen. But it serves as a venue for for certain valid complaints. Unfortunately, it also gets abused, like any process on any wiki. In my opinion, this particular RfC (Gwen Gale) was an abuse of policy as I've posted there, at the ongoing discussion at m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users (in the comments section), but that does not mean that ALL discussions would be automatic abuses. Those for EnWiki should be very rare, in my opinion, because we have a robust (if dysfunctional at times) dispute resolution process. As an aside, while I would not want EnWikipedians trampling like a herd of bison all over the process, it does affect all of us, and well-thought out comments, either for or against, should be helpful.

If I could impart one thought from this tl;dr screed of mine, it would be that when we EnWikipedians go to other projects, especially English-speaking ones, we should ensure that we know the appropriate polcies and guidelines about the project we want to edit, take some time to try and grok the culture, think thrice before we post (especially early on), and AS ALWAYS, never be confrontational when polite and respectful will do. Remember, other projects have as much right to have their own cultures (foundation-permitting) as we do, and just as we want them to respect ours, we need to respect theirs. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I object against the proliferation of this odd meme that what we have been doing on Meta (assuming I'm included in your description) shows some kind of unwillingness to accept local norms, or ignorance of them. That's a meme that has been bandied about by some of the wagon-circling regulars over there, but as far as I can see it's simply wrong. Nobody has ever told me what those mysterious local rules are supposed to be that we have been ignoring. As far as I am concerned, I have been defending local Meta rules (e.g. the proper Meta-policy-conformant running of a deletion debate) from rogue Meta admins who were breaking them. I know those Meta policies; I looked them up. The only point of contention is the notion that "RfCs can never be deleted", but that's not Meta policy; it's simply a habit and some regulars' personal opinion. I and others happen to disagree with that opinion, and our opinion is as good as theirs. A certain number of Meta regulars can't distinguish between their personal opinion about Meta rules and the actual Meta rules, and that's where the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The manner in which some people proceeded to "disagree with that opinion" is hardly appropriate. Excellent analysis of the issue, Avi. —Dark 07:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The only reason the "manner" of debate escalated was the fact that abusive local admins (and a few trolls) were trying to shut us out. I don't take kindly to that, and no, if they expect us to continue talking in a manner as if all was nice and fuzzy in such a situation, that's one thing I'm not willing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not referring to anyone in particular, Future. I have been an active member of the Commons and Meta for a number of years now, and have seen issues like this come up many times before. This one is just a little more extreme because (at least in my opinion) Mbz is abusing Meta's policies by attacking ArbCom, and by extension EnWiki, so the feeling that some EnWikipedians have as being attacked, and thus responding defensively, is understandable. However, there is a "Meta" way to go about it; and that usually requires more patience than here on EnWiki. Furthermore, people who are more aware of Meta and its culture and policies etc. would know that there is nothing Mbz could do to get anything overturned here on EnWiki. The only people outside of EnWiki who would be able to affect the ability of someone to edit on EnWiki are the stewards, who are granted the ability to affect all wikis. Speaking as one, I can tell you that I would be extraordinarily surprised if any one of us would overturn the valid wishes of a project in good standing, and without some REALLY good explanation, that would be grounds for de-stewarding (and we would get the devs involved if we had to). Again, not to pick out ANYONE in particular, but someone who was more comfortable with how Meta worked and what occurred there may be really frustrated with what Mbz is doing, but would not be concerned about "Meta-takeovers". peaking personally, it took me months to grok, as it were, the Commons culture vs. EnWiki and the Meta culture vs. Enwiki. Now, I think I understand them well enough to function within Commons guidelines on the Commons, Meta on Meta, and EnWiki here. I know that one of the main concerns about me when I was running for steward was since I came from EnWiki, would I be able to understand and work within the policies of other projects with different norms (for example, many wikis allow the "checkuser for innocence," something forbidden here. As a steward, one cannot allow one's EnWiki preconceptions to affect one's ability to serve the other projects). I think, again, it boils down to different cultures, is made somewhat worse by being in the same native language as EnWiki (so Metapedians bring their conceptions here and we bring ours there), and most of the stress could be alleviated by each of us taking just a little time to understand the others' projects, what is accepted and what is not, what kind of claims are valid and what are mere posturing, and then work together as necessary. Once again, I reiterate that there is a discussion going on Meta now about the use of these RfCs, and I, for one, firmly believe all Wikimedians should have a say, as Meta is supposed to serve us all. I'd only request that EnWikipedians who are not regulars at Meta try a little bit extra to respect the Meta culture; just as we would want ours respected. Again, FPAS, no specific editor was targeted in my discussion above; it was the result of years of watching inter-project relationships and trying to alleviate some unnecessary frictions between them. Understand that just as we would be somewhat defensive if a bunch of Metapedians, who were not regulars on EnWiki, would descend en masse on WP:ANI and try and get so-and-so banned or unbanned, they may take a bunch of us coming in without preamble and in a non-amelioratory manner to be somewhat disconcerting as well, and act defensively. We may not appreciate their response, and I think Nemo bis was improper with some of his blocks, but understanding them will help prevent future fracases. -- Avi (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking up your example of what went wrong, I think I have to correct the picture in one crucial detail: the notion that the RfC on Meta could in fact possibly overturn something here on en-wiki was not brought to the fore by ignorant fears of en-wikipedians. It was proposed most visibly by a Meta admin and buraucrat, WizardOfOz. Indeed, people who are more familiar with Meta ought to know that that was nonsense, but evidently they didn't, and it is hardly astonishing that some of the less Meta-experienced people then took the notion at face value and argued forcefully against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I am unaware of any statement by Wizard of Oz indicating that a potential resolution to m:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale would include any changes on EnWiki. I'm not calling your statement into askance, I just don't recall any such statement, and would appreciate a link. Secondly, WoO has returned his 'crat and sysop bits, went on a vandalism spree, and is now globally locked at his request. Sadly, it seems to be a case of serious burnout, and I think a week or three off from all wiki projects may help him calm down a bit (note, Meta has no similar provision to admins leaving trying to escape scrutiny, so it will be interesting to see what happens if he wants his bits back). So I do understand that to the non-regular on meta coming from EnWiki, it may look like that "the Metapedians are coming". What I am asking for is the next time something like this happens, clarify if there really is a concern (and get that clarification from people who have the power to enforce it; a Meta sysop can do nothing on Enwiki solely by virture of being a Meta sysop or crat), and maybe we'll find that we are more like-minded than not. -- Avi (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

See [158] for Wizards' forward looking statements. As for like-minded, I sure hope not. Insofar nobody here referred to meta-pedians as "some idiots", but the converse did happen: [159]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. About the other thing you added, the analogy "if a bunch of Metapedians, who were not regulars on EnWiki, would descend en masse on WP:ANI and try and get so-and-so banned or unbanned, they may take a bunch of us coming in without preamble and in a non-amelioratory manner to be somewhat disconcerting as well": I think I've said it before, but it bears repeating. While reactions along these lines may be understandable, it is nevertheless unacceptable, and we should not tolerate them. We should not show any understanding or patience or tolerance with local regulars who react like that on Meta, at all. People who react like that on Meta need to be kicked out, period. Because here's the crucial difference between Meta and local projects: Local projects have a right to have an established local community, and they have the right to treat their regulars differently from one-off outside visitors. Meta just doesn't have that right. There is in fact no such thing as a "Meta community". The community of the Meta wiki is just whatever members of any of the local wikis happen to have any central business on Meta at any given time. If some of the small club of people who hang out on Meta a bit more regularly than others think they constitute a local "community" that has the right to treat others as outsiders, they are wrong, and they must be shown in no unclear terms that their attitude is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "There is in fact no such thing as a 'Meta community'." Unfortunately, there is. It's just not a very healthy one judging from the past few days. If I may use a phrase borrowed from Jimbo, it's "not the kind we want". In fact, looking back at my edits early last year on m:Dick, I see the small set of meta-admins involved there were also involved in keeping the GG RFC: WizardOfOz, Nemo bis, Wikiwind, etc. And the same tactics used: reverts without discussion, nearly meaningless posts on the talk page and so forth: m:Talk:Don't_be_a_dick#try_discussing_one_revert_at_a_time_please. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you, ASCIIn2Bme, for pointing out that link. While technically WoO was correct, the m:Stewards do have the ability to overturn any decision on any wiki, I'm pretty confident speaking for my fellow stewards (and I'll take this opportunity to plug the ongoing steward elections) that we would not overturn the valid decision of any ArbCom solely because of a Meta RfC. If you were concerned about the steward actions, wouldn't it make sense to ask a steward if that would happen? We all have pages on Meta, and most of us have a presence on EnWiki as well (see Category:Wikimedia stewards). Just because stewards hang out on Meta doesn't mean that they jump to any Metapedian's bidding . I do not think it has ever been done, and the only reason I can think of doing it is for a project gone amok, and EnWiki may be dysfunctional, but it certainly has not run amok. Outside of a local project crat going around and desysoping /blocking all other admins/crats in a project, we only flip bits when asked, and we are very careful to try and not step on the toes of any local project. I believe that in truth WoO's statement was more meant as the bluster of a frustrated Meta admin who wanted to impress upon the newcomers that Meta had teeth; thankfully, the Metapedians with teeth also, usually, have both patience and common sense (or at least we delude ourselves into thinking that). For more discussion about stewards, I'd recommend asking at m:Talk:Stewards. -- Avi (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your issue with the Meta community, FPAS, here I have to respectfully disagree. Maybe the word community is not the best, but Meta has its own policies and guidelines like any other project, and they are not always the same as EnWiki's. There is nothing preventing someone from complaining about another project on Meta; using Meta to host an attack page—that is forbidden. But Meta has different, and often looser, restrictions than EnWiki, and those should be respected. My personal opinion, and I've made that clear a number of places on Meta, is that there should be no claims of "canvassing" when a Meta discussion related to a local project is advertised on that project, as every project and every member of every project has the right to access Meta, its discussions, and its service. However, that does not mean that Meta has to conform to the mores of the local projects; that's actually impossible as there are contradictory policies. So, I agree with you completely the Meta should make non-regulars welcome, and should treat no-one as "an outsider", but I believe it behooves us to understand the difference between Meta's culture and other projects' cultures. And simply, FPAS, the way to change a project's culture is to work from within. EnWiki's culture certainly has changed over the past 6+ years; Meta's can to, if so desired by a consensus of its members. -- Avi (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with Meta having its own rules. In fact, as I said, most of my activities over there was to defend those rules against the very regulars who were pretending I didn't know them. What I do object to is the practice of some regulars, of using the "we have our own rules here" mantra as a club to hit newcomers on the head. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

According to their regulars, we are "misreading" their written rules. See last chunk in this diff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in that. I think certain Metapedians have been too defensive, although I understand why, and I think certain EnWikipedians have been too attacking, although I understand why, and I am trying, in both projects, to provide some insight that will prevent future friction—no more, no less. -- Avi (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and just in case I didn't make that clear, your activity is very much appreciated. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I also want to thank Avi for being a voice of reason and moderation in this matter. It's clear that meta-wiki has its own bad apples among their admniship, but I would certainly not generalize along the lines of what one of those meta-wiki admins said: "my experience of most en wp admins is not all that favourable - that is actual experience not things I've heard or whatever." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The history of Meta

A view from the past. Meta was originally created to serve the function that is now filled by the Wikipedia namespace. Under UseModWiki (and possibly under the earliest versions of MediaWiki, I can't remember offhand) namespaces didn't exist, so it was impossible to distinguish between a policy page, a noticeboard, a userpage or an article. Meta was created by Larry Sanger in around October 2001 to separate the 'encyclopedia' from 'discussion of the encyclopedia'. For a while most of the policy discussion happened over there, but with the arrival of the Wikipedia namespace somewhere in the first half of 2002 all of this migrated back to WP, and by 2003 most folks weren't even aware of what Meta was for. For a while the site languished but it eventually found a new role as "caretaker of the baby wikis". By 2005 it was widely accepted that Meta had no meaningful relationship to WP anymore, other than the fact that desysopping could only be done by Meta stewards (since changed as well). I'm a bit baffled by what is all going on above, but I thought I'd give the historical perspective anyway. Manning (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

meta:Requests for comment/POV in Chechen Wikipedia is one of the core reasons that Meta exists, and in this instance it doesn't appear to have gotten any attention from that at Meta who should be dealing with it. Yet, instead, it appears that instead of giving issues such as that the attention it deserves, they have put all of their resources into giving Mbz1 yet another opportunity to rant and attack editors. If anyone at Meta is reading this, please tell us how this is not a misdirection of Meta's resources? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, good point. A case where one of the smaller projects is aggressively treating its wiki as home turf for a nationally motivated POV, using the language barrier as a means to shield itself off from outside correction. That kind of case is really where Meta should come into play. But in those areas where it really matters, it seems they have never grown the strength and determination to actually do anything. This would of course not be an isolated case. I suspect it's pretty common in most of the smaller wikis whose languages don't have much international spread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

err... no. I did follow this, and the person who filed the RfC deemed it resolved. Besides, it often (as in this case) isn't clear what action is requested other than some "comments" which were obviously given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Others do not see it as resolved just yet. [160]. I don't know how much of this other story is real, but it looks like on some wikis there's something like Balkan war going on, where only "disarmament" of admins seems to have stopped it, temporarily. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are those cases, yes. But what is one to do when all one is allowed to do is listen (often in languages one cannot read or has to rely on some translator who might be partisan)? In the case that just got everybody's attention it was all in English... would I advocate de-sysopping or not or whatever based on a broken translation of [insert language not covered by google]? I don't think so... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It was evidently "resolved" only in the sense that the complainant gave up, seeing that the Meta structures were unable and/or unwilling to curb the abuse. I quite agree that it would have been difficult to figure out how to intervene, in the given circumstances, but that's just the point: where it really would matter, Meta has structurally and systematically failed to grow teeth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(did you think we'd succeed where the two World Wars, the UN, and the US-army failed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

I wasn't aware the two World Wars were fought about the issue of how to grant access rights on websites, nor that the US army ever tried to influence that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't be that naive... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Naive? What are you talking about? Your comment about world wars, UN and the US army makes absolutely no sense in this context. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm sure I've got this - all of the above is because of a POV issue on a website that we have no influence over and which is in a language most of us would have zero chance of understanding? Manning (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, all of the above, with the exception of the references to Chechnya, is because of a now-banned editor's inability to accept dispute resolution on EnWiki. The reference to the POV Chechnya issue is just an example where Meta was supposed to work but couldn't due to a dearth of multilingual editors, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. Have you noticed that most contentious RfC's at meta come from the Balkans, the Caucasus, and similar places where the imperial powers tried to solve stuff? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think everybody familiar with Meta issues knows that the RFC opened by mbz1 had no chance. Such RFCs get opened on a regular basis by users banned on big projects (not only en.wp), or having troubles going through the dispute resolution process on big projects, and I can not recall an instance such an RFC led anywhere - they just decay, and some get formally closed, others stay there open forever. There are no policies indeed to prevent opening of such RFCs, but it would be difficult to create such policies - to list projects which are ineligible for RFC and to update their list on a regular basis? These RFCs should just not be taken seriously and definitely they do not deserve such attention and creation of such drama as we see here. As for Chechen RFC, indeed, I believe this is the case which requires action, and I am really glad you reopened the issue. But generally we should not consider "meta regulars" as a kind of enemy which have the only goal to destroy the dispute resolution process here - I find the direction the discussion was taken before Avi gave his opinion was less constructive and leading nowhere. Meta is a place for collaboration, not for warring or emphasizing the differences in policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This one is different. By searching for some phrases from that "RFC", I've uncovered that earlier versions of that text have been published on Encyclopedia Dramatica and then on MyWikiBiz, in both cases by single-purpose accounts. (I provided the details in the meta-wiki RfD.) The conclusion seems inescapable that it's part of an obvious campaign of defamation that has nothing to do with legitimate dispute resolution on WMF sites. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to ban a user from meta?

I could not find a banning policy among the list of meta policies, but it seems to me that if a sanctioned user from en-wiki (or any other wiki) is using meta as a "safe house" from which to stage attacks on editors at en-wiki or elsewhere, or are otherwise abusing meta policies, we should be able to initiate a ban proposal on meta, following whatever requirements (if any) are in place there. 28bytes (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It technically is, but it takes much, much more than on EnWiki, or pretty much any other project. Yes, Meta, at time views itself as a place where others who have been banned from EnWiki (or other wikis, such as Guido Broeder, I forget his exact name) can come and vent. There are many banned EnWiki editors who are not banned in Meta. Some of them have issues with EnWiki in particular, but are helpful contributors to other projects, and yes, others use meta as a forum for complaints. Remembering that not much of actual substance can be done on Meta itself, I don't see it as that much of a problem if banned editors want to vent their spleens. At best, they vent, they can have a discussion with others, they actually may see where they could work n themselves, and after a while, they can apply for the standard offer or the like. At worst, they vent, they complain, and nothing happens other than there being a record of their frustration on Meta. And if they convince non-EnWiki (or what ever wiki is under discussion) members to come here (or there) and plead on their behalf, we should greet them cordially, explain our rules and how the person in question violated them to the well-meaning editors, and deal with the non-well meaning ones in accordance with our behavioral polices.

As an aside, may I point out, as deferentially as possible, that your question here, 28bytes, is an example of thinking in accordance with EnWiki's culture, which is very different from Meta's culture, and asking that question on Meta may engender immediate defensive responses. Meta has much more patience for what we would consider malcontents on EnWiki; perhaps they just ignore them more. Either way, I would not suggest trying to get anyone banned on Meta without some severe evidence that they are trying to undermine foundation-level issues, such as the authority of the wikimedia board, or engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment. Just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My only concern would be to prevent meta from becoming another version of Wikiversity, where en.wiki banned users go there and begin disrupting operations here (something like what Abd did some months ago from WV). While I of course understand that meta has to be somewhere that people who we call "malcontents" can go and express themselves, I think the line has to be drawn when it moves from simply sounding off to using it for actively disrupting other projects. Based on the size of this thread, I think it's safe to say this was somewhat disruptive; not ban-worthy, but if it became a pattern it could be, at least in my (en.wiki-shaded) view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is definitely a "culture clash", in that asking on meta if there is a policy on meta that supports or prohibits an action (e.g. an RfD for an RfC) seems to be taken as aggression. Thus, I asked here. :) Am I correct in presuming, then, that there is no formal policy for banning, and that such things are handled on an ad-hoc basis? Or have no cases yet arisen there that have required a ban? 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Very wise, 28 :). There have been some users either indef blocked or banned from Meta, but always on an ad-hoc basis, yes. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Hopefully the end result of this discussion will be that en-wiki editors become more educated on what processes there are or aren't on meta, so we can better understand our options when something comes up there that may affect us. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen they happen the same way topic bans happen here on ANI. They tend to be informal discussions which end up in a !vote. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you recall any of the cases? I'm unable to find anything in the m:WM:RFH history, although it's possible I'm not looking at the right page or using the right search terms. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Either way, I would not suggest trying to get anyone banned on Meta without some severe evidence that they are trying to undermine foundation-level issues, such as the authority of the wikimedia board, or engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment. Just my opinion. WizardofOz managed to get his accounts globally locked pretty easily. I hear what you're saying but to me it sounds much more like Meta views itself a project unto itself that doesn't really have much to do with the various wikis, which makes me think many over there have lost sight of their mission. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WoO was global blocked by self request, and most of us stewards didn't want to do it anyway; a cooling off period would have sufficed, Speak to Jyothis as to why he decided to acquiesce to WoO's strange request. -- Avi (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

About Avi's criterion of somebody having "engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment": since we now have very clear evidence that Mbz1 is the same person who also wrote crass anti-GG rants on Enc.Dr. and on "MyWikiBiz", using the same diffs and the same wording as in her Meta "RfC", of a degree of similarity that makes it entirely inconceivable these texts could have been written independently of each other, I'd say we are pretty close to making such a case. A Meta-ban or a global ban for Mbz1 is certainly in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What she did is not criminal in the way that we have had to deal with editors who have had orders of restraint issued against them, and even incarcerated. I don't think a ban from Meta would be an apprpriate thing to ask for. Learning to ignore her would be better, especially as she cannot affect EnWiki now that she is community banned. By the way, she got blocked for a week on Meta for calling those who disagreed with her "abusive", for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a criminal matter; imposition of restraining orders is not done solely for criminal matters, although their breach may be a crime. I can think of a lawyer or two who would accept bringing a false light lawsuit for stuff like that found on those web pages. (This isn't a legal threat in any way, particularly as I would have no standing myself whatsoever to be a party.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

FPAS, I am going to ask you to retract that comment above. There isn't a person on this page who doesn't know how to copy and paste a page from one wiki to another; given the lulz-value of doing so, it could be any number of people who have done so in this case. I'll also ping you on your page. Risker (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I have submitted private evidence to ArbCom (receipt acknowledged by Elen), which strongly suggests that the meta-wiki RFC was the last of the three similar pages to be created. The other two non-WMF wikis have public edit histories, so this isn't rocket science. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I have to clarify is that the identity of the ED author is not quite as certain as the identity between the MyWikiBiz author and Mbz's RfC on Meta, which is 100% certain. And yes, even if it were just those two pages, given the unconcealed insults contained in both, in my book, the threshold into harassment in the legal sense has been crossed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough on the authorship issue, FPAS. But it is not appropriate for anyone here to state that there has been a crime or to assess the "legal sense". Suggesting that an identifiable person has committed a crime for which they have not been charged isn't acceptable. The place to determine that is a court, not the Administrator Noticeboard of a website, even the 5th most popular website. or is it the 4th? 7th? I can never remember. Risker (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi suggested that a certain course of action on Wikimedia projects ought to be taken if there was harassment. It is my personal opinion that there was harassment, and that Wikimedia projects therefore ought to react accordingly. I do not subscribe to the idea that we should sanction people for harassment only if such a charge has previously been confirmed by a court; that would expose the victims to an intolerable extent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I did not suggest a certain course of action should be taken; I said that in this case a certain course of action should not be taken, for the only times I know of where it has been taken, the harassment has been orders of magnitude worse. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I disagree with that argument. If it's been done only in so few cases, it's been done too rarely, and should be done more often. And don't tell me my opinion about what should be done on Meta counts less than that of the regulars there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made any comments about anyone's opinion other than my own. My own opinion is that Mbz is not someone who needs banning from Meta at this point; once her 1 week block elapses, if she stops her campaign, all is well. Even if she continues to merely complain about people, we should learn to ignore her (reverting any truly defamatory or actual harassment, of course). Don't give her more credence than she deserves :). But, of course, that's just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This turn of the dialogue isn't particularly productive. We don't need recourse to a real-world legal standard to have someone banned from a WMF site or another. WP:NOTLAW. I don't think any WMF site has a policy saying than an editor cannot be banned unless they broke some real-world law. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dont' retract anything FPaS. If you retract it, I will take ownership of the comment from you. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta-Culture and failures to communicate (Lessons Learned?)

I've been over on Meta, trying to participate as a good Metamedian. I was annoyed when it was suggested that somehow, users should not be listened too, solely because they don't hang around there much. I've seen such ad hominem here and it's just as useless as anywhere -- comment on the content, not the contributer. But I was appalled at the behavior of admins from both en wiki and meta wiki. The admin corps from both projects were shown in a very bad light. I find it difficult to understand why so many of you failed to communicate so disastrously. You all should know better, and be better, and you should now work on fixing what went so wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, much of the behavior from both en-wiki admins and meta admins has been appalling. However, it should be noted that there have also been editors such as billinghurst, Avi and others who have worked very hard to try to bridge the gap between the sides, and they should be commended for it. 28bytes (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, good on both sides but it never should have happened that way.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Courcelles should be commended too. Although he has been more low key in this brouhaha than the other two mentioned, he also made significant contributions to restoring a sense of balance. And speaking of balance, the meta-admins (Nemo bis actually) eventually blocked Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha for a week. So, while their approach to civility is more heavy handed than on enwiki, it's not lacking balance overall. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction, as well as the bafflement Manning expressed above.

RfCs on Meta are not appeals. They do not 'overturn decisions' of other wikis. They may discuss potential systemic problems with the policies or process of other wikis, which can lead to cross-wiki discussions, but that is rare.

Allowing an RfC to stand for a time does not indicate support for its claim; Meta is simply tolerant of people sharing their views, and in general avoids deleting discussions. In this case, I would say too tolerant of a ridiculous and personally attacking view, which should at least have been blanked. But the emphasis was on tolerance and discourse, and not any opinion on the appropriateness of the topic.

Finally, noone on Meta was in support of this RfC per se, but simply opposed to anyone coming in and peremptorily demanding its removal. This became a big deal, rather than being handled smoothly and without fuss, only because of the approach and attitude of the requests. And then the cycle of recrimination and (unintentional) misinterpretation that followed. – SJ + 16:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing that they saw fit to ban Mbz1 for a week for making personal attacks, yet still refuse to remove the actual attack-masquerading-as-RfC itself. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The regulars over there have this weird idea that if you slap a "RfC" tag on a page you can write whatever you want in it, overriding m:BLP and what not. They also seem to think that if you add diffs to a page you get a free pass to use headings like "X is dishonest and untruthful". In fact, a google search for "dishonest and untruthful" returns that meta-wiki RfC as the 3rd result for me! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up: unapproved survey of inactive administrators

Hi all. I just wanted sysops to know that in the last 48 hours a banned editor -- James S. editing under Nrcprm2026 and other socks -- emailed ~300 admins on the inactive list with a survey. It's not particularly a cause for alarm, other than that...

1. It says I am the Foundation point of contact for this survey. This is untrue, and the Foundation did not request or approve of the survey.
2. The survey was not reviewed at all by the volunteers/staff of the Research Committee. (That group tries to keep the number of frivolous surveys to a minimum.)

While I am sympathetic to anyone who cares about retention of admins enough to do research, I am pretty mad that there's nothing we can do to prevent this kind of mass email from a banned editor. Apologies to anyone who was confused or annoyed by the survey. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Nrcprm2026's ability to send emails. Could you specify which other accounts were used, so that they can have email access removed as well? Or should we block access for all of his 80+ socks? Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't too hard, I would suggest they should be. It's already been demonstrated Nrcprm can't be trusted with email. Unfortunately if they have that many socks, it sounds likely they'll just create more so it probably isn't that useful. Incidentally, if they're mass emailing people with a small number of accounts (or even one account), perhaps this would help to reenforce the view to the foundation that the proposals to find some way to attempt to limit such abuse (arising out of the mailinator aided abuse of some wikipedians) are important? Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an en issue but if this foundation is concerned about the way this was handled or that the emails were misleading, are there any plans for a global ban? I ask because it looks like the survey was developed on meta meta:Inactive administrators survey and there was actually some discussion about the survey with Philippe meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Community Advocacy. Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, while I was aware of the survey, I was unaware of distribution mechanism and was certainly unaware that it would list a Foundation staff member as the contact. I also would never endorse doing such a survey without going through our research committee. I will make a clear statement to that effect on the meta page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven is right in its points. This survey was not at all under Rcom supervision or review. It is problematic to me that someone send message with clearly false content about the involvement of others --Lilaroja (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we allow users to use the email system to send 300 messages. Is there a legitimate reason to send even 30 messages in a day.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Over the summer there were a couple times that I bombed out probably a couple hundred emails at once. There are definitely sometimes legitimate needs to mass email, although it might be a good idea to set up a new user right +massemail and restrict volume of emails for people who don't have it. (I was interning at WMF at the time and they were related, so it wouldn't have been a problem if I had had to acquire a special userright or something to do so.) Kevin (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Curious - the "research" which underpins this survey is based on a Granger Causality test, and some IP is claiming it "proves" a relationship between declining admin numbers and declining editor numbers. An interesting claim, given that the Granger test is unable to prove the non-existence of a third variable driving both elements in the time series. It's a useful test for developing hypotheses, but no statistician would ever regard it as conclusive until the existence of other influencing variables had been ruled out (which is certainly not the case here). Manning (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should limit the amount of emails that can be sent per IP per day. It is not particularly helpful that all users have the capacity to send as many emails as they can. As this incident proves, the e-mail feature is vulnerable to abuse. Exceptions may be made by administrators as and when there is a valid requirement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that based on a forward from someone who received it, it looks like SPTF-CH (talk · contribs) was the sock sending the email. Thankfully it's been blocked. Thanks for the help everyone. (As a side note, I totally agree about limiting the amount of email able to be sent from any account per day. If you want help organizing a serious feature request for this, let me know.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have no objection to some sort of limit on emails per account (or per IP address) per day, but I think those who are intent on abuse of the email system will get round it. It would also have to be a global thing—there's be no point us implementing such a restriction on enwiki if somebody would only have to hop to another wiki to do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is already a limit of 200 per account per day per wiki, which is too high to be of any use. There are already feature requests to curtail email abuse, see e.g. bug 7518 and bug 33761. MER-C 03:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It is of use in some ways. "Real spammers" send millions of emails per day, bites of 200 aren't worth their while. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

It looks reasonable to email block al known socks, and suspected socks, but I'm not certain this is appropriate for the IP addresses without a little checking. Also we would need to ensure that we "control" the email blocking, to make sure every new sock is included. Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Known socks email blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

If there is consensus (or BOLDness) to email block the suspected socks they are at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nrcprm2026. Please note on the talk page which accounts you have blocked for future reference. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

Nagorno-Karabakh

I'm retiring from the Nagorno-Karabakh articles for the time being, having been the only admin to appear to be trying to keep control there lately, and I'm putting up this notice looking for another admin, hopefully a totally fresh one with no knowledge of the region or its history, or the editors or their history, to take over and keep an eye on it. This is a long-term job that will eat your soul. Enjoy. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm soulless, just like the great Death Angel song, so I'll see what I can do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Anybody else interested in helping out at the copyright problems board?

I would dearly love some increased admin involvement over there. I was, I have to admit, struggling with burnout on that work months ago (having focused on it for years), and while I'm still putting time into it every weekend I cannot keep up. More assistance there would be very much appreciated. I'm happy to offer guidance based on my own work there to anybody who's interested in helping out. We also have WP:CPAA with guidance for admins interested in helping. This area is sorely in need of some additional hands. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to lend a hand at it. I'm always worried that I might miss a copyvio, so I don't tend to do this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Marvelous! If you ever want a second opinion, please feel free to drop by my talk page or just place a note at CP with your own impressions and wait for me or another admin to come by. Second opinions are sometimes helpful at CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Start by asking all the people in the thread below who accused Rlevse/PumpkinSky of "massive plagiarism." If they haven't helped you out, I think it is time they did! (I mean this in good faith, there are a lot of them down there, obviously concerned about the issue. What a great pool to draw from!) It is tough work -- I worked on the CCI on that user just mentioned and I also worked on reviewing the zillions of articles on the ItsLassieTime sock-- which kind of burned me out. I agree more people are needed and that yes, miss one and everyone jumps on you, that is a worry. It's also why I've stopped submitting or reviewing GA and FA articles unless I have a team of at least four people to help me, too scary to do these things alone any more. Montanabw^(talk) 01:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I considered lending a hand there some time ago, after having filed one or two reports myself. Frankly, the templates and procedures used over there look extremely intricate to an outsider, downright foreboding. The instruction themselves also discourage participation, besides not being particularly well written, e.g.: "If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing on the copyright problems board itself." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I recently had a problem summarized here which I did not manage to resolve and after which I decided I am not going to help there anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter. I did respond to your message the following day [161]. Perhaps you didn't see it. If you have seen it and still consider it unresolved, fair enough. Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen you response and I disagree with you, but since you clearly stated you will repeat your actions again I do not think it would be a good investmnent of my time to try to convince you that your strategy is suboptimal and leads to the demotivation of editors. I will just stay clear of the project, that's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a G6 or not?

Plastomer (disambiguation). I've had a G6 denied a couple times. This is a dab with one blue link and two reds. It disambiguates nothing. Anyone want to tell me how in the flying hell this is NOT a G6? I see no reason to let this rot in AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that page could reasonably have been deleted per WP:G6; edit summaries such as this one, however, are completely unwarranted and over the top. That said, the AfD will be snow closed quite soon I'd wager. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the edit summary was "(Undid revision 476889682 by Nyttend (talk) don't be an idiot)", and the diff (for admins only) is now here. Graham87 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, why was the page speedy deleted as uncontroversial when I had already declined it? "Uncontoversial" means that nobody disagrees, and I daresay an when an attempt is declined multiple times, it's controversial. Moreover, why did I only learn about this discussion by browsing this page? Why was I not notified? Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This three time renomination for speedy deletion was inappropriate behaviour by TenPoundHammer, but this has already been discussed by those involved. The close of the AFD is also not the best as it should have waited for a full delete decision as a declined speedy delete should not be speedy deleted. However snow deletion could have been fine if it waited a while. Because it has only been deleted with a G6 if it is recreated there is no recourse to delete it again immediately, which if the AFD had been fully debated would have allowed a G4 delete on recreation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why Nyttend thought the G6 criterion didn't apply. {{db-disambig}} clearly says: disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)". This was obviously the case here. Nyttend simply misread the rule. No point in making a fuss about it now. I also don't see how the technical distinction between a G4-able AfD decision and a speedy makes any practical difference here. If anybody should ever recreate the page, then either there will still be no more than a single target, in which case the dab will automatically again fall under G6, or such targets will have been created, in which case the dab will undoubtedly have become legit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have deleted that as a G6 myself, but someone's decline should still be respected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If the original decline is based on such an obvious factual error about the rule? I don't see why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Avoidance of drama, perhaps? Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

That page was an obvious G6 candidate. I'd like Nyttend to explain why he thought G6 did not apply, as it seems he did not explain himself other than by asserting that "neither of those cases is true". Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky return request

Request withdrawn. 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User:PumpkinSky (formerly User:Rlevse) has posted on his talk page a request to return to editing. A recent community ban proposal was closed with consensus against the ban, but he remains blocked. The ban proposal focused on several legitimate concerns with his editing, mainly copyright/close paraphrasing issues, and presenting himself as a new user instead of a returning/unvanished one. He is offering an apology for the misleading presentation of himself as a new user, and has proposed some safeguards to help prevent any copyright issues from entering the mainspace. A number of editors, including myself, have volunteered to act as mentors to help make sure the copyright concerns don't recur. This editor has made some mistakes, but he has a lot to offer the project, and I hope my fellow editors will consider supporting his return to editing. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) My name is PumpkinSky. I used to be Rlevse. I love this project because as a child I read the hardcopy World Book Encyclopedia for fun. The 21st Century version of that is Wikipedia. I love learning new things. I've devoted a ton of time and edits to wikipedia (see the appx 100k of my Rlevse edits). I worked hard to do the best that I could and tried to recognize the efforts of others with the “this is your day” program. I edited from Nov 2005 to Nov 2010 as Rlevse. I can’t recall the numbers exactly as my pages were deleted, but I had about 15 FAs, 17 FLs, several GAs, and about 30 DYKs. I am most proud of helping save Medal of Honor from FAR because of the sacrifices of those veterans, Gilwell Park, Brownsea Island Scout Camp, William Hanna, and Joseph Barbera. In mid 2011 I was helping my friend BarkingMoon learn wiki. That whetted my appetite and love of wiki again. I came back as PumpkinSky in July 2011. As PumpkinSky I am most proud of the FL List of stutterers as I did it in honor of someone I know who suffers from that affliction and my work on WP:Montana articles—especially Yogo sapphire. Towards the end of that time I really enjoyed working on WP:NRHP articles. As PumpkinSky I had 1 FL, 2 GAs, and about 23 DYKs, with two DYKs still on the nom page. I apologize to the community for presenting myself as a new user. I especially apologize to User:Casliber, my wiki friends, and those who have worked through the CCIs. I also thank those who worked the CCIs to improve the articles. I never plagiarized or paraphrased too closely on purpose. I honestly thought putting a valid ref at the end was enough. I accept responsibility for not knowing better. Allow me to take this opportunity to state that I’ve for years said wiki has always been terrible at educating users in practically everything. As PumpkinSky, I’ve been making a sincere effort to get better at paraphrasing/copy requirements. I feel this is shown by the results of the current CCI in which 13 reviewers have described with words such as “constructive”, “improvements”, “gnoming”, “helpful”, and “good”. I’m willing to help with that but keep in mind I’m not exactly wiki’s subject matter expert on the topic. I ask User:28bytes to undelete my Rlevse user page and all its subpages. I ask the community to leave them alone as I merely want to get some info from them. I will agree to these return conditions for one year: I wish to return as PumpkinSky. I will post a permanent note at the top of my user talk page that I used to be Rlevse. Five users have agreed to be mentors: User:28bytes, User: Ched Davis, User:Gerda Arendt, User:Montanabw, and User:Wehwalt. I agree to contact one of the mentors before submitting a FAC or DYK. I will endeavor to my utmost ability to avoid conflict with others. If such a situation does come about, I will contact my mentors and give justifiable reasons for offense/disagreement. Going forward, if I am allowed to return, I would like to still focus on Montana and NRHP articles. I will not for at least a year nom a DYK without one of my mentors vetting it first. As for FAC, look at the Yogo article and the many people I sought to help on it. Several other people, not me, had the idea to prep it for FAC. I gladly accepted their help as I know I cannot meet modern FAC standards on my own. As for copy issues, see the talk page. I was reaching out to Nikkimaria to help get the article ready. It still isn’t ready but people tell me it’s close. I will not nom a FAC without several others, including Wehwalt, vetting it first. I wish I had learned the copy issues better sooner. I was truly trying to get better at the copy issues and I think the current CCI shows that. I know that I still need help and I truly thank those willing to help me. I think I came back as another name to avoid the überdrama that I knew would occur, but it happened anyway. That poor ability to handle feeling cornered did me in again. I apologize again. In real life and on-wiki I find it difficult to deal with situations where I feel cornered and I tend to withdraw. I apologize for making a decision to completely withdraw instead of sticking around to work things out. I will endeavor my best to be super-cautious about paraphrasing issues. PumpkinSky talk 21:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Comment (non-admin). I read the request on PS's talkpage, and I'm favorably impressed with the list of mentors. I'd like to suggest that PS explain a little better on his talk what was going on with the PS account initially failing to identify as a returning user. I think that there was an appearance of intentionally trying to come back without disclosing, and I'd like to see a clearer explanation of what PS now thinks about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Has he admitted to also being User:BarkingMoon? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC) His talk page statement says BarkingMoon is/was a friend of his... I've got no other information about that than what I've seen in the various discussions on-wiki. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC) It's a pity, because in light of the evidence I saw during the discussion a few days ago, I must believe he's lying. I would have been inclined to support otherwise, but not this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I'm inclined to believe it may be more complicated that this. The BarkingMoon account may well have been created by a friend of RLevse, but RLevse may have had access to the account, or at least influence over some edits. Geometry guy 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Comment I think item one on any list of conditions for a return is that he needs to be committed to cleaning up messes he created through years of plagiarism, copyvios and "close paraphrase" (which is the bullshit term copyright violators use to make themselves feel better about their crimes, c.f. ethnic cleansing vs. genocide). He also needs to make it clear that he understands how to write his own words when editing Wikipedia articles. This is not a minor, little issue, this sort of thing is a core issue to Wikipedia's and the Wikipedia community's reputation, reliability, and trustworthiness. That Rlevse was also a user with advanced permissions makes the problems even more troubling; such a user with such advanced permissions cannot claim ignorance in these matters; it had to have been willful. Of those who is given much, much is expected. Rlevse fell short of those expectations spectacularly on the most basic part of Wikipedia, article writing in a trustworthy manner. I am not necessarily opposed to returning, but this sort of thing is far worse than what some simple vandle or POV-pusher, who's easy to identify and stop and fix up after; Rlevse created a giant pile of shit at Wikipedia with his "close paraphrase" and continued it even through his new account, and unless he's willing to clean his own shit up, then this is a non-starter. Iff he is, then he can... --Jayron32 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I am here only for 2 years and don't know what you describe as te "mess" Rlevse created. I have worked with PumpkinSky for half a year, and the CCI tells me that there is only minor close paraphrasing in the 729 articles he touched during that time. That tells me he learned a lot since Rlevse time. He can clean up only if he is not blocked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Comment If there is a !vote on lifting the block it should be here, rather than on the user's talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Fine with me if someone moves it here, but given that folks have been asking questions and requesting clarifications, would anyone object to me unblocking him for the purpose of participating in the discussion? Ferrying over talk page comments is a bit of a pain. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I object at this time. There is a discussion at the PumpkinSky account talk page in progress. Rlevse is participating there. --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC) You can wrap part of his talk page in <onlyinclude> tags and transclude his talk page here. →Στc. 23:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC) That's the kind of idea I wish I had thought of - too late now! :) Geometry guy 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Discussion of return request NOTE: I have unblocked user:PumpkinSky for the sole purpose of responding to questions to this request. I have advised him that any deviations may result in immediate reblocking and may jeaopardize his request.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Note - Copied over from users talk page. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC) support, as I trust you (PS) know. I will do all that I can to help. If you want me to post a note of this somewhere, let me know. I have your talk watchlisted, but haven't been on wiki a lot for the last few days. — Ched :  ?  21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I have placed a note on WP:AN asking editors to weigh in here. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC) support, I have good faith in you, PumpkinSky, and would like to continue our enjoyable work together, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) support also, per the above. Even without mentors, PumpkinSky's edits will be closely scrutinized. Where is the risk?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Support, per my statement at WP:AN. 28bytes (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Question Could you please comment on your involvement with the FAC RFC and the events leading up to it? --Rschen7754 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I clearly went overboard there but I still believe the core of what I was saying, that neither FAC, nor any part of wiki, should have a defacto permanent director. When I was Scouting WP director, I gave it up after 5 years on my own because I felt I'd been there long enough. In any event, the community ruled against my position, I accept that and consider the matter closed. PumpkinSky talk 22:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Question: Why would a former arbitrator, who judged cases of inappropriate behavior in editors, need a mentor? Or more than one? What could a mentor tell you about what is appropriate or not on Wikipedia that you don't already know yourself? --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I think the mentors is there as those are the two areas where he got into trouble before.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC) This is for Rlevse to answer. Specifically, I have concerns that the mentors would not object to the same kind of invective Rlevse used on my talk page and in discussions about voting for FA director and delegates. Wehwalt was involved in these discussions and said nothing about them. Would the others step in? And now why would they have to? Can a fully functional adult not censor himself and participate in discussions where he respects others who disagree with his views? --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Moni3--Yes, the prior answer was meant for you. As to expanding on it...I know I've made many mistakes, not just the copy stuff, just as you say. I have apologized and truly want to do better in all regards. I would ask the mentors to mainly help with the copy stuff. No I don't need them to explain the other things to me, but if I fail again. I expect them to wiki-slap me. I have to sign off for tonight. Will come back tomorrow. PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC) He already answered, just below... perhaps you missed it? 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I didn't miss it; I just thought he answered someone else because I'm nonplussed here. If that is his response, perhaps I'm looking for a more specific answer. Rlevse, what do you see your mentors doing for you? How will you communicate with them and they with you? Will they step in to speak for you? Will they tell you to tone down your comments if you start using the same poor communication against Raul or other people at FAC? If I'm not mistaken, were you not a voting arbitrator on the Mattisse case, where she was assigned mentors? Perhaps you think I'm referring to copyvio problems when I am not. I'm referring to creating alternate accounts and using manipulative overstatements to create false doubt in procedural discussions, such as your participation at FAC polls and the RfC. That's pretty much the basic description of disruption. There are finer points to copyvio and a learning curve, but it should be exceedingly clear to a former arb that creating alternate accounts and disrupting discussions to score points against another editor you see as an opponent is unquestioningly unfavorable behavior. Do you need mentors to point this out to you? I sound like an asshole asking this--especially with this no-grudges-forgiving-notavote-discussion, but these are legitimate questions and I'm seeking a frank and candid response from Rlevse. --Moni3 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Moni3, I think these are perfectly legitimate questions - but one thing to keep in mind is that, unfortunately, there's a huge disconnect between admins/arbs, or more generally speaking the "constabulary" of Wikipedia and content work. Arbs/admins/constables can be familiar with the lawyerly aspect of the project and be completely clueless of its content side. And then when these bureaucratic types try their hand at content creation, usually just to establish some "street cred", that can be a recipe for trouble, as was the case here. If the mentors appointed are of the sort who can help the user become a better writer, creator, avoid future copyvios etc. then the mentorship idea is perfectly legitimate. Hell, I can think of a couple other arbs and plenty of admins who should have mentors appointed as well.VolunteerMarek 03:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I'm not quite sure which of my questions you're referring to, but you're making a point to say that admins/arbs don't necessarily know how to write content? Maybe? If so, sure, I absolutely and depressingly agree with you. But I don't know how this is relevant. It's not Rlevse's content work I'm focusing on here, and I stated so above. His content work is probably what I'm least knowledgeable or comfortable speaking about. It's his other behavior. Do you mean to say that sitting arbs or even admins do not know they are not allowed to create alternate accounts, disrupt procedural discussions with unhelpful commentary and invective, and repeatedly attempt to malign specific editors? This is already spelled out in policy. And Rlevse ruled on this kind of behavior when he was an arb. I don't know how to phrase this more delicately, honestly, but I absolutely understand having mentors for editors who are mentally challenged or have psychological issues, are very young or whose grasp of English is poor, or even new to Wikipedia. I really don't understand why a fully functional adult needs people to guide him gently through the labyrinth of Wikipedia--a labyrinth Rlevse knows better than a large percentage of editors. My concern here is that Rlevse made conscious decisions that he knew were wrong. This cannot be avoided. And it seems editors in this discussion is treating those conscious decisions as if they were borne of mere ignorance. They were not. --Moni3 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah ok, these are legitimate questions too. To clarify, the initial reason why Rlevse resigned was because of copyvios etc. i.e. content stuff. They then did what a lot of people who get banned or blocked or "disgraced" but who have a significant interest in Wikipedia do - they socked. It happens all the time. And yes, it's wrong, and yes, you're right on this - this decision was not made out of ignorance, it was a deliberate, conscious decision to violate policy which he himself upheld so stringently before. But... maybe it's just me but I do think there's a big difference between people who are deliberately trying to be malicious and ones who are... let's say "responding sub-optimally to circumstances", but whose intentions are ultimately benign. The thing here is that it's not like PumpkinSky is going to get approved at RfA again or something (god, I hope not, though how that page works, who knows really). My understanding is that this request entails PumpkinSky sticking to just plain ol' content work - maybe not writing articles, but categorizing them etc., doing other gnome-ish stuff. So the mentors should keep an eye on that. Of course, if there's policy-related shananigans then these same mentors need to alert the community to it. And yes, at this point it would help it if PS said "I fucked up. I've changed. I look at things differently now that I'm on the other side of the block button barrel". Which, I think he sort of has. With four mentors there's very little potential for damage though... I hope.VolunteerMarek 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC) VM, you wrote, "It happens all the time. And yes, it's wrong." Not it's not wrong, especially when the person left in disgrace as compared to having been banned/blocked. The problem with PS/R is that 1) he left before allowing dispute resolution to occur. Had he suffered his lumps then and left, nobody would really care that he came back as PS. 2) As PS, he rekindled some old fueds, which since he had a secret identity gave him an advantage. And 3) He didn't disclose his new identity to ArbCOM. If he had come back 6 months ago and said, "ArbCOM, I'm back, but because of the way I went out, I am invoking my right to a Clean Start", he could have done so. Then if he blew his cover (many cleanstarters do) ArbCOM could have stepped in and said that he was trying a clean start. Clean start socks are allowed per policy. PS/R was trying to clean start, but failed.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC) In an ideal world, of course, arbs would be free of deficiencies by virtue of being arbs, but as a practical matter it makes sense to have people who've been able to successfully navigate the thorny path of WP:PARAPHRASE offer guidance to an editor, former arb or not, who has struggled with it in the past. The fact that several of us are willing to help in that task reflects how seriously this issue should be taken. 28bytes (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC) To add to this, being an arbitrator has little to do with knowing how to avoid paraphrasing issues. --Rschen7754 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Obviously I didn't know what was allowed as well as I thought. By accepting the advice of those who have a better grasp, I get their help, and the community knows that people they trust are checking my work.PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Sorry, but I don't believe you when you say BarkingMoon was not you. Would have been inclined to support otherwise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC) It may be more complicated than this, but it is a serious question: see my post below. Geometry guy 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) weak support Neutral wanting to support. It pained me when he left in disgrace the way he did; but he's served his time. Let him come back in the open. I only wish he had disclosed the Pumpkin Sky account to ArbCOM as a clean start account to begin with. That would make this easier and more of a no-brainer without some of the drahma we recently had... there are also open issues that I think need to be resolved. But in principle, I'd like to see his return---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Note: re Will BeBack below, I don't think I've ever participated in a meaningful way in any previous discussion relative to Pumpkinsky/BM/Rlvese... but I do consider him a friend and somebody whom at one point had the respect of this community. I think he'll work hard to regain some of that trust.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I've moved to neutral wanting to support. I WANT Rlvese to come back. He was one of the first people I connected with here at WP, but some of the non-plagarism/copy-vio issues are concerning. He NEEDS to address them honestly. If he did them, come clean---a scout is trustworthy. Come clean, then we can work on the rebuilding.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Comment. First: The list of mentors include some users who have been vocal defenders of Rlevse/BarkingMoon/PumpkinSky. Mentors who are friends may not be in a position to provide the neutral guidance necessary. Part of the problem before with Rlevse was that his frineds let him get away with lots of content violations. Second: the request starts with bragging about accomplishments, many of which were quite tarnished. There's no explanation given for how someone who is intimately familiar with Wikipedia content policies committed so many violations, apparently in an effort to secure bronze stars for his user page to brag about. Third: I don't see any explanation for his work as a bureaucrat, when he apparently used his wife's account to vote in RFA which he later closed. It's hard to support an unblock when there are still unresolved issues like this.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC) A purely selfish reason would be because many editors will be looking over our shoulders, and we like keeping whatever respect we've got. I like to think there are better reasons though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) What would you say to the user if he posted a message like this? [162]   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I'd tell him to cut it out, that word's not appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I'd tell him that's not a helpful response, and he shouldn't have taken the IP's bait. That said, it would have taken a lot of self control for me to avoid posting a similar response to the IP's comment. User:Materialscientist does so much great work here, and is abused constantly, that I understand the frustration. But no, he shouldn't have taken the IP's bait. 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC) So even just before his block he was making inappropriate edits. His DYK was pulled because of close paraphrasing. Back when he started with this account he attacked an editor for treating him poorly as a "new user", an outright lie.[163]. More deceitful talk page posts: [164][165] DYK pulled and CCI: please see yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) That thread looks like your making excuses for him rather than getting him to stop making close paraphrases. Is that an example of how you'd mentor him?   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC) That thread started as a question trying to see where the problem was in this specific case (I failed to see the paraphrasing as "too close", see yourself), then including SandyGeorgia also for advice. I commented more generally below that PumpkinSky seems to have a much better understanding for paraphrasing issues than Rlevse (if I may say so). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Further, how would his mentors deal with these two articles: History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) and Arthur Rose Eldred?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Regarding the deceitful diffs: you're absolutely right that presenting himself as a new user was completely unacceptable. If he had not offered an apology for doing that I would not have agreed to be a part of his return to productive editing. Regarding the FAs, I will defer to Wehwalt, who has more experience in that area. 28bytes (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC) That's the problem with having multiple mentors - no one is responsible.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I'm not even going to look. Suffice it to say I will carefully look at all situations as they arise. I'm not interested in playing "what if" with you, WIll.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC) So what is your mentoring going to entail, if your not interested reviewing his edits?   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Am I correct in saying that at the time Rlevse was a crat, that both he and his wife had disclosed their relationship on wiki? If that's the case, was there any discussion about any issues at the time? I'd like to read through some of that history if it's available before I comment any further. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Review the contribution history of JoJo (talk · contribs). Notice her minimal editing and her lack of English skills. Then notice her extraordinary participation in RFAs and, on occasion, her comments about policy issues and users' careers. Then tell me that you truly believe she made those edits on her own.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, in hindsight it all looks suspicious. And, those who know the relationship, should have probably raised a stink about it 2 years ago as a possible violation of COI (I know I would never act as an admin on a case where my wife participated.) But nobody did. I think that is what Ched is looking for---was there any discussion 2 years ago while he was a 'crat alleging these violations?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think anyone noticed it at the time. PumpkinSky hasn't offered any explanation.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Support, I know nothing of P Sky’s issues as Rlevse, my only dealing with him has been as an editor on Montana and NRHP related articles in 2011 and early this year. That’s all been a positive experience. Copy vios are a big issue, but it always seems to me that many people actually have to stub their toe in a serious way before they see the light. As many of us have said above, everyone will be watching P Sky like a hawk. But if he stays blocked, WP doesn’t get the benefit of his contributions. That’s not good as every editor ought to be cherished and nurtured for their contributions to WP. We’ve paid a price for those contributions in the past with P Sky, but if P Sky is sincere, then the price we pay for future contributions should be minimal and well worth it. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Support Net positive to the encyclopedia. (ps, there's a typo in "Five uses") HF25 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose Extend standard offer, 6 months without socking etc., then he can ask again. At that time, generally editing should be restricted until his copyvios are cleaned up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC) OpposeNeutral, but if Rlevse refuses to work on his CCI and fix the problems he made, then I will be an Oppose. Due to the issues raised below, I feel that Rlevse had thoroughly destroyed and used the trust of the community for his own ends, in order to bring disruption to multiple areas of the Wiki. Because of this, I can't bring myself to support his unblock under any condition. SilverserenC 23:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose but seeking to support. I don't bear grudges and I don't believe the community should: there is much that RLevse did wrong, but I believe he has suffered for it, and there is much to be said in favor of allowing him back through an openly declared and mentored account. I remain concerned about the BarkingMoon story, however. I am willing to believe that the account was created by a friend of RLevse (at RLevse's "cajoling" according to the edit history) but there is strong behavioral evidence that the account was not entirely independent from RLevse, who may have edited from the account, or influenced some of the edits made by his friend (such as this comment at ANI made less than 3 hours after the BarkingMoon account was created). This is a serious matter, but not as serious as the account being an undeclared and subsequently denied sock. At User talk:PumpkinSky, the relation with BarkingMoon is presented in a purely positive light as the idea that "helping his friend learn how to edit whetted his appetite and love of the wiki again" (I paraphrase slightly). I would suggest, however, that human emotions are often more complex than this, and that it was frustrating for RLevse not to be able to contribute to issues which he still cared about, and this may have played a part in encouraging his friend to register an account, and in the subsequent use of that account. If that were the case, I believe it is something editors may be willing to view with understanding. However if PumpkinSky wants to regain the trust of the community, then he in turn must trust the community to accept him not merely as a rosy, new-improved, learned-from-his-mistakes version of RLevse, but as an editor willing to present himself as he is, as one who has taken the wrong approach in avoiding the problems of the past, and now, with the help of mentors, needs to face up to them. Geometry guy 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Support Strong points override errors and mistakes. I think PSky is willing to be a productive editor and will address any good-faith issues that are raised. As for having your friends mentor you, well, I would think it foolish to call upon one's enemies, eh? Some of the nominee mentors seem neutral, I haven't "met" them as far as I know. Sure, I'm a bit biased in PSky's favor, I've had a wonderful time working with PSky on the Yogo Sapphire article, it's one of the finest collaborations I've personally been involved with on wiki. And from Rlevse, I was awarded my own day! (And no, PSky did nothing to tell me that he had been Rlevse! ) I want him back; I'm not going to babysit everything he does,but I will respond to any request for mentoring -- and I am well-known for speaking my mind and having strong opinions! Anything that happened on the Rlevse account is now well over a year old and most misdemeanors (and even a lot of "high crimes" get sentenced to "time served." He was gone around a year, that's as long as any sort of block would have been, and all that without an actual "conviction." So I say, call it what you want, but declare it over. And if people like Moni or Sandy or Raul have specific concerns, or PSky with them, I say maybe they should take them to a specifically identified individual referee who will be fair to all (Hey! Mike Cline! You're good at that sort of thing!) and both sides must disengage from wherever the dispute is and work via the referee. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support, mainly because Wikipedia lost any moral high-ground here when it allowed an administrator to threaten Rlevse with exposing supposedly pejorative information about his editing if he didn't banish himself. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Am I reading the above wrong, or was there a discussion ongoing on "block to discuss" and that there was no consensus for unblocking? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support, it's a net positive thing. I think that if Rlevse is indeed unblocked, he would be under very close scrutiny for a period of time. How much damage can he do, really? He should probably pitch in and help clean up the CCI's though, but I think indeffing a user who clearly has a will to do good for this project (and has done so in the past) would be a bad thing to do. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support. PS believes he made some mistakes, he describes the mistakes, and he'd like to work on those mistakes, and on improving his editing. His experience is a net gain to an encyclopedia that is losing editors and not gaining the numbers they need. I agree with Cla68. Whatever PS was believed to have had done he didn't deserve intimidation or harassment from an admin. There have been problematic issues on both sides of this. Perhaps we could move on in a positive direction. (olive (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)) Comment I tend to agree with Silver seren. That being said, if he is willing to use the CCI of his past edits as a basis from which to work with his mentors to both help clean up that mess, and to learn what not to do in the future, then that would be a credible effort toward regaining community trust. Resolute 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose copyright, plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC) We may as well start the RFC/U immediately for that matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support My76Strat (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Comment - Rlevse/PS, I am glad you are opening dialogue for an open comeback rather than cladestinely as another account. I personally have trouble believing BarkingMoon was not you, but I really want to look forward from all this and figure out a way through. I'd support a trial (three month?) period during which time the main focus is reviewing and cleaning up of articles identified to have paraphrasing or copyvio issues, and that during or after this period, the mentors are able to allay concerns that the cleanup has been systematic and thorough, and that PS accepts the need for future spot-checks for an as yet undetermined period. You do realise what a massive massive timesink copyvio/paraphrasing is to review? If you're willing to roll up sleeves and get stuck in cleaning up, I think that'd be a big big step in the right direction.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I understand it is ok for me to post here? Lord I hope so. Cas, I have no problem with that at all. I'll need help at first as the copy issue is not clearcut to me, but I am quite willing to give it my best shot. PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, it's ok for you to post here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, while some may question the act of unblocking you, I felt that it is the best way to get a full picture and to allow you to present your case/defense without having somebody copy edit it for you...---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support per Steven Zhang, basically. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Questions What do you mean when you say you clearly went overboard at the FAC RfC? What could cause a mature and experienced user to go clearly overboard? Is there anything you intend to mend there? How will you deal with such a thing in the future? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I genuinely believe in my view on that, unfortunately based on my experience with the principals, I let my enthusiasm show more than I should and startled people. Again, I accept the community's decision. PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support. We even allowed the owner of Wikipedia Review back. I think PumpkinSky will produce the kind of TFAs that Jimbo wants. And nothing else matters. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support I second Montanabw's comments on PS's Talk page. I think his apology was sincere and valid, and he addressed what were brought up against him. It was truly remarkable what he was doing on Yogo sapphire, and I have total faith that the lessons have been learned, the points/problems addressed, and PS will move on in a positive direction under the watchful eye of a few Wikipedians until he has earned the respect of us once again. Good luck to you PumpkinSky! I'm looking forward to seeing Yogo sapphire become Featured someday, and I'll be happy to provide comments whenever it goes up for nomination. But please PumpkinSky, be sure to always log in. No more aliases! Jessemv (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose This is way too soon. The standard offer stands, come back in 6 months without socking or disruption and we'll see. Night Ranger (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support. Useful editor with clue. This project needs more like Pumpkin and less of those who are not. I've no doubt that the 5 above will ensure that all goes well. Anyone can edit. Alarbus (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Clue? Right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Clue!. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Clue is required to detect it in others, or to detect lack of clue. Alarbus (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, I agree, that is absolutely true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Support - continue community discussion. I was surprised that the initial 8 sentence copying led to such a harsh outcome, and I am unconvinced that the plagiarism (?) described by PumpkinSky here is even a violation of policy at all. The discussion around these points has repeatedly conflated close paraphrasing with "copyright violation" for sections of text which have not been proven to exceed 400 words of overall length, the only standard actually mentioned in WP:QUOTE. WP:Plagiarism discusses copying "with very few changes" without "in-text attribution". If the behavior discussed in that section about PumpkinSky is truly wrong, then Wikipedia needs to make that clearer. If there's some boundary people are enforcing de facto, then tell people what it is in the policies. Instead of following Rlevse around and waiting to pounce, the community needs to be standing alongside him trying to figure out where the line is. And if he crosses over it just a little, like this, that is a minor pecadillo, not reason for trying to throw him out. Likewise the situation with "WP:Clean start" versus "WP:Sock puppetry" is so confusing that there seems to be some kind of blowup every time. Wikipedia has become way, way too nasty to editors who seem generally beneficial to the project. Wnt (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I am also going to support this, though I can't help but note the irony that as an Arb this editor made the phrase "banned means banned!" famous. But I think he's eaten enough crow by now. I think PumpkinSky/Rlevse genuinely wants to contribute in a positive manner here and he should be given the chance and in fact if the folks mentioned as mentors are willing to help out (I'm about to leave a response to Moni on the mentorship thing above - so see that) it could result in a win-win situation for everyone.VolunteerMarek 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, but he's now making famous the phrase "vanished doesn't mean vanished" . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. At a bare minimum, I would not even consider this unless the issue with RfA and JoJo is fully explained, and the editor explains more accurately what the BarkingMoon relationship was (since I previously strong evidence that at least some of the edits were either Rlvese himself or edits done on behalf of Rlvese). Should these issues be legitimately dealt with, then a conditional return to editing may be possible, though I can't say for now exactly what conditions would be necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. - Not willing to consider before six month standard offer since last disruptive socking. There are also unanswered questions about this users edits under differing accounts and IP addresses. Mentoring is a red herring as Moni said - he knows all about it. Youreallycan 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support. He should be allowed to come back and do his best here. --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Editor can't be trusted, per the sock situation. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I believe that this is beyond what can be worked out on this board, and propose that this be moved to a request for comment. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC) comment There are several things here I think that do deserve to be addressed. For the most part, I think that Rlevse/Pumpkinsky (PS if that's ok), should speak for himself, so I've tried to minimize my "but he's a good guy" comments. Geometry Guy, 28Bytes, Balloonman, and others all have made good comments, suggestions, and asked very valid questions. One quick point: I didn't really interact with the editor in question circa 2008-09 when he edited as Rlevse, and only got to know him in the last few months as the Pumpkinsky account. To be blunt, I didn't even know that he had a wife that edited here, or what her name was until another admin. followed through with his threat to produce the revelations. I'm not entirely sure what's to be expected of me as a "mentor". I'd prefer to work with a community of adults that provides a checks and balances system, and in that respect I do indeed offer to help or provide any input that I can. I have not offered to "check-in daily" and review each and every edit another editor makes - but if someone asks me to look at something I will try to do so as time permits. I am intrigued by the suggestion that on the say so ... I'm not sure how to put this in politically correct terms ... but ... If SandyG were to tell Balloonman "block him", that he would do so. I like the idea of thinking outside the box sometimes. (Hence my "Consider yourself blocked" effort a while back) .. and with that ... @Sandy, I apologized on your talk page; and I do so here now again in a fully public venue - I did not mean it as a threat. I tried to do what I thought was best at the time - I didn't know Wehwalt had gone to bed - I tried to treat all sides equally - I wanted the ANI thread to die a die a natural death, and took my best shot at resolving a situation with the least amount of turmoil. Your point about allowing a discussion to continue through to a resolution was sound: you were right, I was wrong, and I apologize again - not sure what more I can say beyond that. Now, I do have limited time for wiki due to real life issues over the next few days, but I will do my best to help where I can here. My own personal view here is a bit of a Gordian Knot - meaning "grudges". People are holding grudges for far too long (on all sides), and it really needs to find a resolution. What was once a FA in 2007 is not now meeting our current standards. Rather than pointing fingers at "editors", I'd rather see everyone working together to address the "contributions" (PS included). IIRC we have some sort of policy or guideline around here that speaks to that? IJS folks. If we're pulling in opposite directions, we're not going to get as far as we could if we all pulled in the same direction. (apologies for the tl;dr) — Ched :  ?  05:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Grudges? Really? That does not sound like mature behavior and if PS is a part of that kind of ridiculousness, then no. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Comment: I said support before and want to expand a bit, it was very late at night my place when I posted. Please understand that both my English and my understanding of Wikipedia procedures are limited, and my history here is only 2 years. PumpkinSky - I think that he proved during the last months that he is a valuable editor, CCI (only 17 of 729 articles not checked) found only minor paraphrasing issues and copies within Wikipedia (I didn't know myself that they need to be sourced). I see him open to collaboration and helpful. Rlevse - PumpkinSky could openly deal with that past (that I don't know) and clean up. Someone blocked could not do that. BarkingMoon - I believe that he is a real different person, we started working together, I miss him. My POV: he learned from (then) Rlevse and let him edit, to which extent would be hard to tell. He had no copyvio problems, as far as I know. Canvassing - I had to look up what it means, and if letting people know where a topic related to them is discussed means canvassing I apologize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I removed that link anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose - and expressing some astonishment that anyone is even treating this seriously enough to support a return. Rlevse had the most trusted position it is possible to have on Wikipedia, got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and inviked RTV--as a sitting arbitrator, Rlevse was under no illusions as to what RTV meant. It means goodbye. Forever. You are vanished. Returning via multiple socks, especially to continue grudges? Not fucking acceptable. Lock the door and throw away the key. → ROUX ₪ 08:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose Rlevse has: Violated core Wikipedia content policies, over and over, which has taken countless volunteer hours to remedy. Interfered with efforts to clean up his content problems. Abused the trust of the community by using an alternate account to vote in RFAs which he closed as a bureaucrat. Snuck back at least once and maybe twice with unacknowledged accounts despite having "vanished". Lied repeatedly to the community. Worked to build a claque of supporters, a battleground behavior. Engaged in a feud with the FA volunteers. Made personal attacks. This editor is not a "net positive". Just the opposite. He has apparently been so obsessed with gaining FA and DYK credits that he has run roughshod over most Wikipedia policies. He is actively harmful to the project.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC) There is new evidence of massive sock-puppetry using web hosts, colocation centers, and open proxies to edit articles on scouting and engage in attacks against other editors at a FAR, all while he was using the PumpkinSky account in parallel. Evidence will be introduced here within a day or so. If you're impatient, check out User_talk: Geometry guy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose - NO. In the first place it's way too early to even consider this. Furthermore, the multitude of issues in this user's past are poisonous... plagiarism, copyright violations, abusing sockpuppets... and now there is extensive evidence of even greater malfeasance? No way. Rlevse/Vanished 6551232 needs to be community banned, or at the very least remain blocked. I don't buy this "BarkingMoon wasn't Rlevse" stuff either. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose - It really does not make sense to sweep everything under the rug, sorry...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Can't support at this time. Changing to Support. He really wants to try, and he has a great team of mentors. I am pretty sure he can make a success of it. -- Dianna (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Originally I was ready to post a "hells yeah" response, but my investigation of User:JoJo has given me pause. She had only 375 edits. Of these, 78 were posts to requests for adminship threads, with 57 actual votes; ten votes on Requests for Bureaucrat pages; eight votes in the 2008 Abrcom election; this works out to 25% of her total Wikipedia activity. Surely even with another Wikipedian in the home these levels of interest in these esoteric topics requires explanation? I am concerned that her opinions were being overly influenced by Rlevse. An explanation is required here before I would support a return to normal editing. Sandy, your Diff#1 below goes to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55#Clearing the air, which does not seem to be related to Pumpkin Sky. Could you check this out, please? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC) That was intended to be to a discussion that would shed light on the suitability of the "mentors" (eg, Montanabw), specifically, their impartiality and the likelihood that they would enforce behavioral norms. Not sure where the disconnect is ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I still don't get it. Wehwalt is in the quoted diff, agreeing that the page should be shut down for 24 hours. How does this relate to Pumpkin Sky or the mentorship qualities of Montana BW? -- Dianna (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I see now what you were trying to say. --Dianna (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Glad you got it, sorry for the confusion. That was another case (where Wehwalt and Raul had agreed to semi the page, Wehwalt was the only one who might have objected, he didn't, yet Rlevse jumped all over Raul for doing that-- the only person to jump on Raul for that. I thought you were referring to another discussion (hard to track since you're referencing something in another section). Point being that Rlevse returned to engage a grudge at FAC, and he has yet to explain why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the fix on my strike-out there. Sandy, you don't know what Rlevse's motive was for posting at FA. You are assuming his motive was "to engage a grudge" but in actuality you do not know what his motive was. -- Dianna (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Count me among those who would like to support, but who cannot so far. I think that Pumpkin Sky will really need to step up and explain for himself how he can address the many concerns that are being raised. A lot of people are speaking for him, but he really needs to demonstrate, himself, that he understands what the problems are, and understands how to address them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC) My wife and I were seeking to find more things to do together. That is how she got started in wiki. As soon as she started we posted our connection at the top of our user pages. She was curious about all the admin/crat stuff I did and I showed those area to her. No one cared at the time about me closing things she voted in, probably because nothing was close and her vote didn't matter. I would never have closed one of those if the vote was close. PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC) That explanation doesn't hold water. First, The JoJo account participapted in at leas one RFA which you felt was so close that you needed to post a lengthy explanation for your decision: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath. Second, although she uses very broken English in most of her postings on Wikipedia, and had very little involvement overall, she makes astute comments about some editor's understanding of policy and their overall tenure on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2, etc. It simply is not credible that she formed these opinions on her own. Further, even if we take your explanation at face value, the idea that a bureaucrat should encourage his poorly informed wife to participate in RFAs which he was going to close shows really poor judgment. Furthermore, rather than giving this explanation initially and rationally, you've made personal attacks against me for even raising the issue. This seems like another instance in which you are giving partial and unbelievable explanations for your policy violations.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC) oppose I got along ok with this user ok in his prior incarnation, but at this point it looks like there were so many different problems going on, some of which are ongoing, and there's minimal indication that he actually appreciates what he did was wrong. So I'm going to need to reluctantly oppose at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support In his open letter style post above, Pumpkin Sky appears sincere and genuine and forthcoming. He has volunteered to come back under restrictions that should insure that his editing has oversight, and is productive and in accordance with guidelines and policies. He is a very experienced editor and one that we should not lose, if possible, as he can be a valuable asset to the project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose As he was pulling the wool over our eyes just a short time ago, the massive loss of trust takes far more time to heal. Although WP:OFFER, paired with exactly the same restrictions and mentors would probably be best, I would probably be content with 3 months (plus the restrictions and mentors), as long as we see the obviously requisite beneficial work on another Wikimedia project. He used to contribute good content - think how much improved Simple could be if he (copyvio-free) improved things over there for 3 months, and how much more we could trust him! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This is a bad idea. The socking and willful deception is enough to prevent a return, in my book. The plagiarism is enough on its own, as well. I don't know what idea is more appalling, that a sitting arbitrator and experienced editor didn't know any better, or knew better and did it anyway. No amount of mentoring is going to fix what's broken here. And, I don't think all the facts have even come to light. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose, on balance. I remain unconvinced on the "Rlevse = Barking Moon" allegation, but there have been too many other disturbing issues brought to light, particularly the strong evidence of a campaign to disrupt FAC. Rlevse was a colleague who I respected, so voting "oppose" here is a difficult personal decision. However the welfare of the project comes first, and on balance, this looks like a net negative situation. Manning (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Support I think another chance is due here. I've noticed two things about Wikipedia "regulars": one is that we love drama and any chance to stretch what should be an easy decision out into a long worthless thread we will take it. The other is that we are an unforgiving bunch of assholes. As socking goes, this wasn't particularly egregious or abusive. As for holding grudges, well the only thing regulars here like more than long threads where we talk past each other is holding grudges. If grudge holding is blockable offense, then a number of people who have commented here should be blocked. Since he's agreed to work with CCI, I don't see that as a problem either. Let's give someone who has done a lot of good here in the past a chance to do good in the future. It's not as though he won't have eyes on him, and if he messes up it will give someone a chance to go to one of the drama boards to scream for another indef block. Who wouldn't relish that opportunity? AniMate 00:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Anyone that has done all of the things that Will Beback has mentioned above should not be allowed to edit here.--Rockfang (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Restrictions if unblocked I, personally, am opposed to unblocking PS before he has served out a 6-month standard offer period, however I recognize that many editors whom I respect feel otherwise, so I like to open this additional discussion about possible restrictions to his editing should the community see fit to unblock him. Specifically: If PumpkinSky is unblocked he must help to clear up the copyright violations he has been held to be responsible for, and shall do so without protestations or arguments about whether any specific contribution is or isn't a copyvio. Further, he shall not submit any DYKs or FACs unless his mentors, with the advice of the community, determine that his clean-up work has been of sufficient value to that project that the specfic restriction against DYKs and FACs can be lifted. Even then, though, PumpkinSky must continue to work on the clean-up until all identified copyvios are fixed. Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC) The problem is that he may not be capable of doing it. At least he should not interfere with the process. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC) If that's the case, perhaps someone whose conversant in the copyvio area should be added to his list of mentors, someone like Moonridden girl. After all, if he's incapable of cleaning up his copyvios beause he doesn't understand what is and isn't a violation, why are we letting him loose to expand articles for DYKs and write FAs? Don't we need some assurance -- other than AGF and his professed good will -- that he knows what goes and what doesn't? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Just as a point of order, he has in his return request stated he's willing to help out with the CCI cleanup. 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose for now I could be convinced if the plan were restructured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I have reservations not so much about Rlevse's intent to return to editing, but about the way this has been proposed. If my concerns are addressed, I may consider adding myself to the support column, but I have serious reservations that Rlevse might not yet understand the gravity of all that he's done recently, evidenced by the way this return to editing was put forward. My first concern is that one of the proposed "mentors" (User:Gerda Arendt) has already canvassed. If someone is willing to canvass for support for Rlevse to return to editing, is that person going to make a good mentor? Arendt posted to DYK, where Rlevse/PumpkinSky was a regular and where there is opposition to stemming copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, but he did not (for example) post to WT:FAC, where Rlevse's return to editing might not be as welcome. As Moni mentioned elsewhere, why does someone who sat at the highest levels of Wikipedia need a mentor? What exactly are these mentors going to do? None of them are likely to disagree with Rlevse on anything and at least four of the five of them have been aggressively favoring his return to editing. Did we learn nothing from the Mattisse case, an indeff'd serial sockpuppeteer, where the mentorship plan failed mostly because she was allowed to set the plan and choose the mentors, and she "fired" anyone who didn't support her? Rlevse has not adequately addressed, IMO, in his responses above why he went after Raul and FAC with such a vengeance; those who claim the issues were only about "a wittle bit of close paraphrasing" apparently didn't read all of the disruption that occurred at FAC, including taking issues with Raul where even Wehwalt had no issue (diff1, diffs), having to be reprimanded at WT:FAC for his tone in a disagreement over images (diff), and wasting huge amounts of editor time in a feigned discussion on Casliber's talk page where he pretended not to know issues he knows quite well, wasting a lot of other editors' time. Those are only a few issues-- there were more. As someone who sat in judgement of other editors, Rlevse must have known he was being disruptive. Why are we to believe him now that he will change? Because he got five friends to "mentor" him? Is Rlevse agreeing to stay away from FAC and FAR and DYK, for example? "Five users have agreed to be mentors: User:28bytes, User: Ched Davis, User:Gerda Arendt, User:Montanabw, and User:Wehwalt." I'm not aware of 28bytes role, so can't speak to that, but I fail to see what these others are planning to "mentor" or that any of them will keep the behaviors of concern in check. Ched Davis is long-time friend of Rlevse, BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky, and in the midst of the FAC disruption (instigated by less than six editors, of which Rlevse was one, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership), Davis threatened to block me for simply stating my side of the story after being away from my computer, and threatened to block Wehwalt who had long gone to bed!!! I don't see that Davis is neutral wrt Rlevse or that he will be objective when it comes to Rlevse. Arendt has already canvassed, and is a DYK regular; PumpkinSky slid right back into DYK where Rlevse left off-- that is, there has been no change in the copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing problems occurring there since the Rlevse Hallowwen issue, with the exception that one editor (Nikkimaria) is doing all of the work of screening for and removing the DYKs that are promoted with issues. With the ongoing need for scrutiny at DYK, Rlevse jumped right back in, and is likely to defend the status quo, which is resistance to stemming copyvio/plagiarism. What will Arendt add as a mentor? Montanabw is likewise a long-time friend of Rlevse, where he weighed in on Equine Project issues, and this thread at ANI does not inspire confidence that Montanabw will be an effective mentor. Nor does this thread inspire confidence. Wehwalt is a long-time supporter of another sockpuppeteer, Mattisse-- and as I mentioned earlier, her mentorship plan failed partly because she was allowed to set the conditions and choose her mentors. What will he contribute to mentoring a former arb? In summary, although I'm less informed about 28bytes' role, I don't see any mentors here who would be willing or likely to curb any of the recent behavioral issues we've seen from Rlevse, such as attacks on Raul, FAC, or the issues with ongoing copyvio/plagiarism, etc at DYK. "I agree to contact one of the mentors before submitting a FAC or DYK." I would be more inclined to support a trial return to editing-- considering the personal way in which Rlevse went after Raul, and considering the ongoing copyvio problems at DYK-- if he agreed to stay away from both FAC and DYK for a trial period of (perhaps?) six months. Until he learns better paraphrasing and reliable sourcing, he shouldn't be passing other DYKs, and he jumped right back into doing that, with the result of more work for Nikkimaria in removing the faulty passes (Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed). Strong evidence has been presented elsewhere that, while he may not have controlled the accounts, Rlevse edited from both the BarkingMoon and his wife JoJo's accounts. Again, something a former arb should know better than to do. When his first copyvio was uncovered, Rlevse's first inclination was to run; had he simply stayed and helped address the copyvio, we'd not be having this discussion today. I've seen no indication that he understands that, which worries me that if he again gets into problems, he won't duck and run, and return to socking, again. So, considering everything, why are we not putting stronger restrictions on his possible return to editing? With satisfactory answers to my concerns, mentors who are not all his friends and supporters and would be willing to rein him in, no participation in DYK, FAC and FAR for some trial period, and with an adequate trial period that includes mentors who would be willing to re-block should he revert to bad habits, I would be willing to support. But what I see in his plan so far is that he found five friends who aren't likely to rein him in, and there are still questions about the accounts he operated and his potential participation at DYK and FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah, the "mentors" proposed in this case are more of a political action committee. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC) (ec)Sandy, radical notion, but would you be willing to mentor him in the areas where he needs help? WE both know that he wants to be a valued member here and has the potential to be one... despite his flaws and copy vio issues, he apparently has enough writing ability to push articles through to FA quality... which is more than we can say for 90% of wikipedians here... and 90% of the 10% who are capable don't. If you don't want the bit, I would be willing to act as your surrogate bit master in this regard.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) In theory, I wouldn't mind, but in practicality, two problems. One, I'm not an admin (a mentor should be willing to block him when necessary). And two, other than my now very minimal watchlist of my most important articles, I'm no longer planning on being very active here. Multiple events of the last four months have disgusted me to the point of ... well ... disgust. Nikkimaria is the one who has to catch all the DYK copyvio-- maybe she'll be willing, but I'm more worried about some of his childish outbursts and behaviors. And, with respect to his ability to bring articles to FA standard, he does not understand the level of sourcing required for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) In regard to 1. If you and Rlvese were both amiable, I would be willing to block upon your simply asking for it as his mentor (or alternatively, if he were to accept you, it could be part of his probation that you could simply ask here at ANI and it would be done.) As for 2... that's a different issue. But I can't think of a better possible mentor for him... one who has been around the block, knows the ropes and his failings, and can be obstinant enough to stand up to him. (Some people might kowtow to him as a form arb/crat---you won't). You might also be one of the few people who can really help him to get where he wants to be.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC) @ASCIIn2Bme: speaking only for myself I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. I have no hesitation whatsoever about telling anyone I mentor when they are behaving badly, either publicly or privately. My role is not to "lobby" for a mentee, but to offer them advice on areas they may have struggled with. I'm happy to answer any other questions about my approach, and to listen to suggestions. @Sandy: my remaining online time this evening is brief, but I will read and consider everything you wrote and linked to, and offer some thoughts tomorrow. 28bytes (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC) You seem to be in a minority in that committee. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 28, revisit what happened with Mattisse-- she fired every "mentor" who would stand up to her, so that few were left who were willing to block. This looks like a setup for the same deal-- why is Rlevse choosing his friends as mentors? Particularly when several of them benefit from a shared viewpoint in certain areas (FAC, DYK, Equine)? You could be left holding the ball-- the bad cop-- having to take on the political actions committee (which in the case of Mattisse, turned out to be her support committee, with a few exceptions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Which again is a reason I think you are infinitely qualified. Rlvese would have a hard time firing you and not having it become an issue. While I think your clout has faded a little over the past few years, you remain one of the most power non-admin/crat/arbcom voices at WP.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I've got no problem being the bad cop if needed. I have in no uncertain terms told him what I thought about the "new user" business, for one thing. The impression I have at this point is that he is willing to accept responsibility for his mistakes and errors in judgment, and edit productively, to the extent the community allows him to. Re Mattisse, I'm only passingly familiar with that situation; if you could post some background info and/or links on my talk page I'll be happy to get up to speed for my own education. 28bytes (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Sandy, what are your thoughts on Casliber's proposal, above? 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC) On the Mattisse situation, SilkTork (who was one of the mentors) said it best. On the notion that Rlevse should help clean up copyvio: I don't think he's qualified or able (and I've long had concerns about his knowledge of reliable sourcing). Yes, we should want him back as an editor, but the problems started at DYK precisely because there is limited understanding of copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism there-- and that extended to his FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the link, I will take a look at that discussion in the morning. Yes, that is a bit of a catch-22: he's willing to help clean up the copyvios, but is he the best person to do the vetting/cleaning? Probably not, at least not yet. What he should do is make sure no more are added, and I think his proposal (to have one of us vet anything for copyright issues well before it could appear on the main page) is a reasonable one, although I'm of course open to ways we can fine-tune it. 28bytes (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Unhelpful; leave things to the 5 above. Alarbus (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I do not agree with unblocking based upon this discussion and on those conditions. Note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rlevse is a red link, propose return to status quo of blocked until more clear plan with wider support and more time for discussion appears. There's no rush on this, let's take the time to think it through. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC) RFCUs are generally used as tools to curb problem behaviors before a block or ban occurs; at this point the horse is out of the barn, as it were, and changing the venue at this point is likely moot. Given the history here, I'm not sure an RFC would result in presenting us with anymore insight on this problem. --Jayron32 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think I've ever heard of an unblock RfC. I can't say that I think it would be a particularly good precedent to set. 28bytes (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I'm uncomfortable with a decision of this nature/complexity/whatever being hashed out here. I don't have enough confidence a well-informed, thoughtful outcome will result. Would be happy to hear other proposals for venue, but I simply can't see how "cooler heads" are expected to prevail here, given the haste with which we normally act out these little dramas. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) This is the correct venue, by long-standing precedent. I agree with 28bytes that an unblock RfC is not a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Generally, its always been done that way is a weak argument; it seems to me it could be a good idea to open this process up, perhaps then some community standards could be explored, and ad hoc decision making avoided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Maybe this is better structured at an RfC/U (with support AND oppose sections) PS: The only option as far as mentors/Reviewers would be editors firm on copyright. I'd be keen to hear from Moonriddengirl, Laser Brain, Wizardman and Ucucha to name a few as to whether this is feasible, not the mentors suggested already. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Maybe this is better structured as a SPI conducted by non-enwiki personnel. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Two questions: why does the issue with Rlevse keep returning to copyvio? If that is all he had done, and he had helped clean up, we wouldn't be here. He returned to FAC with an axe to grind, he personalized discussions there, he disrupted, he returned to DYK to continue where he left off, he socked, there is evidence he used others' accounts, and he generally abused the community on issues he knew well as a former arb. Finding mentors firm on copyright is not the only issue: we need mentors who will deal with the childish behaviors. Two: Balloonman, you unblocked him so he could respond here. He's generally not responding here. Please reblock him until there is consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Sandy, even Wikipedians sleep. I am an early riser, personally. Is PS? Incidentally, I object to any reblock prior to the conclusion of this discussion or PS violating the terms under which he was unblocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Just a note that from my understanding of timezones and likely life schedules; that would be the most likely explanation for his non-response. MBisanz talk 14:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC) He's made 3 or 4 edits here, and as pointed out above, we don't know what the time differences or work schedules might entail. It is possible that he might not be able to edit for several more hours. I think the key to a fair trial is to assume good faith and give him a chance to respond. If he strays off the reservation, then we can reblock him.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Ah, thanks; I now see that he signed off last night with an edit summary that he was off for the night, and it's possible he's working or something today. So, correct-- premature to reblock, and it would be nice to hear what he has to say about his disruption and personalization at FAC, and if he would be willing to stay away from DYK until/unless the issues there come under control (particularly since detecting and dealing with copyvio isn't a strong point for him). I also think if he comes clean on BarkingMoon, people will generally be willing to forgive and forget: it's the breach of trust that most needs to be squarely dealt with here. With respect to re-blocking, my point is that he wasted inordinate amounts of other editors' time as PumpkinSky, and he should be on a short leash lest he does that again. If he isn't engaging as soon as possible to frankly and honestly answer the queries here, then I hope the temporary unblock doesn't extend longer than necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC) There is considerable input from editors above either supporting or opposing. If that input is going to be ignored this discussion should be moved to a place where all input is taken into consideration and will be used to make the decision on Pumpkin Sky. I wonder if the irony of a request like this," I also think if he comes clean on BarkingMoon," seems well, ironic . PumpkinSky says he is not Barking Moon, but that Barking Moon is a friend. If Pumpkin Sky says he 's not Barking Moon, he's told he's not telling the truth. Basically he's being told he has to say he's Barking Moon to be forgiven despite the fact that he says he's not. And what more can he say about whomever he was helping without outing them. Now that's irony. This is in response to several editors who are asking PS admit to being Barking Moon, not just to SandyGeorgia's comment, to clarify my comment.(olive (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)) Not at all ironic: Rlevse should address the evidence. I have not said that he is BarkingMoon, but there is evidence that makes it appear that Rlevse was editing from that account at times. For example, edit summaries (see the evidence posted by ASCII). If he did occasionally edit from his friend's or his wife's account, and admitted that, I'd feel better about the likelihood that he understands where he went wrong and those behaviors won't repeat. But he can't just ignore the evidence; it is too abundant and clear to go without explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Or even if he addressed the allegations. Two of the issues that make people wonder if BM = PS/R are 1) the similarities between edit summaries and 2) apparent hostility towards specific members of the community. I can think of rationale explanations for these, but I want to see PS/R address them.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Demeanor (with the latest account) Just a quick note that looking at PumpkinSky's first few edits this conversation struck me. And you should also read the "followup", six weeks later. I see the same harboring of grudges and petty vindictiveness in action there that we saw when PumpkinSky went after the FAC/R regulars with whom he had past disputes. I dare say: that was conduct unbecoming of an Arbitrator, even a former one. And it qualifies as WP:HARASSMENT in my view, especially the 2nd thread where he barged in on an unrelated conversation to resume his six weeks old grudge. Yeah, new page and recent changes patrollers can and do make mistakes. I've been on the receiving end of some of those myself. But I don't see anything that Nasnema did which that might qualify for a six-weeks-later repeat abuse of that kind. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request withdrawn

PumpkinSky has e-mailed me and asked me to withdraw the unblock request, as he recognizes there is no consensus for letting him return to editing at this time. He is disappointed, obviously, but says he will respect the community's wishes. I have re-imposed the indefinite block, until such time as there is consensus for his return. Thank you to everyone who commented here for considering his request. 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about this. Many editors supported Pumpkin Sky's return, and I don't think the supporters where in the minority. There was as well a lot of assumptive evidence being presented as if it was fact which can be typical on Wikipedia but is still disturbing no matter how many times I see it. I'd have liked to see this go to arbitration. (olive (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC))

The underlying issues here still need to be worked out. For example, prodded by a discussion at the RefDesk I slightly expanded Anorexia (symptom) with this edit ([166]), based on [167] Now this doesn't seem that far from what has been called "plagiarism" by PumpkinSky at [168]. Now I don't feel this is plagiarism; I have to stay that close to avoid "original research" and maintain the logical sequence of material. But admittedly I wouldn't write a paper this way - I'd read all the sources I could at once and be able to mix and match a lot more. The combination of WP:OR and adding one edit at a time drives us closer to the boundary. So we need to have some agreement on where it is rather than abruptly branding people as plagiarizers without any real consensus on the rules. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand 3 closed

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

1. The existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
2. Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
3. After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Most appreciated. The return of the arbcom resolution summary is very welcome. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Return? It's precisely the same format it has been for a long time. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's usually not posted at AN in this level of detail - usually just a link to the discussion or announcement, unless I've missed one or two. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of discussion - the discussion of this case may be found Here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please delete copyvio picture

Please delete copyvio picture File:Aryanshiva.jpg, it's from facebook, thanks--Musamies (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the notification. EyeSerene^talk 13:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On the "no consensus to unblock" conundrum

Newyorkbrad has on several occasions drawn attention to the following conundrum:

Admin:A blocks User:X. Admin:B thinks it's a bad block and takes the issue to AN. After a good discussion, half of those commenting believe A was justified and that X should stay blocked. The other half of those commenting believe A was unjustified and X should be unblocked. Both sides are making sound, reasonable arguments. Is the proper outcome of the discussion that X should stay blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block), or that X should be unblocked (because the default state of any user is unblocked and there is no consensus in favor of the block)?

I would like to propose a way of dealing with this problem. My proposal is simple in outline, so I am airing it here to get a feeling for whether something like this is workable, not for an agreement on detail. My proposal is to take advantage of the fact that blocks have duration and to agree upon a minimum and maximum time for which a bad/contested/controversial/difficult/courageous short block would be tolerable, no matter one's viewpoint, in cases where there is no consensus on whether to overturn the block. This time period might on some occasions provide an opportunity for further thought and cooler heads to prevail (perhaps leading to a reblock with better reasoning and/or a more appropriate duration).

Concretely (for example), if the minimum and maximum times were 24 and 48 hours respectively, then a specific proposal could be that for blocks contested at ANI where no consensus for blocking or unblocking is reached, the block should be procedurally reduced (if possible, and without prejudice concerning reblocking) to the longer of: 48 hours total or 24 hours from the application of the procedure (if this would not reduce the block, then it should be allowed to expire in the normal way).

I won't add to the length this initial post extolling the virtues/benefits of such an approach, but encourage editors to think about whether something like this might have been helpful in past situations they are familiar with. There are obviously similar ways to deal with contested unblocks, but I think it would be simpler to focus on the contested block case first. Geometry guy 23:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to think through all the implications of this, but it's worth considering.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there's no consensus to unblock or reduce the length of block imposed, it should not be reduced. What should happen is discussion of what the blocked editor needs to do to get unblocked. This should be done in a respectful supportive manner. By that I mean an editor should not be required to say I am scum of the earth and deserve to die and am grateful you will deign to unblock me, rather, a statement in the vein of When I did X I considered it to be an okay thing to do but now that the community has discussed the situation I understand it's not an okay thing to do and won't do it anymore. Nobody Ent 23:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Nobody Ent. No consensus is no consensus to overturn. No consensus means no actions should be taken as a result of the discussion; which means that no unblock should occur. I also want to stress that any discussion on ANI should be 24-72 hours of discussion and most blocks would expire by then anyway.--v/r - TP 23:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  The problem is that this condones a process in which any admin can make a controversial block (perhaps indefinite, or for several days, weeks or months) and immediately bring it to ANI, where support is received from those in favor, and so no consensus is reached to overturn the block, despite the objections from those opposed.

  Consequently, the block stands, for its entire duration, irrespective of whether there was consensus for such a block in the first place. The ability of admins to do this is something felt across the 'pedia and has widespread ramifications, from resentment to allegations of corruption. Blocking policy should be inspired by the ideal of a collective responsibility to use it wisely. There should be no "mover advantages", be they first, second or third and beyond. Geometry guy 00:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with the collective responsibility concept but don't see it as meaning the block must stand. Editors who disagree with the block shift the discussion to what the unblocking criteria are. Nobody Ent 00:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• correct me if I'm in error, but I understood G Guy to be concerned with the more undetermined type of blocks. Meaning, "indefinite" (which is not supposed to = infinite), rather than the defined 24 - 72 hour, or even 1 week blocks. I think this is worth some consideration, but I'd prefer to think on it (and see some other views) a bit before saying much more. — Ched :  ?  00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) I think all blocks need to be discussed, but the idea I am proposing would have no effect on the duration of short blocks: instead it might discourage arguing over controversial blocks of less c. 36 hours (based on the figures I proposed); just let them expire, and consider in the longer term whether they were good or bad blocks. If the arguments are unlikely to resolve the validity of the block before it expires, then simply let it expire. Geometry guy 00:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I understood that to be the case; my suggestion applies to all blocks imposed by a single administrator. Would not apply to community bans and ArbCom blocks. Nobody Ent 00:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I firmly believe that the default condition if there is no consensus, whether it's a block discussion or an unblock discussion, should be unblocked. Blocks should only remain if there is a consensus for them (because they should only have been enacted if the blocking admin honestly believed there would have been consensus for them if it had been discussed first). That's my strong first preference. However, if (as appears to be the case) there's no consensus for or against this position either, I think something along Geometry Guy's suggestion is a reasonable compromise. People sometimes forget that compromise is at the heart of consensus-based decision making, and this is a good idea for bridging the gap. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed. It is basically a BRD situation with the R put on hold pending the resolution of said discussion. If consensus doesn't support a block, the block should not remain in effect. Resolute 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  I very much agree with this viewpoint that Floquenbeam expresses. Basically per the front page statement:

  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. For any new editor, IP or registered, the default condition when entering our community is one of "unblocked". I'd rather that there be a strong consensus before relegating editors to the banishment side of "indef". — Ched :  ?  01:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Floquenbeam on all counts: default-unblocked would be ideal when there's a legitimate disagreement over a block, but if we can't have that, then Geometry guy's proposal is a reasonable compromise. 28bytes (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we do not over-regulate this, or even over-think it. As it stands, there's no clear margin, agreed, by which we unblock. But there's never a clear margin, and administrators are paid to make the hard calls. Someone says "I see consensus to unblock and I'm doing it." or even "I've done it." We see if it sticks. We find out quite a bit about the decision-making abilities of the people involved. When has this been enough of a problem that we need to make a rule about it? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's my question - what problem is it that we are solving? "Hard cases make bad law", and here we seem to be making a bad "law" simply in anticipation of a hard case. It seems unnecessary to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, "no consensus" should always mean "No change in the status quo." An article exists, someone thinks it should not exist, so it's brought to AfD. The discussion is closed as "no consensus" and the article continues to exist - the status quo continues. Another article is deleted, and is taken to DRV. There's no consensus there to overturn the deletion, so the article stays deleted - again, the status quo remains. Someone proposes a topic ban or an interaction ban, but the discussion comes to nop consesnsus, so there is no ban - the status quo prevails. Someone is blocked, and the block is discussed on a noticeboard, there's no consensus to overturn the block, so the block remains in place (just as it would have if no one had brought it to the noticeboard), since "no consensus" always preserves the status quo. To have it do different things in different contexts is rather illogical, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you can stretch that analogy both ways. Is the block the nomination for deletion? If so, in the case of "no consensus" the block should revert to unblock just as an AfD-tagged article reverts to its prior, untagged state if there's no consensus to delete it. The problem with the default-blocked position is that it encourages admins to block when they know there will be neither consensus for keeping the block nor for overturning it. If the default is "unblocked", then admins will be encouraged to seek discussion first in controversial cases, since they gain no advantage by blocking first and then seeking discussion. 28bytes (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't work both ways.. There are times when there are discussions on the noticeboard about whether a block should take place or not. When those discussions end in "no consensus", there is no blocked issued. IN each situation, a discussion takes place about an issue raised -- should there be a deletion, should a deletion be overturned, should ther be a ban, should ther be a block, should a block be overturned -- and in each and every case, a "no consensus" closes leaves things exactly as they were before, which is precisely the way it should be. To have "no consensus" result in an overturning of the status quo flies in the face of logic and reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that it is a problem that admins wiil, when they are unsure about the community's views, use their own judgment -- but isn't that why we pay them the big bucks, because they are trusted to make those kinds of decisions? When the community's will is clear, any newbie could be allowed to push the proper buttons, but when things are not as clear, an admin needs to use their best judgment and make a decision on our behalf. Maybe it's "right" and maybe it's "wrong", but if they have a sound and honorable basis for making it, (most of) the community will understand, even if they decide to overturn it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Interruption: I've only just started reading this thread, and hav noticed Aaron Brenneman saying "administrators are paid to make the hard calls" and Beyond My Ken saying "isn't that why we pay them the big bucks." Do either of you actually really believe that our admins are paid to be admins? Pesky (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No. 28bytes (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If wishing made it so. — madman 23:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I started to draft a reply, but then noticed Shadowjams' comment below, which says what I was going to say better than I would have been able to. 28bytes (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs? I'm not aware of cases where someone "rushed" a block knowing it would not have consensus. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A diff of someone's intention? I don't think that's implemented in the current Mediawiki version. 28bytes (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh we only wish. I walked into that one, I'll agree. Do we have diffs (or even just verbal examples) of where it looked like and/or was agreed that someone "got in first"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm torn. I can think of a couple of cases that looked really obvious to me that that's what had happened... but I am extremely reluctant to reopen those cans of worms. Which is a bit of a cop-out, I will admit. 28bytes (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is when it's enough of a problem. Nobody Ent 02:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is often a problem. And as NYB says it's currently first-mover advantage, which means in non-consensus cases someonewill block, so block becomes the default, which is probably the reverse of what it should be. We don't like reverting blocks, which sharpens the issue a little. Maybe the common sense answer is GG's idea to make relatively short blocks if consensus has not emerged, and clearly label them as such, without necessarily making a rule about it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

If we are talking about how to deal with blocks (or lack of them) for civility, let's discuss that. The whole "first mover's advantage" question is a distraction. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit chaotic what happens in cases like this. Sometime someone unblocks during the "no consensus" discussion, and sometimes nobody does. It seems to depend on the popularity and number of admin friends the blocked editor has. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

fat chance of this passing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Different proposal Proposal: "No consensus" block discussions with more than ten participants are automatically transferred to a RfC/U discussion. My rationale is that there are really only two means of effective any behavioral change around here: technical means in a imbalance or rights situation (like blocks) and peer pressure. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I'd be hard-pressed to think of a more terrible idea. 28bytes (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Is it worse than what happens currently, which I've outlined above? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Yes. 28bytes (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Why? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Ever been the subject of an RfC/U? 28bytes (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Have you ever been blocked? (That's a rhetorical question too.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC) If you are suggesting that being blocked is an unpleasant experience, I'd agree that it probably is. But I would rather be blocked for any length of time than have to take a month out of my life to read and respond to a list of my real and perceived flaws compiled by whomever would have the motivation and time to do such a thing. Under your proposal, would the blocked person who is the subject of the RfC/U be confined to only editing the RfC/U during the duration of the RfC/U, or would they be able to edit freely? Because if it's the former, they would get both the unpleasantness of being prevented from editing what they like, and the unpleasantness of being on trial for a month. I think that counts as "worse" than the current system for any reasonable value of "worse". 28bytes (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC) RfC/Us have always had for me the hint of the "self-correction" sessions required under various Communist regimes. I think at times they're a necessary evil, given the liberatarian framework that Wikipedia was founded on (which prevents true democratic governance) but a substitute for a straight-forward unblocking discussion is not one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose Awful idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC) ↓↓↓ Oh, hey, here's someone we can ask about how great RfC/Us are. 28bytes (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Simple proposal, then After 24hrs of discussion, in a "no consensus" situation, the block shall be lifted by an administrator. Simple enough, I hope. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Jeez lousie, stop trying to force admins to do something in advance instead of allowing them to use their intelligence and sensistivity to scope out the situation and respond accordingly. If a particualar admin is bad at doing that, work to get rid of him or her, but don't take away their ability to judge specific circumstances or the community's abiility to respond somewhat differently depending on the available evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• In other words, the current procedural status quo is fine or at least no worse than the alternatives. Case closed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading much of the above, I think Floquenbeam's proposal is the simplest. We shouldn't complicate the question with vote tallies, nor should we pretend this kind of policy change would have that much practical consequence. What it does have is symbolic meaning in the sense that we defer to open editing, and we defer to open discussion. I think that's a good change. The concept of consensus is wide enough that this won't change anything short-term, but it's an important statement about how we use blocks/bans. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to distinguish two situations: in one, half the administrators want to unblock because the behavior was not that bad, or "the sinner has repented". In the other, they want to unblock because the behavior was not wrong. If it is simply a question of the "punishment" applied, then defer to the original admin; but if half the admins looking at a case think someone's behavior was acceptable and did not deserve sanction at all, then you certainly cannot expect an editor to know any better. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two problems with what Wnt has said. First of all, it isn't a consensus of administrators that matters. It is a consensus of editors that matters. Administrators merely have access to tools to do the community's will, they do not have special rights to be the sole arbitors of who gets blocked and when. I hope that was merely a slip of the tongue, and not a genuine belief that only administrators can discuss blocks, or that only administrators opinions should be counted when considering consensus. That would be a completely rediculous policy, and there is nothing at Wikipedia to support such an idea. All discussions are open to all members of the community at all times, and all opinions count the same regardless of the presence or absense of advanced positions. Period; that is non-negotiable, as far as I am concerned. Secondly, (hoping that that particular issue was merely a slip of the tongue), is that we shouldn't be splitting hairs to that level. Either a person should edit Wikipedia or should not edit Wikipedia. That's it. If enough people believe they should be allowed to edit, they should be allowed to edit (whatever "enough people" means, which is a seperate idea). The particular internal emotional processes of the people who believe that idea are irrelevent to the conclusion we should draw. The only thing that matters is if people believe that there will be no future problems. --Jayron32 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if Wnt's post qualifies, but I see a rampant problem with admins routinely ignoring the opinions of editors. Heck, even the name of this page is "The ADMINISTRATOR'S noticeboard", as if nobody else is allowed into the discussions. A better term would be "The incident noticeboard". (I'm reminded of U-turns on highways which are labelled "For emergency vehicles only" as opposed to "For emergencies only". This means policemen on their way to the donut shop for a break can legally use it, but citizens trying to get to the hospital before their child bleeds to death can not.) StuRat (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@StuRat: You've made a very specific and deliberate accusation against me. Could you please provide a diff where I discounted, ignored, or belittled anyone because they are not an administrator, here or anywhere else? Because until you produce evidence that I have done so, you can't just go around claiming that I have. --Jayron32 23:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I said "administrators" because the hypothetical case involved only administrators voting, so there was no need to complicate things (I see how well that worked out... ;). I fully recognize that other users can participate (after all, I am) but the votes of IPs, moderately experienced editors and admins might not be counted as equally, especially where the judgment call of how long to block an editor is concerned.

It is true that trying to work out the thought processes can be complicated, but actually that's what you'd do in a vote with various levels of users involved. More to the point, especially if neutral and experienced admins are the ones voting, it's possible that they could voluntarily self-label their votes honestly. For an admin to say that someone did nothing wrong is a stronger statement (which reflects back on them to some degree) than to say that someone should get off with a warning; this would compensate for it having more power in a case of 'no consensus'. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I thing the relevant policy is NOT BURO. Who happens to go first or second is not necessarily relevant to the justice of the issue, and bright line rules of this kind are an encouragement to wikilawyering. If our premier expert of procedure has concerns, and brings them here, my inclination is to think that he is probably right. Of course, arb com could solve this by refusing to deadmin when that would not be equitable, and sometimes it does so decide. But this is an unsafe chance for an admin to rely on, when trying to get something right. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that editors are now discussing the title of this thread, rather than the original post, which was much more meta. The problem here is not a shortage of well-argued views on blocking and unblocking, but that these views are not all compatible.

• I agree with Shadowjams that Floquenbeam's view ("the default condition... should be unblocked") is simple and appealing, but closing a discussion as "no consensus" and then unblocking can be controversial, given other reasonable views (TParis, Beyond My Ken) that "no consensus" should mean "no action or change".
• I also appreciate the distinctions made by Wnt on different reasons for no consensus, as well as the issues Rich Farmbrough, Aaron Brenneman and DGG raise about overregulation, bright-line policies, and the first/second mover advantage associated with WP:WHEEL.

The meta-point is that there are many reasonable positions here: there is no agreement on "the default", nor on whether first movers or second movers have the advantage, nor on whether this matters at all. So how do we deal with such disagreements when they affect an actual case? We can't rehash them every time we are faced with a no consensus block.

If the block were for a matter of hours, such disagreement would rapidly become moot.

This is the main idea that led to this thread. Consensus is not just about agreement, but compromising, and accepting something less than perfect because perfection is unattainable. As well as striving for what we want from Wikipedia, we need to consider what we are willing to accept. Reducing a block to one that nobody wants to argue about may often be just a first step in moving a discussion on from the original block to the issues that lie behind it. Geometry guy 23:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Time-limited blocks for anyone except dynamic IP addresses are usually useless (yes, there are a few isolated specific cases where they are not, so don't bother listing them. I concede them). The only reason for a block is because you believe that a person will, if not blocked, interfere in some way with the effective work at Wikipedia. If they will be a disruption, then there is no sense in letting them be a disruption in 24 hours. If they will not be a disruption, then there is no reason to block in the first place. Short blocks are basically completely pointless. If a person is justly blocked, then there isn't any reason to unblock them unless and until they can demonstrate they will not repeat the behavior that led to the block. If a person is unjustly blocked, then being unjustly blocked for a limited time is still unjust. Having a short time-limited block serves no purpose in most cases. It should be the exception, and not the norm, in dealing with disruption. --Jayron32 00:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say. At the Civility Arbcom workshop, I argued that blocking experienced editors was a fruitless activity: when or where experienced editors prove to be systematically unhelpful they should be banned, not blocked. (But blocks are needed to enforce bans, contrary to your "only reason".) However, this is not the point. The point is that we may agree on such wise words, but other experienced editors have similar wise words which support completely different positions. The meta-issue is: what do we do about that in practice? Geometry guy 01:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:DGAF. Seriously. The key is to remain emotionally detatched and intellectually engaged. Be willing to rationalize and provide reasons for your position, but be indifferent to losing the specific debate in question. If consensus doesn't go your way, then it doesn't. Its no big deal. The only time you lose is when you become emotionally attached to the result of any discussion. On most issues, there will always be reasonable people who disagree. That you do not agree with me does not make you unreasonable; it is not unreasonable to have a different perspective or different priorities or different experiences which give you a different way to judge a situation. So in practice, we all discuss it out, and a neutral party comes along after some time and reads the discussion and makes their best assessment of a reasonable conclusion. That's how it should work. When it doesn't, it's because someone GAFed. If we all obeyed WP:DGAF slavishly, it would all go much better.

Off the meta-issue, and back on the issue at hand, I pretty much agree that the default position should always be to remain unblocked, regardless of who had the "first move". If the discussion starts before the block, and there is no consensus to block, no block is issued. If the discussion starts after the block, and there is no consensus that the block was appropiate, the person should be unblocked. Status quo is "able to edit". From my perspective, the first change to the status quo is the block if the person is blocked before a discussion takes place. No consensus should always default to THAT status quo, regardless of whether the order goes "Discussion then block" or "Block then discussion". --Jayron32 01:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's an alternative solution: all editors should obey WP:DGAF slavishly. I like the essay too, so perhaps we should make it into a policy. Geometry guy 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it exists, which is good enough. Policies, guidelines, and essays should all be followed if they are useful. They should all be ignored if they are not. That's one of Wikipedia's core values. The label we apply to a "best practice" is irrelevent; it doesn't matter what we call a good idea: it doesn't become better because we change the label on it. If it works, do it. If it doesn't, don't. DGAF works, so we should do it. --Jayron32 01:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but there are a lot of "should"s going on here, and the problem is, not everyone agrees on them or what they imply... Geometry guy 02:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the DGAF idea, and agree that it's probably very good. However, one of the biggest advantages of Wikipedians is also one of the biggest disadvantages of us, and it's that Wikpedians do have a tendency, as a gross generalisation, to be passionate people with strong beliefs, and emotional commitment of one sort or another, and many of us are somewhat (or more than somewhat!) obsessive, too! So trying to get a big bunch of Wikipedians to follow DGAF is a bit like trying to herd cats away from grounded pigeons, or take a large steak away from a wolf pack! Many of the "issues" that arise here come about specifically because so many of us are passionate, possibly-obsessive, emotionally-committed people! So ... how do we get these people to not-give-a-fuck without losing the motivation and passion that makes themn want to be here in the first place? Pesky (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Started a thread at WT:BLOCK

I started a thread at WT:BLOCK with a proposed change to the blocking policy based on comments here and NYBs initial presentation of the conundrum. Since the discussion stems on clarification/change to the existing policy, any actual changes and discussions thereof should happen at the policy talk page. Welcome any comments, criticisms, fixes, or counterproposals there. --Jayron32 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

My goal in starting this thread was not to propose a concrete change, but to discuss an idea. I have found the positive responses to the idea from multiple viewpoints encouraging. The basic concept still looks pretty good to me, possibly (or more likely?) as a guideline rather than a policy tweak (or perhaps another advisory essay). My proposal was offered and released under GFDL ((c) Geometry guy), so it is now out there for anyone to take up should they so wish. Happy editing. Geometry guy 01:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please delete copyvio picture

Picture File:A Shiva.jpg are same than in Facebook--Musamies (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, you can use {{db-f9}} to request speedy deletion of copyvio images. Jafeluv (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Marathon

Resolved

 – Article protected. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Help needed to due rash of vandalism in Marathon. Thanks! Location (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Location (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:SpecialPages

An editor has suggested at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors that Special:MyContributions be added to the list of Special pages at Special:SpecialPages. Would it be possible to implement this. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The only way to do this is to change the MediaWiki software, as these special pages are marked in the code as "unlisted" and this cannot be overridden; to request such a change, file a request on Wikimedia's bugzilla. Anomie⚔ 19:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these very long-term blocks on shared IPs really necessary?

I'm beginning to see a big increase in long-term blocks on shared IPs, especially those belonging to schools, colleges, and libraries, but also on other shared IPs. For example, this IP was blocked for three years. Three years! Think about it, high school in the United States lasts for four years; anyone that was a freshman at that school in 2010 will be a senior before they can touch the edit button from that network! This one was blocked for two years in 2011. I understand as much as anyone that administrators and vandal fighters are tired of the bullsh*t that some of these people keep dumping on us, but some of these IPs represent many, many individuals, and anybody accessing our wiki from these IPs are barred from improving our project because of a handful of troublemakers, unless of course they have an account. To be honest, this is beginning to remind me of TK's rangeblocks on Conservapedia, don't get me wrong, I liked TK and I'm proud to be a member of Conservapedia myself, but most agree that the ruthless mass rangeblocks were just too much, and most of those blocks have been lifted because of their potential to negatively impact the project. We're supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, yet some people are unable to edit because their IPs are blocked.

Abuse reports could potentially be a good alternative to these long blocks, I know a lot of people here will say that abuse reports don't work, but I've had great successes with them at Conservapedia and Wikipedia. For example, no vandalism has come from this IP since I contacted the school about some vandalism referencing several students' names. The school was very cooperative, and was apparently able to trace down the vandal and punish her/him. Keep in mind that was a small school, so I'm guessing everybody heard about what happened and will not want to follow in that vandals shoes. An abuse report might not stop all vandalism at a larger school, but it can stun it. This IP stopped vandalizing for a month at least after an abuse report. The problem is of course that it probably wasn't the same users vandalizing each time. Enough abuse reports and word might make it around that Wikipedia is not to be messed with. Another thing that has been brought up is what if filing abuse report causes problems for someone in real life. Why should we care if John Doe can't go to prom or Jane Doe gets kicked off the cheerleading squad because they vandalized Wikipedia? Obviously the vandal doesn't, because (s)he wouldn't be breaking the rules if (s)he did. Unless we're talking about someone in Cuba or North Korea, I would guess that someone would usually get a warning and perhaps something like detention unless they've been in trouble before for internet abuse.

I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one month except where networks outright refuse to cooperate or actively encourage vandalism. But that's just my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one year, and require ISP/School/Employer/Etc contact before issuing blocks for longer than one month. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing preventing them from creating accounts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• My first thought is that I don't like this idea. However, I'm curious: have you ever made an abuse report for an IP, and the vandalism stopped, and productive edits started coming from there? If not, then why in the world would your labor intensive solution be better than a long block? If so, then I'll think about it some more. Three years does seem like a long time, but I routinely make {{schoolblock}}s of one year, and if those switched to 1 month, you would dramatically increase the amount of crap we'd have to deal with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen some of these IPs that have had productive contributions in addition to the malicious ones while unblocked, particularly college and university IPs. For example, this one, although never reported for abuse, was blocked for a whole year after a vandalism spree, and it has had a mixture of malicious and constructive edits. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot, this one, belonging to West Franklin High School, has been to abuse reports and has a mixture of malicious and productive contributions. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• If three years is far too long, then one month is far too short. It is great to imagine the isolated cases where a new editor might first contribute from one of the problem IPs (positive: more editors), however we should also remember the draining effect on established editors of continuously dealing with the same crap (big negative: known good editors despair and depart). There have been several cases where an obviously mature individual from a school IP has requested that the IP be blocked because the individual is dismayed that their colleagues are damaging the encyclopedia—such potentially excellent editors understand the reason for long blocks and can work around them (make an account; edit from elsewhere). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  On the contrary. I am quite sure that a large proportion of the "please block my IP, there are many bad people here!" anonymous IPs are just trolls. However, you are right that three years is too long and one month is too short. Thirteen months is a sensible maximum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • e/c I imagine there are times when long blocks are the best solution, and yes, filing ARs is tedious, but I think slapping another long, one year (or longer) block on a shared IP not long after another one has expired is the wrong approach; I think it might be more appropriate to start over with a shorter block and escalate back up to a year. As Johnuniq has described, abuse can cause established users anguish, and if an IP is harassing established users, then we need to do anything reasonable to stop the harassment. Something that disturbs me is when I see IPs that were once blocked, and didn't vandalize immediately after the block expired, but when an isolated incident of vandalism occurred, an administrator escalated to a longer block length. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open project, and we're supposed to assume good faith, but I can see it getting to a point where most schools and a significant number of universities and libraries are unable to edit Wikipedia. That's sad, to me any way. I also have to wonder about the effectiveness of blocking these shared IPs, since it seems to me that if someone wants to vandalize and can't do it at school that they would just do it elsewhere, unless they have no internet access elsewhere. I remember, when I was in high school, I would sometimes correct errors in pages (mainly typos and unnoticed vandalism) without logging into my account because I didn't want to get distracted from what I was doing (usually researching a topic). I imagine a lot of people would be bothered going home or registering an account to fix such things if they don't already have an account here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also note, I never thought that we shouldn't use one year blocks, I just think that we should at least contact the network administrators to let them know that we've blocked the IP due to abuse and can lift the block if they'll cooperate. Some schools would probably just assume it remain blocked, but it should be our goal to minimize the need for long-term blocks. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the question in the header: yes. Absolutely. We frequently get multiple people vandalising from school IPs over a period of time, so reporting to the school and getting one kid detention (if the school bothers to do anything at all) isn't going to solve the problem—there'll be another one, and another one. So we block them, and no matter how long the block is, it's usually not long after it expires that somebody is vandalising from that address again, so it gets blocked again. Renewing the block every few days or weeks instead of every few years would massively increase admins' workload.

  By way of a possible counter-proposal, we could allow account creation from schools we block, since it's easy to just indefinitely block any vandalism-only accounts that spring up. But the autoblock on those accounts would still catch anybody who tried to edit from that IP for the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• That is a good idea, except the autoblocks are hardblocks (if I'm not mistaken) and could potentially create more havoc for legitimate registered users than the soft-blocks with account creation disabled. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• As a rebuttal to the notion that abuse reports do nothing as different people would keep vandalizing, we should encourage the IT departments to monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism. Assuming they don't have a ton of IPs that they don't even need, it should take about a minute to pull up the contributions page every couple of days and pop every single one of the vandals for policy violations. Sooner or later, all of the users would figure out that vandalizing Wikipedia results in the vandal getting in trouble. Personally, if I was director of IT at an educational institution, I would do this and recommend to the principal that their computer access is revoked for the remainder of the school year as most of the ones that vandalize probably engage in other policy violations as well, especially the one's that engage in cyberbullying on here, and the OCD ones that keep coming back for more. It's their job to monitor for such policy violations. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  Do you have any real-life examples in mind where school authorities have done anything to "monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism", to your knowledge? Remember we need a few thousand such instances, for it to be worthwhile... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone, supposedly a cheerleader from what I've heard, got caught vandalizing Wikipedia in another high school in the local school district in '06, seemingly without Wikipedia even contacting them (and I'm still not sure if it was someone at the district or that school that caught them). This is what she did the next day, and the district blocked all of Wikipedia as a result. Obviously that's something we should stress that they do not need to do to stop the vandalism, and that we can manage the vandalism at our level without them needing to block all access. Additionally, when I was on the phone with an IT department for a school district in Illinois regarding Conservapedia vandalism, the IT person mentioned that they had similar problems with Wikipedia and dealt with it; apparently that school district would revoke the vandals' internet access for the entire school year over it. Also, I've seen evidence of action taken when vandals have sent me harassing messages from somewhere else after I reported them, in one case when I reported them to their DSL provider at home, and in one case when I reported them to their cellular provider. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• (Per your notice on my talk), PCHS-NJROTC, I would love to stop blocking those schools and restart my writing. The current reality is that we don't have enough admin-hours even to amply warn and block, let alone contact the schools - i.e. we never know how many good editors do we scare away by blocks (surely we do), but we do know how many vandal edits come out from there. Further, more and more single-purpose accounts are being created recently for vandalism only (i.e. they are prepared to spend time on registration). A solution is more than welcome, but it needs proper thinking and a wide community discussion. Reaching out to IT departments is certainly a good idea, but I and most other admins simply do not have time for that (can WMF/ambassadors help there? - it is a top priority after all). I did have first-hand experience teaming with a college sysop to catch local Napster spam - he was a dedicated sysop and managed to identify real people with IPs in real time, but I saw how tricky that was. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to see some openness to my idea, and I do understand that ISP is a cumbersome task; I do a lot ISP contacting for Conservapedia and it does take time to research everything and try to get them to work with you, and trying to work that in along with a job can seem damn near impossible at times. I also know that persistant vandals are annoying; I've been here since 2007 and have seen plenty of them. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only once contacted anybody over vandalism: it was for this edit (note that it's been revdeleted; sorry, non-admins), and I got cooperative responses from a school admin, a police officer, and the kid that was responsible. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually make contact whenever someone goes bashing other people, like that girl (I assume that it was a girl based on the edit) in Indiana that's rev deleted, but that's not the only times. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Something else I'd like to add is that it's not always schools that end up in this situation; I recall coming across an IP belonging to the United States Department of Homeland Security that was producing very childish and vulgar edits like the ones we see from schools, and it was on the fast track to getting blocked like the schools do. The sad thing is that it was obviously one person doing it and there were many other contributions that were legitimate from the IP, but I sent a report to Sprint's abuse contact (since it was through Sprint) and the vandalism ceased. This was sometime between '07 and '09. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Then why not continue blocking IP's the way we have been doing all along, but if someone wants to contact the school, and it results in a satisfactory response, we can just lift the block? If it works, it's almost the same effect as contacting the school first. If it doesn't, then there's no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Students in schools will vandalize on the internet, and most schools do have a policy about this, but unless they actually censor outgoing traffic, it is very hard to stop them; bored students in a computer lab will try anything. Some schools I've known sometimes try to ignore the problem, some try to come down much too hard. I am reluctant to involve school administrators except in truly exceptional cases, because all too few of them are likely to take a reasonable course of action. I think long-term blocks on schools are inhibiting good faith would-be contributors as well as the others, and we need those contributors. A short term block to stop a major campaign of harassment makes sense, but long term inhibits sensible participation also. We can deal with vandalism much better than when the practice of school blocks began: we have the edit filters, which has reduced vandalism in general very considerably, and the response of anti-vandalism patrol for the ones that get through is usually very fast. We just don't need this. I suggest we end all such blocka at the end of the current school year, and see again what happens in September. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the block logs of those two IPs that you link to, I would say yes. Absolutely were the lengthy blocks necessary. I understand from a non-admin's perspective these may seem bizarrely long or excessive— I had a question on my RfA about unusually long blocks and I said something along the lines of "I would rarely, if ever, impose a lengthy block". I couldn't have been more wrong. Just working intermittently at AIV in my few months as an administrator, I've had to impose seven two year blocks and one three year block. These situations are far more common than you may realize. Also, we already have an abuse response team. Nothing's stopping our non-admin vandal fighters from going to them. Swarm ^X 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ABUSE has been around for quite some time, and I was actually a member of the abuse team for a while. Unfortunately, it's horribly insufficient in my opinion; it's always required IPs to have been blocked at least five times, and now it requires that an IP has been blocked for a year at least once. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Most school IPs that I've warned or blocked have never contributed a single productive edit, so there's no loss to Wikipedia when they are blocked. Furthermore, I figure that with most long-term school blocks, Wikipedia is doing the school's faculty a favor, as the kids are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia while in the computer lab, and once editing is blocked from an IP, editing Wikipedia becomes one less distraction available to the bored kids in the computer lab. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Orlady's second sentence hits the nail on the head: I've encountered what she mentions in the first sentence, but the second has never occurred to me. Why should we tolerate behavior that's already problematic if it's prohibited by the school's rules in the first place? My first thought is that this idea is contrary to our policy of encouraging editing by people in countries where Wikipedia is restricted, but I then remember that there's a massive difference between editing around government censorship that harms the whole society and editing around simple school rules that don't hurt anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• This idea assumes all contributions from shared IPs are happening during class time/work time when students/employees are supposed to be studying/working. In high school, I used to edit Wikipedia from the library during lunch time, using a work around to access Wikipedia that only a few people knew about. The school administrators and district IT were okay with this. Every situation is unique. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, that comment I posted from a shared corporate IP while on a lunch break, which is allowed by policy. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• We can only judge IPs (or ranges) on their edits, and trying to second-guess whether there are multiple people behind the edits can often be a wild goose chase. If a school IP produces a hundred vandal edits, I don't care whether it's a hundred different student or just one persistent student; the net result from en.wikipedia's perspective is the same, and the 101st edit is extremely unlikely to be productive in either case. Similarly, if the IP has made a mixture of positive and negative edits, we can't distinguish between a mixture of good/bad students, or just one Jekyll & Hyde student; in either case, a short block might be an appropriate reaction to a sequence of bad edits. bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes We already have more than enough headaches with Vandalism. It takes a significant amount (or very disturbing) of non-productive editing to get an IP editor a block. I do however recognize the need for parole, therefore if the address has done enough to get a longer duration block (more than 6 months) that the block be limited to expire prior to the start of a new "term" for the educational institution and no more than 1 year for non-educational institutions. The purpose is to allow peer/community pressure to influence the bad apples to clean up their act. Hasteur (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I agree with you, Hasteur, that having the school blocks expire at the end of the school term would be nice. The only reason I'm not 100% behind this is that, assuming the vandalism patterns don't change, every August/September the community will have to deal with all the vandalism, and the admins will have to deal with re-blocking all the schools. This is a potentially huge pile of work at the start of every school term. I'm very tempted to say "let the kids who want to edit either do it at home, or register an account." I get that we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that shouldn't come at the expense of being the encyclopedia that anyone can freely vandalize. If someone can show me why using another IP or registering an account is too high a bar, then I'll change my mind, but otherwise I can't support changing the existing procedures for school blocks. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with all the admins here that vandalism is a pain, but my thoughts are that we are supposed to be an open wiki that assumes good faith. I'm usually pretty conservative and support blocking, but of kids want to vandalize, there's nothing stopping them from doing it at home or from a mobile device, so why long term block the schools and keep constructive editors from editing? -PPCHS-NJROTC 208.62.154.8 (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Users who wish to edit constructively via a school computer can do so simply by logging in under their own account. Rklawton (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If they have an account or are willing to create an account. 208.62.154.85 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Forgot to log in. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Either the student (and I pray it's not Faculty/Staff) will either mature and learn not to vandalize or they will graduate. My thoughts for non college level is something like 3~4 months so that at the start of Fall/Spring terms the educational institution is given a limited leash. With the history we keep we can spot trends early on. For College Level I see more of a Fall/Spring/Summer rotation. Yes it means more disruptive editors for a few weeks and a few Administrator headaches to sort out the vandals, but also demonstrates our AGF that the disruptive elements have moved on to other forums for their trolling needs. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that new students enter schools every year, right? Kids will be doing this every year in perpetuity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely we can make the AGF assumption that the entire school isn't filled with students who get their kicks by vandalizing WP. It's the reason why we have the 6 and 12 month reviews on long term blocks, because we assume that people will change and are willing to correct their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is difficult when virtually the only edits from a school are vandalism. By the way, between British schools starting summer vacation around the end of June, and American schools (and some British) going back mid-August or so, there isn't much time the schools in these two countries aren't open. And as someone who does a lot of school templating, can I ask people to check IPs more with WHOIS to see if the IP is a school. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• In my experience, other than one hugely helpful sysadmin I ran across a few years ago, no-one is interested in abuse reports and nothing gets done about them. However in principle I'd support a maximum block length for known educational institutions of perhaps six months as a compromise. EyeSerene^talk 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the admins who hands out such blocks as well. I do that generally only after the editor has been blocked a good handful times, and they are schoolblocks. I see often cases, and one of the cases above (Special:Contributions/204.193.118.11, blocked by Materialscientist) is a good example, where there are two 6-month blocks. The first 6-month block ends on the 2nd of June (six months from the 2nd of December). Their first edit: this on the 3rd of June. Then there is summer holiday (nothing from the 30th of June until the 26th of August), but on the 31st of August the editor gets blocked again for 6 months. After that block ends (28th of February) the first edit is a vandalism edit on the 3th of March with this. Between the last 6 month block, and the next 2 year block, there is about 2 weeks. In those two weeks, there is NOTHING but vandalism. It also suggests that the editors keep trying to edit while blocked - how else do you figure out that you can vandalise so fast after a block ends. I share the sentiment that those IPs are used by schools with kids, and in half a year there will be another group of kids sitting there who may be willing to work constructively. But fact remains that it is either a 2 year block, or 4 6-month blocks in short succession. The vandalism, unfortunately, will not stop. I would be in favour of checking whether IP blocks over 6 months of length still target the same institution every 6 months, sometimes IPs do change. For the rest I believe that our editors have better things to do than to run after bunches of schoolkids who (seen that the vandalism starts sometimes so fast after a block ends) do nothing but try to vandalise Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a lot of people speak of different kids causing problems all the time, but this morning I was reminded of one of the main reasons I brought this proposal here. If you analyze the vandalism coming from IPs that aren't constantly under a school block, like this one, it often appears that most of the vandalism comes from one individual or a small handful of individuals that are addicted to vandalism. Never mind the fact that educational and corporate IPs often represent 1,000+ users. It's so obvious that one person has been behind a lot of the vandalism from that IP because there were incidents on 02/15/2012, 02/10/2012, and 11/16/2012 where similar incidents of vandalism occurred; a notable person's name was replaced with a person with a particular last name, the more recent ones being female and the one from November being male. What are the chances that these two are related? What are the chances that one of them is responsible for the vandalism? Those posts should probably be oversighted, but may I ask that they are not oversighted until I can send links to logs of the abuse to the technology department at that school district tomorrow? Granted that IP has engaged mostly in vandalism, but you might notice there are a few good edits in there; I've seen other IPs that had been under constant school block where the vandals must have moved on and several constructive contributions were generated as a result of the blocks expiring. When shared IPs of any nature (not just schools) are constantly under a schoolblock or an anonblock, how would we know what constructive contributions have been thwarted? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. If you have spotted edits that should be oversighted, please send the diffs to the oversight mailing list (Email this user at User:Oversight will do fine). PCHS, these IPs are soft-blocked in most cases; the students can go and start accounts at home or they can request an account through account creation. If there is classroom-approved editing, teachers and school officials can make arrangements to have accounts created for their students. Deliberately leaving edits in article histories that ought to be suppressed for the purpose of trying to get someone punished at their school is contrary to what this project is about. Risker (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes schools have over 1000 users, but most don't edit. According to wp:About we have over 16 million registered users, of whom only about 90 thousand are regular editors. If that ratio holds, such a school might have six editors. Forcing these six to register in order to edit from school is not that odious a price for keeping vandalism in check. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog has hit the nail on the head. Having been through such a school environment in the not-too-distant past, I can tell you that the vast majority of students who use Wikipedia at school (for projects, etc.) couldn't give a rat's ass about editing. A fair number of those who edit do so maliciously; I can recall one instance where I was editing a page during class and several guys sitting near me thought it would be great fun to vandalise that page just for kicks. And those who wish to edit productively are quite receptive to creating an account (seriously, not that hard). While this proposal is well intentioned, I am not convinced that it presents a realistic view of the situation at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, you are right, but whether there is one person behind an IP, or 1000 behind one IP, if all the edits that we see here are vandalism, then this is, unfortunately, the only solution. I try to go through the edits since a last block and see if there are a significant number of non-vandalism ones, but sometimes IPs remain unblocked for a month or 2, there may be only 1, maybe 2 reasonable edits, and 100 plain vandalism ('Gary was here', 'Lizzy is a moron', 'poop!' - and way worse getting into BLP type issues 'Our teacher, Mr John Doe, is screwing Jane Doe!'). In perspective, the damage that the kids sometimes, unknowingly, can do is quite big. Yes, sure, such block may hit an occasional good editor. Do note that we do block regular editors sometimes if they go on a bad spree - editors get banned by ArbCom because they are deemed 'a net negative' - that does not mean that they do not do good work, many do good work, and can return after the block/ban expires. Those editors are after that on a short(er) leash (for a while), school IPs have the same, they get blocked for vandalism, if vandalism continues (on a significant scale) after the block expires, they will just be reblocked. Good editors are unfortunately forced to create an account (for instructions they can see the block message), those who have an account can just edit on without problem, and I hope that some who want to edit and can't ask the organisation to have a look what is going on, and get awareness that their fellow students are causing Wikipedia to block them, and I hope that the organization then does something about it (but I am afraid that is an idle hope). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Did you see the block log on the 208 IP? It is epic. There are 14 blocks. When the 1 year block first went down, the IP was blocked again within 2 days of its release. And after that one, within the next 2 days. The next block was exactly what the OP's talking about I think, which is to be conscientious about school schedules when doing school blocks: it was 8 months long. And it stayed quiet during the summer. But blocked again by November, and after that one, vandalizing within 4 days. That's just an example.
  IPs don't get blocks this long unless there's a long history. The history stretches over 5 years on that one too. Either there's some really bad student there, or the vandalizing is done by multiple people over multiple years. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of school year duration blocks, if a block of 1 year is appropriate it's because the IP has a long history. Usually I suspect it's due to 1 IP representing lots of students. Allowing login edits is probably the best response in this case.
  I also agree with DGG that we've gotten a lot better about monitoring a lot of vandalism. With that in mind I would encourage blocking admins to look at the nature of the vandalism. If it's stuff that ClueBot's going to catch, then shorter blocks are acceptable, because the workload they create is smaller. But persistent, malicious, and subtle vandalism needs longer blocks since they extract a higher cost. Shadowjams (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm actually very familiar with the history of abuse from the Lely High School IP address; finding its listing at WP:ABUSE in search engine results was how I learned about so-called Wikipedia vandalism back in 2007. In 2007, not only was it vandalizing Wikipedia, but it was also spewing out spam emails until I notified the school of those activities. Some IPs probably have several vandals whereas some IPs have one person vandalizing a lot; in the case of lhs.collier.k12.fl.us, there's no way that a person who vandalized in 2006 would still be there now unless a> it's a faculty member, or b> it's a student that was held back two years, so it's very likely that it's different individuals in that case.

Indeed, that IP has a bad history, but I expect we'd have similar problems if major ISPs like Centurylink and Comcast had one IP to represent entire zip codes. Anyone remember the problems we had with AOL? I wasn't here for that, but I've read about it, and we never did one year blocks on AOL that I know of. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because AOL used like 6 proxies to represent a /10, which is 4 million IP addresses. Not even close to the same thing. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have on occassion blocked IPs for more than a year. I would never do this if there was any sign of good faith editing from the IP; probably holding off blocking altogether for fear of collateral damage. However, if there has never been anything but vandalism and it is pretty clear that it is unsupervised school internet access I really don't see the point of making the encyclopedia suffer yet another batch of vandalism before blocking again and making sure we don't have to do it again for a long time. I agree with PCHS-NJROTC that more use should be made of abuse reports, but I also agree with Materialscientist that it is time consuming to compile them. It must surely be possible to have an automated process that at a touch of a button can generate an abuse report referencing the proper user talk page and history and addressing it to the correct e-mail recipient retrieved from WHOIS. SpinningSpark 20:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer flag

I was surprised to see in my watchlist an admin add "reviewer" to an editor's user rights yesterday. Upon looking into it further, I noticed that a couple of other admins were handing them out as well. It appears the reviewer right, previously used for the pending changes trial, has been "repurposed" to support reviewing feedback left with the Article Feedback tool. (Scroll down to "reviewer" at Special:ListGroupRights.)

Basically, it appears that the reviewer right is currently being granted:

1. To support an editor's work with the article feedback tool
2. When restoring permissions from a desysopped account, transferring permissions from an old account to a new one, etc., and
3. To people with no immediate need for it, just in case pending changes ever comes back.

I've got no problem with #1, of course, and #2 is probably fine (albeit unnecessary if the editor doesn't intend to do AFT work.) But since Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer is now closed to further requests, I wonder if we should be discouraging #3, i.e. just handing it to anyone who'd like to add another right, even a "useless" one, to their hat collection. (Related discussion here.)

If the response here is "meh, let people have useless hats if they want them, it doesn't do any harm", that's fine, but I did want to get more people's thoughts on it. 28bytes (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) has been courtesy notified of this discussion as an edit of his was mentioned above. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I'd already notified him of the discussion, on Ks0stm's talk page. 28bytes (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, #3 is what I've done, though never alone, always with rollbacker. I stopped doing it once it was questioned on my talk. I figured that it could come back, it would save work then, and that reviewer was unlikely to be changed so dramatically that any rollbacker wouldn't handle it responsibly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't actually expecting Ks0stm to give it to me. That fact that he did was unexpected to me. I added just added that bit to my userpage as I wanted to fix the Rollback statement on my account. Since it's useless at this time, I don't see the big concern to hand it out to editors that follow editing guidelines. If pending changes protection were reinstated, I could strongly assume that the articles that I like to edit would be one of the first to get that protection since a lot of reversions take place there. I would've at that point requested it anyways. I'm not here to collect rights. I'm here to edit Wikipedia and to help out. @28bytes: I would kindly ask you to please remove the link to my page as you are making it sound like I am here to collect rights.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,272,664) 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the reviewing tool — pending changes protection would not affect an autoconfirmed user's ability to edit an article so protected. That said, perhaps 28bytes would be good enough to remove the link, because I agree I don't see your edit as 'button collecting'. Just my non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of peace and harmony I have removed the link. 28bytes (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me reword this into what I meant. The pages I edit would've undoubtedly get that protection and and edits that need to be accepted or denied would quickly accumulate and that's when I would request the reviewer right for that page anyways. A lot of reversions take place on that page. I am to the point where I may blow under stress right now and my mind isn't sound right now.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,274,736) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with 28bytes. I see no reason for admins to be randomly handing out the reviewer tool on the basis of a possible reinstatement of pending changes. If an admin is giving it for the purposes of the article feedback tool v5 trial, or to restore rights to a de-adminned user, that seems perfectly legit. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've been giving it out pretty much under #3 assuming that there wasn't any problem with it and understanding, perhaps incorrectly, that the goal was to actually roll out pending changes again at some point in the future. I'm perfectly happy to not give it out in the future if people would prefer it not be given out at the present time, though. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've had the reviewer right given and taken away (see Wikipedia talk:Pending changes level two protection for problematic BLPs#Reviewer bit concerns and [169]). In the interest of further troubleshooting, and as a Refdesk regular, I think I'd be interested to get the bit if it is required for reviewing article feedback to see what it looks like. (though I'm not clear on why this should be - why not send the feedback straight to a talk subpage?) On the other hand I'm not interested in rollbacking - I never figured out a use for that; it sounds like a poor cousin to the Undo button. I continue to oppose Pending Changes, and note that we still have no policy for what criteria should be used either by and toward PC reviewers. How do you decide what to do? Wnt (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's going to be one of the userrights that lets someone hide and review the feedback; you can still enact changes based on feedback without it. And, as to sending the feedback to the talkpage: if the numbers hold up (and I hope to god they don't) we'll be getting 127,000 pieces of AFT5 feedback per day. Ironholds (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Normally I'd agree with Ironholds on stuff like this, but in this case, I think this is a bad idea. If reviewer is being repurposed, we need to instead create a new user right, make a determination as to whom among the current holders of Reviewer should have this new user right, and then completely depreciate Reviewer. I say this for two reasons; first, while I don't think it was anyone's intention, this new functionality is kind of a hidden backdoor, it's not what people think of when they see Reviewer, and it's not what Reviewer is described as being for in the literature. It's better that it be done with a new right built for that purpose, and new policy pages detailing that purose, and the expectations that go along with the new right. Whether this new right is an evolution of aftest and aftest-hide or something else is up to the people impelementing the new right. Secondly, if pending changes does come back, which is unlikely in the near future, then there will be two destinct purposes to one tool, with two different sets of requirements, expectations, and abilities. That dosen't make a whole lot of sense to me. Especially because if PC does come back, it might come back in a radically different form than it was in its previous version, we have no idea really, so the arguement that the two tasks seem similar enough now dosen't hold up. This is also Sven Manguard 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)