Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 98 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 58 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 48 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

(Initiated 31 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	6	8
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 304 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Colton Cosmic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 97.72.232.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Does Colton Cosmic have a documented pattern of trying to hack into other people's accounts, whether Wikipedia or otherwise? Logging into my Gmail account just now, I found a message from the system: "Someone recently tried to use an application to sign in to your Google Account. Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:22:32 PM UTC IP Address: 97.72.232.122 Location: Hialeah, FL, USA". I've changed my passwords, of course, and I can't find evidence of damage, but I'm concerned because this IP has a block log and userpage (and at least one contribution) indicating that it's Colton Cosmic, and we definitely don't want longtime sockpuppetteers trying to hack our accounts. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Such a lame attempt at hacking would fit his general pattern of clueless behavior, he is basically his own worst enemy. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just a quick followup. Without going into the who-and-how of this, the IP mentioned above is shared by a number of editors whom I will not mention due to privacy rules. Given the nature of this IP, and some other technical evidence, I sincerely doubt that Colton Cosmic is involved in this incident - Alison ^❤ 06:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  I've added a note to the IP's block log to that effect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 06:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peter Damian

In the middle of June 2011, User:Elen of the Roads, apparently on behalf of the ArbCom, removed all mentions of User:Peter Damian socks by blanking, protecting and deleting a lot of pages, thereby emptying the categories Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian. In a discussion on Elen's talk page concerning these actions, she stated "The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim."[1].

Despite the agreement of Peter Damian to stop all attempts to edit Wikipedia, he continued doing this. I noted this at User talk:Elen of the Roads#PD socking, reminding her of her earlier promise quoted above. The reply was a bit wishy-washy, but made it clear that she agreed basically that the agreement was now void. When further socking happened a few months later from User:86.169.241.160, I proceeded to restore the cats, user pages, and user talk pages, to make it easier to spot further socks and to clarify parts of the history behind this account for any newer or unaware editors (keeping also in mind the regular "let's unblock Peter Damian threads).

This led to some protests: User talk:Fram#Please stop had User:Risker protesting, stating a.o. that "there is very good reason to believe that many of those accounts are not associated with him at all". As far as I can tell, only one was actually mistagged, not the "many" claimed in that post. User:Bishonen also questioned my actions, both at my user talk page and at User talk:Elen of the Roads#I mentioned you.., with some support for Bishonen by User:Volunteer Marek, and some opposition by User:Demiurge1000.

Meanwhile, User:Reaper Eternal felt the need to remove the sock tags from User:Peter Damian[2], and User:AGK re-removed the "banned" tag from User talk:Peter Damian[3]. Some discussion about both actions can be found at User talk:AGK#PD and User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 21#Peter Damian.

So now I wonder: a banned editor gets a courtesy blanking and deletion of most information relating to his socking, on the condition that he stops socking: he violates that agreement repeatedly; why should we keep "our" side of the bargain and keep relevant information hidden? We don't do the same for other long-term banned socks. Note, as a bonus, that a courtesy blanking and deletion was already done in 2008 when the editor exercised his "right to vanish". These deletions were also not undone, and most deletions of that user page are deleted as well. Socks from this time, like User:Renamed user 5, have been silently removed from the socks categories as well.

Why are some people, including members of ArbCom, going to all this trouble to "protect" the user name of this account (which, for clarity, isn't his real name), even when the user shows no interest in respecting his own promises in return? Why are tags and notices which are standard for all banned socks c.s. suddenly unacceptable in this case? Fram (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is coming across as a bit petty and WP:DICKish, honestly. Courtesy blanking is just that; a courtesy that was extended to this person at the time. Later actions shouldn't be used as a reason to renege or rescind a courtesy, any more than one would demand gifts to be returned from a spouse once they become an ex-spouse. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What an utterly bizarre argument. If he is continuing to sock (I've no idea if he is) then no such courtesy should apply, surely. The analogy with gifts to an ex-wife is just...unintelligable. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it suspected that Peter Damian is editing again?  Giano  16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

From my initial reading of Fram's post (and I of course wait to hear from everyone else involved before making a final decision) it appears that members of ArbCom have conspired to 'protect' a banned user who (perhaps) continues to sock, for some inexplicable reason. Fram, can you provide evidence of recent socking please? GiantSnowman 16:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt that he is being allowed to edit again, under any name. From what I remember, he cooked his books and burnt his bridges very well and truly. The Arbcom would never be so foolish.  Giano  16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The "bizarre statement" is yours Paul B. What evidence do you have that Peter Damien is continuing to sock? None? Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you can't read: "If he is continuing to sock (I've no idea if he is) then no such courtesy should apply, surely." What was bizarre was the "logic" of Fram's assertion. Whether PD is in fact socking is a separate question from what should be done if he is. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you can't understand what you read. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My point should clear to anyone who is not choosing to ignore it. If you wish to make another "ya boo" comment go ahead. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Arguing with an idiot makes me the bigger idiot. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no "standard"; see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#RFC:_Concerning_banned_and_indeffed_users NE Ent 16:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Elen's actions suggest that she has access to Torchwood software. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Paul B, it isn't rocket science; just because someone is rude to you doesn't give you an automatic right to be rude in return. Going back to a banned user's page and re-tagging it years after the fact was utterly pointless, it was of no benefit to the project. My analogy was sound, your lack of understanding is not a concern of mine. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your analogy was nonsensical. My 'lack of understanding' is because it did not make sense. No-one is being rude to anyone. Providing information is the issue. It isn't rocket science. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It was not nonsensical or unintelligible, but your responses thus far have been just that. Let's try this real simple-like; 1) something courteous (blanking) was done for Damian. 2) Damian is alleged to have done something discourteous (socking) at some point later on. 3) Fram contends that that the original blanking was a sort of quid pro quo (that's, like, Latin, and stuff) now rendered null and void since one end was not upheld. 4) I feel that something done as a "courtesy" is not something that one usually takes back down the road, regardless of the actions of the other party...and if one does try to take such a thing back, it is somewhat of a dick move, hence the gift analogy. Now if you're done with the strawman (that's, like, logic, and stuff) retorts, maybe we can discuss the actual matter at hand. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pointlesss, and a good indicator of one of Wikipedia's deepest problems; past indiscretions are never forgotten, or allowed to be laid to rest. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt there is an secret cabal of arbs and other admins that want to do nice things for Peter Damian or are protecting him. Tag warring over the content of banned user's pages is as tacky as it is pointless. WP:RBI, if there are any current socks at all, is a much better approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can everyone please stop having little digs at one another? First things first, we need evidence of PD's socking - then we can discuss whether or not there has been any attempt to 'hide' it by those in a position of power. GiantSnowman 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if there was socking or not. Re-tagging an old account as a "banned user" is simply Scarlet Letter-ish, to borrow a recently-used term for this. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mean gravedancing? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The evidence of the continued socking? User:Hestiaea is one (e.g. [4] and User talk:Sue Gardner/5, where the editor claims to be writing a book about Wikipedia, something Damian is doing as well), and the IP User:86.169.241.160 self-identifies as Damian (using Damian's real name, which he had disclosed on Wikipedia earlier, so no outing here) here. There may be others (or not), these are just two that happened to cross my watchlist. Hestiaea is the kind of user that pretends to be a novice with innocent questions, wasting the time of editors, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Fram (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Damian is not writing that book alone, and in what sense is it "socking" if an IP reveals himself? Basically you have nothing but spiteful vengeance. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't claim that he was writing that book on his own; if an IP reveals itself, it is still socking by all definitions (you don't suddenly get permission to edit with an edit or account as long as you reveal which banned user you actually are); and vengeance for what actually? Anyway, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 116#Jagged 85 and Wikipedia accuracy has some more on Hestiaea, other IP socks, and Beeblebrox blocking the user. Fram (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not "socking" by any rational definition of that term if an IP chooses to reveal him or herself. What an absurd idea. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Call it "accounts and IPs used to evade a ban" if you prefer, it hardly changes anything about the fundamental issues. And the Hestiaea account clearly was socking even in your definition. Fram (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fram,

Alleging that Damian be socking was a serious accusation. You have acknowledged the falseness of your unsubstantiated falsehoods. Please strike your falsehoods, here, and work toward more self-control when you make accusations.

In the future, you should stick to alleging "disruptive editing", which is so vague that another unsubstantiated accusation will probably not cause you any trouble. It's worked better for you in the past, hasn't it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not "acknowledged the falseness of my unsubstantiated falsehoods", but thanks for the redundant redundancy in your comment. I have acknowledged that Malleus' definition differs from mine (and most everyone's elses), and indicated that even with his definition, there are plenty of socks remaining. So, as requested, I have struck all my falsehoods in this section. Happy? Fram (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter Damian seems like a good guy from the little I've talked to him (which was his sock), but he did implicitly acknowledge elsewhere that the sock was him, but the evidence involves WP:OUTING. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(Resp to Fram) If it's proven, then his past must be unhidden & he must have his new socks blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What new socks? Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never witnessed so much apparently-clueless hypocrisy than I've just seen by reading this thread. If there's something everyone here should know by now, it's that people who want to edit the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" can't be stopped from doing so. Why anyone still cares is a mystery to me, I've long since stopped. If I left my front door wide open during the day, I shouldn't be surprised to come home and find my furniture gone and my beer supply reduced to empty bottles. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we are worrying needlessly. I'm quite sure Peter Damian manages to edit as an IP, but I am equally sure he will never again edit as an accepted named editor. Such as it is, I would stake my Wikipedia reputation on it - his history prevents that.  Giano  19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In otherwords, Wikipedia couldn't get rid of him, if it wanted to. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we want to get rid of people, per se, we just want to get rid of their endless egotistical fuckwittery. If PD was not such an attention whore, he'd be quietly editing away under a new account somewhere and nobody would mind at all. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

JzG (Guy), do you make such personal attacks all the time, or only when surrounded by AN hipocrites who don't enforce WP:NPA? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is another aftershock of the recent Wikipediocracy controversy. Let's wish that people would just stop looking for trouble, especially if they don't identify their vendettas when they continue the drama. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer Wolfowitz

Can someone please ask this user to back off a bit? He first made incorrect claims about me[5], and then went on to change the section header to a completely incorrect and accusatory one[6]. and edit warred over it with an uninvolved user[7]. He then continued to make the same claims at my talk page[8], despite nothing in this discussion supporting his claims.

When I reinstated the original section header here (because the section is about what happened to and what to do with PD socks and the tags on them, not about what to do with Peter Damian, which would be a different discussion; and because the section header was linked to in multiple wikilinks, now all broken), he reverted me again, accusing me of editwarring (considering that this was his second revert of the section header, a bit rich coming from him), calling me in the edit summary a "cowboy administrator", and claiming a "consensus" when all that was done was that one editor tried to find a middle ground, giving essentially in to the shenanigans of Kiefer Wolfowitz. I have no idea why I (and others) get such a hostile overreaction from KW in this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fram,

You omitted your reverting Giant Snowman, in your edit warring, etc.

You hypocrites at this board have shown that you all let insults like "attention whore" stand, so forgive me for not consoling you at being called "cowboy".

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"I reinstated the original section header here". I didn't omit anything. Fram (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Links fixed (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Peter_Damian_socks) with {{anchor}}. Anyway, any experienced editor who opens up a sketchy, nearly or entirely pointless thread -- especially one based on a false premise -- should anticipate the resulting blowback that will follow. If you can't stand the heat don't post on AN NE Ent 11:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What "false premise"? That you find it "sketchy" and "nearly or entirely pointless" is opinion, so while I don't agree, there is no need to explain those; but you seem to agree with KW that the section was based on a false premisse, even though he hasn't demonstrated any such thing; KW claims that no socking hsa occurred, which flies in the face of all evidence. But if he believes this to be true, instead of changing the section header and making some handwaving allegations, he should be taking the two sock cats to MfD, and try to get the SPIs about PD "corrected". Fram (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Fram

Please see the talk page of Fram for his insults to Carrite, etc. Would an honest conscientious administrator explain the duties of administrators, please? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And the relevance of this to the section "Peter Damian socks" is...? Oh wait, of course, if I make a subsection about your actions in this very dispute, you can start a general section on unrelated stuff just becaues it involves me. Right... Start a new section or whatever you prefer if you feels this needs action, but don't hijack a different discussion to continue your WP:POINT violations please. Fram (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I tell you what, Fram.

You strike your insults to Carrite, and then you can begin to think about instructing me in manners.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Today I closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti, which had been open since 1 November 2012. I summarized that

"the RfC concludes that Niemti has regularly and over a long period of time engaged in misconduct such as incivility and personal attacks, article ownership, not using edit summaries, and disruption of the "good articles" process. Niemti has not indicated any readiness to change their conduct. There is consensus, in #Motion to close, that a proposal to site-ban and to topic-ban Niemti should be submitted to the community."

Accordingly, I refer the following proposal, as discussed in the RfC (with some copyediting to reflect current sanctions terminology) to the community.

1. Niemti (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. He may ask the Arbitration Committee to lift this ban after six months have elapsed.
2. Niemti is indefinitely prohibited from participating in the good article nomination and good article reassessment of any article.
3. Niemti is indefinitely topic-banned from the topic of video games, broadly construed.

Please indicate which parts of this proposal you support or oppose. My understanding is that the parts of the proposal are not mutually exclusive. Because this referral is part of the RfC closure, I myself am neutral.  Sandstein  12:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More evidence of his behavior can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Niemti

Note: Niemti is currently blocked. Their statement, if any, is transcluded from their talk page below.

Oh hi. Long story short so I won't be "ranting" (or what not) this time:

• So Sjones is wikihounding me constantly for nearly a year now, and his pal Bridies is also obsessed with me to the point of where the great most of his entire activity here on Wikipedia in the 5 months was all about how to rid of me (while I've substantionally adited hundreds of different articles during the same period, over 5,000 in total since March 2012). (Bridies - I don't even know/remember what he was really writing, maybe he wasn't as bad as Sjones, I don't know. He didn't comment here, so it's irrevelant-ish anyway.) That's just not normal. Btw, right now I'm blocked because I referred to this wikihounding by "stalking" (which is just semantics really, apparently they call it "cyberbullying" now outside the Wikipedia).

• Now, GAs. Basically what The Devil's Advocate wrote in his comment - and this example of the so-called "additional evidence" (as it was called by Sjones in his wikihounding thread) is indeed a good example of "evidence", as it shows what is actually this "problem" with me - and it's that I actually know (and obey) all the policies, rules and guidelines (including but not limited to everything regarding GAs and their reviewing process), while many reviewers don't know, and even when they're informed about the rules and guidelines (the proper ones, because in this case the reviewer was misinformed by some other apparently uninformed users, strangely including at least 1 admin) they might even flatly and completely refuse to acknowledge and follow them (here, the reviewer's invoking "ignore all rules" instead of admitting the wrong). I'm all for proper reviewing, instead of incorrect/arbitrary, which is why I've opened this thread recently (aftter this very debacle, precisely) because the scale of this problem (various types of bad reviewing) is pretty alarming, and some reviewers' blatant refusal to play by rules after they're being informed about them is just absolutely unacceptable (that's my opinion, at least, but I can't see how could I be any wrong with being right).

--Niemti (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

After skipping through through the thread, some comments on comments:

• Wizardman - it's the same person who wrote "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria."[9] Well, I'm still convinced he doesn't understand GA criteria (and yes, shouldn't be reviewing, if he does). See the link for evidence ("additional", even).
• Sergecross73 - it was this admin who gave the misleading (wrong) advice to the original reviewer from the very same thread.[10]
• Cúchullain and your "I honestly couldn't believe that things like Ayane (Dead or Alive), Ibuki (Street Fighter), or Ada Wong were GAs" made me actually smile a bit. To quote someone, "I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria." Also, your statement of "I've only interacted with Niemti at Anita Sarkeesian" was false as I'm pretty sure you couldn't miss my 94 edits (over the course of 3 months) at Morgan Le Fay (where we both are very top contributors and I did a complete and thorough cleanup, from this sorry state), just for one example. I don't know why are you giving false stataments like that, but that's you.
• System Shock 2 FA wasn't mine, I just helped it (with 24 edits at around the time of the nom). I don't do FAs.
• I'm totally for "a mutual interaction ban with User:Sjones23", in fact I didn't even read anything by him here.

--Niemti (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You commentary on me is very misleading. Someone asked about a group of sources, and all I said was that in general its best to avoid Facebook and Youtube as sources due to frequently having WP:SPS or copyright issues. Note the word usually, -- I wasn't talking about the specific sources. Beyond that, you're just misdirecting the discussions again; even if my comment was hypothetically wrong in every possible interpretation, it still has nothing to do with this AN conversation. I wasn't GA reviewing your work, nor do I GA review anybodies work. Your point is completely unrelated to this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's you anwswer that was "very misleading", as you've linked to policies/guidelines (namely: WP:YOUTUBE, WP:SPS, WP:LINKVIO) that absolutely didn't support your statement at all - I've already addressed it at in detail here (and the ultimate cop-out answer by the reviewer was that he's going to "ignore all rules" and not admit being wrong). And how is this random example (not even picked by me, because I didn't read it) from Sjones' so obsessively collected "additional evidence" being "completely unrelated" now? --Niemti (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

But like I said, even if I'm complete wrong, you're cherrypicking; if you look at the big picture, only 2 of the 10 sources in question were related to FB or YT, where as clearly here and here, show that multiple other users found multiple problems with multiple other sources, and your GA noms were rejected on those grounds. The reviewer literally says that in the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as your statements on IAR and Sjones comments, I'm not doing a point by point response on every bullet point you made above. I'm just talking about the excerpt you included about me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not any "cherrypicking" - people who don't know policies/rules/criteria/etc, and even just refuse to follow them (not by ignorance but by deliberate choice), want to ban me for actually knowing all that following/applying it. And that's including you. Also, as I've wrote right there 1. all of them were either actually totally correct or easily replacable 2. it's not a quick fail criteria. Which was answered by "ignore all rules", then Wizardman (who als wants to ban me) comes and tell me: "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria" (which is just super ironic at this point). So, anyway, why would you give such a misleading advice like that? Seriously - I never do things like that, so why did you do it? --Niemti (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• See, here's where you're confusing issues. I think you deserve a ban because how you treat people so poorly, and refuse to acknowledge it, or try to change at all. You've always got a finger to point at someone else, that they treated you bad first or did something outrageous or something, and there's always another person who you're starting trouble with because of your incivility or OWN issues. You're entirely unwilling or unable to even see the problem, and as an Admin, I can't justify looking the other way when people come to me for help, because you're making no effort to follow these rules.
• The GA nom stuff? I support you being topic banned from that for a different reason. Everyone's always complaining your noms don't meet criteria. I don't have much of a problem with that, as I don't care personally about how many you've stuffed rightfully or wrongfully in the queue. I don't do much of that, so it doesn't affect me. But it's always distracting other people from being constructive. That's why I feel you should be topic banned from that; rather than everyone always wasting time debating, I feel like you need a filter, someone else you can consult on whether it meets the criteria, and then they can nominate it for you or something. If someone nominated GA's for you, perhaps there'd be less wasted time debating the merits of the nom. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I've just got a finger to point back at people who point a finger at me. And to prove that I'm not at "fault" for being right. But they're at fault for being wrong (and they are, which I proved already and can prove anytime, it's just so easy) - and oh yes, that's they who shouldn't be doing things like such hack-job 'reviews' by following their own arbitrary pseudo-criteria (despite specifically being not allowed to do anything like that) and even pulling "ignore all rules" after being informed/reminded about the real GA process. Or giving incorrect advice to people, for that matter (don't do this). And oh yes, I also just realized it's not a side issue at all. Because it was precisely this wrong advice of yours, pounced on up by the always-vigilant Sjones and uncritically accepted by the reviewer (and then by Wizardman) that inflamed the whole situation and led straight to this situation we're having now. I wonder if you can accept responsibility for that. --Niemti (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ludicrous. I gave general advice that only had relevance to 2 of 10 of your sources in question, and the reviewer literally said The Facebook and YouTube sources aren't the only problematic sources. Don't blame me for your sourcing shortcomings, and other people's reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

But you've encouraged him (and Wizardman too - "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid. How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around?" - now he want to ban me for that). Were there actually any "sourcing shortcomings" is debatable (and it was not discussed with me, at all - he actually came to ask you, not me!), that it had nothing at all to do with abrupt quickfailing is not (as it was an absurdly blatant quickfail abuse, "supported" by "ignore all rules" for the lack of any real arguments). --Niemti (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk to them about it, not me. It's simple: Someone posed a question about sources on the VG source noticeboard, and I gave vague advice supported by policy and my experience here at Wikipedia: I feel many people cannot identify copyright violations or self-published sources from Youtube or Facebook, and since I feel so many are unable to do this, I advise them to use other sources, because it's almost always available elsewhere if it is indeed legit information. Its a "play it safe" strategy. That's all I did. I did not comment on your particular sources. I did not review your GA nom. I did not quickfail it, nor did I even read that review or until today. I had no role in any of that minus a vague piece of advice. If you have a problem with what happened, complain to them. Like I already said, I have no desire to defend everyone you complained about in your comments, merely clear my name in it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To sum it up: You refuse to accept responsibility for you wrong advice that confused the reviewer (briefly, in the end he just didn't care and "ignored all rules", by his own admission) and then also Wizardman, and also picked up by Sjones, which led me to being reminded of him (and to my current block for using the term "stalker" instead of saying "wikihounder" like a proper Wikipedia gentleman). Now the still confused (despite being explained, but believed you more) Wizardman wants to ban me, and you want to ban me too. Bravo, well played. --Niemti (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that WP:EL basically says what Sergecross says, that's not "wrong advice" (and the reasoning above is exactly why editors are cautioned against YT/FB links due to the inability to judge the proper copyright owner). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"EL" stands for "external links", it was references, apples and oranges (but anyway YouTube and Facebook actually have even their own templates for adding them to external links). --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the advice isn't wrong, and they're people, not machines; they have the ability to think for themselves and make their own decisions. I didn't make anyone do anything. So, taking that into consideration, yeah, I guess I do refuse to accept responsibility. And even if I hypothetically did, its such a tiny tiny part of the problem. How many noms have you done? 10? 20? 100? And you're hung up on one tiny vague bit of advice that may have influenced one single nom? Its such an insigificant part of this massive problem. Enough of this; this is you just misdirecting the discussion again, moving people away from the real issues. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you must have a very peculiar definition of a good advice, especially since one of these 3 links that you "just tossed around" (to paraphrase the esteemed GA expert Wizardman) didn't even mention neither YT not FB at all (precisely, your Wikipedia:LINKVIO, or even the entire Wikipedia:Copyrights where it actually links to for that matter) and another (WP:YOUTUBE) wasn't even about sources/references, also at all, and you failed to properly explain anything. And you still don't understand how this AN thread here is an extension of this very GAN (Wizardman and his "How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around?", Sjones stirring things up again - and being called, oh-no, a "stalker", it's all directly connected)? But come on, ban me and carry on superbly advising people. EOT because everything about that was said already. --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, yes, I did "talk to them about it". Including here, right away. (Oh, and estabilished QF criteria were then deleted altogether, on the very same day, only to be replaced by the super vague "a long way" - how long is "long" so it's not "all other cases"?) --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to your comment, in fact I hadn't noticed your work at Morgan le Fay, which I haven't done much work on in several years, and we certainly haven't interacted there. At any rate it's just misdirection; as far as I remember, other than the Anita Sarkeesian debacle I've never dealt with you at any of the articles or forums that concern us here. However, the briefest of looks into your other contributions shows that you've displayed the same serious issues that got you banned from that topic in many other areas. Your intransigence in forcing through your low standards and personal interpretations of the Good Article procedures, rather than collaborating with others to create actual, well, good articles, is one of those problems.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not displaying any "intransigence" in "forcing through" my "low standards" (these standards are neither "low" nor "mine", because they're standard and I never took any part in setting them) and what I'm doing is actually strongly opposing any and all "personal interpretations" (like here: [11]). Now go and read: Wikipedia:Good article criteria (recently changed substantionally on March 17, so read also the previous version), Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (recently changed substantionally on March 19, ditto) and possibly also Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and then you'll know too. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Or in case of tldr: read just Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Imposing your personal criteria about what "personal interpretations" (here called "personal criteria", and located in the section "Mistakes to avoid in reviews") actually are. --Niemti (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There is some truth to what Niemti says above as there are a few reviewers that set higher standards than the minimum. These generally involve superficial things like reference formatting, irrelevant MOS guidelines and so forth (usually they are quite easy to fix - although they can be time consuming). However most of the criteria are quite subjective and purposely so (prose, broadness, neutrality etc). Nominators should not be nominating them unless they think the article already meets these criteria so it ideally just comes down to the reviewer agreeing or pointing out areas where further work is needed. Many also point at things not in the criteria, but they should be left optional. The best reviews have a back and forth between nominator and reviewer to get the article to a standard both are happy meets the criteria. That is the part that is lacking with you or at the least is ineffectual. At the end of the day having the green spot is not that big a deal, if you are not willing or wanting to listen to feedback then it is probably best to just not nominate the article in the first place. For what its worth, my only confrontation with Niemti was the opposite to what he is accused of here, where they were insisting on a standard for Good articles that I did not think was warranted. AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed Niemti's GA's they were of all great detail and did answer some of my more petty and nitpicky issues, all in the sake of preserving and keeping high quality sources and ensuring that no 404 or iffy sites would slip in for someone to challenge the material. Niemti actually overhauled the page and brought it up substantially when I noted a few issues, but I am not sure if they were planned post-nom and prior to my review. I do not like to annoy or challenge other people or make them insecure about things, I used to be more stubborn like Niemti about 'correctness' of an article. The care and thought Niemti puts into Wikipedia should not be discounted because of a defense of that quality. Niemti may not want to backdown or compromise on an issue that is essentially a 'this or that' and when compromise isn't a viable option. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. Stubborn editors or persistent negative editors can and do easily push an otherwise good editor to their limit. It happens. Let's not lose a good editor over minor stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Mortal Kombat II where I did 505 edits (including around about 50 more with additional tweaks after it passed GA), also spin-off Home versions of Mortal Kombat II (after first working on this aspect a lot too, but it was still too big and simply a chore), also the main Mortal Kombat article with 192 edits. (I was actually also working on both of them for a long time on-and-off since 2005 or so but I'm not even counting that.) --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of things "quite subjective", the current (new) "a long way" thing (that I was speaking above already) is waaaay too vague it's just a total carte blanche for QF abuse and so it neededs to be changed. --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support 1, 2, and 3, obviously. Even though he has done some excellent work on articles, he has still engaged in misconduct such as incivility and personal attacks, article ownership, not using edit summaries, and disruption of the "good articles" process for over 6 years. While I tried to give him a fair chance, the fact must remain, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and civility is a cornerstone in this project. Niemti has a poor track record when it comes to collaborating with anyone that he disagrees with (including myself) and often wastes the community's time. Given his history, HanzoHattori/Niemti has unfortunately and very obviously failed the community for the last time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose #1 and #3 for now, neutral on #2. I agree that Niemti's interactions can be problematic, but I think he deserves a chance to see the results of the RfC and reconsider some of that behavior before a ban. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support #2, Neutral on #1 and #3. After Niemti's response above, I'm much less optimistic about the situation. And as someone points out below, the number of editors who now refuse to work with Niemti because of these flare-ups is becoming an increasing problem. At one point recently, all of the five oldest nominations at WP:GAN were Niemti's, because so many regulars were no longer willing to take them on. It's not a tenable situation, and shouldn't continue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As I said in the RFC, he is either unwilling or unable to change, and his behavior is unacceptable, so I see no other choice. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• A very difficult decision indeed. On the one hand, I have seen Niemti behave in a superfluously aggressive manner towards those who disagree with his perspectives, and the passive harassment of Sjones23 is out of bounds. Civility is not negotiable — it is a cornerstone of this project. In an ideal scenario, a disagreement between two or more editors will lead to a compromise that works for the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. Equally important is editor retention, being able to maintain a collegial atmosphere within our community. If Wikipedia fosters a toxic environment, it will drive away many valuable contributors. Yet, Niemti's content contributions are generally of immense value. His interests are broad (and admittedly very similar to my own), and wherever he gets the chance to work on an article by himself, good things tend to come from it. I was the most vocal supporter of unbanning him last year, and I'm still not thoroughly convinced that he ought to be banned once more. Nevertheless, he needs to change his attitude. If that cannot happen, then he will have forfeited his final chance and be forced to depart. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was not fully aware of the situation between Niemti and Sjones23 when I made the above comment. I think a mutual interaction ban would probably be best for all involved. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I understand that a mutual interaction ban would work, but I have doubts about it since I don't want to talk about that situation. I only got swept up in the controversy back in August against my better judgment and discussions regarding this we're taking place far before his block a week or two ago. Since there are concerns about changing the situation towards me, I am going to back out of this discussion but I am still going to watch it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that's probably a good idea. Being entrenched in one of Wikipedia's civility disputes as an involved party is a soul-sucking thing, believe me. I've seen many other good men fall prey to the downward spiral. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral on the idea of sitebanning him; closer, please don't count me when you're deciding to close as ban or don't-ban. However, I'm opposed to the mechanics of this proposal. (1) It's not good to community-ban someone indefinitely from appealing a community ban to the community. Arbcom is already too powerful, and giving them the right to officiate in this specific situation when the community will be able to decide to unban or keep-banned is a bad idea, both because they don't need extra things, and because it's wrong to say that the ban may not be appealed to the community. (2) If we enact your proposal, we'll make it harder for him to appeal his siteban than his topic bans. Why? (3) You're using both "banned" and "prohibited" when you appear to mean the same thing; please change one to the other, or please explain why "banned" and "prohibited" aren't the same. (4) Finally, a basic question — why topic-ban someone and siteban him too? Do one or the other, or do neither, but not both. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's a menu of options, not a single coherent proposal. NE Ent 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on #1, strongly on #2. The third one would be moot if the first one passes, but would be second choice. Clearly he doesn't care that he's disruptive to others and shows zero desire to change. Wizardman 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Undecided on all three points, for the same reason -- there are evident behaviour issues, but the actual content work is definitely non-negligible and if that work could be continued, the encyclopedia ultimately wins. However that doesn't excuse the actions outside of content work and there is also a real possibility or driving off other good editors. I would, without hesitation, Support a fourth, intermediary option of a mutual interaction ban with User:Sjones23 but that doesn't resolve the rest... If anything, option #2 seems reasonable and potentially helpful but I worry that if he cannot improve an article all the way through to GA, including the nomination process, he might not be motivated to work on the articles themselves... I will keep reading the points and remain open to changing my mind. Note I am in no way defending his attitude or behaviour and I believe it is a very important problem; however he's done good article work and if we could find a solution that would still allow the encyclopedia to be improved by his work, that'd be ideal. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• After seeing the discussions, I am revising my position -- Oppose option 1 because I do not believe the community has been fair and neutral towards Niemti and I believe that some amount of baiting happened. I am however not opposed to having someone review whether the behaviour goes against the conditions of his previous unban. Neutral option 2 because the problems are evident, but not on every review which begs the question of whether the issue really is with Niemti... Oppose option 3 because the quantity and quality of his work is impressive and there are no problems with his editing; merely with his behaviour. Strong Support Interaction Ban between Sjones23 and Niemti; both have agree anyhow. I also believe Sjones23 needs to be reprimanded for his apparent hounding, or at the very least for his inability to disengage despite stating numerous times he was disengaging. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1a. Support site ban per prior AN discussion. here

1b. Oppose appeal to ArbCom provision -- appeal should be to community in six months

2 & 3. Neutral NE Ent 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support #2. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Before this gets enacted, I'd like a moment to gather a few diffs and compose a comment please. — Ched :  ?  17:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• I find myself a bit puzzled by the idea that the community would ban him and he could only appeal to arbcom. I'd like some clarification on the logic behind that choice. I would support the idea that WP:BASC act as a gatekeeper, i.e. he must convince them to open the discussion, but as written I don't really get it. However, I believe we made a mistake in lifting this ban in the first place. If we reward someone for socking we can hardly be surprised when what they learn from that is that the rules do not apply to them and they can act however they like without consequence. So, support any and all of the above but would like the wording on the ban idea tweaked slightly. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of people are discussing the appeal to arbcom part. So, I've been more passive with this whole thing lately, but I don't think that was something people especially felt strongly about. I think the main idea was the "6 month ban with opportunity to be appealed", I don't believe there was much emphasis meant to be placed on who he appeals to. I could be mistaken though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• I endorse this outcome. The idea of appeal to BASC is a form of independent review, and it is a way of forestalling the endless debates between supporters and others that we have seen in the past. Banned users seem not to have a big problem using this process, there are not enough of them to produce any challenge of scale. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comments: So, we seem to have taken a 48 hour block, 7 months later pounded a two week (escalated) block on top of that, kept a running list of grievances (which usually get deleted as attack pages in user space) by holding open a Five month long RfC/U (for those unfamiliar with that particular process, it usually doesn't go much beyond ONE month), had a total of Three comments from the accused on his own talk since the block (which basically amount to "meh - I'm not mad, I can use the break anyway".), and a closing of an RfC/U which has been allowed to run longer than most Arbcom cases with a "BAN HIM" proposal. On top of that, somehow we can make this an WP:AE ban? (I must have missed that little memo.) I'd imagine this could even be forced through process before Niemti gets back if we try real hard. I mean after all, his first unclosed ban discussion lasted a total of what? 12 hours? 8 or 9 people commenting - but don't let facts distract anyone from removing an editor that managed to get what? 40 articles to GA?, at least one FA (System Shock 2) - in less than a year? With +85% of his over 40k edits to article space? So let's have a recap shall we? Even though Sjones23, I'm sorry .. "Lord" Sjones23 .. promised multiple times to avoid this editor (personally I consider them to be very unfulfilled promises) - they continue to be a driving force for this ban. (a few interesting reads from just Aug. of last year: link, apology and question, another "question", and this one is nothing short of a real gem - closing the very thread where Nimeti raised the harassment issues - that's a keeper if I ever saw one). Now, going back to the RfC/U for a moment: What do we have as egregious incivility? And I'll just use the direct quotes from the initial links since that seems to be the core of our editor's problems: "I guess you hate chapters in most books", "...now go and renominate", "I told you to stop fucking up my articles, didn't I?" (I'll fully admit that there's some ownership issues with a comment like that), "You've got to be kidding me,", "Now, if you have something to CONTRIBUTE to the article..." and of course: SHOUTING, (zOMG HE USED THE CAPS LOCK KEY). That is what we're banning people for now?

Now I haven't had the time or the desire to review any of allllll those other things this gawd-awful editor has done which required an entire second page of "additional evidence that Lord Sjones23 felt compelled to create, but perhaps others will. The fact is this: Niemti was never given a second chance. He was hounded, baited, and trolled to the point of exhaustion. I don't question that he could improve in the WP:OWNership areas, and perhaps he does need to brush up on WP:BITE (although Lord Sjones23 is hardly a newcomer). While WP:IBAN is about the only thing I could conceivably consider here, typically that doesn't always work as well in practice as it does in print. Either way, this appears to be another one of those forgone conclusions in which we banish an editor. Do people really, honestly, wonder why we have an editor retention problem on this project? Oh well - thanks for holding off on the close so I could formulate my comments. You folks enjoy yourselves. — Ched :  ?  18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize he had like 12 blocks under his other account, right? And all of them related the same same sort of problems being addressed at this more recent RFC... Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Ched about the extensive wikihounding by Sjones23. There was also some degree of collaboration between a few people to get Niemti banned.My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bans have been proposed at the wrong venues a couple times now by different editors. They were good faith mistakes though, not an effort to canvass, if that's what you're getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about a situation when someone suddenly appears after a month of inactivity, specifically to suggest to sanction Niemti [12], and then disappears again. Sjones23 campaigned for several months to ban Niemti. But whatever. People with short temper like Niemti are easy targets. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, gotcha. Yeah, I cross paths at WP:VG with Bridies, but I'm not especially familiar with that editor or his/her editing habits/patterns, so I really can't attest to that... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Bridies has clearly stated in this discussion, "I'm no longer contributing and am resolved not do so again. Though likewise, Niemti was only partially responsible, in addition to the incredibly alienating get-over-it comments and the gloating in the aftermath from other editors, in addition to the User:Jagged_85 episode (I've not so much as seen it mentioned on the WP:VG talk page that thousands of our VG history articles have been compromised by misinformation) and the ever-present anonymous incompetency and vandalism... Which just added up to the sensation that editing here is too much like pissing in the wind these days. I also had the epiphany that VG content editors almost universally supported banning Niemti; as someone who almost exclusively edited old VG articles, I don't see why see why I should be burdened by anyone else's dogma. What I'd really love to see is a site devoted to, say, pre-2000 video games (and thus potentially complete-able), with similar goals as Wikipedia (NPOV, free-access encyclopaedia), and which could compete in terms of search engine optimisation, but with editorial standards, real name and civility requirements, and more closed authorship." I am not interested in discussing the Wikihounding issues anymore. This has nothing to do with the present situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please answer a question: why did this new wave of activity about Niemti (as follows from this edit history) has started on March 22 while he was blocked? My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are either mistaken or cherry picking. Discussions regarding this we're taking place far before his block a week or two back. Sergecross73 msg me 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to note that System Shock 2 was promoted to featured article by me, not Niemti. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not opining on any of the proposals. I just wanted to help close a 4-month old RFC/U that wasn't going anywhere. I'll take the sole blame for the list of possible sanctions being so inartfully drafted as to resist even Sandstein's brave effort to clean up the language. The reason I wrote "appeal to ArbCom" was simply to preclude an individual admin from lifting the ban if enacted, which appears to be what happened last time around. The suggestion above that WP:BASC act as a gatekeeper before the community considers an un-ban sounds like a better option. I was unfamiliar with that committee. I am happy to accept that suggestion as a friendly amendment. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, I'm so very sorry about what is going on the project here. At the time when Niemti was unbanned, I provided very inconclusive evidence on my part, and I tried to desperately solve the problem in August, but ended up getting nowhere fast to be honest and I've obviously moved on from the "wikihounding" issue and those things in August are water under the bridge and I wish to put these issues by Ched to rest. I know better to wikihound, bait or troll anyone in the first place. I have been trying to ignore him due to his attitude. And let it be known that being a producer of good content is never an excuse for incivil behavior and I tried to desperately avoid him but I was concerned about his behavior. Niemti has some serious communication errors here, but I made a mistake in promising to avoid the editor (that promise was not permanent), and I am aware about what problems he has here. Let me decide whether I should avoid Niemti or not. Unfortunately, Niemti was topic banned from a biographical article for this exact same behavior. The additional evidence subpage was created at the suggestion of Izno and we have had numerous discussions on his behavior at WT:VG. We need more uninvolved editors to take a look at the situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I will comment on one thing, and one thing only. I most definitely Support an interaction ban as proposed by User:Salvidrim and User:Ched above, with teeth in it, between User:Niemti and User:Sjones23. The comment above says to me that Sjones23 is either clueless or in complete denial about his own continual and ongoing WP:Wikihounding, including a lovely display of gravedancing on the occasion of the current block being imposed. Ched's assessment of that is right on the number. Fladrif (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Fladrif. I can understand that Ched is concerned here and I am so sorry about this once again. If I did anything wrong or clueless or did something to upset you, then I can say one thing: I am sorry and can express deep regret for what I have done back in August. That promise to avoid the user was because I was not sure much can be done about his behavior. But based on his behavior, he was basically uncooperative. I know that I was trying to avoid Niemti but in the end, I let my judgment get the best of me since I do know better than to wikihound or harass this user. I think a possible interaction ban would simply help out very much for me and increase my moral support. If you are concerned about anything my behaviour, bring it up on WP:ANI or discuss it on my talk page. This discussion should not be here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:PETARD Fladrif (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I understand where you, Salvidrim and Ched come from with an interaction ban on Niemti and myself. Unfortunately, even though I would support Salvidrim's proposal of an interaction ban without hesitation at a later time and Sergecross73 recommended that I should avoid Niemti because he was causing me a lot of stress, I have doubts about the interaction ban and those comments do not really alleviate any concerns on Niemti's behavior though as most of it took place back before the block. As what Betty Logan (talk · contribs) pointed out to me, the problem with "promising to "avoid" him is that might mean you won't be able to edit the articles you want to edit if there is a large overlap between your editing areas." Having been a user for over 6 years, I understand all of the policies and guidelines, assume good faith and am also a competent editor while maintaining a nice and friendly attitude, and try not to bite any newcomers nor do I intend to harass other users. People dictating what other should be doing by editing articles or what they should be doing with their time is not acceptable behavior. And actually, I have made very valuable contributions in fact. Just to let everyone understand, Niemti's condescending and incoherent attitude does not gain any support for others and that has unfortunately made me lose my temper over it after I got swept up in the controversy against my better judgment back in August, but I got over that quickly. And also, accusing someone of lying would be considered a personal attack and no one can know what people have in their minds, nor can they make conclusions about strangers or other users. It's only stalking if the edits are not done in good faith, but mine are always in good faith and trying to improve upon other's edits, including Niemti's. By the way, Niemti is a good editor when it comes to editing articles but his talk page discussions can be very poisonous to the atmosphere and he is persistently uncooperative. Only if Niemti changes his hostile attitude would I reconcile with him. As what Salvidrim pointed out, demoralizing good editors harms the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia. To be honest, I have tried my best to avoid contact with Niemti whenever possible. As what Sergecross73 pointed out to me, I pursued this too aggressively, so if I cause any trouble, I apologize for what I might have done and I never intend to go over my head, but I still believe that the wikihounding case against me was not substantiated, even though I am a longtime and good-natured contributor who has contributed extensively to several film articles and video game articles (specifically the Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts series). Unfortunately, the negative effect Niemti has on Wikipedia outweighs the positives of his contributions, and I don't want to get in over my head when no one is here to defend me. No gravedancing was intended on my part. The additional evidence subpage is not an attack page at all. In any case, I am not at all clueless, nor am I interested in discussing the Wikihounding issues anymore as I want to put these past issues behind us and focus on the current issue here. This is a discussion about proposing sanctions on Niemti, who has had like at least 12 blocks under his different account, HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so Niemti has been a user for over 6 years now. For more information, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanzoHattori and this discussion regarding his un-banning. Also, per Sergecross73's recommendation, I have decided not to participate for now, unless directly addressed, so that the focus of the sanctions would not be misdirected on to myself. To everyone here, please do not go off-topic as this discussion is getting us nowhere fast, and please let this ban discussion go on for a while before deciding on a consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have had zero interaction with Niemti. (by coincidence I just picked up and article for GA review and noticed that it was written by them (looks like an immense amount of work on a topic that nobody else likely would have done, and could use a bit more work before GA) but they have been blocked and I've had no discussions.) I see nothing in the diffs or evidence at the RFC/U supporting such an extreme measure, and I am becoming more and more distressed by vague lynchings at ani and an, and so am opposing this from a fair and due process standpoint. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning may be relevant.

  As for my opinion on the actual topics, I would personally oppose #1 or #3 based on my experience and the information collected for the RFC. #2 I would support (and possibly a ban from FA space as well; I foresee the same issues occurring there, but I'm not strongly attached). I might also suggest a 1RR restriction on Niemti, as well as possibly a suggestion of a ban from any talk space. Just some ideas. He's a good article writer, but his talk-space input can be poisonous to the collegial atmosphere. No comment on an interaction ban. --Izno (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for the following reasons. First, I agree with comment by Ched (see above). I think this is classic hikihounding by Sjones23. He refused to talk with Niemti [13], blindly reverted his edits without talking [14],[15], complained about him numerous times on administrative noticeboards and to several individual administrators, promised not to do it again (links by Ched), but continued the same. I noticed this problem some time ago and provided some advice to Sjones23, but he apparently refused to follow. Secondly, after looking at the edit history of this RfC, I can see a few last comments in the middle of February and a couple in the end of February. On March 18, Niemty was blocked for two weeks; I assume he was blocked properly for some kind of wrongdoing. Starting from March 22 (same edit history), almost a month later and while Niemti was blocked, a wave of new activity was started in the RfC by edit of Sjones23. Why? Niemti was blocked and obviously did nothing during this time. It is customary to allow a blocked editor to return back and show that he can do better after the block. Going after someone when he is serving his block and did nothing new is not a good idea.My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 2; support 3 if 1 fails. I've only interacted with Niemti at Anita Sarkeesian, where his unacceptable behavior got him permanently banned, but the consensus at the RFC/U is that the problems he displayed there are much more pervasive. That's borne out with a simple look at his contributions. In terms of GAs, I honestly couldn't believe that things like Ayane (Dead or Alive), Ibuki (Street Fighter), or Ada Wong were GAs. His flooding the GA queue and refusal to do anything but the bare minimum of work has had a negative effect on the GA process. This is besides his rudeness and behavioral problems. At this point the negative effect he has on Wikipedia far outweighs the positives of his contributions, and the problem isn't going away on its own.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree with various others that appeals of these bans should be made to the community.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There is a problem, and it has been an ongoing problem, even if we discount all the problems before his last ban was lifted. I've sat on the sidelines since opposing his unblock (on technical grounds, I supported the idea of giving him a second chance) and have noted several ongoing issues that he has handled in a less than stellar manner. That he only participated a few times in a five month RFC/U isn't a testament to his innocence, but more of a failure to acknowledge the consequences of his actions. I would have to think a while before I offered a firm opinion on what action should be taken, however, doing nothing isn't really an option. At the end of the day, he could have done a great deal more than he has to be a productive member of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 2, Oppose 1&3. It's obvious that he isn't the most likable guy, but that's not a good reason to site ban him. Unfortunately, ban discussions like this tend to attract people with personal grudges--that's an obvious weakness of our system. As much as some people love to impose bans, there's really no good reason to do so in this case. His mass GA nominations seem to have been an issue, so let's stop that. We shouldn't use that as an excuse to jump to the "nuclear option" though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support 1, and if that is not accepted then support 2 & 3 as a very poor second best. This is a very disruptive and uncooperative editor, with a history of numerous blocks since 2006: [16], [17]. He has had "second chances" and shown no sign of becoming more cooperative. He has used numerous sockpuppet accounts: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori, which, which are not a complete list, as Niemti, for example, is not included. His disruptive behaviour has bee discussed numerous times on administrators' noticeboards: [18], [19], twice that I know of at RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori. I am never a great fan of the view that arrogant uncooperative and disruptive editors should not be blocked if they also do a significant amount of editing that is considered good, and for this editor the case for that is even weaker than it sometimes is. The sheer amount of time and effort that could have been employed usefully but has instead been wasted on this editor is considerable: not only in the discussions I have mentioned, but on talk pages, in undoing his damage, etc etc. The point was long ago reached when it was clear that the amount of disruption and waste of effort that this editor was causing outweighed any benefit. He has made it abundantly clear many times that he has contempt for Wikipedia's processes and policies, has responded to discussions about his behaviour flippantly and contemptuously: [20], [21], has made it clear that he has no intention of collaborating, no intention of dropping his ownership stance, etc etc. All this has been going on since 2006, and, during that time, he has shown no sign whatever of changing his attitude. He was permanently banned, [22], but the Niemti sockpuppet account was controversially unblocked by an administrator following a discussion which could not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination be considered to provide a consensus for lifting the ban. In short, we have an editor who, over a period of over six years, has been disruptive, deliberately uncooperative, uncivil, etc etc, and Wikipedia would be better off without him. The only thing I am in any doubt about concerning the ban proposal is why we should invite him to apply to arbcom for an unban in six months: if in six years he has shown no sign of wishing to become a collaborative contributor, why should he be likely to change in six more months? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and your assessment, as well as Dennis Brown's, Sergecross's and Salvidrim's appear to be the most accurate to me. Even if he applies to Arbcom to unban him for six months, HanzoHattori/Niemti unfortunately shows no sign of wishing to become a collaborative contributor. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support 2, mainly because that is the area I am most familiar with. Neimti has a poor track record of collaborating with anyone that he disagrees with and in the course of a review you are going to get editors asking questions regarding your content. I have a real fear that a newish reviewer is going to pick up one of his articles and have such a bad experience that they will not return, something we can seldom afford with the shortage of reviewers we currently have. I am less familiar with the other proposals, but looking at the circumstances in which he was unblocked and the behaviour thereafter I think we would be better off just reinstating the original ban. AIRcorn (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all Seems whenever I find people complaining about Niemti the facts don't justify the allegations. The GA reviews are pretty poor. One of the instances I saw, that is noted in the "additional evidence" section linked above, involved the reviewing editor quickfailing based on a cherry-picking of sources that represented at most 10% of the references and even that was supporting very little of the actual material in the article. Vast majority of the sourcing for substantive material was high quality secondary sourcing (UGO, IGN, and other reputable gaming news outlets) with the next largest chunk being primary sourcing to official materials. Not a legitimate quickfail by far. Some of the objections to sourcing seemed to be more the result of a gag reflex than a product of serious review, the claim that "YouTube is not a reliable source" is not credible when the video is an interview with an identifiable person on the official channel of a press organization. When this is a review and article that is supposedly a stellar example of Niemti's problems with the GA process, I am left convinced that the ones who we should be concerned about are those who want to ban a prolific content creator for these kinds of trivialities.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1 (with appeal to BASC or community), followed by 2 and 3 upon return. Niemti's responses to this thread have pushed me over the line to supporting a ban - there appears to be a complete unwillingness to see or believe that he has issues with editing in a civil and collegial manner. It doesn't matter if you believe you're "right" if you nevertheless can't edit without blowing your top spectacularly and endlessly. It's sad when someone who produces good work otherwise can't function within our environment, and I never want to see people like that be "eternal" blocks/bans, but until they're at least attempting to work on the problem behavior we can't allow them to run roughshod over everyone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, he can function very well in wikipedia environment as long as he edits alone or with other contributors who are willing to compromise, especially on minor issues (that is what I did). However, he has problems in discussions with multiple editors who accuse him of something (like here on ANI) or want him banned, or strongly disagree on minor issues and make a big deal of their disagreements (such as linking or not linking to something). And he is not alone; there are other contributors with the same problem, perhaps including myself. Having that in mind, he obviously made a mistake by making his statement on ANI and participating in this discussion, instead of sitting out quietly. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Support 1, 2, and Support 3 if the first two are opposed. The guy simply refuses to collaborate with anyone, using his tens of thousands of page edits to justify his "I'm holier than thou" personality. For someone who is constantly pushing Wikipedia policy articles into people's faces when they don't agree with him (in the Wasteland 2 discussion I was involved in, he did nothing but rudely throw WP:OR links everywhere without considering any differing viewpoints), he blatantly dismisses the core policy WP:CIVIL. He will either dismiss others' asking him to stop being rude, or he will use the other editors' "stupidity" or "stalking" as justification for being rude. Whether or not the interaction between Niemti and Sjones23 can be seen by some as "provoking" Niemti to behave poorly, it is still not an excuse to continue being rude, and Niemti's general behavioral issues have extended far beyond that and with numerous other people, as shown by the original RfC. His reaction to the recent 2 week ban "Oh well, I needed a break" shows that even warnings and temporary bans will not persuade him to change. I and many others have said this before: good article work is not an excuse for rude, uncivil behavior. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3 - My view is the disruption caused by the number of editors who now refuse to work with Niemti is a fairly big issue. Regardless of his good contributions he's having the effect of pushing away other editors and this outweighs his positive contribs. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3 - note that I am the admin that gave him his current/most recent block. I really feel that Niemti is on some level incapable of working with other editors in a civil manner. Pretty much every conversation of any length he is involved in gets turned into a fight, resulting in his previous ban and blocks. It took him only three days after my warning to get blocked for 2 weeks, and I don't think it will take much longer for the next one if nothing results from here. He's already blown up at someone after misreading their comment (redacted in the above section)- this may be an extenuating circumstance, but how hard is it to not freak out at people in the discussion about banning you for freaking out at people? If Niemti was capable of playing nice with other editors, he would have learned to do so 2 weeks ago or the previous time he was blocked or when he was banned or the other times he was blocked. He won't learn, he wastes more time and effort that he puts in to the project, he needs to go. --PresN 22:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The comment that Niemti went back and redacted a few hours later in the "statement by Niemti" section about is reproduced here- I thought it was relevant.

ThomasO1989, "in the Wasteland 2 discussion I was involved in, he did nothing but rudely throw WP:OR links everywhere"

WHAT

WHATTT

THIS, this is an incredibly blatant shameless lie, becuause it was actually a literally COMPLETELY OPPOSITE situation - in reality, I was refusing to agree to use WP:OR as Wikipedia defines it and instead fought for using what reliable sources say (in this case: the developers themselves and media reports, which reported in only one way), before I eventually just stopped caring - AND it was ThomasO1989 who was pushing the OR there! Anyone can check it and see! The truth about my real position there, which was actually just absolutely clearly AGAINST any kind of OR, that is now so outrageously being attempted to be totally falsfied, can be probably best seen with this edt [23] - yes this was regarding precisely this very dispute, there were few more statements by me in the same thread, all squarely against any form of OR, before I simply lost all interest and just abandoned this discussion (because I've realized it's not even important and I'm really wasting time for nothing) and let the other users involved agree whatever they would.

And now no I'm logging out, because it was just so awful it made me really angry and just physically ill, I'm shaking now. I just can't believe it. Such lies. What the hell. WTF. No, that's enough,I'm done with that thing here, no more looking. --Niemti (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, and 3 - Yet another editor that had too many "last chances" and felt invulnerable as a result. The long term abusive behavior has to stop somewhere. Let's call it right here, right now, since the evidence is clear. Thanks to those who have done the heavy lifting regarding this editor and have stayed on target. Hopefully your efforts will be rewarded with a full ban, and the encyclopedia will be a better place. Jusdafax 00:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, per Ched. This seems to be a case study in uneven enforcement of civility, in which a group of editors has targeted an editor (not an angel) over half a year. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, and 3 Enough is enough. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Counter proposal

How about an interaction ban, as above (mutual, not unilateral of course) and "civility parole"? Guy (Help!) 12:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (this will be my final decision on the interaction ban, but mostly remaining neutral on it, as well as the civility parole) per Fluffernutter and Beeblebrox. Though I partially agree on a proposal not to interacting with this user with regret, I apologize if I was wikistalking (whether intentionally or unintentionally) or uncivil towards any user (including Niemti) in any way (it was never my intention to do so, as I have many positive contributions) and that some of the comments towards me were sometimes off-based. If Niemti does not change his behavior to fit what is expected of Wikipedia, I would rather ignore him. At this point, I really don't care about whether I would support or oppose the interaction ban anymore nor do I care about the wikistalking issues, my only concern was on Niemti's incivility and an inability to work well with others (myself included). I'm sure I did not mean to harass anyone, or break any policy in doing so. I sometimes argue with users over different interpretations of policies and guidelines. Just to clarify, it's only stalking if the edit is not done in good faith. I have been mostly civil, but I feel that I do not want sanctions placed on me at this time. Also, my apparent inability to disengage from the user was an error on my part if I had done so and I did not really mean to disengage from him permanently. I tried to be objective in those previous ANI discussions, but his temper got the better of me and I deny nothing. The truth is, I have not made any promises at all and I did not mean to say disengage permanently. Promises can be broken after all. Niemti will have to apologize to me as well if he changes his behavior. The civility parole is pointless obviously as it doesn't work for me. However, I have doubts that IBANs will throw issues under the carpet, if an editor raises a conduct issue about another, it should be resolved rather thrown under the carpet. It will just prevent one editor from scrutinizing another or following up at DR regardless of the fact he's giving a narrow scrutiny (with explanation of it). To quote ThomasO1989, "Niemti simply refuses to collaborate with anyone, using his tens of thousands of page edits to justify his "I'm holier than thou" personality. Whether or not the interaction between Niemti and Sjones23 [that's me] can be seen by some as "provoking" Niemti to behave poorly, it is still not an excuse to continue being rude." Regardless of Niemti's positive contributions to the project, he tries to drive others away from the project and this outweighs his positive contributions and my point is that Niemti is actually wasting of the community's time with his arguments. However, as what ThomasO1989 pointed out to me, regurgitating what others say will probably not help my case at all and right now, an interaction ban might be pointless in my opinion. Per Beeblebrox, the above proposal to accommodate a user who is unwilling to behave in a civilized manner will seriously cause too much drama for everyone. With that said, I have made an official decision: I will have absolutely no choice but to entirely bail out of this increasingly obtuse discussion for good unless directly addressed so that the focus would not be misdirected at me and I will let other editors to pursue this thread and the above ban discussion. I feel physically sick. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, what is a civility parole?  Sandstein  15:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I was wondering about that too. If it's pretty much like what it sounds like, it sounds like it would either be pointless, or he's already there. The reason he was given his current 2 week block was because he was warned by an Admin that no more incivility would be tolerated, and mere days later he found himself blocked... Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It's pretty much like it sounds. For x amount of time, he would not be allowed to make any incivil remarks. Violating that would be an instant block (potentially indef). As you say, it seems kinda pointless right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A civility parole is where we tell an editor they have to follow the "civility" pillar that everyone is supposed to follow but, since we never actually come to consensus on what is or isn't "civil," it's not very useful (as noted by sandwich et. al. below). NE Ent 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Both editors have now agreed to interaction ban. Although it is virtually impossible to keep up with Sjones' torrent of posts and revisions on this page, he has unequivocally posted several times that he would support an interaction ban[24][25][26][27][28], and Niemti's statement on his talk page states that he would support an interaction ban. Given this agreement from the affected parties, (and Sjones' apparent inability to disengage, notwithstanding repeated promises to do so) the interaction ban should be immediately endorsed as a community sanction on both editors, with escalating blocks as a sanction if violated by either party. Fladrif (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Civility paroles, we have learned through long, painful experience as a community, simply don't work. Everyone has a different idea of what civil and uncivil, and of where the line between them lies, and possible parole violations just end up being debated again on ANI and ending in the same result or lack thereof as if no parole had been in place to begin with. A single or pair of "civility mentor(s)", who had the authority to block and have it stick if he was uncivil, might work if the blocks are designed to be sticky enough. A general "civility parole" free-for-all won't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty much per fluff's comment above. This type of bending over backward to accommodate a user who is obviously completely uninterested in ever behaving in a civilized manner just prolongs the drama with little to no benefit. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment He's pretty much on "civility parole" right now, seeing as I blocked him for 2 weeks at the first incident after my warning, and will block him again for longer for the next one (ignoring discussions related to this AN section). I don't see that making it more "official" changes anything. --PresN 22:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - In my view, we need to lance the boil, not put a band-aid on it. Jusdafax 00:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• No offence Guy, but every time I hear the term civility parole, I let out an emphatically sullen groan. History has shown, as Fluffernutter says above, that such measures are more drama than they're worth. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fluffernutter. We can't even all agree on what "civil" means, enforcement will just ensure more drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jones has already agreed to back off voluntarily; "civility parole" is one of those nice ideas that just don't work in practice. We need to deal with the real problem, which extends far beyond this particular interaction.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A running count on the proposals

Having in mind that AN is not a vote, but an attempt to reach consensus, here is what I have as the current (Noon Eastern April 2) input on the various proposals, the pace of comments having slowed considerably the past couple of days.

Sanction	Support	Oppose	Neutral	No opinion expressed
1. Site ban, appeal after 6 mos	12	8	2	6
2. Topic ban: GA nomination and review	16	5	2	5
3. Topic ban: Video Games	12	7	2	7
4. Interaction ban: Neimti & Sjones23	5	0	0	23
5. Civility Parole	1	5	1	21

Note: The totals for proposal #4 do not count the involved parties. Neimti supports; Sjones23 most recently states "Oppose...but mostly remaining neutral"

I'll take full blame for any inaccuracy or misinterpretation in characterizing or counting any of the positions enumerated above. My own take on this is that, as of the present, there is no consensus on #1 or #3; there is close to consensus to approve #2 and #4; there is clear consensus to reject #5. Others may view the situation differently, and consensus could easily change with more editor input. I presume that Sandstein or another admin will decide when and how to close. Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neimti Results

Section for results analysis of Neimti. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Results subtotaling... (Excluding Sjones and Neimti) Proposal 1 - Indefinite ban 12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral, 1 neutral don't count 63% S/(S+O) - 60% S/(S+O+N) Result: No consensus Proposal 2 - GA topic ban 16 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral 76% S/(S+O) - 70% S/(S+O+N) Result: Enacted Proposal 3 - Video games topic ban 11 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral 61% S/ (S+O) - 55% S/ (S+O+N) Result: No consensus Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Proposal 4 - Interaction ban TBD - Need to consult regarding how Fladrif sees 5 supports here. Proposal 5 - Civility parole Obvious fail Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Further re interaction ban (4) - From first !vote section, we have 4 yes (Kurtis, Salvadrim, Fladrif, Guy) 1 leaning but not sure (Ched). From second !vote section where Guy makes the proposal explicit as the first part of his two-parter... It looks like the six Opposes there are general, covering both 4 and 5. That would make the total 4 Support 6 Oppose, fails. I invite other comments on the interpretation here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I have contacted all 6 "Oppose" voters in the last section on their talk pages to unambiguously find out if they intended a "No" on both, or just on Civility Parole. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Clarifications: Ched answered he's ok with flexible interpretation on my talk page, but re-stated his comments that leaned against; Fluffernutter was neutral on interaction ban on his talk page; Beeblebrox has not answered yet; Judasfax opposed the interaction ban on his talk page; Kurtis strongly supports the interaction ban on his talk page; Cuchullain strongly opposed the interaction ban on his talk page; Dennis Brown was strongly opposed on his talk page. So after those are taken into account, we have +1 neutral 1 flexible no 1 no ans +1 support +3 oppose in addition to 4 supports from above. I make the final(ish, no Beeblebrox resp yet) tally 5 suppport 3 oppose 1 flexible oppose leaning 1 neutral 1 no answer. I think that fits the definition of "no consensus". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really work to call it "not vote" (!vote) after calculating percentage totals. (I'm not disputing the close -- it's a reasonable close -- just pointing out the lame misuse of the C family "not" operator.) NE Ent 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

How can we deal with 78.160.xxx.xx? Hundreds of disruptive edits per week

A long list of Wikipedia articles are currently under attack by an extremely persistent Turkish nationalist who edit wars, vandalizes and pushes an almost absurd POV. For just a fraction of the articles targeted, see this list [29] that only covers article vandalised today. What this user does is to try to make the whole world Turkish. Virtually any person that ever lived in an area covering almost all of Eurasia can be claimed as Turkish by this user. It is of course utter nonsense, and we are a small army of users reverting this POV-warrior, but the fact that they constantly change IP makes it well nigh impossible to deal with them. As far as I can tell, there are two possible solutions:

• 1. We semi-protect all articles they target. That is what we have been doing this far, a long list of articles was semi-protected a few days ago, and I hope an admin can deal with this list [30] very soon. There are two problems to this approch: we are constantly one step behind, and over time we will end up with hundreds of semi-protected articles just because of any exceptionally disruptive user.
• 2. We block the range 78.160.xxx.xx. I was first against that approach, but I'm starting to think it's the best. Yes, it's a large range, but there is no reason users within that range could not register accounts and edit. Within this range are at least 20-30 IPs the user has been using, and I would estimate at least 200-300 disuptions only in the last week. It's never the same IP, none of the IPs involved in the attacks a few days ago are involved now.
  

This is a rather troublesome situation, and it has already taken up quite a lot of time for a large number of responsible editors (including User:Al Ameer son, User:Binksternet, User:Kansas Bear, User:Ahmetyal, User:Faizan Al-Badri, User:Zheek, User:Adam Bishop and myself) who all revert the POV-warrior Something needs to be done about this extreme user.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition. I've notified the users mentioned in my post. I have no idea how to notify the POW-warrior with the dynamic IP but I left the AN-notice of one of the many IPs they've been using today.Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I recommend indefinite semi-protection for all targeted articles. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That is an option. But then we need a system that makes it more automatic. As soon as we detect this user targeting new articles, it should be possible to report it and have the articles indefinitely semi-protected. It's been many hours since I reported the list of articles targeted today, about 20-30 articles. They haven't yet been semi-protected and all have since been targeted again and reverted by the same POV warrior.Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have begun with temporary semi-protections of this list but I need to log out now. Regarding the range block it should be noted that the 85.99.xx range has also been involved [31]. De728631 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support both Solutions, but the second one is more appropriate! How many Articles would we semi-protect? These IPs should be banned, or a range-ban should be there, but account creation should remain enabled in the IP range to facilitate Wikipedia contributors. Faizan (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I suggest disable "anonymous editing/IP editing" and enable "account creation" for those range of IPs. Because those IPs are shared/dynamic addresses and maybe another user/editor needs to create an account. I also support Jeppiz's solutions to deal with this situation. Zheek (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

How frequently does his IP change? Every few days? Hours? Minutes? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP changes every few hours, I haven't counted but I think there were at least five different IPs yesterday, but obviously by the same user. Same thing a few days earlier, lots of different IPs in quick succession. Like Zheek and Faizan I think we should consider disabling editing from the range 78.160.xxx.xx as well as 85.99.xx but keep account creation enabled. In the end, it's a more convenient option that eventually semi-protecting hundreds of articles just because of one disruptive person.Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Another option would be to use the edit filter, blocking IP editors from this address range from editing only those articles that contain specific keywords. It's a bit of a pain to implement, but has successfully stopped several similar incidents in the past. However, in the short run, I think rangeblocking anonymous editing from those address ranges while still allowing edits from logged-in users is the best way to go until a more nuanced solution can be developed. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. --John (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've now applied anon-only rangeblocks to both of those /16s, with account creation enabled, for a period of two weeks. Let's see what happens now. -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And if they return? Zheek (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I unarchived the RFPP and {{tlx}}'ed anything that would get it re-archived, so the list will still be there for any admin who wants to provide a liberal dose of semi-protection (or pending changes if it becomes less frequent). Or, for broader solutions, there's always the option of blocking more ranges or, if the IP-hopper starts creating accounts, blocking account creation on the ranges that are already blocked (if that needs to happen, someone should file at WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests to check that they're still on the same ranges, and approximate the extent of the collateral damage.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. It's better that editors and admins keep watching targeted articles and monitor those IPs' activities (maybe IP-hopper will use new range of IPs). I will report if I find similar activities and new targeted articles. Zheek (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not solved yet

This new IP 95.5.25.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is definitely the same user, continuing the quest of Turkifying most of the world.Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Targeted articles:

• Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century
• Touman, Uldin, Charaton, Octar, Rugila, Bleda, Ellac, Dengizich, and Ernakh (Hunnic rulers).

Please review Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century version history. He/She (currently 95.5.25.10) has used many IPs (different ranges). Compare those IPs' edits and edit summaries on that template and template talk. This IP-hopper will return. Zheek (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Returned with another IP: 95.5.20.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (95.5.X.X), diff. Zheek (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Range 95.5.16.0/20 (up to 4096 users would be blocked). No one else is using this range right now, so I will block it for two weeks. -- Dianna (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna. Zheek (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• IP-hopper has not returned in the last/recent 24 hours. It seems that his/her most used IPs are blocked. Zheek (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zheek. I am glad this has worked. At least two IP addresses are required to calculate a range block, but the more the better. If/when the problem resumes, please collect all the IPs they use so the tightest possible range block can be calculated. I'm not sure which board is the best one to post at, probably the highly-watched WP:ANI. I think it's now safe to mark as Declined the related page protection requests at WP:RFPP, so I have gone ahead and done that. -- Dianna (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dianna. Good, we keep watching all targeted articles. Thanks for your helpful suggestion. Zheek (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock User:Kalki

I propose to unblock User:Kalki. Kalki has been indefblocked since October of 2010 for editing from an absurdly large number of accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalki/Archive). However, so far as I can tell he neither engaged in vandalism, nor used those accounts to vote multiple times in discussions (although I believe there may have been some occasions where he contributed to a discussion using two different accounts). It seems, rather, that Kalki's sockpuppetry was motivated primarily by a quixotic desire on his part to do good deeds without taking credit for them. Following Kalki's block here, he was desysopped at English Wikiquote for basically the same reasons, but was allowed to continue editing, although clearly limited to one account. In the intervening two years, Kalki has consistently been one of the top contributors to Wikiquote, both as a content creator and as a vandal fighter. Although he certainly has some quirks in terms of his editing preferences, and we have had strong disagreements on issues of style and page arrangement, it is clear to me that Wikiquote benefits from his involvement. I believe that Wikipedia would also benefit from Kalki being able to edit here, and I his generally good behavior on Wikiquote leaves me with no reason to believe that he would repeat the sockpuppetry that got him in trouble in the first place. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we heard something from them, like, do they even care or want to be unblocked. they appear to have talk page access and can appeal this themselves whenever they wish. Unless and until they do that I see no need for a community discussion of the matter. Indeed, after such a long time it would probably be a fairly simple matter for them to just get unblocked by promising to limit themselves to one account in the future.apparently that is not the case, but it would be a start anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I notified Kalki of my proposal to unblock, and he certainly seems to want to be unblocked. I'll ask him to respond to your point. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would adamantly oppose an unblock, primarily on the basis of Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote, where he used multiple sockpuppets to essentially maintain single-handed control of that project. There was nothing there that was indicative of any desire to do good deeds without taking credit for it, Kalki routinely brought out the socks to back him up whenever another editor disagreed with him. His behavior, and unwillingness to compromise, drove me off that project before it was revealed that he was socking to an absurd extent - and it should be remembered that he was the sole bureaucrat there at the time.

Now, off-wiki behavior is not normally considered when determining on-Wiki decisions, but I feel that Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote must be taken into account, as it demonstrates that he is not beyond lying, deception, (that's what pretending to be someone else is) and misusing a Wiki for his own purposes. I see absolutely no reason why we should assume that this leopard has changed his spots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion on the Village Pump at en.wikiquote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kalki has made a statement as to this proposal on his talk page. I agree that Kalki's behavior both here and on Wikiquote was bad, but that was several years ago. I believe that, his occasionally overwrought contributions to discussions aside, he has basically been rehabilitated. We can always unblock him now, and reimpose the block if he actually engages in improper behavior. bd2412 T 21:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming that any misbehavior would be under this account name, aren't you? But the basic problem with Kalki was his devious socking, and sockpuppetry does not come to light as easily as disruptive editing, and it is much easier for the master and the socks to argue against it, at least until a CU gets involved. Do we know that Kalki hasn't been socking since he's been blocked, has a CU run a scan? Has he taken responsibility for his malfeasance at Wikiquote, or, like DanielTom below, does he think that his blocking and desysoping there was "harrassment"?

It's not so easy to accept that someone has been "rehabilitated" when their misbehavior has been on the scale of Kalki's, who single-handedly controlled a Wikimedia Project for a long time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to conditioning a removal of the block on a Checkuser review, both here and on Wikiquote. While I disagree with the assertion that Kalki's desysopping was "harassment", it has been abundantly clear since then that there is a single editor who was a strong advocate of that process, and who continues to take every opportunity to provoke Kalki. I must say, also, that I have been editing Wikiquote for eight years now, to the tune of over 65,000 edits, and although I have had numerous disagreements with Kalki over issues ranging from punctuation in citations to limitations on the number of quotes and images on a page, I have never felt like he controlled the outcome of those discussions. Despite his sockpuppetry (and his theoretical ability to overwhelm discussions with sockpuppet support) he was most often either on the losing side of the discussion, or on the side shared by a solid majority of the many editors who were not, and are not sockpuppets. In other words, Kalki did not, at any time that I witnessed, "maintain single-handed control of that project". bd2412 T 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, our Wikiquote experiences differed, fair enough. I have no interest in continuing to "prosecute" this, I think it's quite obvious that I do not consider Kalki to be trustworthy, and feel that an unblock is unwarranted, especially since no really good reason has been given for one -- simply having been blocked for X amount of time is no reason that one should be unblocked, and the hyperbolic hosannas expressed by DanielTom below are less than creditable. I guess, if you do decide to go ahead, a CU clearance would be a minimum step. I'll back away now and let others have their say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. However, I must point out that my basis for proposing this is not merely that X amount of time has passed, but that during that time, Kalki has continued to be an effective contributor on Wikiquote. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree on one point, namely that Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote must be taken into account, but that is exactly why I give my strongest possible SUPPORT to this proposal to unblock Kalki, and I commend bd2412 for bringing this up.

Sorry to say, but Beyond My Ken completely misrepresents what actually happened on Wikiquote, and his assertions about Kalki are simply FALSE. Even those who in the past persecuted (or, in my opinion, harassed) and quite improperly blocked him, could not find compelling evidence that he ever made abusive edits with any of his many other accounts, on any project, discounting one or two minor incidents which Kalki maintains to have been unintentional mistakes; now contrast that with the 90 000 constructive edits that Kalki has made overall, over the past 10 years, on Wikiquote alone, and you can get some perspective.

Just for the record, the Wikiquote policy doesn't actually forbid the use of other, secondary, accounts, except when they are used for vandalism, which is something that Kalki has NEVER done. (A Wikiquote sock puppet is another account belonging to a user, used for causing trouble, vandalism or as a way to get around Wikiquote's policies — based on that definition, I should even object to calling Kalki a "sockpuppeteer".)

Now, I urge you, let's please, please keep in mind here that we are talking about one of the most knowledgeable and capable users in existence either on Wikiquote or Wikipedia (as well as in other projects), whose positive contributions to said projects have been much greater than I could ever express here. I think that it should be crystal-clear to anyone not blinded by intolerance that Wikipedia is losing a very valuable editor indeed. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Speaking for myself, and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, I once again urge everyone here to consider doing the proper thing, which is to unlock Kalki — who is, after all, one of the earliest and most precious editor we as a community have — and I sincerely hope that one day everyone will come to realize how privileged we are to have him and to work along side him, in our joint effort to improve Wikipedia. Thanks... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that DanielTom's account dates from last October, and he has 214 edits, and yet he knows that Kalki is "one of the earliest and most precious editor we as a community have" and is "one of the most knowledgeable and capable users in existence...whose positive contributions to said projects have been much greater than I could ever express here". This, I think, is called "damning with great praise." If I didn't have gobs of AGF all the way down to my bones, I would be a might suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Those who wish to judge for themselves whether the removal of the sysop and bureaucrat flags from Kalki at en.Wikiquote was indeed "harrassment", as characterized by DanielTom above, should read Kalki's Vote of Confidence from their archive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would NEVER have thought that the opinions of users should be discounted just because of their supposedly low edit count... Just so you know, even though I edit on several different projects, my main work is at Wikiquote, where I have nearly 2500 constructive edits (for what it's worth). I must leave now, so don't be offended if I don't have the time to respond to other silly attacks of this nature. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually went outside for a while but, as I waited a long time for the bus, I eventually realized what you are actually trying to imply (I missed it because of my naïveté), so I just came back to give you a heads-up. There is, in fact, no mystery here about what I know — I have read pretty much all the archived discussions at Wikiquote regarding this issue, and many others, so I think I am within my rights to express my opinion here about Kalki. NEVERTHELESS, if you are suggesting — "I would be a might suspicious" — that I am another sock puppet of Kalki , that is no accusation that you should make so lightly, and if you are to express it then I think you should go ahead and request that a Checkuser confirm it. This is not a joke. I should of course warn you that you must, however, be prepared to say that Kalki has been committing the grave crime of impersonating myself (Daniel Tomé) and, moreover, that he also knows Portuguese — which I am very doubtful that he does — so I would suggest that you actually take the time to analyse my contributions (such as the ones I made to Meta, where I have translated several pages to Portuguese) before you embarrass yourself further or, even worse, make such vicious accusations again. Thanks for your understanding, and I'm off again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a side discussion altogether, but while I have 2500 edits on Wikiquote, you have 11 edits there, so your argument is really quite self-defeating... ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - This user is in my top rank of the untrustworthy here... a multiple sockmaster who abused our processes to push their viewpoints. Why invite a proven moral cheater back into the fold? Disturbing lack of common sense here, in my opinion. Jusdafax 00:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, again, my proposition is based on my experience with Kalki's continued positive contributions at Wikiquote. bd2412 T 03:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you please show us the evidence that he ever abused our processes to push their viewpoints? As far as I know, you won't be able to find any such evidence, but it would be very enlightening indeed if you could. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For the record, it strikes me as very odd that you should accuse those who have actually worked the longest with Kalki of lack of common sense, since it is they of all people who actually know him better and understand how unjust it is to keep him blocked. Despite the historical misrepresentations, as it all happened years ago, and given that, in the meantime (working with just one account), Kalki has continued to be one of the most valuable editors on Wikiquote, what truly strikes me as "lack of common sense" is saying that after all this time he still shouldn't be allowed to even edit here. Sincerely yours, DanielTom (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Kalki has been blocked for a long time, it seems to me that wp:offer should apply in this case. As long as we get a commitment that Kalki will now stick to one account I see no reason not to unblock. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. He's already agreed on his Talk page "to edit here under NO account other than the Kalki account". ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for bringing up Wikipedia:Standard offer; the recommended "wait time" under that policy is six months; Kalki has remained silent for nearly two and a half years. As DanielTom indicates, Kalki has made a commitment to stick to one account. bd2412 T 14:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that the standard offer is definitely not a policy, it is an essay. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• No objection to unblocking. To the best of anyone's knowledge, Kalki has honored the commitment at Wikiquote to use only one account.

  I think some ongoing difficulties at Wikiquote to which BD2412 alludes are quite serious, such as "overwrought contributions to discussions" that I would call highly abusive ad hominem attacks; and though having "controlled the outcome of those discussions" is not really at issue, tendentiously editing with strident disregard for the outcome of those discussions is a real issue. However, these issues are unrelated to the reason for which Kalki was blocked at Wikipedia, and I suspect Kalki recognizes it would be imprudent to attempt to do at Wikipedia everything one can get away with at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Kalki is a very dedicated contributor to Wikiquote, and from what I read, deserves a second chance here. -- Mdd (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, and is DanielTom (talk · contribs) a sock of Kalki (talk · contribs)??? — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Another baseless accusation. You should feel free to request a CheckUser search, Cirt, but either put up or shut up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's get the record straight.

The question "is DanielTom a sock of Kalki" is an extremely malicious one, not only because it is not based on any evidence, but also because it makes other good faith editors here doubt whether my praise of Kalki is genuine, and even suggests that Kalki is stupid enough to use a sock account in this very discussion.[32]

Now, as the question has been brought up twice now, in order to prevent it coming up again just to distort this discussion even further, I will assume good faith and show just how silly the suggestion that I am Kalki really is. Fortunately, it is very easy for any editor here to understand that I am not Kalki, because I never tried to hide my identity online (quite the opposite, as can be seen from my old profile at Wikiquote). Indeed, I shall do so, given that apparently the users who shamelessly and willingly accuse me of sock puppetry do not dare to request a CheckUser search.

So, here are the facts:

I first started editing on Wikiquote in August 2012 in the Bertrand Russell article, actually showing my IP (please see those contributions here). After a while, I registered the "Daniel Tomé" account (my name) but continued making contributions to the same Wikiquote article, as you can see in its article history.

If you still aren't convinced that my IP edits show that I am Portuguese, please check, e.g., the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia "Pedro Cosme Vieira" (which is obviously written in Portuguese). It was my brother (Diogo Tomé) who created that article, but he asked for my help to improve it, which I did, as you can see here. (Incidentally, the article is about one of my professors at the University of Porto.)

Recently, I changed my username to "DanielTom" because that is the name I have used online since 2007, as you can see here. I created that account on KGS, when I was 14 years old, with the very same email that I used to create this Wikipedia account. KGS is a Go server, where I am famous (meh) as "DanielTom". You can also check the many articles about Go that I ("DanielTom") wrote for GoSensations.com here (though I strongly advise against it since they are terrible literature). As I participated in the last WAGC, you even get to see my angry face here, if you are curious (though again, I do advise against it). I played there as the representative of Portugal, my country.

Now ask yourself, and try not to laugh: is Kalki the Portuguese Go Champion, Daniel Tomé (me), a 19 year-old economics college student from Portugal? This ridiculous accusation may appear hilarious to an outsider, but it is very insulting.

Really not cool. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Cirt has requested that I be checked, which is great. Hopefully the results will be made public before too long; this joke has already gone too far as it is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RESULTS of the investigation: This case has been discussed in mailing lists, and Kalki and DanielTom were found to be Unrelated. And this was based on the findings of three checkusers checking accounts across multiple projects. The consensus is that there is almost no possibility these two are the same editor. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment

Basic facts: The investigation in 2009 was done crosswiki by checkusers trying to understand who was creating a huge number of accounts on numerous WMF wikis. After Kalki was identified as the primary account, En Wikiquote checkusers were notified.Wikiquote checkuers Aphaia contacted Kalki and eventually a vote of confidence happened on Wikiquote because Kalki had 'crat and admin tools. At the time I was a semi-regular editor on Wikiquote and learned of the problematic accounts from the discussion on the Checkuser mailing list. Since no one else was doing it, I decided to evaluate Kalki's edits to look for problems beyond having an absurdly large number of accounts. The results of my investigation are here. It was my view at the time that Kalki was very opinionated topic of discussion and content on Wikiquote and instead of persuading the community of the opinion by speaking with one account, they used numerous accounts to express their view. On some occasions Kalki spoke with more than one account in the same discussion and engaged in what is clear cut abuse of accounts, and on many other occasions Kalki edited article and talk pages using many accounts which would cause someone to believe that numerous people supported the content or point of view....a more subtle form of controlling content and policy. When these concerns we brought to Kalki's attention, Kalki first blamed Checkuser Aphaia for bringing the discussion to Wikiquote. So, while it is true that Cirt has taken close notice of the situation and repeatedly pushed for sanctions, the original investigation was carried out by impartial checkusers and editors who had no prior disputes with Kalki. At this late date, I have no concern with Kalki getting unblocked and abusing multiple accounts. But I want to go on the record to say that the problems came squarely from Kalki's refusal to resolve the problem back in 2008 and 2009 when asked to stop using multiple accounts and the checkusers were forced to go on site and make it a large community distraction. Several years later bd2412 encouraged Kalki to apologize to me for the work and trouble of sorting out this mess and Kalki commented on my talk page. I was satisfied that Kalki understood that using the multiple accounts was not completely benign and needed to be investigated although I don't think Kalki ever truly appreciated the magnitude of the disruption and work that these accounts created. But that alone is not a reason to leave Kalki blocked on Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FloNight, for your thorough summary of the situation. As you have noted, I have worked to rehabilitate Kalki, and bring him to a greater level of self-awareness of the problems inherent to his conduct in that period. I think the situation can best be summed up with the observation that Kalki does not like the policy of prohibiting multiple accounts, but has come to conform his conduct to that policy. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

bd2414, my reason for looking into the situation back in 2009 was to determine if Kalki put himself at an advantage over other people from using the other accounts. Based on that determination, I made my decision back then that Kalki should not be permitted to use more than one account. (Remember, Wikiquote did not have a policy that out right stopped all use of multiple accounts so there were questions as to whether having hundreds of accounts was allowed. Kalki certainly felt it should be permitted.) It has been over 4 years so I have to review my notes to remember exactly what problems that I found. Kalki had been editing since the earliest days of Wikiquote but I focused on the more recent years because that would be the best indication what his future conduct would be with the accounts if he was permitted to continue to use them.

1) Classic using multiple account to team up against another editor. User:Lucifer, left template message for an ip editor, calling their removal of images vandalism. And after that editor objected, Kalki joined the discussed and made comments that left the impression that more than one person disagreed with the ip's editing.

2) Kalki using User:Neo account asked primary account 'crat User:Kalki for a name change to User:NEO with a deceptive onsite comment that indicated that User:Neo was not an active editor on Wikiquote. Kalki did the name change the same day.

3) In Sept. 2009 (just a few months before the abuse of account because public on wiki) using User: Achilles voted in a deletion discussion making heated comments. User:Achilles has edits dating back to 2003. And voted in at least one other deletion discussion using the Achilles account.

4) Also made comments with Achilles, Kalki, and Rumour accounts content dispute on Abortion article.

Keep in mind that I did not examine all of Kalki's edits. I stopped looking at them when I found ample evidence that Kalki made deceptive comments that would cause someone to believe Kalki was more than one person in instances where it would really matter to someone looking at the comments. So that people here on Wikipedia understand that it was not just a use of clever accounts names to express his style, I point out that these instances on Wikiquote where Kalki used having multiple accounts to advantage himself and was deceptive. A lot of time has passed since then and to the best of my knowledge Kalki stopped using other accounts so I'm hopeful that your rehabilitation has worked and don't object to him getting a second chance. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason that I'm documenting the past problems here is because of Kalki's comment on his Wikipedia talk page. "I agree to edit here under NO account other than the Kalki account until such issues as might be involved can be openly resolved, and such restrictions removed. (bold is Kalki's). This seems to indicate that Kalki intends to seek to edit with more than one account at a later date. I would be opposed to it since I don't think that Kalki has ever acknowledged that he used the other accounts to mislead other editors. And his style of making long comments makes it difficult to wade through the text to review his edits so documenting it here for future reference. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to lift restrictions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I would like to request lifting of editing restrictions imposed on me 5 years ago in 2008[33] and removal from Wikipedia:Restrict [34]. Since almost 5 years have passed I believe they can be lifted. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think most if not all of us would like to see a more compelling explanation of why the restrictions are no longer needed. You could start by explaining what you would do differently than before should the restrictions be lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• I focus completely on writing and expanding articles and watching for vandalism and blanking. I think that after 5 years I am more serious and completely calm editor, I certainly see my role on Wiki as encyclopedian and disputes or conflicts aren't of interest to me, expanding articles and knowledge is.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting per WP:Statute of limitations. (Somebody should write that, by the way). NE Ent 22:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional support per WP:ROPE. Lift the restrictions for a month or so, and at the end of the month check back to make sure there's been no recidivism, and if there hasn't, extend the lifting indefinitely then. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• The clean period isn't the full five years since the restrictions (but is long enough for me...) due to ongoing blocking, but the unenviable block log of the previous account hasn't been maintained on this one. I'd support lifting per PA. Give then a chance. If it fails, it can always go back on. Peridon (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support lifting per WP:EHWHYTHEHECKNOT. Maybe that should redirect to NE Ent's link... --Jayron32 00:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've been involved in some content disputes in which MyMoloboaccount was also involved (from memory, we were on the same 'side'), and from memory his or her conduct was fine - including in the face of some provocations and bad-faith editing. As such, I'd support lifting these restrictions. WP:ROPE obviously applies, especially in regards to the Eastern Europe restriction though (as a housekeeping note, this restriction was never logged at WP:ARBEE). Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting. Nothing has changed since 2008, it's the same good ol' Molobo. He has been more careful to e.g. not exceed the allowed number of reverts a day but he continues to be confrontational and his edits are far away from NPOV. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Miacek, you'll need to provide some examples of battleground conduct before I am convinced of your stance. As of this moment, he has not been blocked at all since May 2010. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Very strong support — A review of his talk page indicates to me that Molobo is extremely approachable and provides thorough responses when confronted by people who disagree with him. As I noted above, he has not been blocked once since 2010. WP:ROPE doesn't even apply here; the Molobo of today is too mature to figuratively "hang" himself. The restrictions from 2008 are now completely irrelevant. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal; restrictions that hang around and hang around and frustrate quality editors into despair are a problem. Frankly, I'd sunset all sanctions after two years.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This editing restriction by Moreschi included 1RR restriction and civility. If someone was able to edit for more than three years without edit wars and incivility in this subject area (the block record of MyMoloboaccount is clean), they can do it without restriction. Having a restriction that is no longer needed strongly stigmatizes a contributor and reduces his participation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah surely, he engaged in edit warring in support of his rabid nationalist POV pushing just to the extent that he won't be blocked [35]. Smart strategy! Some other recent examples of his bias, nationalist battleground mentality and anti-German mudslinging: [36], [37], [38] (cf third party comments). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Molobo's last edit to the first page you've linked to was all the way back in February 2011, and nothing he did there constitutes "edit-warring"; the subsequent references don't show me anything disruptive on his part. You may see him as "a well-known anti-German POV-pusher, who once again crossed the border from his usual hate-mongering, to try to portray Germans as vile dirty creatures" (per the third link you provided), and in turn, he might secretly consider you to be a staunch German nationalist with a bone to pick with him; you both have different perspectives on these issues. That doesn't make him a tendentious editor, and certainly doesn't give you the right to personally attack him for his views, especially when they're debateable to begin with. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have the right to criticize (in your parlance: 'attack') people whose views are ethnonationalist or racist. No, he has not changed a bit from the time his partisan editing was laid bare in 2008. What I offered above contained critical comments from third parties. Also, to consider me as 'staunch German nationalist' would not even come to the mind of a Molobo, as I'm not German nor even have German ancestry. But this is not important here, anyway. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Estlandia/Miacek-In my edits I have documented many atrocities committed under the name of racism-an idea which I quite certainly oppose. Please don't make such accusations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that just shortly after I posted that comment, but it does seem as if you are very, very anti-Molobo. As a neutral third-party with no involvement in the dispute whatsoever up to this point, I don't see any of the issues that got him into trouble in the first place. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see reverts here dated two years ago, but the party who made last revert (apparently per WP:BRD cycle, no problem) was Estlandia [39]. I can't make any definitive analysis, but what actually happened was a significant expansion of this article by Molobo [40] (which certainly looks to me as a serious improvement), followed by re-editing by Easlandia and another regular (also seems a good faith effort). This looks to me as an old stuff and hardly a serious problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• As I searched Wikipedia for My very best wishes in connection with MyMoloboaccount, who have such astoundingly similar nicknames, I found as the top result the following Arbitration request for enforcement [41] from as recently as August 2012, subjecting MyMoloboaccount, after which MyMoloboaccount hardly edited Wikipedia. Firstly, the request criticizes MyMoloboaccount for reverting among other things, something that MyMoloboaccount wants to do more frequently now. Secondly, the request says "you, VM, Molobo, My very best wishes, Vecrumba etc, who were found tag teaming". Do you have a history together?--walkee^talkee 23:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Walkee-I have not been subjected to any sanction in the above request as might be misunderstood from your comment, nor was I primary person discussed in that request(and neither am I mentioned in closing statement). Also while I want restrictions to be ended, I am not asking for this in order to engage in any widescale reverts, rest assured. As to the old case from 2009, I was not sanctioned there either.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Do you two have a history together?--walkee^talkee 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not recall such user(although I have edited for long time, so it might be that I have met him somewhere), unless it is a new name for some old account I have interacted in the past.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No? Then I'd like an answer of My very best wishes.--walkee^talkee 23:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

For someone with less than 500 edits in the project, you are a very good investigator. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant to the request to lift editing restrictions. You should check if I had any editing overlap with Molobo. I think we edited only one article together and happened to have a disagreement (which should not surprise anyone given a contentious suject). But that's OK. Having and discussing disagreements is a part of normal process. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you didn't know the wikipedia search on the left hand side of this page (which probably billions of people have used)? While your name is nowhere to be found on the page User:Skäpperöd linked to, doing a simple Wikipedia search for "My very best wishes" in connection with "EEML" has this as the top: "I am especially surprised to read that because I wrote nothing about the user:Biophys, whose account was deleted, and the user page user:Hodja Nasreddin has been created instead of that. The Hodja Nasreddin's page now is a redirect to user:My very best wishes. BTW, when the user My very best wishes firstly joined the EE related discussion I genuinely believed that some new unbiased editor came, who is not burdened with old sympathies and antipathies, and whose fresh opinion should be listened. I realised that apparently I am dealing with old Biophys just by accident, and I am pretty sure some other users have been mislead too." [42] Biophys (now My very best wishes) and Molobo (now MyMoloboaccount) are both listed as part of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The advice of My very best wishes/Biophys that I should only search for editing overlap of his new 2012 account with MyMoloboaccount is misleading. In conclusion, User:My very best wishes attack on everyone who opposes allowing User:MyMoloboaccount to revert freely on German articles is not a random coincidence. Also, the claim that they do not know each other appears most dishonest in the circumstances.--walkee^talkee 11:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, you "caught" me. This was never intended as a "fresh start account". The connection between accounts was officially linked, logged and available. I even linked it to my previous account [43], but then removed the link because everyone already knew. Of course I know Molobo as an editor, because as I said above, I had an editing overlap with him in one article from all accounts, and that was a dispute (based on the battleground logic, I suppose to vote "oppose" here, right?). Hence I appear mostly as an uninvolved contributor, especially during last two or three years. But whatever. I could not care less right now if I continue editing on-wiki. Bye. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Easy enough to re-apply, if the issues resurface, so I think this can be considered spent. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Jayron32's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sure. Kurtis explains vwery well all I could say. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and request of removing him from all German-related articles. per Estlandia's reasoning. Lifting the restrictions only lets MyMoloboaccount be able to revert-war better. Administrators are barely interested in the range of the German-Polish articles, no matter how obscenely biased an article becomes. A good example is Nicolaus Copernicus recently thanks to a few advocates agreeing with each other to turn it more biased, an article which was kept in an absurdly biased state for days because few people care whose nationality is not involved. With MyMoloboaccount, who warmed himself up on the talk:page of this article just after requesting an end to his restrictions, you can take a guess why MyMoloboaccounts thinks he could need a few more reverts. MyMoloboaccount's contributions for the past 300 contributions or more appear to be anti-German, is clearly an advocate. Why can MyMoloboaccount edit at all? Who is willing to offer their heads to fall when one day people from the outside world realize the madness of allowing such advocates to roam here freely?--walkee^talkee 18:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Walkee-I am not anti-German. In fact part of my family is German itself, and I am member of German minority in Poland(although personally I identify more as a Polish person). It is true that my interests are regarding XIX century nationalism and XX century Nazism in German history, but it's just a speciality I am educated in and which is my hobby.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The samples given by Estonia already prove there's more to it and the other contributions I saw speak for themselves too. Accept a ban from all German-related articles and we can discuss lifting 1RR.--walkee^talkee 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"you must really hate part of your family" in this context is an ethnically motivated personal attack. Talking in terms of pro- and anti- something (German, Polish, whatever) and about your families is a sure way to derail this request. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Again nonsense, he brought his family as an argument so it would be him trying to derail it. But I'm removing it as you wish to avoid my remark letting the discussion about his editing nature be derailed. I've looked into more contributions of his and my opinion becomes more and more confirmed by every edit I see.--walkee^talkee 21:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support After five years? Yeah, I think you've earned it for sticking around this long.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: The restriction was the condition for Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount to have his permaban lifted. Thereafter, Molobo was again blocked 1 year for socking, and while he was blocked continued to disrupt the project through EEML proxies (Molobo was (?) an EEML member). That his huge block log did not become even more huge thereafter was largely due to periods of inactivity.

Block log Molobo

14:12, 16 October 2009 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (account possibly compromised, according to claims by User:MyMoloboaccount) 00:25, 24 September 2009 Daniel (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (Conditional unblock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMolobo&diff=315814702&oldid=315755220) 23:42, 31 May 2009 Avraham (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year (Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo) 20:50, 23 December 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (civility supervision vio) 19:33, 30 June 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (Clemency is a virtue: user has agreed to stick to 1RR per week and civility supervision) 13:35, 12 June 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Back to revert-warring again, no understanding of the princinple that Wikipedia is not a battleground. The year-long block was a last chance, one you have failed to take) 13:33, 12 June 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (to reblock, too short) 04:22, 12 June 2008 Khoikhoi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (resumed edit warring (across multiple pages) immediately after three-day block, 3RR violation on Strategic bombing during World War II, no signs of effort to stop edit warring) 02:39, 7 June 2008 Khoikhoi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR violation at Battle of Grunwald; length due to previous block history) 05:34, 24 June 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year (Used up all your last chances: the edit warring and incivility continues, and shows no sign of ever stopping.) 21:10, 22 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 06:16, 10 May 2006 (back to a month) 06:51, 16 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (per consensus to extend this to indefinite; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring) 06:51, 16 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (to extend) 06:16, 10 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (egregious and disruptive wide-scale edit warring; just returned from a week-long block for same, 11th such block; see WP:AN/I) 15:47, 29 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (3rr on German Empire) 22:30, 23 March 2006 InShaneee (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (blocked in error, bad tip) 22:14, 23 March 2006 InShaneee (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (3RR violation) 15:19, 16 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 4 days (3RR on Potulice concentration camp) 23:07, 7 March 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (unending edit warring, no response to previous 3RR vios, just got another one) 16:24, 3 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (Doubt) 16:46, 2 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR evasion) 16:46, 2 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (resetting - evasion) 13:26, 2 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on Września) 12:45, 21 February 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on German Eastern Marches Society) 12:45, 25 January 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (resetting evasion of previous WP:3RR block via User:82.139.13.231) 12:45, 25 January 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (resetting 24h block after evasion) 18:48, 24 January 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Simon Dach) 00:10, 16 November 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (unfairly blocked, abuse of admin rights) 23:19, 15 November 2005 Wiglaf (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR) 03:32, 31 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (block without reason, abuse of admin powers) 03:31, 31 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (block without reason, abuse of admin powers) 01:40, 31 October 2005 Wiglaf (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 6 hours (reading up on policies) 00:57, 31 October 2005 Wiglaf (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (to have time to review Wikipedia policies) 23:26, 18 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (blocked for single small edit, this block is an abuse of admin rights) 18:31, 18 October 2005 Chris 73 (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting Wikipedia, repeated offender) 13:17, 5 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (1) disruption of Wikipedia is not a policy, and I see no disruption in his action, 2) users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict) 04:58, 5 October 2005 Chris 73 (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption of Wikipedia, see user talk)

Block log MyMoloboaccount

19:35, 17 December 2010 Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) blocked MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 1 second (previous blocklog as User:Molobo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMolobo) 19:12, 27 December 2009 Rlevse (talk | contribs) blocked MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 23:59, 31 May 2010 (reinstitute block of original Molobo acct)

Molobo identified as nationalist forumtroll Shade2 (evidence from EED Arbcom)

Evidence Molobo=Shade2 from the Piotrus2 Arbcom [[44] + Molobo => Shade2 + 1) + Molobo [45]: "Studnicki sent to mental institution" (a snippet that doesn't even mention the first name nor any other background information, to which only one sentence of one source on the web seems devoted to [46]) + Shade2 [47]: "The German history in regards to Poles from past centuries, limited any cooperation to few desperate ideologists like Studnicki or criminals. Studnicki btw ended in mental asylum. Which likely speaks what kind of people considered alliance between Poles and Germans." (apparently he found that one source) + + 2) + Molobo [48] "And you have to remember that as Selbstschutz was made out of fit men, it didn't include women, children and elderly who compromised part of population also." (unsourced consideration) + Shade2 [49] "Considering the fact that they were able men, exluded elderly,women and children, an overwheling number of Germans supported Genocide of Poles" (same here) + + 3) + Molobo [50] Molobo categorises himself as an atheist and "transhumanist". + Shade2 "I am an atheist" "but I am also a transhumanist". (same here) + + 4) + Molobo Less than two months before the following incident, a member of the League of Polish Families had asked for an investigation if the teletubby Tinky Winky was homosexual and did not back away in time before laying herself open to ridicule ([51]). Although there are tons of secondary and other sources on the net on this unimportant question, Molobo contributed a chunk of text from a trivial primary source of no significance.[52] + Shade2 [53] He provided exactly the same primary source as an argument only three days later. + + 5) + Molobo [54] Molobo made a sudden and unusual excursion to Buddhism to state on a talk page possibly something like that information about discrimination of the handicapped in Buddhism would be useful here. "It would be of use for about discrimination of carbon paper (calque) and children with inherent defects in tradition of buddhism." (poltran.com translation) + Shade2 [55] Only 2 minutes later: Shade2 made a sudden and unusual excursion about "disabled people in Buddhism". "I have heard", he kicked off, that there was "certain" discrimination against "people born with disabillites" and asked in vain for more information. As examples he noted those being "blind, deaf or crippled". + Molobo [56] A few hours later, Molobo noted those being "blind", "deaf", mute or "crippled". + Molobo [57] [58] 1 1/2 years later, Molobo made a sudden and unusual excursion about "disabled people in Buddhism". "I have heard", he kicked off, that there was discrimination in "certain" elements against "people born with disabilities" and asked as concisely for more information. + + + + Shade2 => Molobo + + 5) (see above, it also provides evidence for this one) + + 6) + Shade2 [59] (requires registration) A Russian forum member started a thread with his discovery that Merkel had a picture of Catherine the Great in her office and wrote: "Never knew Germany were sympathetic to Russian leaders." Shade2 commented "the Merkel gest is far more symbolic- despotic Catherine was the one that together with absolutists Prussia destroyed democratic Poland and allowed the two states to begin working on dominating Europe. Merkel sign therefore symbolises Germany desire to destroy democracy in Europe". + Molobo [60] Five days later, Molobo cites a newspaper article published a year before that. Only a small paragraph of it mentioned that Merkel avoids being compared to Thatcher, had a picture of Catherine the Great and was fond of quoting a sentence from Hillary Clinton's autobiography. Molobo took the Catherine the Great out of this context and put his own spin on it by focusing on the Partitions of Poland by Catherine the Great, though the source had made no mention of that. "For (after) on chancellor Angela Merkel zaprzysiężeniu, it has inserted catherine for cabinet for partitions of poland tsarina II responsible portet" (poltran.com translation). + + 7) + Shade2 [61] Above, in 2), he also added a map and argued that 100,000 took part in an organization. + Molobo [62] Eight days later he used the same map in the Polish Wikipedia. + Molobo [63] A few months later, Molobo recapped the post and copied both the number (100 000) and the map. Since it was his number, he also found the source that the post did not include. + + 8) + Shade2 [64] He said that he really loved China. + Molobo Molobo started an agitation for China in 2008, with the start of the Tibet conflict: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. He also visited the article on the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony to complain about a section about the fake representatives of other ethnic groups ([72]), claiming it looked like "sinophobia".[73] + + + 9) + Shade2 [74] "Or were two of your grandparents members of the allmighty German resistance-one of those huge organisations that had...oh now I remember-SIX members as the White Rose. Totally huge number compered to the small 500.000 Poles in Home Army." (reduction of the German resistance down to (an exemplified) six persons and contrasting this figure with the total number of people in the Polish Home Army) + Molobo In his deleted "German collective guilt" article ([75] [76] [77]): "Opposition to Nazi regime that didn't support some of its goals also existed, for example White Rose movement which counted 6 people during the war. In non-German countries such movements were larger, for example in Poland the Polish Home Army] counted 400,000 members". (same thing here) + + 10) + Shade2 A forum member tried to convince that the "recovered territories" were war compensation and cited a paragraph from Wikipedia for Shade2.[78] Shade2 was not amused and simply "removed this incorrect sentence" ([79]) from Wikipedia, which could only be referring to this edit. + Molobo Just a few days ago, he tried to maintain the debunked "recovered territories" theory again,[80] misrepresenting the source.[81] After all, Molobo wants more money from Germany for war reparations.[82] Also, he bemoaned that "major areas" have never been "recovered" from the Germans.[83] + + 11) + Shade2 His IP, verified in 10), also contributed to the talk page of the expulsion from Poland article.[84] A few minutes later, already another IP of that kind edited the article.[85] Among other spin in this edit, he added "in order to repair damage caused to those countries by German agression" into a verified piece of text whose stated source did not verify the new addition. He also tried to dress up forced labour camps as mere "transit camps". + Molobo Molobo replicated this and added elsewhere "to repair devestation made by German agression" into a verified piece of text whose stated source did not verify the new addition.[86] And yesterday he tried his "transit camps" again.[87] + + 12) + Molobo Through 2005 ([88] [89]) and 2006 ([90] [91]), Molobo had one certain IP. + Shade2 [92] [93] In April 2007, Shade2 used two different IPs, verified in 10) and 11). Since the second one started merely 15 minutes after the first one stopped, he couldn't have changed his location and a good look-up program should find the same location for the two, like whois. + Molobo [94] in August 2007, Molobo already slipped his IP after his 1-year block. Entering this IP into a good look-up program and it will be clear it's Shade2's range, not his old one.

Molobo tag teaming (evidence from EED Arbcom)
Piotrus, Tymek, Molobo, SPA Piotrus, Tymek, Molobo, Poeticbent, SPA Piotrus, Tymek, Molobo, SPAs

Molobo offline coordinating & proxying while blocked (evidence from EEML Arbcom)

[95] Radeksz, blocked Jacurek, blocked Molobo, Piotrus, Digwuren coordinate off-wiki. For a more thorough assessment, see [96]. Piotrus proxied for blocked Molobo [20090915-1759] --> [97] [20090607-0903] and [20090607-2005] --> [98] Jacurek proxied for blocked Molobo [20090902-1512] --> [99] Radeksz proxied for blocked Molobo [20090905-2159] --> [100] Tymek proxied for blocked Molobo [20090624-2155] --> [101] Sock of Radeksz proxied for blocked Molobo at Wikimedia Commons [20090624-2155] --> [102] (proxying sock) and [20090628-2225] (sock was Radeksz. Radeksz had and has an account at Commons [103].) Molobo (blocked, via proxy), Radeksz, Piotrus, Jacurek, Tymek: Canvassing, coordinated editing, reverting and baiting into 3RR, coordinated report [20090606-1316] ff. (whole thread) --> resulting 3RR.

<removed> <reverted>Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Skäpperöd (talk) 19

46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed overly long (26k+!) attempt at re-fighting cases and grudges from long past. Please just include links if you must, don't repost entire ArbCom pages here.Volunteer Marek 20:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably also worth pointing out that Skäpperöd was canvassed here [104] by walkee (a recently re-activated account with fewer than 500 edits who's never posted to AN/I before).Volunteer Marek 20:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop erasing other people's comments. You're not (yet) a sysop. Thanks. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy/pasting entire ArbCom case pages of dubious "evidence" (stuff submitted, and then rightfully ignored by ArbCom when it was first written) from four or five years ago is simply disruptive. Same goes for copy/pasting some four or five year old rant by an anonymous troll (more of this "evidence"). IF you really have to do it, then at least the proper way to do it is to LINK, not copy paste 26k of text onto AN.Volunteer Marek 21:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support_the end of restrictions. Molobo should be allowed to edit as long as he obeys the rules. He is a serious editor who should to be allowed to contribute to the project--Woogie10w (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support lifting of restrictions. Five years is a lifetime in Wikipedia. Poeticbent talk 21:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Now a real surprise here! Next, please :) Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Observation: this report has been almost dead for a long time now. But after finally evidence was posted to this page, suddenly three users associated with User:MyMoloboaccount arrived all part of the Eastern European mailing list arbitration: Woogie10w, Volunteer Marek, Poeticbent. All came in less than one hour! :-O --walkee^talkee 23:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Observation: Nine completely uninvolved editors, including several administrators have supported the proposal. The only people to object were Miacek and Skapperod - two users who've had numerous disagreements with MyMoloboaccount in the past and who've been hounding him for several years (with Miacek doing it even recently) - and one sketchy account, with less than 500 edits, and which has never posted to AN before, that was recently reactivated seemingly for the purpose of jumping into fights. And that account (i.e. Walkee) canvassed Skapperod to this page. And then Skapperod posted 26 thousand byte copy/paste of five year old ArbCom case "evidence" (and it's charitable to call it that - it was dismissed when first presented) here, disrupting the page. And then his buddy Miacek edit warred to keep it here. Gee.... maybe you think that me showing up here (notice I haven't even written "Support" - which I do, but I didn't want to even given an *impression* of bias) has something to do with Skapperod's disruption of this page by bringing up (yet again) his tired old screeds and rants from four, five or six years ago (I've lost count how many times he's reposted this junk. ArbCom didn't pay attention to it first time but he still insists on refighting all those old battles). If you bring someone up by name, then don't act surprised that they show up and respond. And drop the innocent act.Volunteer Marek 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing restrictions. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Give this editor the necessary WP:ROPE. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support It's unfortunate that some have chosen to see this as yet another chance to rehash very old grievances. The proof is in future, not past, behavior. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OFFER. If I count correctly, at this point the only three users opposing are two which have a long and bitter history of disagreeing with Molobo, and an editor whom I have never met before but whose familiarity with the topic and old, nearly forgotten fights raises some eyebrows (who's pulling the strings, hmmm?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repost from VP (Tech)

"It seems to have gone now, but [on March 29th] I had a load of 'nanny says' type info coming up when performing admin actions (i.e. deletions and blocks). There was so much, I had to scroll down to get to the blocking bit. What was it there for, and why's it gone again? (Note I am not begging for its return - just being nosy...)" As no-one there seems bothered, did any other admins get this, and does anyone know what was going on? Peridon (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean. Did you find a ton of junk on top of the "You are about to delete..." and "You can use this form to block editing access" pages? Neither MediaWiki:Confirmdeletetext nor MediaWiki:Blockiptext has had substantial revisions lately. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There were lists of dos and dont's, lists of sensitive IPs (quite useful, really), and even the Action completed page had links to this, that and the other on it. I'm using Monoblock, in case that makes a difference (can't stand Vector - I even change prefs on any foreign Wikipedia I go on so I can find my way around). I'm trying to remember if it was only like this the one day, or for the day before as well. Surely I can't have been the only one getting it? Peridon (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird. I'm on Monobook for the same reason, and I don't remember getting anything unusual, even though (as my log shows) I performed a bunch of deletions on the 29th. We have the list of dos and donts and the list of sensitive IPs on the Blockiptext page, but it's no different from what I've seen for a long time. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want them back, set your interface language to "en". Not British English, not Canadian English. All of the "nanny says" kind of stuff only shows up in the plain English version of the site. There was a problem with selecting overrides of the user interface based on language settings. For a while, I was getting volumes of English on every action I took even though I keep my user interface set to Dutch. That change got undone because it really irritated the foreign language users. I think someone should undertake the effort to realign all the English interfaces, though.

The history can be found at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46579 and WP:Village pump (technical)#Language preferences getting mishandled—Kww(talk) 23:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is weird; I just changed my preferences to en-gb temporarily and was surprised to see how slim the pages are. I had no clue that we had different texts of this sort for different languages. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Ah. I'm set to Brit English (I think - haven't looked for a long time, and certainly hadn't been messing with preferences here). I can't remember when I last blocked an IP, so I won't remember what the screen looked like. Odd that I got it for a day or so, though. Probably one of those 'inexplicable occurrences' that I remember an Apple manual saying could happen... Peridon (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am on Brit English. Peridon (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You were just being treated to the American English version of the site because your preference for British English was being ignored whenever there was a custom message.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, we get the blockiptext even when we go to block a registered user; see what I mean by going to Special:Block/Nyttend and Special:Block/64.85.214.145, although please don't hit the "Block" button on either one :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't see any difference from what I get on the registered one - and the IP doesn't have anything more. Slightly different tick boxes, but that's all. Peridon (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I just tested this, and I agree that it is weird. I don't particularly want to change my preferences to British English, but there are times when it would be nice not to see the screensful of advice, instructions, and admonitions that we U.S.-English admins are "treated" to. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There's other differences in non-admin things - in the contribs lists we get top where others get current. More concise. Also, others get 'edit this page' where we just get 'edit' - I presume the others aren't expected to know which page they're editing without being told... <8-) Peridon (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

While I don't want the full set on en-GB, I can see a potential use for the IP info to be available as a drop-down or drop-out or whatever. Might it be useful for all sides (we don't seem to have heard from Canada yet) to have it all in a compressed form so it can be accessed when needed? Save on bandwidth for those not on broadband (still some around) or on dongles (like me on campsites, trains or other odd places)? If we do, can we have top instead of current, and just edit in the button? 'This page' is a little unnecessary. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Where do people actually have discussions to agree on this stuff? Who decides that there's some earth-shaking reason to override "top" to "current" or "edit" to "edit this page"?—Kww(talk) 18:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was Village Pump (Tech), but I've not had much joy there with this one. As to why, perhaps it's that GB uses more concise English. American English is often more wordy in many ways (the Pentagon and the politicians are well known for it, but it goes much further. Just an opinion - don't ask for diffs... Peridon (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that the default language of this wiki is US English. Whenever a page in the MediaWiki namespace is edited (for example, MediaWiki:Edit), the change only affects US English users (which is everyone except the select few who have changed their preferences to British English). The corresponding British page is MediaWiki:Edit/en-gb, which hasn't been modified (meaning that British users get the default message "Edit").

There are changes in the pipeline that would add a "fallback" mechanism, so that British English users would get the custom US English text, rather than just the default British text, if no specific British text has been added to the MediaWiki namespace. The change Peridon noticed was a failed attempt at implementing this, which was soon reverted. Hopefully that makes some sense... the bottom line is, don't use British English :) — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If the change involves us Brits getting the full how-to manual, I oppose it. I mean, some of the stuff already is a bit OTT. When you're an admin, do you really need to have it pointed out that clicking the Delete button will delete a page? You've already clicked one Delete button to get to the Delete screen, so clicking the second one is what you're there for. Cases involving drunkenness or little brothers (or possibly even drunken little brothers...) are a different matter, where no-one is going to read nanny's caution anyway. Put the instructions in as a collapsed section with a nice bright XP type colour so any admin who hasn't deleted anything for three years can refresh their memory, or make it a button controlled pop-up to minimise downloading. I rarely block IPs, so access to the sensitive list might be useful for me - and anyone else who can't memorise it. But we don't need this stuff in full every time we click delete or block. Perhaps the American English users will agree on this. (Still nothing from Canada - there are Canadian admins, aren't there?) Peridon (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Which gets back to my earlier question: where are these changes agreed upon? It seems that the people editing the interface tend towards verbosity, and I'm not sure where we are gaining consensus that this wordiness is a good thing. It appears to be more of a case of constant addition with no one ever pruning.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There's an answer at the Changes and queries threat at VP (Tech). Peridon (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCR

This page has a chronic backlog, I have recently closed a number of requests, however I would prefer someone/admin with a little more experience to take a look and close 4 threads that have been open for over 6 months. (normal time is only 7 days):

• WP:NFCR#File:Yellow Pages Logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Elephants dream (DVD cover).jpg
• WP:NFCR#Paintings by Roy Lichtenstein
• WP:NFCR#File:The Persistence of Memory.jpg

Thanks, Werieth (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Buler....Buler.....anyone? Werieth (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you settle for a not an admin Ent with no experience? First one dealt with. NE Ent 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC) And last. NE Ent 23:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC) And another... but someone else gotta do the last one. NE Ent 23:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What qualifies for personal attack?

calls me stubborn calls me a user with sectarian agenda calls me below common sense of illiterate Sunni --Kazemita1 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

All of them. He wasn't recently warned, so I've given a {{uw-npa4im}} for all of them; one more such statement will be grounds for a block. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Kezemita you misquoted the last thing i supposedly called you. Read the context and it has nothing to do with you. I am merely stating that you have mispresented misyar as 1. Temporary marriage (clearly false) 2. As purely for sexual pleasure (clearly false since its permabent marriage. You want to keep adding this content even though it was already rehected by neutral editors on its talk page. So could you please tell me for once why you keep adding this?Suenahrme (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think an editor is pursuing an agenda, repeatedly accusing them of doing so is not going to help. Assume good faith, and try get more people involved in the discussions by request a third opinion WP:3O or by posting a neutral message at a related wikiproject page (wikiprojects are listed at the top of an articles talk page). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

User Rights Management

I only just noticed the 'User rights management' below the "block" and "email" buttons in the toolbox on userpages and user talk pages. Was this not there before or should I start going to bed before 8am so I notice things more? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's been there at least since I got the bit in November. More early nights I think. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't say I'd noticed it either. I suppose it saves a click going to the contribs list when modifying people. Peridon (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's new — I've always had trouble remembering how to get there, and I wouldn't have had to search for it if it were over there. I was planning to ask about it before long but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a thing I've used often, but it was at the top of the contribs page - and still is... Peridon (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been there since September 2008. Graham87 07:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not what we mean. This is the box you see when you go to someone's contributions page. Bushranger and I are talking about the toolbox on the left side of the page; when you go to a userspace page, a "User rights management" link has appeared between "Email this user" and "Upload file". Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oops, I should learn to read. :-) I don't know how to find out when *that* link was added. Graham87 13:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously any editors baffled by a simple wikilink lack the necessary competence to be entrusted with admin privileges. I've filed the appropriate requests at WP:BN -- ya'll should be seeing the links vanish shortly. NE Ent 14:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the link on the footer; I never noticed it, either :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiny issue

I found this, could someone delete the article and block the account for advertising? Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - but why didn't you just tag it for speedy deletion? Peridon (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because I'm an idiot. But thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC), less than 36 hours from now.

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

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

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

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

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

How to keep AfDs off the actual articles

Am I correct that templates should stay off the articles for April Fools AfDs? User:Snotbot contribs is restoring them. Ryan Vesey 01:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think so. We could just shutoff the bot for the day.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You can fix that by removing the template that says "remove this template when closing AfD" as the presence of that is what Snotbot uses as a basis. One can also add a template to the article to deny Snotbot, but the former is simpler and keeps matters completely out of mainspace.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, so people don't have to actually read this page to know how to make a joke, an admin can hit the blocky button for a day :) gwickwire^talk_editing 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate's answer is better. Snotbot has amny other functions that we don't want to disrupt. Ryan Vesey 01:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, I forgot that nowadays people use one bot account for many things. Any way for an admin to disable the one task (like a "on/off" page?)? gwickwire^talk_editing 01:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped Scotty a note. 28bytes (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already taken the liberty of removing the template from the only joke AfD that still had one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is it possible to create an edit notice for all AfD pages/subpages reminding people to remove that template if it is an April Fools nom? Ryan Vesey 01:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because of WP:TW, that'd do nothing. And because I am Mayor Bloomberg hacking Wikipedia, Por nuestros hispanohablantes, porque muchos usan WP:TW, no podemos tener un dia de April Fools porque tenemos robots que son estupidos. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• You need Lydia Callis. In any case, I disagree, those commenting on the AfD will see it and remove it. Ryan Vesey 01:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Nuff said gwickwire^talk_editing 02:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• The bot won't be shutting down for April Fools jokes, especially since the vast majority of them aren't even remotely funny. I've taken the liberty of closing all of the joke AfD's that are currently open. I see one or two admins have been doing the same thing. I hope more of you will help. Joke AfD's are disruptive, there are plenty of other places where people can make jokes, give it a rest. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 02:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Scottywong, proving once more why no one ever invites him to parties.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• @OP: No, you are not correct, the templates should stay on the articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I for one think this (and know others do too): Nothing in articlespace, ANI, or AN. Go all hell (within reason) everywhere else, but no tags that someone may think are real (i.e. don't leave the MfD tag on WP:OS). gwickwire^talk_editing 02:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll eventually be going to sleep at some point, so I won't be able to babysit the kiddies all night. So, if someone decides that they want to make a joke AfD (even after acknowledging that nearly every joke AfD is not funny and just makes you look like an idiot), and you don't want Snotbot to add the AfD template to the article, you have to make sure that the AfD is not in CAT:AFD. You can do this by removing the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template from the AfD page. It goes without saying that you should also remove any notices from the talk page of the article's author (if you used Twinkle to start the AfD) and you should remove the {{Old afd multi}} from the article talk page after the AfD is closed (if the closer uses a script to close the AfD). ‑Scottywong| express _ 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

How about people just have the damn sense not to nominate articles for deletion as an April Fool's joke? I really don't understand why anyone thinks this crap is even remotely amusing, and would prefer to simply block all participants.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fools Ground Rules

I know that today is April Fools Day and it is natural that pranks, a few of which will be amusing, most of which probably will not, will occur today, but I thought that some ground rules had previously been established for what was acceptable and what was not. I seem to recall that we keep pranks out of article space. Mitt Romney has been AfD-ed and though the notice was removed from the article almost immediately, we still could run into some problems. I was just hoping that an administrator would lay out some firm should read:"clarify the" ground rules so we don't later get into sticky situations. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as the deletion discussion is open, the template should be on the article. The general rule is simple: don't nominate articles for deletion if you don't actually want them to be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure it's an adminly function, but for what it's worth, here's my bit of advice on this: Don't do any jokes that are going to inconvenience other people. That's setting back the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My philosophy would be that as long as it's in good taste and stays out of the way of the readers it's fair game, but in watching my watchlist, I have seen various interpretations of what is and is not appropriate, hence the need for some sort of consensus before April 1 roles around again. I was more looking for a clarification of past consensus (if any had previously been established), not a decree from an admin. I have changed my comment to show what I was thinking, not what I typed. Go Phightins! 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Attempts have been made at Wikipedia:Pranking and Wikipedia:Rules for Fools but it hasn't been reached in the past. Honestly, I think we need to have a serious RfC on the issue (not today of course). There are obviously differing views of whether April Fools nominations are appropriate, so rather than creating a situation where a fight occurs every April 1, let's figure everything out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' and create an actual policy for next year. Ryan Vesey 03:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This confusion isn't good for anyone: the readers, the people trying to have fun, the people trying to keep the peace, and the confused people like me for whom this is the first AFD for which I have been active and am confused as to what the heck is going on. Go Phightins! 03:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much use for them, but joke AfDs have long been an April Fools' Day staple. If some people find it amusing and want to have their fun today, I don't have much of a problem with that. But the articles themselves should always be off-limits - there's no reason for the casual reader's Wiki-experience to be negatively affected.

Having said that...it has been April Fools' Day for about 3.5 hours, and there have already been about 17 joke AfDs (I haven't bothered to check MfD). It may seem drastic, but I think we should give some thought to shuttering the XfD process every April 1st (and no, that wasn't an April Fools' joke). --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, shut down XfD for the 48 hours it takes April 1st to circle the globe. It could probably use the vacation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if we can have the RfC, which I really think we should, I was going to suggest creating a separate April Fools AfD page (as distinct from the April 1 AfD page) and/or limiting nominations to one per person. Ryan Vesey 03:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall that there was just such a section last year.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice, nobody will recall anything from this year if the pages keep getting deleted and salted [105]. Ryan Vesey 03:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I refuse, unlike some others here, to hope for anybody to be sanctioned for April Fools' Day related actions (within some reason) but there is no consensus for deleting and salting April Fools' day noms. Ryan Vesey 03:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It is kind of pathetic that people can't give leeway for some humor on the day when even our most respected news outlets take a little time to act stupid. We can have crap about Polish women getting wet and spanked on the front page, but apparently we are not allowed to create a satirical AfD about Satan requesting deletion of his article due to concerns about defamation even when you make sure it will only ever be seen in some part of the site no one but us folks actually look at.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• We have longstanding consensus for keeping April Fools out of mainspace, every year one or two people overstep this and need to be warned, but there is longstanding consensus for April fools elsewhere. {disclosure RFC ϢereSpielChequers 05:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, articles do get vandalized and in one such incident, a user moved some pages for April Fools Day and was blocked from editing Wikipedia because of the user's actions. We don't want that to happen, do we? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand's basic guide to April Fools for admins

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|0
 | Proceed as on any other day.
 | {{#switch:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|1}}
  | Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
  | Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard = Proceed as any other day.
  | #default = Join in if you find it funny; otherwise ignore it.
 }}
}}
Simple enough? As I understand it, this is what the general convention is, so I'm not sure why anyone needs to be reminded, on either side of the matter. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

↑ This. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 14:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer more subtle jokes and make sure it does not disrupt anything. So I agree with PinkAmpersand.Cyber^P(talk) 15:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I should delete the edit counter...--v/r - TP 17:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea.Cyber :  Chat  17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Horrible idea. You should update the edit counter to return mt_rand(10,500000); NE Ent 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC opened

As it appears that there is significant disagreement regarding how we should handle April 1, I have acted on a suggestion above and opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 03:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Tracking

It's not ... exactly the same topic, but this seemed as good a place to ask as any. The semi-protection hidden category doesn't appear to be dated like cleanup categories are. Is there any (easy) way to get a list of articles that were SP'ed on April 1st, to make it easier to ensure that no funny business got stuck in The Wrong Version? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The protection log lists articles that were full- or semi-protected or unprotected in chronological order; you could just go through that; see Special:Log/Protection. The protected pages list can be filtered to only show articles that are semi-protected; see Special:ProtectedPages, but of course that's really, really long, and doesn't show protection date. I don't think there's a log where you can only list articles, semi-protected, on a certain day. It looks to me like your best bet is to look at all articles protected yesterday, in the protection log, and just skip those that don't meet your needs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I had been trying to figure out how to make Special:ProtectedPages cooperate, and was having no success since, clearly, that's not where I needed to be. Thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Evergreen277 (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Evergreen277 (talk · contribs) appears to be soliciting a crime at User talk:236.25.526.202 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What the hell (sorry for using profanity)? This looks like a very serious problem. Can an administrator please block Evergreen277? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Instructor" userright

Please grant Circadiansync (talk · contribs) the Instructor userright per their request at the Education noticeboard. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Not sure what the requirements are, taking your word for it.--v/r - TP 12:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• As TParis said we should really clarify what the requirements are here. I see these details of what these users can do but I don't see how the community decides who gets this right. Theopolisme - can you tell us if any firm rules have been established?  7  13:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• What I assume is that a campus ambassador gets an instructor in contact with an online ambassador (which Theopolisme is) who gets them squared away with the user right so they can set up their course. There would be no requirement other than that the campus ambassador and the online ambassador said "Yeah, he's an instructor at a College involved in the Ambassador program and is approved to do this class."--v/r - TP 14:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Basically, the current procedure is that (if they didn't get the right direction from an ambassador who already vetted them) an instructor posts a rights request on the education noticeboard, and at least one experienced editor takes a look to make sure the instructor is heading in the right direction with their course plan, and if there aren't any concerns that need to be worked out first, someone grants them the right. At this point, it seems to be about the right level of barrier to entry.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

User Правичност

Правичност (talk · contribs) keeps inserting inflations and lies about the number of the Serbs in Template:Serbs infobox, Serbian diaspora, Slavs article though he was explained numerous times why he is wrong, this keeps going for more than a week, while only in Slavs article he did it for more than 4 times only for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.81.170 (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to learn more about WP:Dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Post-festivities cleanup

Hi. Since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example does serve a legitimate projectspace purpose (namely being a sample RFA), could someone please split the version I created for April Fools' Day (starting with the edit timestamped 00:32, 1 April 2013‎) to another title? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example 2 or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example (April Fools') would work. Thanks! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done User:PinkAmpersand/Example_RfA_(April_Fools).--v/r - TP 14:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I am closing the MFD, however, and noting this move. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaand, beat me to the MFD close too. I'll just let TParis handle everything, seems like a good plan. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm like a secret super fast ninja monkey. You can't beat a secret super fast ninja monkey!--v/r - TP 14:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is why we should've made FrigidNinja a founder! Jk. Thanks TP! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Fair Guy

Neutral Fair Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After reverting several instances of insidious vandalism to seemingly unrelated pages on my watchlist, I blocked the above user as a vandalism-only account. However, a look at his contributions revealed a potentially more serious situation. I would appreciate it if an admin with more experience in this area would go over these edits more thoroughly and determine which may require reverting/whether this is a sock of a known abusive editor. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert in that area, but I looked quickly at the contribs before I read to the end of your post, and something cried out 'SOCK!' in a loud voice, even though I've no idea whose. Peridon (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same thing before I got to "After reverting" — the username itself is a problem. Why would someone pick such a username when deciding to edit for the first time? The name wouldn't be enough to block such an account immediately, but combined with this account's edits, both a block and a checkuser are warranted. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that a checkuser of this editor could return quite surprising results, if the established long-term editor behind it was a bit careless with their IP and user-agent. However, I'm just going on a couple of (striking) coincidences... bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neutral Fair Guy has been opened. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling this SPI case will be fruitless, as you will likely be told " CheckUser is not for fishing".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As WP:NOTFISHING says, "For example, it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." Fishing is saying "This guy's not nice; he's probably socking, so let's check"; it's completely different from "This indef-blocked user, who has a suspicious username, immediately showed familiarity with precise details and jumped into the middle of other users' disputes on a contentious and sock-ridden topic". Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I did some digging through the history of some of the articles NFG has edited and came up with a possible master. I noted this at the SPI linked above if anyone would care to comment. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron? Really? Sinbad Barron has their own style (in a sense), it would be bizarre (but not impossible) for SB to take cues from another editor like Neutral Fair Guy did. But, still, if the sockpuppet account is blocked then it's blocked. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips

It seems that Kyra Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or someone acting on her behalf, is editing her Wiki page like crazy, removing valid citations & generally harassing other editors. Edits coming from users Veritas-libertas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 108.244.138.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can someone please asses these edits. EDIT: While I was typing this, Veritas-libertas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has suddenly threatened legal action against anyone restoring the photo on the page. What? Someone please look into this. Thanks! --SpyMagician (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For people with OTRS access, there is a ticket at [106] that might be relevant.--Rockfang (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the legal threat and warned the new editors. I suggest we leave the photo out until OTRS has a chance to sort out the permissions issues. They appear to be mistaken about the current photo as it is clearly public domain, but I think everyone will be satisfied it is replaced with a higher quality photo from Phillips herself that we have proper permission to use. The rest we can handle in the usual way: warning templates, patient explaining, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at CfD

Hi. The backlog at WP:CFD is getting bigger by the day. I think most of the discussions need an admin to close, so deletions can happen, etc. Hopefully this is the correct place to raise this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Any admin at all... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Headache

It looks like we have two articles on the same topic Corinth (municipality) and Corinth. Can someone take a look? Werieth (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The municipality is an administrative unit which includes (among other places) the city itself; cf London/Greater London for example or Chicago/Cook County for instance. They aren't the same thing. 92.25.92.218 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good analogy; I couldn't put it better. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that many of us will find this useful

Form A-001, perfect for every occasion. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikilove means never having to say you're sorry NE Ent 16:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Moynihan

Worth keeping an eye on Michael Moynihan, fixed given The Dangers of Trusting Wikipedia With Your Life--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It'd probably be better to keep an eye on the Michael C. Moynihan article. Graham87 09:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken CSS/JS file?

Is this something being worked on?

--AllyUnion (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, just routine vandalism. I've reverted it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear power phase-out talk page is erroneously redirected

Hello, 'way back in the version history at Nuclear power phase-out, the page was blanked and redirected to Nuclear energy policy. Later editors somehow restored the text and removed the redirect in the Nuclear power phase-out article, but Talk:Nuclear power phase-out is still redirected to Talk:Nuclear energy policy. Would someone please kill the underlined redirect? Thanks, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have edited Talk:Nuclear power phase-out so that it is now not a redirect. (It could have been done by any editor - no admin powers needed.) Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; guess I never learned about redirs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lodging a Standard instruction

Not sure, how to do this, but given past competence concerns, I'd like to lodge a standard instruction with the admins, that : "Until further notice and subsequent reviews by appropriate trusted contributors, any nominations for admin for User:Sfan00_IMG or User:ShakespeareFan00 may be speedily declined, without prejudice to the declining party."

I've had people ask on IRC, why I'm not already an admin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Strike above, apparently, RfA already needs candidate acceptance, but I'm more than happy to let admins decline in proxy without consulting me at the moment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

True. But, to save time and headache, you could just ask for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfan00 IMG to be protected from creation. A note in the protect log could point potential nominators to your talk page. If this is truly a concern, that might be the simplest and most automatic way to deal with it - and it's easily undone if you change your mind. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Or you could post {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} on your user page. That might reduce the number of inquiries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"You changed, man..."

I was recently addressing a point of vandalism in an article and I noticed that the choice of 'vandal revert' (or sth like that) was missing. Did something change? I am pretty sure my rollbacker and reviewer permissions remain intact, though I rarely use them.
(bonus cookie to can tell what movie the header line is from). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You dont have rollbacker. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, what Werieth said. Logs related to your account are available here. Your current user groups are [reviewer,*,user,autoconfirmed]. "Vandal revert" sounds like a Twinkle feature or a feature from some other custom JavaScript. It's certainly not part of the MediaWiki core interface. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahh crap. That must be it - thanks. For some odd reason, i thought I had Rollbacker as well. Might I find out where to (re)request that permission? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Andrew³²⁷ 17:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your parenthesis, Jack, I'm hungry and could use a cookie. I wouldn't be surprised if the words occurred in a number of movies, but Eddie Murphy's drunk act in the strip club in Beverly Hills Cop certainly comes to mind. Deor (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

News for Twinkle users

Twinkle's admin-specific toolset has received further improvements.

• The protect (PP) module had a lingering bug: On an unprotected page, it was not possible to only apply edit protection without also applying move protection, and vice versa. Thanks to Jimmy Xu for finding and fixing this.
• The speedy deletion module will no longer fail to delete both the page and the talk page. The root cause of this problem was a MediaWiki bug, but a workaround has been put in place.
• Improvements to batch delete/undelete/protect/de-PROD are in the works. Do you use these tools? How could they be improved?

As usual, please direct any feedback, suggestions, or bug reports to WT:TW. Keep up the good mop-work, and remember, Twinkle now polishes floors better than ever! — This, that and the other (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, advertising. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if people find that a Twinkle module is buggy, they will just abandon it, so when the bugs are fixed I feel I should advertise :) — This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Batch deletes are very helpful when dealing with a user request to delete all their subpages. I've never had occasion to use the other batch tools. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about wikipedians who have died

Roger Ebert has passed away. Question: should his wikipedia account be locked or protected? He did not use it extensively, however he did use it and it was him, which I confirmed myself by contacting him some time ago. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly - of course - I am sorry to hear it.

Secondly, see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines for helpful guidance. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, accounts aren't blocked unless the account appears to be compromised. You can place {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on their userpage and then an administrator should go and protect the userpage as is normal with all deceased Wikipedians. After that, it may be worth it to add an entry at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (pending whether or not he edited a lot). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What was the user name? User:Roger Ebert made one edit in 2006 that does not look like the sort of edit I would have expected Mr. Ebert to have made. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, found it: User:Rebert. I'm going to go ahead and redirect the user page of the fake Roger Ebert account to the real one since it was just a throwaway spam account that was only used once seven years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this a kind of post mortem outing? I don't think we should link username and real name, unless they have done so themselves, either on Wikipedia or publicly. Iselilja (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

But he has...see The Master's OP. GiantSnowman 11:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the email exchange? Iselilja (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, that's a somewhat moot point isn't it. It'd be kinda difficult to misread that Rebert is Roger ebert after checking out their user page and contributions. Redirecting the impostor account to the real account wouldn't be a big deal since the impostor account only has 1 edit. Think of it as WP:USURP. Blackmane (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Figuring out" the name of a user is one thing, I still don't think we normally should post the real name at Wikipedia if they haven't explicitly done so themselves - or otherwise explicitly referred to their username publicly. Iselilja (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here, a number of people already knew it was him and he didn't keep it a secret. I was just thinking that maybe the vandalism account that was created using his full name in 2006 should be renamed to something else, THEN the User:Roger Ebert page be redirected to his account? I wouldn't want anybody unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works to become confused and think that Roger Ebert created an account to post one-off spam/vandalism. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause more confusion? That Roger Ebert had an account he seemingly created not using his real name to post one-off spam/vandalism? I'd not link the accounts at all (because they're not related) and rename the spam one to avoid confusion. Kennedy ^(talk) 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've revdel'd the one edit by User:Roger Ebert. Now the only people who can still work out that there was anything out of the ordinary from that account should be experienced enough to know that it was an impersonation account. I don't think a rename is needed, tho if a Crat disagrees there's certainly no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That should work too and is easier, thank you. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That (redirection) seems to be totally out-of-policy. No idea why you're doing that. Do you think there is only 1 person in the world with the name "Roger Ebert"? I'm sure you don't normally go around redirecting old accounts to similar names. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As the one who did it I suppose it is up to me to answer these completely unexpected objections. I don't believe we have a specific policy regarding what to do when a user who also happens to be a very well known person has died, there was another user who registered using their real name for a throwaway spam account that has been blocked for seven years. As our Ayn Rand fan says above, I don't see the problem here. However, if you really want to make a big deal about something so very minor WP:RFD is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with redirecting the imposter account. An alternative would be simply deleting its userpage and talkpage, which had no substantial comment. I agree with Beeblebrox that we should not spend substantial time debating these non-issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the idea was, admins did what consensus had decided should be done.

What makes you convinced it was an imposter, and not just some random new user?

Of course there is no point in RFD; it's pretty much impossible to get any results over routine/trivial issues, when admins flagrantly ignore any due process. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Image problem

Hello, Can anyone explain me what I did wrong to have the comments below on my uploaded picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Braque_du_Bourbonnais.jpg

NOTE: "subject to disclaimers" below may not actually apply, this was tagged with Template:GFDL-user-en, and after May 2007, en:Template:GFDL-self did not require disclaimers. Please check the image description page on the English Wikipedia (or, if it has been deleted, ask an English Wikipedia administrator). See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for details.

Note: This tag should not be used. For images that were released on the English Wikipedia using either GFDL or GFDL-self with disclaimers, use Template:GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers. For images without disclaimers please use Template:GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers instead. If you are the copyright holder of files that were released on Wikipedia, please consider removing the disclaimers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.191.221.74 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a file hosted at the Wikimedia Commons. Please raise your issues there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I might add that you did nothing wrong. This was the fallout of a bungle with one of our licensing templates. You can safely ignore it. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)