User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 26

I forgot the section link
Sorry about that. The redirect is fixed now. The Transhumanist 21:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dog Meat
Hey man, that dog meat page, how did I vandalize it? I was just fixing a dead link is all. I didn't know it would be offensive! Could you explain this for me? I never meant to ruin the page. Tyrael123 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't vandalize anything. The editor after you, an IP address, vandalized the article by chopping out half a sentence and ref. The edit summary says I reverted vandalism by the IP, to the last version you left.  Meaning, to the good version you had.  Your addition was helpful.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

General topics lists and the naming schism
A general topics list is a list of topics about a subject. Its scope is the entire subject specified in the title. That is, it covers the subject in general.

We've always had them. Most editors didn't notice that they were any different than other lists because, except for timelines and glossaries, all lists were titled "List of".

There are and there always have been two kinds of general topics lists on Wikipedia: outlines and indexes. They used to be called "List of" in their titles, before we started differentiating general topics lists by type. Outlines are organized in a hierarchical fashion (tree structure), while indexes are arranged alphabetically.

So why in the hell did we start using new names for them???

Because of a naming schism. Yep, there was a naming schism...

Both types of general topics lists used to be named in the form "List of subject topics". This was a major problem. It was a naming schism because the two types of lists were competing for that same set of titles! What would you call a structured topics list you wanted to build if an alphabetical list already took up the name? So, because of this naming schism, the two sets collided.

About half the general topics lists were indexes with the "List of" title, and the other half were outlines also named "List of". Editors tended not to create an outline if there was already an index with its name. And they also tended not to make an index if there was already an outline with its name.

Both sets were dug in. Both were stuck. Schism.

The solution was to use two different titles for the two different types of general topics list. To some editors, it looked like two new types of articles were emerging. Nope, just lists of a type we've always had, with new names to avoid the naming schism. They're the same old lists they used to be (with some refinements). And they still fall under the list guidelines, just like they used to.

Keep in mind that "outline" is short for "hierarchical outline" and "index is short for "alphabetical index". Using the long forms in titles would be very awkward.

If we left the names the way they were (as "List of"), we'd still have the naming schism. The math department tried to solve the naming schism by using "List of subject topics" for hierarchical outlines and "List of subject articles" for alphabetical indexes. But that's confusing because the titles are so similar. Why not call them by their definitions? (Outline and index). Those fit the best and they solve the naming schism rather nicely.

Some editors thought the naming schism didn't matter. Have an outline or an index under the one title, and forget about the other. Whichever type of general topics list we had first, would be the only one we'd ever have.

The problem with that was that there was a WikiProject trying to build a comprehensive set of hierarchical general topics lists. They weren't going to stop just because another page type was also using the same titles.

And so that's where the new titles came from.

Some editors think that outlines duplicate portals, but they don't. Portals are an entirely different sort of page. Portals are like issues of the Reader's Digest. They present excerpts chosen for their quality, rather than for their relevance. Like a montage, but comprised of partial articles (and partial lists) and news and links and pics, instead of just art. Portals are a mish mash on a plate &mdash; a sample tray.

Outlines are a road system, leading to every topic. They're aim is to be comprehensive, and they often grow to be split off into multiple pages, just like articles do. For example, geography includes regional geography, which includes every region (continent, country, state, etc.) of the world. So far, Outline of geography has grown into over 300 outlines. There's an outline for every continent, one for every country, and there's even one for every state of the United States.

If you want to overview a subject quickly, outlines are the relevant tool.

Some editors think that outlines duplicate lists. Nope. They are lists. So, the question is, do they duplicate other lists? Generally not. Though the schism clean up isn't yet complete, so there are some topics lists with the old name. Out of the nearly 1500 general topics lists, about 160 of them still use "List of" in their titles. About 70 of those are duplicates (most of those are old country topics lists gathering dust).

Why do we have duplicate country topics lists?

That's another story, about a related problem. There was a set of basic topics lists that included a set of country pages that outgrew the original set of country topics lists. The problem was that editors kept adding to the basic topics lists until they outgrew their original scope. They were not basic anymore, and that was a problem. They had grown into general topics lists but were still named "basic". Editors started to complain that the basic topics lists were more comprehensive than the general topics lists. And the set had gotten huge (around 400 lists). They outnumbered other outlines (structured general topics lists). But, the other outlines only overlapped with this set a little (about 25%). So the WikiProject killed two birds with one stone by switching over to the "Outline of" title and no longer building basic topics lists anymore. The collection included a complete set of country pages (about 260), which got the outline name instead of the smaller set of country topics lists.

Eventually, the clean up of the remnants of the naming schism will be completed.

So what about Outline of sharks and List of sharks? Aren't those duplicates? Nope. List of sharks is an extension of outline of sharks. The outline covers the whole subject, while the list is an item list (of shark species). Item lists hook into outlines very nicely, because the branches of an outline are lists. Every outline is a tree of lists, or more accurately, a list tree.

I hope that makes things more clear.

Happy New Year! The Transhumanist 21:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Transhumanist, hope you don't mind me butting in. I've been watching User_talk:CaroleHenson for nearly a year now & so have seen all your recent stuff there about outlines. I couldn't understand it there and I don't understand it above, maybe in part because of the WP:TLDR factor but I have tried, honest. I know that you have said previously that a lot of people do not get it & it looks like perhaps Qwryxian can be added to that list. When so many do not get it then perhaps you need to reconsider either the entire concept or the way in which you are explaining things? - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the broad picture. Here's my summary; Transhumanist, please correct any misunderstandings I have:
 * Wikipedia has always had "List of ..." articles about general subjects (by general I think xe actual means "non-finite"; i.e., xe's talking about "List of social networking sites", who's membership is debatable not fixed, as opposed to "List of U.S. Presidents", who's list is fixed, finite, and 100% enumerable at any given point in time).
 * These general lists can sometimes be organized in 2 ways: hierarchically, and alphabetically
 * Before, people didn't distinguish between these two forms of organization.
 * The problem is, some people, like Transhumanist, want one of each type of list for each topic.
 * To solve this problem, Transhumanist (or some group) proposes that Hierarchical lists be called "Outlines", and alphabetical lists be called "Indexes".


 * Is that all correct? If that's the case,
 * I believe Transhumanist or whatever group xe is involved with is presuming a community consensus where none exists.
 * Is wrong. But this is a case where I'm in the minority: my opinion is, we don't need alphabetical lists and Categories.  In other words, I think all lists should be hierarchical (though sub-parts can be alphabetical, like how List of hospitals in India is categorized by state, but each state's list is alphabetical (or should be, if people didn't mess it up all the time). For me, if the only way to organize something is alphabetical, then the category is enough. Sadly, consensus is that it's okay to have as many different organization schemes as anyone wants to create.
 * Is taking xyr/xyr groups' opinion, and using it to unilaterally merge and redirect articles like List of search engines into Outline of search engines. This is also wrong, and I would be willing to bet that if I pushed the point, would be able to at least show that xe doesn't have consensus for the merge. That is, I bet that the community would argue, a la point 2, that we should have the List and the Outline and the Portal and the Category and Index and whatever else someone could think of.


 * So, that means I should probably revert the "merge" since it was undiscussed. Yeah, even though I don't care that much, such a drastic measure shouldn't be taken without consensus.  So, now that I understand the problem, even though I don't really know which solution is correct, I am going to have to revert to force community discussion.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think' that makes things a little more clear but will wait on a response from Transhumanist. I have the feeling that a wider community discussion might be beneficial but until I do understand exactly what is going on then my bet is a substantial number of other people also cannot see what is wood and what is trees. I have tried and tried to get my head round this issue of late and every time have ended up in a tangle, and with Transhumanist's own words regarding how "people do not get this" (paraphrase) ringing rather loudly. Hence what I said in my earlier message. BTW, the one you missed at (3) may be one of the more recent buzzwords, "Cloud". - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Qwyrxian...


 * By "general topics list", I mean one about the subject generally, not merely a finite or dynamic item list in which membership is either fixed or fluctuates. For example, a "List of social networking sites" includes just the items that fit that term.  But an "Outline of social network sites" includes topics about social network sites and is therefore not limited to listing social network sites themselves.  A good outline would include a section on what types of things social network sites are (they are also "network sites", and they are also "sites"), and it would also include the definitions for those things.  A good outline would also include a section listing the types of social networking sites (if any), another on the history of them, another on the people influential in their development, another for related support organizations, another on related politics, etc.  The subject of the outline is "social network sites".  Outlines map out or summarize their subjects in structured list format. In contrast, the title of an item list specifies the membership (or inclusion) criteria of the list.  Outlines have a much broader scope, built-in to the definition of outlines (and outlining).


 * I don't really want an outline and an index for each topic. I haven't yet identified killer app potential for indexes.  I'm primarily interested in outline development.  That being said, I'm not against indexes.  Indexes do have a number of helpful uses.  One of those is as "Related changes" lists.  They're use in this context is administrative, and so some would argue that they belong in project space.  But the lists do have browsing value, and so editors familiar with them, including the math department, make them available in article space.  I think the rationale is "they are useful, so we might as well not hide them behind-the-scenes". This outweighs the "redundancy with categories" argument in my opinion, and is backed by WP:CLN. But the most interesting thing to me about indexes is that traffic counters show that the indexes get a fair amount of traffic, competing on the level of outlines, portals, and categories.  People are using them.  I say "let them choose what they want to use".  That way, we support different browsing styles, some of which we may not understand.


 * We're way past the proposal stage on outlines and indexes, and so far into the implementation stage that a great many users consider outlines and indexes to be standard components of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's content navigation system. It was a very bold editing action, with virtually no opposition to the moves at the time. But, more importantly, it was a long time ago.  It has been years now. So consensus for that action is moot.  Because the mass editing policy applies to the articles as they exist right now.  That is, in order to change their titles en mass to something else, you would need to establish community consensus to do so per the rules.  Opposing editors have tried, and the community has answered.  Less than six months ago there was a proposal to rename outlines to "List of subject topics", and it failed by a large margin.  Indexes on the other hand, interestingly, have not had any opposition.  Apparently, the name "Index of" is more intuitive, possibly because index articles closely resemble the indexes in books that everyone is so familiar with.


 * So, there is established consensus.


 * Concerning the existence of an outline of, a list of, an index of, a glossary of, a portal of, and a category of, a navigation footer of, and infoboxes to support subjects, the issue has been addressed by the community many times. This redundancy has been discussed in our widest forums and it is also the focus of the guideline Categories, lists, and navigation templates. That guideline has been in place for many years.  The most important reasons I can think of for keeping all these types of navigation methods is that there are dedicated editors developing each, and you can never tell which methods will leapfrog the others. (Actually, they're leapfrogging each other all the time).  Technology is interesting in this regard - you can never know for sure where innovations will come from.  The community consensus on this has most predominantly been that "choice is good".


 * Note that in the merge, the list didn't cease to exist. This is not a deletion issue, but a placement issue. All its links still led right to it. In addition to this, it was enhanced in that it existed in more clarity in the context of the broader subject.  Though it makes little difference to me if the item list exists within the outline or outside it.  That's because we can always provide a link.  That's the beauty of hypertext.  It's virtual teleportation.


 * To me, both outlines and item lists are branches of the same overarching "Outline of all of human knowledge" (though technically it is an interlinked network of branches), and they link together nicely to produce it.


 * To take that metaphor further, item lists are branches, and outlines are branches comprised of further branches. It is the preservation and presentation of the branches that is important, wherever they might exist within the network...


 * And so long as the content of a branch is not deleted, nothing is lost. I would very much be opposed to deleting the content of that item list from the encyclopedia.


 * Therefore, I am not opposed to the revert. If the merge doesn't make the subject matter more intuitive and easier to navigate, then the merge shouldn't have been made in the first place.


 * I hope that clarifies my position concerning outines, lists, etc.


 * Sincerely, The Transhumanist 03:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Sitush's initial reply, way above...
 * I don't mind your input at all, and I do not consider it to be butting in. We maintain transparent and open communications here to optimize input and feedback.  To improve the quality of our collaboration.  Your comments are heartily welcomed.


 * TLDR? Well, I've found this unavoidable. Outlines are a complex system with many subtleties and ramifications. After all we're talking about building a taxonomy of all of human knowledge.  That's a huge and detailed undertaking with incredible potential.  It can't be summarized in a sentence or two.  Those interested can chop these messages up into sessions if a short attention span becomes a problem.  Or they can leave the decision to representatives they trust to analyze and decide the merits of the concept.


 * We've made some compromises in outline design in order to make outlines work with MediaWiki's and MOS's quirks. These compromises tend to obscure the essence of outlines (they're hierarchical structure). That is, they obscure the main merit of outlines.  But that essence (the hierarchy) is maintained and that is the important thing.  These lists are hierarchies through and through, and so they all have all the power of hierarchical outlines, for everybody who recognizes them as such.


 * I've worked on outlines with outliners for decades. I'm a power user of outliners and node-processing technology. But I worked on these lists for years before I realized they were in fact (multi-level) outlines. Boy did I feel stupid.  It goes to show how subtle the distinction is.


 * (Note that a one-level list is still operable as a single-level "outline" in an outliner, and experienced outline editors treat lists as outlines by default – the software works on lists equally well. But the multi-level distinction applied to these pages somehow escaped me.)


 * More than anything else, it's the headings that obscure the nature of these pages. They sure threw me off.  When coming to lists from working on articles, it is not intuitive to consider article headings as list items, even though they are as much a part of a list's tree structure as the easily recognizable list items under them.  MOS contributes to the camouflage by insisting that headings not be linked.


 * The issue you pointed out (some people not getting it) is definitely a recurring problem. But a lot of people do get it.  And the project has great (technological) potential that only a handful of experts understand.  It is for these and other reasons that we continue development of the project.  (Even if the project were killed, it would migrate and develop off-site and someone would make millions on it).


 * The project has already been reconsidered by the community on a number of occasions. In each case, the community has decided to keep the project.  In fact, support has and continues to grow.  Protests against the project are getting fewer and further between.  My guess is that this is partially due to development efforts through which the outlines are continually becoming more refined, nearer to completion, and less rough or "ugly" over time.


 * Most of the objections to the project have been minor or cosmetic, like "too many redlinks", or "not enough differentiation from categories" (lacking enhancements over and above categories, like annotations), or "looks too much like an article upon first sight" (due to copied lead paragraphs), etc. We have taken this feedback seriously and have worked diligently to reduce problems as they are pointed out.  Once each problem is eliminated, the objections caused by that particular problem also disappear.


 * The overall problem is exacerbated by Wikipedia's core approach that pages are presented while they are works-in-progress. This is to make collaboration possible.  But it is a double-edged sword.  It means that people see a project in rough form, while it is "ugly".  Some of the rejection we've experienced has been a reaction to the ugliness of outlines being incomplete or in rough-draft form.


 * Getting back to the specific problem you mentioned (not getting it), I've always tried to be as articulate as I can, and have tried explaining outlines in many different ways. But I'm not adverse to keep trying again and again.  I will attempt to do so in another message on your talk page.  Wish me luck...  The Transhumanist 03:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

New user problems
If you have a few minutes then please could you take a look at the contributions of User:Kudupi & perhaps try explaining things. Although I am pretty sure that there is some sort of COI or fan problem here, I am consistently making a mess of my explanations & am being far too blunt, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Truthfully, I'm just doing my due diligence. My guess is he either doesn't care, or, even more likely, doesn't even know the talk page exists.  I'll add the article to my watchlist; one more major problem (especially COPYVIO) and I'll issue a final warning, then after that I'll block (starting short--sometimes the block is enough to get the person to actually learn that people have been trying to communicate with xem).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have handled this situation in a not particularly good manner - throwing too many links and templates around. I do not usually get involved in this bit of the India-related stuff and perhaps have a bit of a hangover from the incessant caste puffery etc. Let's hope that Kudupi improves (we can hope), and I will take on board the experience. Although policy may support me, there is no doubt in my mind that my interaction could have been better. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Arun Kumar Pallathadka
Sir,I appreciate your guidelines regarding arun kumar's page. However Arun Kumar Indeed received the Knights of Rizal (KR) award officially from its Thailand Chapter.

He is listed in officers directory

http://rizal-thailand.org/sub/officer.html

http://www.pattayamail.com/ourcommunity/knights-of-rizal-chapter-officially-established-in-thailand-2516

Also check talk page of the article. Thanks for your support.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs) 11:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've explained why I think this is trivial on the article's talk page; I've also made some other edits to the article. Please don't remove the notability tag until we're much clearer on the subject's notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff
I reviewed the citation you added at the article. You added the causalities at the wrong side (I've corrected that). About the statement about both countries possessing nuclear weapons and that preventing an all out war, I think it is correct and present in other citations. Further it is not tilting towards any of the belligerents views. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I misread the table. Thanks for fixing that. I've added a cn for the nuclear weapons part--that's analysis, and so must be cited or it must be removed. But I'll give it a few days.  I'll look for Pakistan casualties real quick now, because I sincerely doubt it's "zero"  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Added the citation too and replied on talk. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Religion in Africa
I've noticed there is a two-person war between an IP and a registered editor. Since the IP changes his address while inserting the same material, I'm pretty sure he is violating WP:SOCK (by using more than one address in the 76.71.* range). You recently put on full protection (the safer choice) but it has now expired. Would you object if I close the current case at WP:AN3 with a period of semiprotection? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is fully protected until the 16th. The AN3 should be closed as moot. The IP user is not intentionally using multiple addresses to avoid scrutiny, thus WP:SOCK does not apply.  I'm hoping that they will actually try some form of dispute resolution, but that's appearing increasingly unlikely, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do once the protection expires.  While, yes, the edit warring needs to stop, and 2 in a very technical sense beats 1, we can't have a "big topic" article decided on a 2 to 1 basis, given that, while the IP isn't really understanding the concerns on talk, at least xe's providing sources and trying.  My ideal goal is going to be to get the IP to realize that, at the moment, their position isn't being accepted, so xe needs to be the one to initiate the DR.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I misread the protection log. Accept your reasoning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Factual error in page -Christopher Isherwood-
http://www.archive.org/details/vedantaforthewes029280mbp

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0451627571/insearcoftheloviA/)

"Vedanta for the Western World (Unwin Books, London, 1949, ed. and contributor)"

and second edit ; and i only added the book which had been omitted - "Vedanta for Modern Man "(1945).

Please see that my dates are correct.However Wikipedia administrators can do what they want.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Isherwood Mamtapolicedhody (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling me? I don't think I've ever edited that article, nor do I know anything about that person.  If people are reverting because your edits are unsourced, you should add the sources directly to the article, not just in the edit summary.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://v-sundaram.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html -i have added thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamtapolicedhody (talk • contribs) 05:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Question
Hi Qwyrxian - Happy New Year. Just a friendly question for you... I was about to reply to this help response but you beat me to it. The answer you provided was certainly accurate, but I'm wondering if we need to look more at the potential COI of the account or the fact that this article looks to me to be edited by only SPAs and to be more of a vanispambio... but before I do to much tagging wanted to seek your input. Thanks in advance. 7 06:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was being overly-narrowly focused. Looking at the article now, I question notability, but it's certainly possible, if she's as widely published as she claims; the question would be if she meets WP:PROF.  One nice thing is that, except for the gratuitous family history, it's fairly neutral.  Since there doesn't seem to be any POV pushing, I'd not tag it with a COI, but I would trim out unimportant stuff, and see if there's enough for notability (and if not, whether a tag, a prod, or afd is appropriate).  Go to town, I say! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Climate Corporation
Sorry, my bad. Sumanch (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hey, I've left a message for you at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents  Lynch 7  14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dravidian peoples
Either you can't read or you can't follow a simple discussion. I was simply trying to protect an older version from another user MThekkumthala's intentional deletion of sourced material. This version had been up for months, long before MT decided to delete it and initiate this current edit war without using a talk page to secure editor consensus. You're just being an ass if you think otherwise.

And btw, deletion of sourced material is not a good faith edit. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bodhi-dude, your grasp of policy is sadly lacking if you think that last statement is true...it's not even close. And calling someone an ass is a great way to get blocked; even if Q is too fair to do it himself, any other admin can block you for a personal attack. So back off, eh? Doc  Tropics  23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Doc Tropics is correct that I won't block you (Bodhidharm7) for making a personal attack against me, though if you regularly use that tone, I'll bring you to WP:ANI and find another admin that will. And Doc Tropics is also right that there are valid reasons to delete sourced content--quite a lot of them actually.  Now I have no idea if MThekkumthala's removal was valid in this case, but I do know that, even if it wasn't, edit warring won't solve the problem.  I believe that MThekkumthala has started an RfC (though it wasn't well formed), so maybe by the talk page people can figure out what should be done.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Amrinder Gill albums
Hello, please have a look at this category, i've tagged it to be deleted. Please check. Tari 10:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like Fastily has already deleted it, and I trust xyr judgment, so it seems good! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting reliably sourced citation Traditional belief practiced alongside Abrahamic religions
Hi, why do you revert the reliably sourced citation? I already fulfilled the burden of providing reliable sources in relation to the Abrahamic religious practices in Africa? The one or two editors seems to have abandoned the issue after my last source citation.


 * (ec) I reverted it because we have just started a request for comment discussion to determine whether or not that point of of sufficient weight to belong in the article. Those editors definitely did not abandon the issue, and your claim indicates either you aren't reading well, or you're being deliberately disruptive. They stopped because they felt they had already explained to you multiple times in multiple different ways why they agreed the addition was inappropriate, and you weren't responding to their concerns.  Adding that info now is inappropriate, because there is no consensus for that addition. Wait and see how the discussion goes, and if consensus changes, it can be added then. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is a big word when there's only 2 people always reverting a reliably sourced edit. The burden is on them, not me to prove that this edit doesn't have proper weight. I prove it more than enough in the talk page. They are the one making disruptives reverts. 74.12.214.67 (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also is there a reason why we/you don't use the Dispute resolution noticeboard for such blatant removal of reliably sourced material. Thank you.  If I were to use the Dispute resolution noticeboard which one do you think is the most appropriate for this situation 74.12.214.67 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is always on the person who wants to add the information and/or make the change from a long standing version. And, in any event, this isn't "removal of reliably source material"--this is refusing to add new material that other editors think violates WP:NPOV.  It is a common misconception that simply because something is sourced, it must be included in an article.
 * Now, I agree that 2 people doen't make for a very good consensus, but if you were to just keep reverting, you'll get blocked for edit warring. That's why we're having the RfC.
 * I didn't take the issue to DRN, because, as a general rule, you're supposed to have attempted to resolve the issue through some other process before you go to DRN. Right now, you definitely cannot take it to DRN, because they'll just tell you to go back and wait for the RfC to take place.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. Thank you. 76.71.204.47 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bunts
Thoughts regarding this? - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My own comments are at Talk:Bunt_(community). - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're absolutely right--Thurston's position is, at best, an opinion, and thus falls under WP:UNDUE. Personally, I'd give the IP a day or so to respond on the talk page (if I read the times right, your tp comment came after the most recent revert).  Then, if no response, revert the IP (site WP:UNDUE). Then if/when xe re-reverts, just go right to [[WP:NPOVN.  Who knows--maybe we're wrong and they'll tell us to back off...but I doubt it :). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I posted after the revert. The IP has responded and, among other things, seems to be mixing up a debate about Thurston with one about Alagodi (about whom I know nothing and right now do not even care - one thing at a time!). I had a think while I took my dog for a short stagger, have now responded but am pretty sure of my ground. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now at NPOVN - Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! At last, someone has responded. I really do get the impression that people would rather not get involved in the India stuff. Probably because of the complexities. - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

TVFAN24
Per I'm not unblocking, but I won't get upset if you decide that I'm wrong.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww](talk) 14:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have suggested unblock conditions that seem to address the majority of the issues/concerns ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fight the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that's fair
All my edit history from the last few days has been around the same time - it's got nothing to do with game playing. All I have been trying to do is neutralise the game playing by NoMoreMrNiceGuy. His edit history shows exactly the same trend you accused me of, but also shows a much broader editing time. Your protection of the article after he re-added in his non-consensus-view rewarded his games. I know wikipedia is not perfect, but this is not at all reasonable. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ARBPIA, it is never correct to edit war to "neutralise" another person's edits. Of course, NoMoreMrNiceGuy was also warned for xyr edits. I protected the article when I did because that was when I saw the request (by a third party) for full protection. After looking at the edit history, I found that I could note easily determine a "pre-dispute" version, and further that there had been other, unreleated intervening edits, and that thus my only option was to protect the current version. WP:Protection policy states, "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons."  Of course, as I said on the talk page, I'm 100% certain that this is the WP:WRONGVERSION; I strongly recommend following that link as it explains why, by definition, every fully protected page is always on the wrong version.
 * Note that if you edit properly, don't edit war, seek consensus when reverted, etc., then there is no worry here--all I did was notify you that these articles are under extra restrictions and heightened scrutiny, so that you won't unexpectedly fall victim to these stricter rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for the explanation. I understand this, as I have seen a similar situation before. If you look a little closer at the edit history you will see that the incorrect "pre-dispute" version was chosen - there was simply a break in the same ongoing dispute over the holidays. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I take your point that everything will be fine if I am careful, but Israel/Palestine discussions often need to be robust given the strength of feeling from some editors. I have always been careful to be a constructive editor who does not play games, but I am robust against those editors who are consistently disruptive. If you read a little of the discussion on the talk page this should be clear. I do not think the official warning is fair, given my point above regarding this being the only time of day I can edit at the moment. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Stroke External Link
Feel free to add to this discussion []--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Article modified before reaching consensus or completing dispute resolution
Hi, in the article Religion in Africa and the chapter under Abrahamic religions is put under dispute by people failing to reach consensus. But since having been put on Request for comment. The article is constantly updated reflecting non-consensus position (often with issue related to Sythesis and Weight as you pointed out yourself to them (the WP:SYN part)). Can you roll it back to the previous stable version so this dispute can be resolved in a proper way. Completing the Request for comment and else. Thank you. 76.71.201.33 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how those changes are connected to the RfC in question. This is specifically what Halqah was telling you before: the problem isn't so much with the content, but with where you were trying to put it.  I reverted your edits because they specifically attempted to change the part of the article that the RfC is supposed to help sort out.  Other parts of the article can continue to be edited as normal. You are allowed to revert them; if you do so, please start a new section on the article talk page and discuss why you are reverting them. Halqah should then discuss it.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He's clearly adding stuff in the same section that was under dispute and writing about the same subject under dispute and ideas he presented as a compromises or counterpoints in the talk page about it. I just want him to wait for a consensus and the dispute is resolved before he write them on the Wikipedia page.  76.71.201.76 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the changes was simply a change to spelling and grammar, that's fine. The second (the table) was to fix numbers to match the source. The third, though, did move the location of one sentence, and while I think the connection is minute, I've reverted the change while the discussion is ongoing. Note, though, that the RfC in discussion is really just about the lead to the Abrahamaic religions section, not about the rest of the article, or even the subsections.  Still, waiting won't hurt anything. No one, though, ever has to wait to fix faulty numbers or incorrect grammar--I myself just made a grammar fix to that section. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There's been more change to the article that you're willing to see since the last revert you did. All related to the paragraph and subject in dispute. He even discussed all those changes in the talk page set up to discuss the dispute. Even yourself told him that the phrase "Like all over the world" was a form of synthesis and I can still see it in the article. Also you need to unlock the article so I can revert anything, because I'm the only one who doesn't have an account and you locked it. You allowing him to edit stuff that were part of an edit war you were seemingly trying to prevent not encourage.76.71.203.229 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice the other changes before the ANOMIEBot edit. Nonetheless, your complaints are unfounded. The edit war was over the lead to the section "Abrahamic religions". Those other portions were never edited during the edit war. And there's no chance I'm going to un-protect the article. The reason it is protected is, in fact, precisely because you don't have an account. If you did, I would have blocked you for edit warring, and then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  You don't have to register an account, but I do have to protect the article from edit warring, and since you've proven unwilling to abide by our rules on this matter, there's nothing that I can do except to lock you out of the whole article.  If you think I'm wrong (i.e., that I'm not properly using my administrator tools), I recommend taking up the matter at the administrator's incident noticeboard. Keep in mind that if you do so, your own behavior will also be subject to scrutiny.  Alternatively, if you simply want to request unprotection, you can do so at WP:RFPP. Please note, though, that two other admins already said that they felt semi-protection is what I should have done from the very beginning--that you were, from the start, edit warring against consensus.  So what I really recommend is that you try to comport yourself to the best of your ability, and wait for uninvolved editors to comment in the RfC. If you have a concern about one of the other recent edits, open a new section on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clear the article was modified before reaching consensus and the end of the dispute resolution (and RTC) on the same matter that were under dispute. You simply allowed the other user to write his own non-consensus version he exposed in the talk page.  Which I rejected.  Following your explanation of the dispute process I didn't modified anything on the subject since then, waiting for the settling of the dispute, but I'm really very surprised and disappointed you are allowing the other user that was involved in the edit war to do the same. 76.71.203.229 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know how to explain this any clearer: the other edits are not connected to the edit war or to the RfC in progress. The RfC is about the lead section to the Abrahamic religion section. That's it.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead section of the Abrahamic section also have been modified (a lot) by the editor who was involved in the edit war with the same solution he exposed as his compromise in the talk page about the edit war (placing mentionning of syncretism elsewhere in the article) and was rejected.  76.71.203.229 (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record this should be the stable version until consensus and the end of the dispute resolution is found. All edits by the other editor involve the edit war (Halaqah) should be rolled back to that previous stable version. Thank you.  76.71.203.229 (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please look at this diff. That is a diff from the version you showed above, all the way to the way the article looks right now. As far as I can tell, xe has made exactly 3 changes to the first paragraph of "Abrahamic religions" (that is, the paragraph that comes before the "Islam" subsection. None of these changes seem substantially related to the edit war--they all seem like maintenance edits to me (even the grammatically incorrect one). So I see no need to revert back. What do you think you're seeing that I'm missing? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Xe changed "1000s of years" to "over a 1000 years" (which I noticed now is a grammar error--should be "over 1000 years"). That change is only a tiny different in meaning, not significant.
 * 2) Xe changed "fourteen" to "14", which I'll have to check the WP:MOS to see if that's correct; it is no difference in meaning, though.
 * 3) Xe changed the wikilink on "hirjah" from hirjadh to Migration to Abyssinia, which is a more accurate target in this case.
 * Here's the Abrahamic Religion sections before the edit war:


 * The majority of Africans are adherents of Christianity or Islam. Both religions are widespread throughout Africa. They have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems. It was estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%.[6]
 * Here it is now (the bold letter is what was added by the editor involve in the war and the RtC):
 * The majority of Africans are adherents of Christianity or Islam. Both religions are widespread throughout Africa. They have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems. In Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan Christianity has been part of that history for over 1000 years. [10] Islam in Africa spans fourteen centuries,[11] starting with the first hijrah in the early days of Islam.[12] Like all over the world, they have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems forming Africa's own orthodoxies[13][14]. It was estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%.[15]
 * Also the whole section about Syncretism in Africa is also related to the same subject of mixing of religions in Africa wasn't there before and is part of the "compromise" solution that was rejected in the talk page until the resolution is found. But was created after you lift the "lock" on the wikipedia page. this should be the stable version until consensus is found and the dispute resolution reach its conclusion.  Thank you. 76.71.203.9 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for explaining the difference. Somehow, I didn't see what had changed (I must have compared to the wrong version). I have removed the 2.5 sentences from the intro paragraph and explained on the article's talk and the noticeboard.  I, however, do not consider the rest of the changes to require reversion. While they are related to the RfC, they are not the same part, and the result of the RfC will not effect them. The fact that an RfC is running does not prevent changes to other sections. The reason you cannot revert those changes is due to your own edit warring.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India Nomination for GA
Hi, Hope you are doing well, Kindly provide your preview for the GA review of Hyderabad, India. :) regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have to let the reviewer handle it; if I have time, I'll try to help fix any problems the reviewer identifies. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You dare revert me!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. How are you? Long time. I thought I'd restore to draw scrutiny to the item. I agree with your call. I was on a revert rampage of that user's edits. He seems to persist in copyvios. I do hope he gets the message this time. He seems to know what he's doing, except for the copy paste, of course.

So, 3 hrs to blackout. Scientists predict that several million pasty nerdlingers will all see the light of day for the first time in years. The result will reflect so much sunlight back into space, that the temperature of the Earth will cool by 2 degrees, and solve the global warming issue. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are you calling a pasty nerdlinger? And what global warming issue? The last I read, there is no global warming if you live in the land of SOPA. Hey, both, we are not too far off the MKY anniversary ... is the message above some sort of code raising a similar issue? Actually, no, don't tell me - the last time round was enough hassle. Is IRC working tomorrow? I would imagine so. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just reverted Aryan wiki on Corruption in India (which actually reverted you again, since I rolledback all of xyr edits). After things go light again, maybe I'll take a look into a more personal conversation on Aryan wiki's talk page.
 * As for the blackout...I'm saving up a little bit of work (that job that pays me) and independent research stuff so that I can occupy my time. I'm not so sure on the global warming thing--it's a pretty well known fact that, other than some vandals and trolls, there only are 6 actual editors on Wikipedia--the rest are just sockspuppets.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a job that pays you? That is a novel concept where I come from! As for socks, well, I am surprised that there are as many as 6 real editors: reading Orkut, blogs & various Facebook groups made me think that it was as low as perhaps 3. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The sad thing is that I've actually started to believe that there are under two dozen editors that do 99% of the edits to popular music articles. Somewhere around half of them aren't banned or indefinitely blocked. I wish I was making a joke.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha. A few days ago I got the support of no less than User:Malleus Fatuorum in a plea that the cut-of point for popular culture should be at least as recent as punk music. If you are fixing anything newer than that era, Kww, then I would support a RfC. ;) Sitush (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll just dump this in here without fitting it to avoid an edit conflict:


 * Ok, we're not pasty nerdlingers, per se, but most are for sure. Have you seen the Wikipedia convention photos? No offence to them. I happen to love nerdliners.


 * MKY!! What a time-suck that was.


 * Of course IRC will be working. Only half the nerdlingers will go and reacquaint themselves with the strange yellow ball in the sky. The rest will clog IRC, and huddle together through a very rough 24 hrs. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks zapping the copyvio again. Yes. He needs a bit of guidance.


 * Okay. A confession. I am actually Sitush, and 200 others, and Aryan wiki‎. Yes, I've gone completely mad. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Make clear your concern!
O Sorry! I didn't know that Indians are more concerned about Pashtun article than Actual afghans or pakis, I see the reliable sources you mentioned are some random indian news web sites but never mind. what we Real Pakhtoons (who reside in the Pakhtoon Homeland and are The True son of the soil which is Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan) dont understand is the obsession by you hindians with us. I mean honestly ask any pashtun they crack up. so you dont tell me what to do! because you are one of those phoney wanna be obsessed Indian Hindoo and technically you dont have any thing to do with Pashtuns other than being complexed about other races. FYI Pashtun means a Person who speaks Pashto as his mother tongue, you can fill in the rest--ProudPakhtun-Wrora (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC). I seriously suggest, that you be more concerned with your Indian articles. because it worries me of your obsession with my race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudPakhtun-Wrora (talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm not Indian, either by nationality or by descent. I've never even been to India. Nor am I Hindu. What I am is a Wikipedia editor who will ensure to the best of my ability that Wikipedia articles follow our core principles--in this case WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If you persist in violating those policies, I will request that your account be blocked. As I said, Wikipedia exists to provide neutral info from reliable sources, and we wholeheartedly welcome everyone who wants to do that. So far, you seem to have another purpose in mind, which is a problem. And in response to the last point you made (about speaking Pashto as a mother tongue), you're more than welcome to that definition, but it is not the one used by reliable sources, so it has no business influencing WP articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add one more thing: Wikipedia editors are free to edit any articles they want, on any subject, any country, etc. Your statement to me and another editor that we should stick with the countries you (wrongly) think we are from has no basis in Wikipedia policy. 02:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

okay, no issues
(Vipranarayana (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)).

STOP DELETING MY ARTICLE OKAY?????
WHY WOULD WIKI DELETE MY ARTICLES WHEN I HAVE DONATED SO MUCH MONEY TO WIKI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.196.101 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure which articles those are. If you're a registered user, you forgot to sign into your account. If you edit without an account, then you're on a different IP address, because I don't see any new article submissions by this address. If you tell me what the articles were about, I'd be happy to explain to you why they were deleted. We do thank you for any donations that you have made, but donating money has no effect on whether or not your articles are kept. If you want a guaranteed internet presence in exchange for money, you'll want to hire the services of a webhost. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could
If you could take a moment to look at the request posted here and make a response stating whether you think the draft should be inserted into mainspace, i'd appreciate it. Silver seren C 03:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Earthdress
Hello Qwyrxian, I'm talking with Earthdress on her user talk page and I'm considering unblocking her. I agree with your initial decision to block her, her username was a violation of WP:ORGNAME and her edits were definitely spam. But after talking to her I think that she'll cooperate and I'd like to give her a second chance. I just wanted to leave you a courtesy note, thank you. --  At am a  頭 08:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without looking at the details, if Earthdress agrees to a name change, and makes at least a surface level agreement to abide by WP:NPOV, you are welcome to unblock w/o consulting me; I won't be on WP much for the next two days, so I'm willing to trust your judgment about unblocking if you think it's appropriate. I'm always willing to help guide the editor on how to edit w/ a COI, I just know I won't have time to look into it for a day or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve Scully
Hello Qwyrixian, thanks for taking the initiative on review and process discussions for my Steve Scully draft. I've made one change and posted some comments on the draft's Talk page, and then a couple of different ideas about how to move the article, on the WP:CO-OP project page. I'm pretty flexible on process details, as long as we find something agreeable, and replicable. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CCN
In case you haven't noticed I've left a note on the Dravidian section. I'm not very active currently to monitor on a regular basis but the sock info should be helpful for you. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed a bit of Kalarimaster's editing history, as well as the discussions on his talk page...and I can't see enough of a connection to certainly connect the two. The best evidence is the date of the account creation...but Kalarimaster's edits seem more focused on Malayalam and languages in India.  I also don't see any tell-tale linguistic similarities between the two accounts. MThekkumthala comes off as far angrier, more confrontational, while Kalarimaster comes off as trying to play the victim who was forced to sock due to initial misunderstandings; MThekkumthala instead stands more on the "I'm right, I will fight this to the death".  In any event, there's little doubt that MThekkumthala is heading rapidly for an indef block; if I catch more edit warring (or any socking), i'll up it to indef next time.  However, because the date of account creation is so suspicious, I think it would be entirely reasonable to either bring this to the attention of some of the previously involved admins (the half dozen or so that blocked Kalarimaster or declined unblocks); if any of them see a similarity due to more familiarity, I would not at all object to them upping my block to indefinite.  I'm a little unclear on whether an SPI would help; they can't compare an IP address to a named user...but maybe they can in the case of a long-time socker.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's him alright, the KM account was the good hand one. Check and the behavior on Aryabhatta and Telugu language from August 2009 when he was IP socking and see the IPs contributions to ANI too! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've opened an SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Kalarimaster. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability query
Scientists, in particular, seem to produce lots of academic papers. This guy certainly has co-authored a fair few ... but is he notable? - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:PROF is the relevant guideline, even though he's not really a professor. The key question, for criteria 1, is how well cited are his publications, and, for criteria 3, just how prestigious his appointments were.  The first can usually be discovered on google scholar; the second may require a bit of diffing. Also, if we have any reason to suspect at COI, then I'd be inclined to have a bit more scrutiny. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:125.7.71.6
Hi, Qwyrxian. The fact that the type of disruptive edits are somewhat different does not mean that it's not the same person. Disruptive editors who abuse IP accounts can easily alter aspects of their editing style to effect this appearance, and prolong their manipulation of the system. This IP has been a problem for over two and a half years, and the editor's unblock request, in fact, indicates that he/she is not new here, since he/she references past administrative actions on my part, and attempting to shift the focus on me to misdirect attention from their behavior, which is another tactic employed by such people. (All administrator blocks, after all, are "unilateral", yet this editor implies that they are democratic, which they are not, at least not when they are initially imposed.) When an IP is abused to the extent that this particular one has, the degree to which Wikipedia will afford a Good Faith benefit of the doubt is eroded, and it is highly questionable, in my opinion, to assume, as a conclusion, that this is not the same editor, simply because of a change in disruption style. Because of this, such blocks are necessary, and I oppose lifting of this block. If persons other than the ones who were responsible for this and previous blocks truly wish to edit constructively, then the solution is clear: Sign up for a free username account so that the community can get to know them as an individual, and refrain from commenting on the editor. Please do not undo this block. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that that IP address has more productive edits in the last year than unproductive ones. So once an IP address gets blocked, from them on, no matter how long it goes without a problem and has people that do good work, then it's always subject to excessive blocks? Even though the person using the address now is clearly not the person who made the vandalizing edit earlier? I don't believe that such a block has a basis in policy.  And your claim that if they truly want to edit they should set up an account is absolutely against consensus and the Foundation rules. People must, in principle, be allowed to edit anonymously as much as possible. Yes, we have to limit that for documented problems, but there is no problem to document here. I'm asking one more time that you agree to unblock based upon a serious analysis of the edit history.  However, if you'd prefer, I can seek a wider consensus at WP:AN.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the IP is used by public terminals in a library, and in addition it has regularly been used by two banned users during at least the last two years. The latter situation should not stand in the way of an unblock at this time, but I don't consider the block excessive for a public terminal with that history. Amalthea 16:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, signing up for a username account would be the best compromise. It allows us to prevent vandalism from that IP, while allowing edits by others who insist that they are not one and the same. Is there some reason why the person requesting the unblock refuses to simply do this? Signing up for an account is exceedingly simple, free, and would allow this person to distinguish themselves from less constructive people using the same library. If this person is truly commited to editing here, why not do this? Nightscream (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a compromise that you can require. Not just en.wiki, but the Foundation itself requires that people be allowed to edit from IP addresses whenever possible. If the person doesn't want to register an account, that's their right. By your logic, anyone using public terminals at libraries and schools (which, of course, are often sources of vandalism) should sign up for an account...but that is fundamentally counter to founding principles. If you want to change those, seek consensus in the appropriate forum(s). As for your claim that it has been used by banned users...do you have evidence for this? And was that use at least somewhat recent? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the banned user: I am a CheckUser, and yes, one of the banned users is still active. Like I said above though, this should not stand in the way of an unblock at this time. It may however mean that it will be blocked again in the near future if it becomes necessary. I don't think we have any clear guideline for blocks like this with which everyone agrees. If the vandalistic edits after a block expires far outweigh the good-faithed ones, like is the norm with school IPs, I for one think escalating blocks of public IPs are a quite appropriate measure (up two two years or so). Now that I've taken a closer look at the IP at hand though I notice that the last block was over a year ago, the last twenty anon edits span almost a year, and only about 50% are problematic. Ignoring the other shenanigans, but knowing that this is a public terminal, I personally would likely have started over with a rather short block here (if that): The total number of problematic edits is really quite manageable, the ratio is not excessive, and like Qwyrxian says we generally want anon edits. WP:RBI is probably sufficient here at this point. Amalthea  11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Nightscream, may I unblock? If not, like I said, I don't mind checking at WP:AN; maybe I and Amalthea are simply reading the pattern of edits from that address in a way that doesn't match general consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make any claim that it was used by banned users. I did, however, respond to your conclusion that it edit in question was not made by banned users by explaining why the reasoning you provided was not so conclusive. The project's desire to make IP editing permissable does not extend to bending over backward to make it possible, even when it means unrestricted access from IPs with a known history of disruption. Again, when that happens, our obligation to allow edits from those IPs is lessened, and just because an editor has the "right" not to register does not mean that we do not have the "right" to make administrative decisions in addressing disruptive editing. Good faith editors should certainly be able to understand this, and if they do, then they can decide to signing up for an account and bypass the problem of IP association altogether, or choose not to edit at all. My position on this block remains the same. Nightscream (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)