Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive230

WP:AIV
Administrator intervention against vandalism is showing quite a large backlog. More administrator eyes would be greatly appreciated - one clear case for a block being this fellow, according to whom Bing Crosby has somehow risen from the dead to become Prime Minister of Austria...  Super Mario  Man  22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a dead pope can be put on trial, why can't a dead singer become a politician? Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on the district, I'd wager. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for a dead guy over many of the politicians we have... Norm  andie  13:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins, bring your mops and buckets
There is a backlog of backlogs at Category:Administrative backlog, with 20 items in that category at the moment. I would encourage admins to fill up their mop-buckets (but not to the brim, since most backlogs are pretty short - they're just old items that have passed under the radar) and take a look at some backlogs.

Additionally, due to the current Move to Commons drive, Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons‎ and Category:All Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons‎ are filling up quickly. These could do with a bit of help as well. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yo dawg, I heard you like Backlogs..... no, sorry, can't do it. But I'll dig into this. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

List of modern dictators
Some people are continously trying to add the PM of Hungary to the list. List of modern dictators Lock suggested. --81.182.233.191 (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for a fortnight, thanks for your report (though WP:RFPP might have been a more suitable venue for this request. ). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry for posting in the wrong place. --81.182.233.191 (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical help required
Can one of you please have a look at User talk:Admiralfilms? Your luddite, Drmies (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There was an autoblock from between the time when you had them blocked with autoblock enabled and when you modified it. I think I got it, but we'll see what the user says. Syrthiss (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I went back and thought I had unchecked that box. Maybe something got lost in that ton of database errors I've seen this morning. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (del/undel) 23:02, 5 January 2012 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Admiralfilms (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) ‎ (unblock | change block)
 * (del/undel) 21:48, 5 January 2012 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) blocked Admiralfilms (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (unblock | change block)


 * Yep, it didn't get checked the first time (database error or whatever). When you went back and reblocked, then it was checked.  However, since there was 1 hr 14 m between the two actions its likely the editor tried to edit in the meantime and incurred the autoblock. Syrthiss (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter modification
I was checking an edit filter to see if a long term vandal has appeared, again, and I discovered that he indeed did. However, I would like to have someone modify the edit filter that catches him (Special:AbuseFilter/213) to prevent an edit that he seems to have performed in the past which can be seen here. Somehow that made it through the filter (I believe it was a misspelling of a critical word). Perhaps this misspelling could be added to the filter, as well as some of the other less than helpful statements he made on the page. No one is ever going to need those words strung together anyway.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and it appears these edits made it through fairly recently, so perhaps the phrasing in them can also be added to the edit filter to stop this idiot from making his opinions known.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 11:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone dealt with this?— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I changed the filter in some way, drop me an email if it doesn't suffice and i'll do my option 2 on this filter. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  08:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like your timing was right.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 08:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit in a protected page requested
My user name has changed from "BernhardMeyer" to "Pevos". Now I am changing all my signatures in past discussions. As Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Comments/William_M._Connolley is protected, I cannot change it there. Could you please help me and replace "BernhardMeyer" by "Pevos" (three times in the source) and put in the edit summary: "Changed user name, see Special:Log/renameuser".

An example is here.

Thank you. --Pevos (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Hut 8.5 14:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

UAA backlog
This is not as urgent as an AIV or RPP backlog, but still, WP:UAA has a backlog to clear.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Several folks have cleared it.--v/r - TP 18:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U needs examining
There is a RFC/U concerning me that was recently started. It doesn't really seem to serve much purpose as the evidence seems random, or false and in many cases doesn't make any sense. Anyway I've still gone through and addressed everything and it would be useful if some uninvolved parties could take a look. it can be found at Requests_for_comment/Shakehandsman. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . That RFCU has been open for 3 days.  Once certified, they generally stay open for at least a month, or at least until outside input dies down.  3 days is way too short to judge consensus before closing an RFCU.  -- Jayron  32  06:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying 3 days was sufficient at all, just that the whole exercise was extremely questionable in itself, that's not simply my own personal view, but one shared by at least two other editors.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at your RfC/U just yet, but the recent trend in starting lame RfC/U's exemplified by Requests_for_comment/Hentzer is worrisome. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We close and delete an RFCU when they're not properly certified, and multiple people have alleged (toward the bottom of the page) that nothing was certified by more than one person. I don't have time to check it myself, but another admin should check the certifications and delete if these allegations are correct: the RFC/U policy says that 48 hours is the maximum time to allow before an improperly certified page is deleted.  Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the certifiers, so you can take my comment for what it is worth, but the dispute here is about this editor's user conduct, ie long-term problems with BLP and POV editing. Multiple different editors and administrators on different articles have noted this over a long period of time, and there have been posts to various noticeboards, and even an OTRS complaint. As User:Youreallycan has pointed out on the RFC, WP has recently had experience of negative, POV BLP editing flying below the radar for a long time, that ended with an editor being topicbanned from BLP articles.I guessing he was thinking of this:  If RFC/U isn't the place to draw attention to such a problem as early as possible and try to fix it, where is?  --Slp1 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: It's been my understanding that the Certifying users need to be someone different than the filing editor (for a total of 3 editors who object to the behavior). If this is the case, the RfC/U in question needs to be deleted (procedurally) as we only have DC (The author), and one other user certifying.  Could I get a clarification? Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, proceedurely speaking the filer is the primary certifier. However, if somebody else can not certify alongside them (ie a second person) then the RFC/U is considered uncertified. However, this one, as Jayron32, said is certified & open-- Cailil  talk 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am the editor who opened the RFC/U (and the editor who has repeatedly been accused of by Shakehandsman of harassment for using the correct WP mechanisms like RFC/U, WP:BLPN, and AfD to deal with issues with editors and articles). It would have been nice to have been notified of this discussion, but no harm done. I was unfamiliar with Shakehandsman before I noticed relatively minor driving offences prominently displayed in the BLP of a current British MP. That unnecessary negative information has since removed on undue weight and BLP grounds from at least three BLPs which Shakehandsman had edited. I believe all were Labour Party (UK) MPs. Shakehandsman also created the article Driving without due care and attention using as a source a piece in the Daily Mail about charges against Labour MP Harriet Harman, the subject of previous BLP disputes involving Shakehandsman. I wholly agree with Shakehandsman that the RFC/U needs examining. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Song article violations/Tbhotch
I am reporting Legolas2186 for violations of song articles such as Judas e.g. he has removed music genres without adding a source, and this is not the first time it has happened sadly. I think a block would be very justified.

I am also reporting Tbhotch because he is terrorizing other users, plus he is supposed to be a banned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.105.217 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMARANG -- MST ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 14:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit and This one, are the edits you should be reporting - even though you made them, yourself. --  MST ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Boomerang indeed. Blocked. Elockid  ( Talk ) 15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to a hardblock. This is just CharlieJS13 back again.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUBP
Did we get a new sandbox and I missed the memo? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with Wikipedia: no memos. G2-ed. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, is that the problem! Drmies (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh indeed. I don't understand what the question is here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of the initial post above, the content of User:Austyler/SUBP resided at WP:SUBP. The matter seems to have been taken care of. Deor (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay; no wonder Drmies was confused. Hadn't occurred to me to check the page history.  Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog
Once again, WP:RPP is backlogged.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup: help desperately needed
Hi. :) Help is desperately needed in the copyright cleanup department. I try to put hours into WP:CP every weekend and there are a few admins pitching in here and there, but it is backlogging nevertheless. This problem is only going to get worse now that Corensearchbot is back up and running. Great to have it, as it is the first line of defense against copyright problems, but there are only a couple of editors regularly checking WP:SCV, and one of them was just blocked as an impersonator. To boot, I've discovered that my earlier spot checks of his or her work there obviously didn't give me an accurate picture of his or her work.

We are desperately in need of more people to take on the work there. If even a couple of admins could make handling a few tickets a part of their routine, it could make quite a difference. I'm committed to continuing to help out there, but I just can't keep up with it like I used to.

Help? If you aren't familiar with the work and you want "on the job" training, just let me know. I'm very willing to help out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do some, if you train me. Face-wink.svg  HurricaneFan 25  13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Article Feedback Tool
Hey guys. We've just opened a Request for Comment on the Article Feedback Tool, version 5. Amongst other things, we're looking at anti-spam and anti-BLP vandalism measures, so as much participation as is possible would be most welcome :). Hope to see people there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure request
Hi all, we have an old unclosed deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2011 December 23, please could someone oblige? All the best— S Marshall T/C 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC related help needed
IP address, in its third edit started merge proposal on Kosovo article talk page. Bit later, User:PersonPaOpinion, (make-believe new user) in its eight edit starts supporting, while citing wikipedia guidelines. While article was carefully spited few months ago, on the agreement of the great number of editors, (with vast sockpuppets attacks), i am asking for admin help in stopping this new line of empty words, wrong unbacked POVs and false consensuses, that may create again. My proposition is that some unrelated admin interfere, and stop the agreement, close it, or guide it. I would close it, and if someone who is not sockpuppet or ip nationalistic warrior wants to propose it, but with arguments and reasons, should do it. As you know, Kosovo is under ARBMAC editing restrictions, and sockpuppets are not welcomed on its pages, because of the known reasons. -- WhiteWriter speaks 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

user adding non notable persons to multiple articles
''I am sorry, i just spent an hour browsing internal WP pages trying to figure out HOW to deal with this problem. but since WP is not set up in any welcoming or helpful format, i am putting the problem here. So, someone can slap me around and tell me where i should have placed it.'' User:Harvardcrimsonfan has been adding names of Harvard students to multiple articles as Notable residents, and notable alumni..note these are merely students who are being listed as Vollyball players or whatnot.HarvardCrimsonfan contribs These are not yet notable persons and are just cluttering up the articles in question. I have corrected the few pages that i watch but I do not want to start an edit war by correct all of their edits. I feel these edits are poorly thought out and not in the spirit of WP. Can anyone tell me where to report what i consider consistently poor editing choices? thank you EraserGirl (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably here, though I don't see much point in moving this report now that it's here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems rather innocent on first look.  hasn't been around but for 7 months and hasn't made but less than 100 edits.  Reverting their edits per WP:NNC is the correct thing to do.  Going forward, the only thing that appears necessary is leave a   template on their talk page plus add a personal note about adding non-notable folks to articles. --64.85.216.114 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your helpful answer. I have not had good experiences when it came to internal WP issues. I have been keeping myself to myself but this seemed a little over the top to ignore. EraserGirl (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandalism from WMF IP?
Can anyone explain this edit from an IP that is registered to the Wikimedia Foundation? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, a WMF conspiracy...Doughnuthead is working for the WMF!  HurricaneFan 25  23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because User:Doughnuthead is using an XFF. --MuZemike 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the software didn't believe XFF's except from a carefully-chosen hand-picked and validated set of source IP addresses of ISP proxies? If XFF is being used to forge source IPs, the devs need to stamp on it immediately. Can someone please bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia ops team? -- The Anome (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has anyone contacted WMF about this? Lady  of  Shalott  23:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Let me know if you see any more edits from other WMF IPs. Prodego talk  23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great. Can you tell us a bit more about what the problem was, and how it got fixed? -- The Anome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That squid server was not added to $wgSquidServersNoPurge when it was deployed, causing it not to be a trusted XFF source. MuZemike's statement above touches on the problem (it does involve XFF), but is otherwise incorrect. It is a much less serious issue, fixed by wmf staffer Reedy by adding the server to the list. Prodego  talk  01:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thank you, that makes a lot more sense. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Attention to Georgian Shepherd Dog
Would someone please look at Georgian Shepherd Dog. It is an absolute mess and new user is having some problems with copyright and WP:OWN issues. (After I cleaned it up reversion of good changes again). I tried reaching out to this user (who might become a helpful editor with some experience), but that was rejected.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Review requested for topic ban closure
I recently closed an AN/I topic ban proposal as follows: "For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from 'moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles', broadly construed."

Dolovis requested on his talk page clarifications of exactly what he could and could not do. My responses are bolded.
 * 1) May I create articles? Yes, you may create articles.
 * 2) May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related? Yes, so long as a reasonable person would not view the redirect(s) created as an attempt to skirt the topic ban.
 * 3) May I create redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics? No.
 * 4) May I move articles which are not diacritic related? No, but you may request at WP:RM any article move so long as the move has nothing at all do do with diacritics.
 * 5) May I invoke WP:BRD for articles that are boldly moved other editors? No.
 * 6) May I request other editors to invoke WP:BRD on my behalf? No.
 * 7) May I request moves via WP:RM? Yes, but only moves that have nothing at all to do with diacritics.
 * 8) May I take part in RM discussions? Yes, but only to the degree of expressing your support or opposition for a move, with an explanation/reasoning for it. You may not otherwise debate with the other participants of the move discussion, such as by replying to their support or opposition with a rebuttal.
 * 9) May I edit articles that contain diacritics? Only if you make no changes whatsoever to the diacritics: no adding or removing any, or, in the case of articles that have a mix of uses, changing the balance of the uses to favor one of the uses.

Dolovis is unhappy with these clarifications. I believe they are necessary to prevent further recurrences of problematic behavior and are quite fair given the consensus at the AN/I discussion. Nonetheless, I have offered to put my closure and clarifications up for review here. If consensus is that the closure and clarifications are unfair or otherwise unnecessarily broad to prevent disruption and gaming, then I will be happy to adjust them accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable clarification to me. What is the problem? Is there some argument that it's unclear/ambiguous, or is there some desire for Dolovis to do a bunch of other diacritic-related edits? (the former seems reasonable enough; the latter is something we ought to prevent). bobrayner (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 28bytes's closure and clarifications appear fine to me. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Concerning Point #9, Dolovis shouldn't be barred from hiding/deleting diacritics from North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the closure was incorrect, but it leaves an awkward situation. Personally, I'd like Dolovis to be able to request moves at WP:RM in some situations. Say he creates "John Smith" about an Eastern European hockey player. That person's native name is "Jöhn Smíth" and someone moves the article to that title with the summary "diacritics". Now, even though Dolovis is the only significant contributor to the article, he is unable to revert (fair enough) or even take it to discussion. I'd propose that Dolovis should be able to propose moves at WP:RM when he is a significant contributor to the specific article and it has been recently moved without discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the restrictions, but I have a much different take on the consensus, so I must disagree with the interpretation. The ban concerned gaming more than advocacy. The discussion at the bottom of the ban is relevant (Question on scope of topic ban). Here's my take.
 * 1) Disagree. Dolovis may not create any article (or redirect) that has a diacritic in its title. This is to prevent gaming. He may create articles without diacritic titles. I am reading no diacritic article creation into the ban. Basically, Dolovis does not like articles with diacritcs, so he would not reasonably be creating such an article (except to game).
 * 2) Agree.
 * 3) Disagree. Dolovis may make a nondiacritic redirect to a diacritic article. That allows Dolovis to contribute by making diacritic names accessible. The ANI issue was Dolovits salting diacritic titles; he was not salting nondiacritic titles. The language in the ban proposal can be read either way, but the trouble is "Editing redirects currently at diacritic titles". He may not make a diacritic redirect pointing to a diacritic or nondiacritic article.
 * 4) Disagree. Dolovis was originally banned from moving any article July 13, 2011,. The ban allowed him to request moves via RM. That ban was modified to only cover diacritic articles on October 8, 2011. If the relaxed modification is in place, he may move a nondiacritic article to a new nondiacritic name without going through RM.
 * 5) Disagree. Dolovis may invoke BRD on a move when diacritics are not involved. (Same ban modification argument.)
 * 6) Agree. Dolovis may not use an agent to avoid a ban. Under the earlier ban, if he wants an article moved, he must go through RM. He has no other avenue.
 * 7) Disagree. Dolovis may request any move (including diacritics) via WP:RM. There was some discussion about Dolovits being disruptive in his advocacy (I made such a comment), but the ANI was not about his beliefs but about him gaming the system by salting moves.
 * 8) Disagree. There was concern about overzealous advocacy, but no limitation on RM discussions. (Frankly, I think this limitation is a very good idea and Dolovis should follow it.) A comment was that the ban should not prevent Dolovis from civily and constructively participating in discussions. The keys being "civil", "constructive", and "participate". His POV pushing was mentioned at the start, but the disruptive nature of his advocacy was not addressed in the ban proposal nor did it get many comments.
 * 9) Agree. Changing diacritics in an article is not stated but is implied.
 * Glrx (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While Glrx's reading of #9 is not quite so clear from the ban, I fully agree with the rest of it. And given the fact that the history is of Dolovis trying to force his prefered titles by making moves into the diacritic-containing names impossible for non-admins, I'm not sure that this is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording of Glrx's #1 concerns me. The problem (broadly) is Dolovis' stance against diacritics. This restriction (if it allows creation at all) thus needs to prevent Dolovis from creating articles that omit diacritics where consensus holds they ought to be present. First and foremost, the ban should prevent this. I'd have no problem with him doing it the other way (using the accepted diacritics), although it seems unlikely, given past behaviour, he'd even wish to do this. Dolovis should still be permitted to create articles on topics where there are simply no diacritics involved (and "I didn't know he used diacritics" would be a poor excuse, likely to cause the ban's extension). For any articles involving diacritics, known diacritics, or personal names of Eastern European ancestry and a "reasonable chance" of diacritics, then he ought to stay well away. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Od Mishehu re #9. I see this as a broad reading about changing diacritics in titles. If there is a wiki-link within an article, that wiki-link involves the title of an article. It seems a bit absurd to say that D must use RM to move an article to his preferred title, but he may change any wiki-links to the title spelling that he prefers. Yes, non-admins may revert those changes, but "otherwise changing titles, broadly construed" may cover wiki-link titles, so 28byte's clarification is reasonable.
 * @Andy Dingley re #1. I'm sympathetic, but the ban is not about using or not using diacritics -- it is about behavior. The diacritic issue is unsettled, and ANI isn't there to decide the issue. Dolovis should be able to add content without butting up against the diacritics issue or having his nose rubbed in it. Dolovis is probably more clever than I; he is certainly more motivated. If someone is allowed to create diacritic articles, then I can see a way to turn those diacritic articles into salted diacritic redirects without violating the bans.
 * Glrx (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolovis was banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". Broadly construed or not, it seems like a real stretch to interpret that editing a wikilink would somehow change that article's title. Jafeluv (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing the games played makes the post "Request for move 'Føö' to 'Foo' as all the articles use the redirect 'Foo'." a real possibility after alld of the links have been edited to use the redirect. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would fall under "otherwise changing the titles", wouldn't it? In any case, I don't think it would be appropriate to try to interpret the restrictions beyond what the ban actually says -- especially when at the same time people are accusing Dolovis of wikilawyering and gaming the system. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And this is a perfect example of what Dolovis does. He will find any possible ambiguity or perceived weakness and argue about it over and over again in a clear attempt to tire out what he considers his opponents so they give up and stop debating with him. There were a number people in that discussion that advocated for a full out diacritics topic ban. So I believe the restrictions he was given were fully in line with that. I think 28bytes answers were fine, they even allowed him to !vote in RMs which a normal topic ban wouldn't have allowed so if anything they were laxer than people requested. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd made a few comments when this was running on Dolovis' talk page - - regarding providing him an extremely limited venue to use t o try and gain back the community's good faith. These are reliant on WP:HOCKEY/PPF. I'm incorporating those here.
 * I agree with Glrx. By stated stance, Dolovis does not want articles with diuretics. While it is unlikely that he would create an article with such, there is no reason to leave this as a loophole in the ban.
 * Agreed.
 * Mostly I agree with Glrx. The creation of reasonable redirects under titles without diacritics that point to existent article under a title with diacritics is a productive area. "Reasonable" though is limited to needed or likely needed redirects. Based on WP:HOCKEY's guideline, such redirects can, and IMO should, be used in the non-Quebec North American team and tourney articles.
 * Common sense though with 2 and 3 though is that he is not to create redirects with diacritics in the titles. Full stop.
 * Articles - and I'd say pages - with old or new names with diacritics are off the table for him to boldly move. Full stop. So should article, or pages, that have, or are likely to have, diacritic titled redirects. Beyond that should be fair game.
 * As with 4 - not with pages with a diacritic title, a redirect with a diacritic title, or like to have a redirect with a diacritic title.
 * Side issue A) I am not too adverse to him stating in a RM request that it is BRD based - as long as he clearly states the move is to be duscussed and that he is using RM as he is under restrictions.
 * Side issue B) I do have an issue with him bemoaning his being curtailed in the application of BRD - an essay that is trated as a de facto guideline - while he has no problem with preventing the use of WP:BOLD - guideline in fact as well as name - by other editors at his own whim. (Yes this was pointed out to him see .)
 * Agree
 * Also agree with Glrx, though with the same side caveat A as with 5.
 * I still hold to the statement Glrx quotes. I'd rather Dolovis participates in the discussions and remember how he participates is something others will be looking at.
 * I agree, to a degree. There is a very limited articles set that currently has any level of consensus about the use of diacritics - see the HOCKEY guideline I pointed to above. GoodDay has pointed out on Dolovis talk page that this is an area where Dolovis can be productive and allows for the removal of diacritics on some articles.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * J Greb, you seem to be under the misconception that I have been actively BOLDLY moving articles away from diacritics. That would be wrong, as it is others who are moving the articles without consensus. I drew their ire when I reverted some of these moves, as was my right until they successfully implemented a ban to prevent me from challenging their moves. I do not disapprove of diacritics, but I am an advocate for the use of RM when moving articles away from their COMMONNAME. Dolovis (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cmt: bold moves by Dolovis to a non-diacritical title not preceded by a move to a diacritical title:, , , , . HandsomeFella (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The double standard being placed upon me is obvious and disturbing. Other editors and bots, such as RjwilmsiBot, continue to make hundreds, if not thousands, of second edits for the purpose of redirect tagging. As has been identified here and in ANI, this has the effect of preventing non-Admin editors from making BOLD moves, and thus (following the logic for my topic ban) is disruptive. I was blocked for one week, and now have a wide topic ban, for placing four redirect tags. What administrative action will be done to prevent those other thousands of “disruptive” edits from being made? Dolovis (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That bot doesn't have a history of purposefully doing it to be disruptive like you do. You admitted to doing it solely to stop people from making moves. The fact that people can't make moves after the bot edits is a side effect of its edit, not the purpose of its edit like yours were. You were shown you can't be trusted to edit properly thus you are now held to a higher standard, that is how the wiki works. You had a chance to contribute constructively instead you battled with people and ended up with sanctions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a diff for the "You admitted..."? I missed it in the earlier discussions, and it seems relevant here. Glrx (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In October 2011: "...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)...". Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it. Also relevant is his promise "I have heard the concerns and I promise to not create redirects (see WP:REDCAT) using multiple edits." from his original ban. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms of the topic ban remains as clear as mud. Let me try this one question at a time. Am I able to make diacritic related move requests though RM? Yes or No. Dolovis (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No. 28bytes' #7 is crystal clear. Don't play that game here. Glrx (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Response by Dolovis
I am an experienced editor who makes constructive edits to Wikipedia. Any careful review of my edit history will confirm this. I was not able to actively take part in the topic ban discussion because I was blocked for one-week for making proper redirects that follow the instructions of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT because in four instances two edits were used at the time of creation (seriously). Yes, I had previously been banned from from making diacritic-related moves, but not from creating redirects, and no warning was given in advance of the block, (but I digress from the topic at hand).

When I create and edit articles, I follow the policies of Wikipedia, including the policies of WP:Article titles (which includes WP:COMMONNAME) and the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. There are several editors who have been aggressively pursuing a FAIT ACCOMPLI strategy of moving articles to titles containing diacritics and other modified letters wherever possible and with no regard for WP:COMMONNAME. These editors include User:HandsomeFella, the editor who instigated the topic ban against me, and who is an outspoken editor who strongly favours the use of  diacritics in articles titles wherever possible. HandsomeFella has, in the recent past, uncivilly and falsely called me “The diacritic-hating one-man wrecking crew”, and he labelled one successful RM instigated by me as “a disruptive RM in violation of WP:HOCKEY and WP:COMMONSENSE”, and he is an editor who himself has moved numerous files to articles titles with diacritics including ,,, , , , , , , and.

On January 5th, 28bytes' placed the following topic ban on my account: You are indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles, broadly construed.". His statement that the topic ban would be “broadly construed” terrifies me as it might mean that I could be blocked the moment that I make any edit to any article that contains any modified letters. Upon requesting clarification, he informed me that I was additionally banned from:
 * 1) creating English-language redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics;
 * 2) from using the core Wikipedia policy of WP:BRD to contest a controversial move (and even from requesting another editor to undo controversial moves on my behalf);
 * 3) from even making diacritic-related move requests at WP:RM;
 * 4) from fully participating in move discussions; and
 * 5) from freely editing articles (under this restriction I could be blocked if I even add an additional reference to an article which does not further support the diacritic-form of a person's name).

The true fact is that I am being held to a higher standard than any other editor on Wikipedia. This ban prevents me from openly voicing my opinion in discussions, where I have advocated that the existing policies of Wikipedia should be followed. This ban amounts to censorship against me, and must be reviewed by uninvolved, unbiased, and informed editors. I thank you for your review of this situation. Dolovis (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have serious reservations about your notion of "fully participating in move discussions". Your advocacy is overzealous. Glrx (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an example of my oponents throwing out unverifiable statement about my editing. Show me the dif where my advocacy has been disruptively overzealous so other editors may draw their own conclusions. Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolovis, you should probably appeal your ban to ArbCom. If anything is to be learned from this type of community discussions is that they usually result in "no consensus to overturn the ban". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dolovis, if it was a toss-up between being restricted by means of a topic ban, or an indefinite block, which would you prefer? Personally, I would support you being allowed to raise possible moves at WP:RM. Your past behaviour has led to you being placed under these conditions, so don't moan on here that you are being held to a higher standard of behaviour than other (non-disruptive) editors. The topic ban is indefinite, which means "without a set length of time before it expires". Should you prove that you can edit in a collaborative way and accept consensus over the use of diacritics, then the topic ban may be looked at at some point in the future. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With over 30,000 constructive edits I have demonstrated that I do edit collaboratively, and that I do accept the consensus over the use of diacritics, which is spelled out at WP:COMMONNAME. If you are aware of a different consensus which has over-turned the policy of COMMONNAME, please point me to that consensus. I have strongly advocated the use of WP:RM for controversial moves. Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see your 30,000 edits and raise you my 100,000 edits. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Number of edits don't show you edit collaboratively. A person could have 1 million edits and never talk to another user. Editing collaboratively requires discussing topics in a civil manor and not resorting to attacking user and trying to find loopholes to get your way such as your admitted use of double editing redirects to stop others from being able to move articles. Such edits show that you actually go out of your way not to be collaborative. Many users have asked you to stop your disruptive methods and discuss your issues in a centralized location civilly. You did not do so. As such you now find yourself in the position you are in now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he made such a request in the past, and the community agreed to relax his original restrictions. Our trust was subsequently abused, so here we are again.  I would add that I endorse 28bytes' interpretations.  Dolovis' response is precisely why we use the phrase "broadly construted" on these things, because he is showing he intends to try and wikilawyer around the edges of this as far as we will let him. Resolute 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My stated concern here is that Admin 28bytes has over-stated the topic ban, and that the topic ban he has defined if too vague and too broad. My stated arguments are supported by facts and policy. You don't like my policy-supported logic, so you call it wikilawyering. Even though I disagreed with the previous ban, I followed it without exception. That demonstrates that I do follow a consensus even though I disagree with it. I followed the ban - I did not abuse your trust. I was subsequently blocked for one week for performing proper edits that were not ban restricted. No one else has ever been blocked for creating a perfectly valid redirects, double-edits or not - and I was blocked without warning. In any event, multiple edits to a redirect cannot be considered disruptive because all controversial moves should go through WP:RM. Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolovis, I once wrote a very short essay, and I think it applies to your approach to dispute resolution on these redirects as well. As for the other issue, complaints that community restrictions are too vague and too broad are not unheard of, and are within ArbCom's remit. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3 for example. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blue Ivy Carter
Congratulations to Jay-Z and Beyoncé Knowles on the birth of their daughter, Blue Ivy Carter. Now we have repeated attempts to create an article for the baby, mostly consisting of one line and a link to an article (though NB: One was also vandalism). I've speedy deleted the last attempt and locked the title for 3 days, pending discussion. I'm inclined to redirect to the Beyoncé article, either to the article itself or the section dealing with the birth, but wanted input first. The father's article might be a target (though not a better one, imo), and note that Jay-Z also wrote a song specifically about the birth (and naming the child), so the song's article (if any) might be a reasonable target as well. Should we go ahead with a redirect, or move this discussion to a better venue? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A redir is necessary, but I don't think redir to the song is appropriate, as that makes a minor song article into a BLP. It's mother's song, send the baby redir to her. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do that. Given the repeated attempts at an article, does anything preclude a protected redirect? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've created the redir. Personally, now that it's a redir, I'd be inclined to unprotect or at least reduce to semi. As it's an R-to-section, semi would allow regular users to fix that when the Beyonce article gets its sections renamed. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I've semi-protected the redirect. Thanks all. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Indians_in_Afghanistan
Hello there,

There seems to be a lot of aggressive editing by IPs on the Indians_in_Afghanistan page, with one IP continually violating the three-revert rule. Can the article be made semi-protected?

Kind regards

--Rvd4life (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Page semi'd by User:Magog the Ogre. (In the future, WP:RFPP will get you a quicker response.) I'm marking as resolved. --64.85.214.165 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - additional test deployment
Hey guys,

Just keeping you in the loop; we're going to be testing another change to the Article Feedback Tool on starting today, January 11. So far, we've done a bit of small-scale experimentation with the actual design of the tool, as announced on the blog, the village pump, and on various mailing lists. This has all been on a tiny fraction of articles (~22k total articles, about 0.6% of the English Wikipedia), and a lot of really useful data has been gathered without bothering the vast majority of editors or readers. Ideally, that's what we'd aim for with all tests :).

Even with Wikipedia readership reaching half a billion users per month, the feedback form its current position (at the end of the article) doesn’t see a whole lot of activity. In this test, we’ll be experimenting with a more prominent way to access to tool. When a user loads the page with the test version of the Article Feedback Tool, they will see an “Improve this article” link docked on the bottom right hand corner of the page (please see for a mockup). Since this link is docked, it will stay with the reader while they’re reading the article. The introduction of this link will undoubtedly increase the amount of feedback. We need to, however, understand how it affects the quality of the feedback. We genuinely don't know what the impact will be, which is why we're doing these tests :). As with the last tests, it'll be on a very small subset of articles and probably won't be noticed by most people.

If you do encounter it, and it does bug you, you can turn it off just by going into Preferences > Appearance > Don't show me the article feedback widget on pages. If you've already ticked this option, the new link shouldn't appear at all; please do let me know if it does. We are working on a way to disable it "in-line" as well so you can simply dismiss the link without going to preferences.

We’ll also be doing some preliminary analysis on whether such a prominent link cannibalizes editing behavior. The team is very aware that the new link may compete with the edit tab and section edit links. Since the test version of the tool is deployed on a limited number of articles, we will only get a rough read on how much, if any, cannibalization takes place. Per our research plan, we’ll continue to monitor the tradeoff between giving feedback and editing.

If any of you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or drop a note on the talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Warning embedded/hidden in edit-text?
Wasn't sure where to bring this. Can someone go Jim Rome and click edit, and tell me if the warnings embedded/hidden in the article code are normal/allowable? And, if so, under what policy or guideline would the rules regarding this be found. I see the good intentions of doing this, but I also see a large potential for vandalism if it's permissible to "hide" messages in the edit-text. Also, it's kind of bean-y to say what not to do. I mean, if I was a vandal, I would never have thought to change his name to "Pterodactyl" until seeing that. Anyway, sorry if the warnings are standard procedure, I just wasn't sure what I was looking at. Quinn &#10163;WINDY 21:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, hidden text is not that unusual. Help:Hidden text gives some reasons when and when not to use it. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please create a redirect from Klein–Gordon field (with an endash) to Klein–Gordon equation
I tried to create

Klein–Gordon field

with the content


 * 1) REDIRECT [equation]

and it said the title is blacklisted (which seems rather unlikely). Note that we already have Klein-Gordon field, a redirect with the same target.

False vacuum (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. Note that you don't need the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" business in the redirect; I'm not sure if that's why it was giving you an error message. 28bytes (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The incorrect format is exactly why it was giving the error message: there's an edit filter to prevent that sort of malformed redirect. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As well there should be. Sorry for being stupid.  (I've created many redirects before, so why I screwed up this one is a mystery to me.)  False vacuum (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

New format opposed
There was a discussion about adopting a new format at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_active_Indian_Navy_ships. This was suggested by Rademire and was opposed by Mittal.fdk. The reason for the opposition was that "I disagree that this page is better than the former." Lately it has come to notice that the page has been changed to a different format. Can the Admins restore it?Aheadearth (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to Admins, this user passes the duck test outstandingly. Just awaiting CU to confirm as most recent sockpuppet of Chanakya.TalkWoe90i 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Wingard
I am reporting User:Wingard because they are continually removing commas from dates from several daytime soap opera pages, claiming they've never seen commas in dates. The commas have always been there, and it's quite disruptive. We've tried being nice, but they aren't listening. Please help, thank you! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They have been blocked for edit warring by Daniel Case. TN X Man  19:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

review of some revdels requested
See, the revdel done on January 3 seems highly inapropriate, the summary the admin doiong them used makes it clear that they completely do not understand what revdel is for, as they indicate that their edits were "silly mistakes" so they went and removed them entirely, even coming back and removing their own username from the page history. This is exactly what revdel is not for, I can't imagine why he thought it appropriate to use it in this manner to hide his own mistakes. I would revert the revdel myself but I recently had a minor disagreement with this admin so I'd like fresh eyes on this. I did try to discuss this with them first on their talk page but they seem to have taken a wiki-break and have not replied to my inquiries about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your interpretation. The very first warning on the revdel page reads: "Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or desysopping." (emphasis mine) TN X</b> Man  19:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's not what revdel is for. It appears the admin misunderstood RD6. 28bytes (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think what we've got here is a well-meaning admin who took a long break from using their tools and came back to a Wikipedia they didn't really understand anymore. Our initial disagreement was over one revert I made of an edit of his, next thing I knew he was over at ANI accusing me of wheel warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that is not a valid use of RevDel and those 3 entries should be undeleted. GB fan 19:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would someone care to do that and then inform him of the results? I don't think he is interssted in listening to me so it would be best if someone else handled that end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about RFC/U
I originally posted this on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, but perhaps I am more likely to get an answer here.

I have recently started an RFC/U for an editor with what I perceive as a pattern of problematic editing (Requests for comment/Shakehandsman). After failing to have the RFC/U shut down with threads on AN and AN/I, the editor has now declared that they have left Wikipedia. I am concerned that this editor may simply wait for things to settle down and return to editing, or just create another account in order to avoid the RFC/U altogether. I suppose my question is this - if an editor ducks out of an RFC/U by falsely claiming to leave Wikipedia, can the RFC/U be re-opened once the editor commences editing again (with the same or a new account)? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I know of at least one that's being put on held indefinitely (though I don't think he'll come back, it's not impossible).  There's also an arbitration case in this state as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can put RFC/Us on hold. Despite the number of editors who think they'll just duck out until it all blows over (partly driven by their erroneous belief that there's a strict 30-day timer on RFC/Us, so if they take a 30-day wikibreak, they can ignore the whole thing), it's not commonly done, but the usual process seems to be adding a short note to the page explaining the situation and then removing the link from the list of open RFC/Us.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it safe to assume that the same principle applies even if an RFC/U is not explicitly put on hold? If an editor returns after an RFC/U has been closed due to inactivity (i.e., the editor left), the RFC/U is no more or less resolved than one which has explicitly been put on hold. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As the admin who placed it on hold, you might have just asked me or at least bothered to let me know about this thread. If you actually bother to read the statements I made on both the RFCU itself and the talk page  you would find that I made all this perfectly clear when doing the close. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think anyone who looks at the RFC/U which I linked above will see that. I am sorry that I didn't notify you of this thread, but although prompted by the Shakehandsman case, the question I have is more general. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was also already answered, so I'm a little unclear on why you felt the need to ask it at all, let alone go to arbcom about it, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you find thread annoying, but read my question above. That is the question I am asking and it has not been answered. If you believe your statements at the Shakehandsman RFC/U answer it, please spell it out for me because I can be a little slow sometimes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is another example of an RfC/U on permanent hold at Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey. Perhaps it would be worth having three categories for RfC/Us – open, closed, on hold. -- J N  466  20:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but does "closed" mean "closed" or "on hold" if an editor returns to editing? What if an editor is found to have returned to editing with a new username, but their RFC/U was not placed "on hold" because it was believed that they left the project? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think any new categories or procedures are needed. If the situation you describe were to come to pass, the old RFC could be re-opened, or a new one with links to the old one, or, more likely straight to arbcom since it would be clear they did in fact leave just to shut down the RFC. Something like that has happened, in the case of . He kept making lame excuses, first for ignoring an RFC and then an Arbcom case. When it became clear he was full of it he was banned. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Matt2005
I have noticed that many of edits have been disruptive, but had not been reverted. I have gone through the United Stated Network Schedules, but there are probably 250 other edits that need to be looked at.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some pending RPP requests
WP:RPP has some rather old unanswered requests waiting for someone with the mop.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Community consultation on SOPA act
Not strictly an administrator's item, but probably of great interest... In order to allow time for the WMF to technologically support any action taken regarding WP:SOPA, we need to be able to begin preparing in advance. For that reason, we are launching a discussion to try to determine what consensus may have developed for community response. Please weigh in on the consultation page, at SOPA initiative/Action. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Username issue - grandfather rights?
Today, I came across. Noticing the username was in violation of WP:UN I gave the user a welcome and issued a warning re the username. I did not block the editor as I wanted to give them a chance to respond. On checking whether or not Teskey had edited since I informed them of the issue, I discovered that this editor had been editing sporadically since 2006. It struck me that this could be another case similar to, which was also created before the policy was formulated - see (see discussion from 2009). Therefore I would ask that Teskey is granted grandfather rights. A change of name should be encouraged, but it cannot be demanded. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If they've been editing without trouble since 2006, I'd certainly be happy to let them keep their username. 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I suspect the user may be related to be User:Teskey as there looks to be a similar editing history. If they lost the account there may be a possibility to usurp the account. -- RA (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of searching all registered usernames to find ones that (1) have the @ character, and (2) are not blocked? Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? As far as I know, it is not possible any more to create user names with "@" in them, so all you'd find would be user names that have been created before the rule to forbid them was established. Therefore there'd be no reason for us to do anything about it. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to go there with this name, but for future reference we do have a dedicated noticeboard for such discussions at WP:RFCN. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was that we could find all the existing usernames and let their owners know that they're grandfathered, lest someone later come along and try to block them because of the policy. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nyttend had a point there. If all user who have e-mail addresses as their username and are grandfathered in could be sought out, then the fact can be recorded on their talk page so that if another editor stumbles across them and attempts to report them, they will be aware that there will not be any action taken over the user name. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a good idea. Now back to the question of how to do it.... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure its a great idea. Do we have any evidence that such users are being inappropriately blocked?  If they are not, I think we can leave well enough alone; this sounds like a solution in search of a problem.  I patrol UAA fairly regularly, and I and several other regular admins there (AFAIK) are pretty concientious at looking for grandfather issues and are highly unlikely to block borderline cases like this outright.  -- Jayron  32  03:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a note at WP:UN saying that it is not possible to create such usernames now and any that are found have been granted grandfather rights would suffice to cover the situation? Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They are grandfathered in. I don't know where that is documented, but I know we don't do forced renames or blocks for this sort of thing.  MBisanz  talk 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * UN already mentions the idea of grandfathered usernames. I don't know that any more policy guidance is needed; it is not possible to account for every grandfathered username, except to say that blocking someone who has been editing at Wikipedia for years, for a username violation, is universally a bad idea.  WP:UAA instablocks should usually be for very new accounts, anything which has been around and active for a long time should, at worst, be taken to WP:RFCN and in most cases should be left alone.  -- Jayron  32  20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Victoriaedwards
Could an admin please have a word with this user? I have tried twice to speak to this user about using edit summaries, only to be summarily reverted. Given their penchant for multiple edits to a single page, it's rather annoying to have to look at each edit to try and figure out what they're doing. Will notify. → ROUX   ₪  17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess my question would be - are there specific issues with their edits that are masked by their non-use of edit summaries? I don't believe that edit summary use is enforceable by any current policy.  I didn't see that they have ever used edit summaries, and their blanking of the talk notice indicates that they have read your note. Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I read and blanked the talk notice. Since I don't know what an 'edit summary' is, I am glad to see the use of edit summaries is not mandatory. Victoriaedwards (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For your edification, I present the English Language wikipedia players performance of WP:ES. I do note that Roux's notes did not include a link to that, but at the same time I view the statement of a long-term contributor not knowing what an edit summary is with some bemusement.  Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Syrthiss. As a long-term contributor, I have been 'briefly describing the changes I have made' using 'Edit summary', and will continue to do so. (: Victoriaedwards (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see where you have occasionally done so, but it would be helpful to other editors if you did so more consistently. Looking at your last 200 or so edits, it seems like you only do so about once every 25-50 times you edit an article.  This isn't really a good thing, you should enter an edit summery after every edit.  In the edit summary box below the edit window, please write a brief description of what you do, and do so each time you make a change to an article.  Doing so is helpful to other editors, which is why you should do it.  Not doing things because they are, in your words, "not mandatory" is not a good way to work in collaboration with thousands of other people.  It would be best if you did things that were helpful or useful for others, instead of demanding to be forced to do them.  -- Jayron  32  20:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protection icon
Hi!

It's been so long since I last page protected anything, I had to resort to going back to New Admin School! Anyway, I have semi-protected Romania, and added a small pp icon to the page... but for some reason I can't see the icon. What have I done wrong? Stephen! Coming... 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's showing up OK for me. Cache issue, perhaps? 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably. I have refreshed the page on my PC, and it still isn't showing.  I suspect that my PC needs to be upgraded to something a little faster - maybe a modem attached to an abacus.  Still, at least I managed to do it correctly, even if I did need to check I had done it right! Cheers Stephen! Coming... 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooooh! A 300-baud acoustic-coupled modem?  Awesomeness! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin, please [dispute at WP:TITLE]
Could we have an uninvolved admin, preferably one who has not edited or discussed with the conflicting parties, to close the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles? This is the very start of a policy.

The unhappy brave volunteer who answers this call will find a great deal more has happened since, chiefly bitter protests against the poll, and revert-warring on the page itself. But I do not want to raise behavioral issues; this has had quite enough drama. I think that if we have a closure on the poll, the rest of the matter will go away. JCScaliger (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. That short-lived RFC was started in good faith to resolve an issue that had not been settled in unruly discussion that preceded. It was immediately subverted, in controversial circumstances, and I for one explicitly abandoned any involvement. A travesty of due process cannot be thought to reflect consensus for a major provision of core titling policy.
 * The accompanying disputes have been carried on at diverse pages (including here, WP:ANI, WP:3RRN, various user talkpages, with related discussion at WT:DAB and several contested RMs). Frankly belligerent and false statements are still being made about the history of the wording involved. As a participant consistently calling for orderly, collegial process and a fresh look at all the issues, I have been intimidated to the extent that I will not post at WT:TITLE until there is a moderation in behaviour.
 * If the matter is to be reviewed, let it be done thoroughly and let it be done centrally: perhaps here, where we might expect participants' conduct to be better. At least it would be under scrutiny.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Duplicate. This is a duplicate request.  Another request for closing this RFC has been listed here since January 4th, above. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I have added a note at that other request, suggesting that it might be considered superseded. This new request supplies more detail. N oetica Tea? 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA initiative/Action & watchlist notification
SOPA initiative/Action is it possible to add it to watchlist notifications? Bulwersator (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's already a project-wide banner ad, but in any event the place to ask about this would be MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be better to duplicate it as maybe somebody disabled irritating banners Bulwersator (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What to do about this AfD?
I came across this AfD. It's untranscluded, but reading some of the comments I don't think that transcluding it is the right step to take. Could an admin do what they think is the best course of action for this? &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added an AfD header and listed it in today's list so that it gets a full 7-day discussion. --MuZemike 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Transcluding it is always appropriate, unless one of the speedy keep criteria apply. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Improve this page" toast
Personally, I think the "Improve this page" toast at the bottom right obstructs the text in the article. It would be better located at the bottom of the article or in the sidebar. X-Fi6 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to take this issue to WP:VPT, it is not really an administrative issue, and personally I don't even know what you are talking about, so you should probably specify what device and what browser you are using. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this? You can leave a message on the talk page for the people who are developing the tool. -- Kateshortforbob  talk 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfair and shortsighted
Dear Wikipedia, Please explain me something,

For the last few days I have been trying to add some information about sex toys to wikipedia. All information were significant, not intending to promote brand, but to write about milestones that have been made. And I have add really small information about three gadgets - 2 vibrators and 1 dildo. 1st vibrator is a vibrator that received a very important award for its design - for a first time a sex toy was awarded!, second is a male vibrator (you have not mentioned it in your text, than there was a dildo which is a first art piece design by a street artist that is at the same time fully functional dildo. There is nothing like this in the world.

You ask for references and links to prove a person knows what one writes, yet you reject information from the source itself. If I wanted to promote brand, I would add any photo and any vibrator just to show the brand. I am showing something historical. If you talk about historical thing such as turning original "green outfit" of a Santa Clause to a "red" one everyone knows now, by a commercial company, since it was made by Coca Cola, you reject it in Wikipedia since it's a brand that is being promoted this way? Yes, it's coca cola in their advertisements changed and promoted "new Santa"!

I dont understand why I have to be no-one and have nothing to do with the brand to be reliable source of valuable information. Yes, I do know the brand - I do photos for them and keep Facebook Profile for Polish funs alive. I am a sex educator and had been doing sex education for years before I found out about Fun Factory. For me finding really fun stuff on internet and wikipedia is a great value - I have always appreciated idea to have been able to get to know really hot interesting stuff. When I stumble uppon Delight (Red Dot Award winner first time in history for a sex toy), Jim O. (dildo by Boris Hoppek street artist) and Duke (male vibrator) I was wondering WHY noboby wrote about things like that on wikipedia. As a sex educator I woul LOVE to know these things. I would LOOOOVE to see those gadgets.

I believie this is highly unfair and shortsighted rejecting information just because it comes from the source and only because it comes from a commercial company look at this as filthy self-promoting brand. I believe this kind of information, if it makes knowledge wider, should be desired at any times!

I do not agree with throwing out my contributions to Vibrator (sex toy) definition. They were significant in meritorical sense.

Regards, Anna Moderska 78.8.160.55 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you editing under another IP/Account? The only contribution uder this IP was to AN.Animusv3Talk to me! Contribs 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, are you User:Morderska? Animusv3Talk to me! Contribs 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Read up on original research and reliable sources. These are our policies, and they apply equally to all articles (as best we can). If you can learn to write within these policies, you will more likely succeed. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes,  the difficulty that such articles have had, arises in part from the difficulty of finding reliable sources. It is possible to write them: if, and only if there are good 3rd party sources. If the award  was one notable in the mainstream, not just this field, and if it was covered in substantial coverage by mainstream reliable sources, not just press releases or based on press releases, do that one first. Try it as a subpage of you userpage, by starting the page User:Mordovska/whateverthenameis and let someone experience look at it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Old RM never closed
Could an admin please close Talk:Seattle Sounders as appropriate? Thanks, Number   5  7  11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jafeluv (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New method for article quality evaluation
This was proposed by my 6-year old at breakfast, prompted by my "Ask Me About Wikipedia" shirt: "Whenever I color someone's Wikipedia blue that means they didn't do a good job. They get a zero. Whenever they get a pink circle that means they did really really really bad. If they get this color [holds up yellow marker] they get a one THOUSAND." Fellow editors, you are placed on notice: the time for screwing around is over. I've notified the Foundation of course, in the usual way. Please, let's make this a yellow day. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything to obtain "OVER 9000!"? Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is probably as good a system as the feedback tool that was introduced last year. Is she open to bribery? Something that would survive a journey across the Atlantic? - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the shirt read "Ask me about Wikipedia."? I don't believe that there is a need for capitalisation and the period is missing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mine says, "ASK ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA" (no punctuation). So I guess I'm shouting when I wear it. Any complaints should be addressed to the Foundation, as they ordered the shirts. -- Donald Albury 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked them all. All that shouting is disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have one :) If I did then perhaps "Ask me about Wikipedia?" would reflect my nature best. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ::::::You don't have one cause you didn't get to hang with the cool people in Boston, all expenses paid. Kid at the grocery store asked me if I worked for Wikipedia--I guess the proper answer is no, no? Drmies (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia asks me Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues
I am not reporting anyone (just yet) but I've been accused of WP:OWN on Selena and have since left the article so I can be mature about editing on Wikipedia. Now, I have took interest in helping out with Bad Girls Club-related articles. One in particularly Bad Girls Club (season 8) has so many issues with a user, its not even a joke. I'm not sure if its me or him/her but can someone please investigate this and/or tell me where should I go or do about the situation (note: user has been warned by previous admins and myself for several months). If its me who has OWN issues, then I'll gladly back out, just need some helpful advise. Thanks in advance, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * HELLO?????? Anyone here who can help? The user has now reverted back the citation needed tags and yet no one here can help? Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I imagine this hasn't been replied to because it is not an "issue affecting administrators generally"; this would be considered an "incident" so probably belongs at AN/I. (But it would have been nice if someone would have told you that right away....)  Looking at the accused user's talk page, am I missing something or were their first messages they received warnings and a block?  I see no welcome template or (hardly) any other personal notes -- most everything is a warning template.  That's disappointing.
 * I see they have opened discussion on the talk page, but really that should have been your first action. No comment on the  tags, but the  template goes on the talk page, not the article.  And the  template?  The article is three sentences, I don't see any weasley wording, so I must be missing some history between you two on that.  What I see here is two editors vested passionately in the same article but have different opinions and an utter communications disconnect.  To answer your question: This will be best handled at Dispute resolution noticeboard.  Rgrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP. Also, an RFC can be filed on this issue if WP:DRN doesn't work. Hope these links help. As for the issue itself,, the user in question involved in the dispute with AJona1992 has been warned numerous times in the past for violating WP:BLP and WP:DE. The discussions at ANI, which can be found here and here, are examples of the discussions and issues involving the said users in question. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The advert tag is for the "episode" summaries which displays it as such. Thanks for replying, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Wingard (again)
Once again, he is edit warring. He said he will no longer edit war, but he wilfully continues to do so. 24 hours was not enough of a block. He should get an indefinite block or something. This needs to stop. Megastar LV ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes. They need to be blocked from these pages. They are disrupting others and are being ignorant to guidelines and want the pages to be updated to their liking/their fitting. Its wrong.  Soap  Jar   20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bocked 1 week for continued edit warring. --MuZemike 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This behavior has been ongoing since 2009. Wingard only purpose on Wikipedia is to slavishly update the episode counts for soap operas, and will revert anyone who tries to do it before him. I'll agree with the one week block, but think if the behavior is continued after the block and indefinite block should be placed on the account. AniMate 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, this would better be suited to WP:AN3 if a three-revert violation occurred, or to WP:ANI if the edit warring were somewhat slower than 4+ per day. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice around proposed blackout re SOPA — from the closing administrators
To note that, and myself have closed and summarised the discussion around the proposed site blackout, all revealed at SOPA initiative/Action. Please note our request that all administrative actions that have a time period for consideration be extended past the normal time period for the period of the blackout (24 hours). — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Vandalized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

Some dork vandalized this article. Can someone restore this article to it's pre-vandalized condition, because i don't know how? kthanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed at 10:55 by --  Luk  talk 11:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Suicide threat
[]. Possibly trolling, but needs prompt attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the foundation. In the future, per WP:SUICIDE, we should always just forward on the claims to them and let them figure out what to do (unless we have some reason to believe the threat is very serious, than a brave and committed person might also contact local authorities). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already done that. Posted here and the e-mailed immediately - I think the instructions suggest doing both... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout preparations for excluded articles
See Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative. If we exclude pages from the blackout, we'll need to protect them in a clean state before the beginning of the blackout. Cenarium (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout preparations: RfA, AfD, PROD
So, like it or not, we're on strike tomorrow. One question to consider is what about our time-bound processes? That's basically RfA, PROD and AfD. The RfA that is currently ongoing, MikeLynch, there is consensus to extend it by a day, so it'll close on Sunday rather than Saturday. I'm going to suggest that we do the same thing for deletion: let's just extend all ongoing PROD and AfD periods by a day. Admins should just slow down and not close AfDs or delete PRODs started before the blackout for an extra day. That seem like a reasonable solution?

Any other things we need to tidy up before the blackout starts? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually prefer to ignore the lost day on AfD and PROD. It's just one day, I think our processes can survive being visible one day shorter once in 10 years. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We should at least not close any time-bound process for 24 hours after the blackout ends. -- Donald Albury 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the administrator's closing note at SOPA initiative/Action says "Internal Wikipedia processes that are dependent upon time-specific discussions, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion should be considered suspended during the course of the blackout, and their scheduled duration extended 24 hours." - SudoGhost 11:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Albury: Apart, obviously, those that are already a day late. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll be able to get around the blackout relatively easily (if the implementations I have seen are what is going to happen). So we can still close AFD's and block vandals etc. --Errant (chat!) 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you won't be able to edit even if you can read. The write API is going down too. There'll be no edits, no blocking people... and no WP:ANI! —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, only stewards and sysadmins will be able to edit English Wikipedia during that time. vvvt 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Martijn Hoekstra, we should just carry on as normal here, if a discussion is close then extended it by a day (in the case of AfD, just move it to the next days listing, the one RfA has been sorted already, as for PROD's more offten or not they don't get deleted on the dot of 7 days so use discretion with deleting them. The more we get hung up on the internal policies of this this the less effective it becomes. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Our community and social processes will be delayed by a day, but the technical processes won't as far as I understand; for instance, blocks and protections set to expire during the blackout should still have expired by the time we are back online, i.e. they cannot be extended by a day like our deletion processes can be. Needless to say, we'll have a few more PRODs and AFDs to handle when are get back online. --MuZemike 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess that means I'll be adding 24 hours to any blocks I issue today. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it, though? If the purpose of the block is to give them a chance to reevaluate things, the reason why they can't edit should be immaterial. Having said that, it would depend on the reasoning behind the block, I suppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This climbing-the-Capitol-Dome political stunt feels like a 24 hour block for every Wikipedia volunteer and user. Edison (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to make sure that the bots we depend on don't crash when the site gets locked. --Rschen7754 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears the bot owners are already discussing those issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys realise that SOPA's been shit-canned right? So all you're gonna accomplish here is pissing off a lot of people... Half  Shadow  —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Reasons for concern Nobody Ent 00:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not cancelled and it never was . It still poses the same existential threat to Wikipedia as it always did. 87.115.118.8 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * SOPA isn't dead, and the US Senate still intends to vote on PIPA. The issue is not dead, unfortunately. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If blocks are extended due to the SOPA blackout please include a note to that effect in the block log summary. Nobody Ent 00:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wouldn't bother extending any blocks myself. It seems more punitive than anything to do so. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, anonymous editing has been disabled for last-minute cleanup. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout article needs semi
This is highly visible and it's attracting some vandals at the moment. RPP is too slow in view of the upcoming blackout.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I got it for 3 days; it may well need further protection after the blackout it over, which should be able to be handled throuhg normal channels. And this shall be my last post before we go dark. Good luck everyone, in that weird, wild place we call the real world! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We go dark in 91 minutes as of this post. Good luck!Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A life?
Anyone know where I can get one? Apparently I'll need one tomorrow. Seriously, what are we all going to get up to? I intend to spend some time over at Commons doing some cat checking etc. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll grab an offline copy and spend some time trying to work out how WP:SYSTEMIC may have affected the consensus for this outcome :) - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we have to do this on a work day? How am I going to slack off now?--Atlan (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll finally be able to shower, shovel the driveway, dust my knick-knacks ... all those things I've been putting off since Wikipedia started ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Random projects. DMacks (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sister projects should still be running. Perhaps you want to come help edit Wikinews or build up Wiktionary... —Tom Morris (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness, a day off for everyone should help damp down the explosion of drama which has been taking place over the last month or so. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, you can also concentrate more on your paid activity or field of study :) --MuZemike 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's supposing that particular editors either have one or go to one, which doesn't apply to all editors. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's always pRon ... which is what the internet is really for (note: this is not an advocation of pRon, nor an invitation for those who are not of legal age in their jurisdiction) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the perfect chance to work on article-related stuff that's not articles! Maps! Pictures! Cannolis! OH GOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO --Golbez (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or if you really want to work on articles, you can always copy the wikitext today, then modify it locally with your text editor of choice (or for the truly hardcore, in your local copy of MediaWiki). Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'll add some mangled edits to 'pedias in other languages I halfway understand. Edison (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll probably read. Question is, do I grab a good fantasy novel, or do I read up on the Halifax Explosion so I can back to working on that article afterward?  Either way, I am going to enjoy not watching for vandalism for a day. Resolute 01:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. I was briefly interested with the Halifax Explosion & then realised that it has nothing to do with Halifax. So, my secret shall remain just that. FWIW, I've done my research, will be working with a text editor and doubtless will be one of those conributing to the NPP deluge in ca. 28 hours' time. You shoulda just granted me the AP permissions. ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this deserves a wider audience . Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Reality TV "stars"
I am having quite a few problems at Daniel Grady Faires that ultimately appear to relate to COI issues/possible sock/meatpuppetry and, more generally, as to where we draw the line regarding notability for the self-promotional bleurgh that is reality television. I am stumped right now - can someone please provide me with a policy/guideline discussion that covers what seems (to me) to me a problem that is likely to grow, bearing in mind the egotism and money surrounding reality TV. Is there anything in WP:GNG that specifically covers this stuff? I know the basics but, really, is our bar this low? - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: this one is frustrating me but Wiki is going on a Sickie shortly - the break might do me good but the general point remains. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've previously had experience with a self-promotional reality TV star, namely Sam Pepper, whose article we deleted a while back under WP:BLP1E. BLP1E, plus sources (often the only people who cover reality TV are crappy tabloids, which should really fail reliable sources). Also, be aware that (a) if you nominate them for deletion, they'll use their Twitter/Facebook hordes to come after you, and (b) there's a high chance the pictures that get put up with the article are copyvios. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversion of sysop.js to gadgets
Please review MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js and share your thoughts there. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js :) -- Luk   14:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed... — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

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 subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Deletion review requested
I'm asking you to review a deletion I made for technical errors; this isn't a dispute of any sort. Please see the "User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau" section of User talk:Edgarde — I restored a page in his userspace, protected it, and then deleted it without thinking to unprotect it first. When I go to User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau, the button next to "Undelete 92 edits" reads "protect", not "change protection"; however, is there any chance of lingering protection causing problems? I don't remember ever before deleting a protected page. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be no problem from a technical point of view. If it gets restored, it will default to "unprotected" regardless of whether it was protected when you deleted it. 28bytes (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually just deleted my semi-protected userpage (clearing a comment out of the edit history), and when I restored it I had to reapply the semi-protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good; thanks for the input. I don't expect it to be restored — he'd requested U1 speedy deletion, and I restored it with his permission to make use of the information, but per his input I deleted it as soon as I was done with it.  Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

AIV backlog
There is quite a backlog to clear at WP:AIV.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of edits in violation of consensus on en., with explanations and outcomes
Carefully watching Recent Changes during the blackout while editing was locked, I noted these diffs as problematic, and approached the editors with superior editing rights via their meta.wikimedia talk pages (and in one case by user email).

Tentative analysis: three minor incompetence errors with a probable fourth (and we're all incompetent sometimes), plus one error of judgement in editorialising at an inappropriate moment. This is a fairly good outcome for a "picket line." All other edits so far appear to be essential maintenance, appropriate WMF blackout connected, or user space tinkering. More over, all of these edits would otherwise be "legitimate," if the encyclopaedia were open to general editing. None were problematic edits by themselves, but only became problematic due to the context of the blackout and site lock. Numerous other Steward edits occurred within the ambit of Steward edits that would be appropriate at any time (copyright, legal, etc.)

I'm concerned with Nyttend's editorialising while editing while other users do not have the right of reply, and would appreciate other users discussion about this. I've mentioned this being here to Nyttend.

I'd like to emphasise none of these edits would be controversial if the encyclopaedia had been unlocked. All of these edits improved the encyclopaedia. And I firmly and strongly believe Nyttend's comment lies within productive dissent in terms of consensus. I think it problematic that he made it while there was no right of reply; but, feel that now that there is a right of reply there is no longer a problem. (Just to be especially clear.) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(And to further clarify, this isn't a request for administrator action, this is a note indicating that with a fine toothed comb, these were the only five edits I would consider problematic to be made while normal users cannot edit the encyclopaedia. Users with superior technical privileges made a variety of other edits during the blackout and edit lock, all of which were appropriate (such as Nyttend's work on copyright violating material itself, or BLP, etc.) or directly connected with the community's instructions to WMF as established by a consensus process that had been independently closed by the community.) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was never presented with any policy pages prohibiting me from performing actions that were (1) possible and (2) permissible at other times. See my comment at Filfelfoo's talk for further comments.  Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I noted at meta, I also took the time to restore an edit I've been meaning to for a while (it was incorrectly deleted under RD1), so if you want to add that to the table you can do that. Not exactly essential, but certainly done to be constructive, and not in an attempt to go against the protest in any way (I figured I wouldn't have the Orange Bar of Doom to distract me like it had when I've meant to do it before). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the RD1 principle; if it connects to policy that Stewards, Staff or other such users to fundamentally maintain function, like copyright, reported BLP, legal, etc. then the undelete would fall into the same category to my mind. If not, then if you could point out the log, I'll add it to the table. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:RD1. It was another admin trying to remove a copyvio who accidentally deleted two revisions in the process. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, criteria 1 relates to critical encyclopaedia maintenance and would be covered by the need to maintain the encyclopaedia even during critical incidents. Reversing a failed RD1 action to my mind has precisely the same need to occur, even when the community has decided that "emergency access," only should prevail. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Just want to make sure we're all on the same terms. This was the restoration, for the link. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, also a bit of a faux-pas staff and stewards doing anything not related directly to the SOPA event... But let it go, and hope people learn. Rich Farmbrough, 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC).


 * On the other hand all such super-users responded with extreme collegiality and with turn around times on responses that I consider to be "very rapid." While one item is under discussion, and I don't want to misrepresent that; most of the others were "oh really?" type mistakes, the mistakes we forgive each other for collegially all the time.  I'm surprised that there were only five such edits I picked out, that's a very very high degree of compliance with the consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A whole bunch of admins futzed with their user rights. Withdrawal symptoms I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 05:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I also noted that, but didn't consider it breaking the consensus. (It was silly though). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This all falls into the "who cares" category. If someone was edit warring or causing problems, that's something to be dealt with, but doing non-controversial things falls into the "who cares" category. --B (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there seriously a discussion about edits and administrative actions occurring during the blackout? Yes, we had consensus for the blackout, and yes, the database was locked to prevent editing. However, the actions would be perfectly fine under non-blackout circumstances. No action will be taken here, so this discussion is pointless. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  05:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whichever way this is seen, my apologies in advance for deleting pages during the blackout. I guess I was the only one who managed to delete pages during the blackout. I didn't intend it to be seen negatively. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 06:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to see if I could delete the main page while no-one would notice ;) No damage whatsoever was done here, and it was a 'blackout' not a 'strike' so I don't see the reason for generating drama over it. It's not like Civilopedia was busing scab admins into En-Wiki ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Far out, this isn't an attempt to generate drama, its a presentation of a proof of a null hypothesis: Stewards, Staff and other Super-Super–Users did not act inappropriately. Any actions that could be construed to be inappropriate were accidental, or matters of reasonable disagreement.  When this was brought to the user's attention, they all responded rapidly, and took onboard the issues collegially.  Nobody authored terrific articles online in circumstances where people were expected not to contribute content.  It is an indication that our editing largely works.  An administrative system was subjected to close scrutiny during a "crisis" and it functioned.  This is, in its own weird way, an attempt at "wiki-love".  Everyone, pat yourselves on the damn back. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm taking this the wrong way, but Stewards who aren't aware of their powers? If they have steward access, they should know that they have superuser rights to Wikipedia. And going by concensus they should not have been editing full stop. A slap on the wrist of abusing powers is unacceptable. Mr little  irish  09:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the people who made a change, in response to an OTRS complaint that OTRS agents were not able to address themselves. So far as I know, what I did (reverting a particularly nasty bit of vandalism) was technically possible for any administrator and was not a steward action. I took action expecting absolutely no controversy, particularly as the nasty bit of vandalism was still fully visible to our mobile users. :) If we ever find ourselves in position to do another blackout, I think we need to make clear in advance what expectations are with respect to this kind of thing. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins did not have edit access - only stewards and staff did. As for your actions, I think they were perfectly fine and this discussion is silly.  If a steward were using the blackout to gain an advantage in a content dispute, that's a problem.  Deleting vandalism is not. --B (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been interesting watching this. I must admit that when I first discovered that stewards and staff were editing the wiki during the blackout, I was pretty angry. 130,116 active registered users, included me, had just had our ability to work on writing and editing articles involuntarily removed, and here were other editors carrying on as before. I wasn't happy about that. It felt like an abuse of privilege. I think having administrators, and stewards, and WMF staff with additional powers is a good thing. Their contributions make a difference to the encyclopedia. But those powers are there for a reason - and its not to allow them to dodge a "lock out" on the site during a protest.

Having thought on it a bit, I feel a bit calmer. "Assume good faith" is a good mantra. I think Fifelfoo has done a good job of presenting the material above, and answering some of my grouchier responses earlier today (thanks!). I doubt that Maggie or any of the others were trying to make the rest of us angry or feel excluded when they edited articles during the blackout. I doubt that they thought it was an "emergency" that needed fixing either though, and I still think that there were some poor judgement calls going on above. I think that waiting a few hours and making a non-emergency edit as a regular editor would have been a better way to deal with the situation and show leadership. This sort of thing does cause "damage" in terms of a loss of trust and confidence, at least in my case.

I'd agree with those above that suggest we should now be getting on and building a (still) better encyclopedia. The last few days has been pretty unpleasant for many of us - things can only get better! Hchc2009 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought it was important enough to stay up after my bedtime to get it done. :) I didn't handle the OTRS request (can't do that, when I'm working), but when vandalism is potentially brand-damaging, it doesn't seem like a good idea to leave it in place after it's been pointed out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User subpage
I noticed this a couple of days ago and have decided to bring it here before I forget about it. I can't tell whether this is a possibly benign test of the article-creation wizard, is intended to be an attack page, or violates BLP even if it isn't intended as an attack. (The user's only edit in article space was not so hot either, and the user name may violate WP:CORPNAME as well.) Could some admin take a look and decide whether anything needs to be done about the page? Deor (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've warned him for creating attack pages. More edits of that flavor are likely to result in an indefinite block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Username is that of a company, probably should be blocked and asked to get a new name. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

out of scope user page and user talk page
see out of scope user page and user talk page User talk:Master23Mind--Musamies (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Joyson Noel/Joaquim Heliodoró da Cunha Rivara
Could someone bring back this draft? Joyson Prabhu Holla at me!   16:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 16:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?
Should I just quit? Please see the bottom of my talk page. I've worked for years at being a good admin and a good Wikipedian, and above all tried to treat others as I'd like to be treated. I've had my failings, and Baseball Bugs will be happy to trot out his prize examples of one or two out of the six or eight times in the last decade I blew my top. (I'll give you the whole list, if you want it; I'm acutely aware of my failings.) Now I've just done it again, and this time really feels like the end of the line. I already tried taking a break, but I just come back to the same crap happening at RM that I tried to get away from. I know I'm not the only one he's wearing down. Does anyone care? I don't try to excuse my behavior, except to say that every man has his limits, and if you cut me, yes, I bleed. You like blood? I know there are vampires here who do: go on, enjoy it! I cry out for sympathy from what I know can be a cold, cold community. I've given my best to you, for years. Please Wikipedia, how do I suffer this? Or if this is it, then let this be an announcement to the vultures: these bones are ready for picking. Oh, cruel Wikipedia... I don't want to leave; I've poured so much love into this project... :'( -GTBacchus(talk) 05:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC) is this how it ends? please, someone help me. I'm ready to hand in the mop, if that'll make it better...
 * Yeah, that'll sure show 'im, huh? Half  Shadow  06:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do I go about requesting a self-desysop? You're right, HalfShadow, asking for sympathy is inappropriate here. Where's the form I fill out to quit? Sorry for the histrionics. Please carry on, and someone delete this section, and me. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus, we've all had days like that. Your error was in hitting "save". It's your talk page, and you can remove that right now. (Indeed, I urge you to do so, it will make you feel better.) In fact....to heck with archiving. Just wipe that entire discussion out. Then, take a couple of days off from this place and think about what you have done here that you've really enjoyed. When you come back, go do those things.  But please come back.  Risker (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already tried that. What I really enjoyed is fucked up. I want the kind of break where I'm not an admin anymore. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GT, I agree 100% with Risker above. There are lots of unfeeling people (for many reasons) that only derive pleasure in dragging other people into the depths of despair - BUT, there are also a lot of very good and kind folks here too.  I'm only leaving the link because you asked, and I'd rather you chose to delete the thread, get a good nights sleep, and come back and find an area away from those that frustrate you.  You can request the de-mop at WP:BN, but if you do - I hope you'll still find a place to edit here, as your work is greatly appreciated by many.  Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I've already made the request. Sleep didn't work for the last six months; I don't see why another night should help. It's likely I'll still correct grammar, and maybe sort stubs or something. See ya around. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in doing anything rash. Just stay away from it for a few days. It's only a website. Notice we all got along without it for a day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not rash. Long simmer. Cooked. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no shame in setting down the mop for a while. Some of our best admins have done it, and have come back refreshed and ready to go. GTBacchus, just remember your work is valued here, even if we don't say it often enough (which we don't). Enjoy your time away from the mop. We'll welcome you back the moment you're ready to dive back in, however long it takes. 28bytes (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and goodnight. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Try a week of not editing wikipedia, not reading wikipedia at all, and not thinking about wikipedia at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoever does this desysopping self-request procedure: is there some way we could slow it down for a cooling-off period so GTBacchus can be persuaded to reverse his decision? We can't afford to lose him. Tony   (talk)  08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the relevant bureaucrat's noticeboard thread; the 'crats have done exactly that. Graham 87 08:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from moves proposal
So this episode was sparked by yet another case of obsessing about a requested move and pestering closing admins about decisions he disagreed with? This really needs to stop. It's a disruptive pattern, and that guy needs a topic ban from move discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support! Disruption should not need days of discussion (is it disruptive enough yet?). Just do the topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to notify the user you were discussing implementing disciplinary procedures against Fifelfoo (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, WP:POINTy section below nicely illustrates B2C's tendentiousness. The unpleasantness B2C brings to discussions frequently outweighs the good of their points -- especially since it's so difficult to find the points in the wallso'text. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Switching to neutral, some of the objections mentioned below seem to be sinking in.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose per . -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Defending yourself against accusations is now regarded as tendentious??--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but titling it can't-i-defend-myself-against-the-evil-admin-cabal sure as heck is. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So defending myself against an accusation of tendentious, in 7 paragraphs, is now an example of tendentiousness? Wow, there are a lot of violations of that on this page.  If you're going to accuse me of tendentiousness, please indicate which of the specific characteristics of a tendentious editor you believe I demonstrate.   I also request that admins potentially biased from having disagreements with me in the past identify themselves accordingly.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:REHASH is a good example -- see for a recent example. "Sure, let's have endless discussions about whether each of countless titles should be disambiguated even when it's not necessary for disambiguation..." "Not overturning this bad decision sets a bad precedent..." "saying there is "no consensus" on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic (which is the basis for the "no consensus" close) is nosensical..." "This dab page seems pointy and a violation of WP:DPAGES..." "'lack of consensus' alone is not a good reason to revert..." -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You believe those are an example of WP:REHASH? The first -- "Sure, let's..." (sarcastically) addresses 's "nothing to resolve" argument.  The second ("Not overturning this sets a bad precedent...") addresses his "not worth the effort" argument.  The third, "saying there is..." was part of any FYI to Powers.  The fourth, "This dab ..." was about a dab page that JHunterJ had just created.  Not only are these not the same arguments, but Station1 and JHJ seem to have been persuaded by at least some of what I said, and REHASH is all about repeating the same arguments without persuading anyone.  I suppose if you just skim the words without actually reading the discussion, it might look like a violation of REHASH, but really I don't see how it can apply in that discussion at all.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not 100% sure if only admins (which I am not) are allowed to participate in this "vote", but it seems ridiculous to me that someone should receive such a restriction, and allegations of POINTyness, for arguing an issue on which so many people have expressed agreement with him (and where the responses from those who disagree have been, frankly, so unsatisfactory in length and clarity). In full disclosure, I'm one of those people who agrees with him about how this matter has been mishandled, and I've appreciated him taking the lead in fighting it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussions here definitely aren't restricted to admins.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the area of article titles, B2C is one of relatively few who are able to think things through intelligently and see the errors in the well-meaning but mistaken arguments put forward by others. He gets frustrated when those others stick obstinately to their positions in spite of those errors having been pointed out, I suppose. But just as we wouldn't want to lose GTB, we also wouldn't want to lose B2C from this "topic" area.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I've actually sided with B2C in the past (Yogurt and Catholic Memorial), but I must say his style is appalling. this thread which related to the yogurt probably says it best. Hot Stop UTC 18:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a bit confusing, but I think that thread demonstrates how I respect and follow consensus. At 15:07 on December 7 Greg L decided to archive it, inviting a revert if someone disagreed.  I initially disagreed with closing that thread, and so re-opened at 15:10.  But within 20 minutes I saw that others wanted it closed, so I closed it at 15:27.  Perhaps unaware of all that, you re-opened it at 15:32, and I got blamed for it not being closed by by Kai445 (at 16:03) and Greg L (at 16:18).  So then I tried archiving it again at 16:35 .  That one stuck.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with who opened or closed the thread. It's comments like "at best, he was really pushing the envelope, and he clearly knew he was on thin ice", "I suggest that it would be helpful that he admit changing the spelling, as surreptitiously as reasonably possible, to be more in accordance with that used in his own region of the world, was not entirely innocent", and This particular section, started by Derek Ross, is about whether his motives for the original move that precipitated eight years of angst on the project were as "innocent" as he proclaims they were above...If you don't agree this is important enough to discuss, then find something you do think is important" why I chose to illustrate that section.  You were told multiple times by editors on both sides of the issue that your edits weren't helpful, but you continued nonetheless. Hot Stop UTC 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand what you were talking about. Yeah, I need to learn to use less harsh language, and to be less argumentative.  I know what I was thinking at the time -- something along the lines of "justice delayed is still justice" - but that's contrary to how WP works.  We don't look for "justice" or "punishment".  We seek to end undesirable behavior.  Evaluating the behavior of someone years ago has no place on WP.  Got it.  And thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support While I am sure he has good intentions, what I have seen of his discussion style when I have seen him in move discussions tends to sway closer to incivility and definitely tendentiousness as opposed to civil even tempered discussion. Any good points he brings up are far outweighed by the baggage he also brings with him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a target of B2C’s questioning of RM closes, I actually don’t mind being challenged. However, when those challenges become adversarial or admins are essentially being demanded to Justify their actions, they become tedious.  But there’s a simple solution.  There is no requirement to provide any rationale for an RM or AfD close. So, not providing rationale just disarms those who disagree with the close.  It’s pretty much a truth that no matter what the close is, someone will disagree with it.  And they have a right to express that disagreement.  Since as far as I can tell, admins are not obligated by guideline or policy to provide rationales or justify their RM or AfD decisions to other editors, editors who want to disagree with the actions of an admin should be cognizant of that fact. Admins should be collaborative and communicate civilly with editors to answer their questions, but I don't think we (admins) are obligated to justify our actions until everyone who disagrees is happy.  B2C pushes the limits in this area, but if he understands the above, he can still productively disagree.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken; per WP:ADMINACCT unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Nobody Ent 18:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points: RM and AfD close instructions do not require any additional comment or rationale in the close language. WP:ADMINACCT does indeed require admins to explain their actions when asked and I think in this case both involved admins did that. But I find nothing in that paragraph that requires admins to justify themselves to the point that everyone who disagrees with a decision is happy.  It is perfectly acceptable for an editor to say I don't agree with your explanation, but I do believe it is disruptive for an editor to continue to say I don't and won't accept your explanation and am going to keep pestering you and challenging your competency until you change your mind.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree there is no requirement for admins to justify themselves to the point that everyone who disagrees with a decision is happy, but that's not the issue. Not at all.  I addressed this in the section below.   But WP:ADMINACCT does say that administrators are expected ... to justify [their actions] when needed, and that's all I request, once in a while, and usually only when others agree with me, as was the case here.  If you have the impression that I challenge every decision with which I disagree, or even any but the most confounding ones, you're simply mistaken.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * B2C, you must admit you push the limits sometimes. But do you see what my position above is? I oppose the suggested topic ban.  I am supporting you in this discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Much appreciated.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A more reasonable interpretation of adminacct is the admin make a succinct explanatory remark at the time of the action. In some cases this can be as simple as "per wp:snow," but more contentious discussions would require slightly more. Concur that this is no requirement to make editors happy. Nobody Ent 19:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Neutral Repeated long-winded tendentious editing. Nobody Ent 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Born2cycle's comments below. Nobody Ent 03:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support To Mike's point above, he doesn't understand he is pushing the limit and has declineed to pull back, instead throwing up walls of text that would fatigue even the most patient person. I agree this ban is needed, specifically in light of characteristics 4 and 9 on WP:TE, which are fairly obvious from the linked to Yogurt discussion above and his own responses so far in this thread.  MBisanz  talk 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I suppose some might see this as another example of being tendentious, but this is the first time anyone has identified specific characteristics of [{WP:TE]] that they believe apply to my behavior, and so my first opportunity to respond to such.  4 has to do with not being given the benefit of the doubt.  For the most part most people do give me the doubt all of the time, so far as I can tell, but there are some people who don't sometimes.  I recognize that's a sign there's room for improvement in what I'm doing, but it's hardly a clear violation of WP:TE.  9 is about repeating the same argument without convincing others.  To the contrary, if I'm not convincing anyone, I back off.  In this latest Catholic Memorial School instance, many others agreed with, if not were convinced by, my arguments.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I see it as a clear violation.  MBisanz  talk 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you do back off if you aren't convincing anyone someone. I think that is the major problem people are having with you. You just keep going with the same arguments over and over with overly long comments that say a lot without actually saying much and refuse to either change your own mind or to let it go when people disagree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize many have that impression, and so there must be something to it, and I'm responsible for that. Perhaps I take Consensus too far?  What I try to do is what it says: "... editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense".  Perhaps citing a specific case where you think I went beyond that would help.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the whole page. "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided."-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with that and believe I naturally abide by it. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many people have to tell you differently before you change your belief?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When has B2C embarked on one of these adventures when nobody else agreed with it? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rarely, if ever. However, as with edit warring, being right isn't an excuse for being disruptive. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. But how is trying to find consensus through discussion, which includes trying to persuade those who disagree, and asking questions like this, disruptive? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SoV—there is an accusation just above, by DJSasso, that B2C doesn't back off when nobody is convinced. That is what I am trying to clarify. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant it more in the sense of the person(s) he is repeatedly aiming the comments at is not agreeing with him. Have adjusted my comment accordingly. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't trying to persuade someone who already agrees be the disruptive and pointless behavior? In fact, identifying someone who disagrees, or "The Most Interested Person" ("Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person") and working with them one-in-one in discussion lies at the heart of what WP:BRD recommends.  What am I missing? I mean, I certainly agree that repeating the same argument with someone who disagrees is problematic, and obviously some people are under the impression that I do that, but I know there is no evidence of it, because that's something I avoid because I know it's pointless and problematic.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose any admin-area topic ban of any editor. If otherwise warranted, block or ban the editor as needed, but don't wall off the admins. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – an editor who digs in and opines ceaselessly until everyone else gives up. Oculi (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Just reading some of these arguments that are being linked to is giving me a headache. I can't imagine how bad it would have been to be a participant in those discussions. Born2cycle seems to be acting as an obstacle to the RM process so it's in Wikipedia's best interest to keep him away from that area. --  At am a  頭 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my support, or at least suspending it, given Born2cycle's comments below. If he amends his behavior then a ban is no longer necessary. --  At am a  頭 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - If there are only problems with B2Cs editing in this area, we should remove the editor from this area. The other alternative is to remove B2C from the English Wikipedia entirely. If B2C wants that, I'm sure we can facilitate it. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Per B2Cs comments below. Should the issues persist then we can revisit this. Let's give B2C a chance to show they mean what they say. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I understand there is some frustration with B2C's persistence, it just so happens that in many cases he's absolutely right.  Powers T 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Powers. We probably disagree about as often as we agree, don't we?  For the record, I just want to say that I recognize and appreciate that being "absolutely right" does not justify being tendentious or disruptive.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose—I don't see compelling evidence here for a ban. B2C is overly-confrontational sometimes, and I wish that would stop, but I don't see anything rising to the level of a ban. RMs don't have any formal official appeal venue, so what can you do when you think one was closed poorly? Talk to the closer, see if there is any support for a "rerun", etc. Often, though, this kind of thing leads to a lot of static, but we should closely examine who is responsible for that static. Consider the Corvette fiasco—if you concede going in that questioning the closure and seeing if there is any consensus for a re-run is ok to do, did B2C do anything wrong here? Is B2C responsible for the character of the ensuing discussion? I'll reconsider if new evidence is brought to light here. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good example of his problematic behavior. "But at least you seem to admit that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has to be ignored in order to have opposed this move" - B2C. "I 'admit' nothing of the sort."-Pablo -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that exemplifies a problem how? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JHunterJ. Admins should expect that their actions will come under greater scrutiny than those of regular editors but they don't need to be specially cotton-wooled with targeted topic bans like this. If there's harassment or hounding it should be dealt with at an individual level first using policies that apply to everyone, which from what I can see doesn't seem to have been attempted. Specifically limiting interaction with admins would set a dangerous precedent and seriously impact an editor's ability to raise concerns he believes are legitimate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal as far as I can see doesn't call for limiting his interaction with admins. It just limits him from move discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The ban -- which I presume includes questioning admin's RM closing decisions -- is allegedly justified because of my "pestering closing admins ", in direct contradiction to WP:ADMINACCT.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing in ADMINACCT that allows pestering admins. Just look at your recent interaction with Aervanath. The title of the section was "does local consensus trump community consensus". You opened with "I'm perplexed by your 'no consensus' decision. Perhaps there was an oversight here?" After some discussion, you proceeded with "Based on the replies there, would you consider reversing your decision, explaining it better, or at least reverting it and letting someone else close it?" Shortly afterward: "Saying that this term is ambiguous and requires disambiguation, in the face of no dab page and a long-standing redirect from this term to this article, makes no sense.... Please address these serious fundamental problems with your explanation that multiple people have noted, or reverse the decision." Shortly after that, "You give equal weight to a pure WP:JDLI argument based entirely on personal preference as you do to one solidly steeped in policy, guidelines and convention." After that, you have "By the way, if you're making your decisions solely on LOCALCONSENSUS interpretations of policy and guidelines, that explains much." That easily passes the questioning line into badgering, and that's not even counting the discussion on the actual talk page. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that helps. But I was very frustrated, and it's unclear what an editor is supposed to do in this situation.  While you believe this constitutes badgering, and I'll admit it's getting close to the line, others say this about it: "He may well have acted differently elsewhere, but this subsection seems to be about a particular RM that, even if he had been abrasive, in my view (and others) he'd certainly been correct." I mean, it's not like I do this in any situation where I happen to disagree... in the vast majority of such cases I accept the decision and move on.  This is an exceptional case, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is, you do so many RM discussions that your exceptional cases show up more often than most peoples' routine cases. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be part of the reason it came to a requested ban yes. But I think the major reason its here is the part that talks about you obsessing about another requested move. Most of the comments in the discussion are talking about your actions in the move discussions themselves. Secondly there is a huge difference between asking once nicely for some clarification and then continually asking them for another explanation when you don't like the one they gave. A admin only needs to give you an explanation once, whether you like the explanation or not is not their problem. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Is there any room for a compromise here?  Like my agreeing to only questioning admins once?  And maybe limiting my participation in any RM discussion to, say, five comments (which might seem like a lot, but it's not for me, which is probably the main problem - so this could solve it).  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's definite room for compromise, but not in the direction you're going. Until you drop the "I'm doing what policy says, and none of the rest of you know what you're talking about" attitude, you're going to keep having trouble. Restricting the number of comments is not the point here.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then what do you suggest? I also think you misunderstand me.  When I quote policy in defending my behavior, I'm trying to explain why I believe my behavior is consistent with community expectations.  That doesn't mean I'm right or that I'm not missing something; I'm just trying to explain my point of view.  Above you said it comes down to REHASH, but your example of four statements were all parts of separate arguments to 3 different people.  I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just saying that that particular example is not a violation of REHASH, and not any characteristic of TE, as far as I can tell.  I've suggested that it's simply too many posts/comments that's the problem, but you've just rejected that.  Okay, then what is it?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it came down to REHASH, I said that was a good example of your tendentiousness. Another good example, as shown here and elsewhere in the thread, is you reading statements too narrowly, to the point of inaccuracy.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I'm sorry.  You did not say it came down to REHASH.  I said you did because that's how I understood the essence of what you were saying.  I asked which criteria of WP:TE applied, and REHASH was the only one you mentioned.  So in my mind you were implying that it came down to that. I'm sure I'm not the only who misreads on occasion.  Again, my apologies.   --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I read it as a ban from challenging RMs. In this case my rationale is that the proposed topic area ban is far too broad and the evidence too narrow to justify a ban of this scope. Why would we ban him from 'all RMs' when the problem area is exclusively described as 'challenging RMs'? That's excessive. Deal with the issue at the individual level first, THEN try a topic ban on challenging RMs, and only THEN try a topic ban on participating in RMs altogether. Jumping to the last step is inappropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposer has been criticized by B2C in the past for unwillingness to explain an RM close, and from the way this proposal is worded it seems like it is that aspect in particular driving this ban proposal, which is bothering me, too. If I wasn't willing to have this on my talk page I wouldn't close RMs. Or be an admin. Admins do arbitrary, bizarre things, and to ban people when they question them is really disturbing. I think if this ban goes through, it needs to be made really clear that despite the proposal's wording, it is ok to question admin actions. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is nothing wrong with bringing solid and well-substantiated reasoning to the RM process the way B2C does it. If anything, RMs could use more folks like him. If someone is getting a headache reading his replies, fixing it is as easy as clicking away from the page and contributing to something unrelated. That said, apart from providing the titling insight, B2C himself could try contributing more to other areas every now and then. We are creating an encyclopedia, after all, not an Ultimate Guide to Titling Everything the Right Way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 19, 2012; 20:51 (UTC)

Question. I'm currently involved in a couple of ongoing WP:RM discussions, including Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft and Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation). Does anyone think my behavior there is problematic? I believe I have the most contribute to WP in the area of RM discussions, because that's where my interests and expertise lie. But because these discussion are often contentious, by arguing strongly one way or the other I seem to sometimes engender animosity in others. Over the years, their numbers grow. Let's just say most of the names involved here are familiar... Is that a reason to justify banning me from these discussions? I repeat Eraserhead1's question from below: "Is there any solid evidence of misbehaviour from Born2Cycle that stands up to scrutiny or do some people just not like him? " Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think you fall for the trap of saying rather too much, and replying to people too quickly, allowing discussions to take place at a slower pace is probably more sensible. If you're replying within a couple of days that should be fast enough - and not so fast that people think you're obsessed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's starting to head in the wrong direction. "The current title, Fixed-wing aircraft, is an exception/compromise for no good reason", assuming bad faith from the people who made the original decision, and everyone who's !voted to keep it for that reason since then. "the only objective/non-JDLI way to decide this" - iow "I understand policy perfectly, so the rest of you just shut up". -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I see now how you might interpret it that way, but that's certainly not how I meant it. What I meant was that everyone agrees if it wasn't for the inability to pick either "Airplane" or "Aeroplane", the title wouldn't be "Fixed-wing aircraft".  In retrospect, I realize I might be wrong about that (we might need both articles), but that's beside the point, which is that I meant no disrespect to anyone.  I agree I should be more careful how I word things so that they won't be misinterpreted like this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral - a topic ban here would be an effective ban altogether. Moves is, after all, what Born2Cycle does. A RFC/U however, would perhaps have merit, although that too may end up being wikilawyered into stalemate. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there anything to justify an RFC/U? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look and decide for yourself. I can't do everything around here. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be taking an editor to RFC/U unless diffs are easy to find showing actual bad behaviour - you don't necessarily have to do it, but someone should. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that diffs would be required for a RFC/U. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 09:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Eraserhead has hit the nail on the head. Editors should question an admin's actions when it needs clarification but it's B2C's lamprey like approach that is causing any number of people to grind their teeth in frustration. I've had a read through the yogurt RM discussion and B2C, your responses there verge on histrionics and dramatic arm waving, to describe in less than flattering terms. Even after the participants repeatedly ask you to drop it, you just went on and on and on. I've also read GTBacchus's talk page, which sparked this whole discussion as well as yours,and GregL's. The one thing that leaps out at me the most is your near-obsessive need to have the last word. That I believe is why this topic ban has been proposed. Blackmane (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested a compromise of limiting me to how many comments I make per RM discussion, but Sarek said that wasn't the problem --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the issue really. Lets take a look at Catholic Memorial School. From my reading of the discussion you look to have presented a strong case. However that's kinda beside the point. Its not a WP:VITAL article, nor is it a particularly well read article, like say iPad (getting about 400k hits a month), only getting about 1000 views a month.
 * In an ideal world the admin would have changed their mind when you questioned the move. However they didn't, maybe they don't agree, or maybe they felt they will lose face if they change their mind. Given its a minor article of little importance when they didn't change their mind you should have stopped and moved on to discuss something else. The project isn't damaged if a 1000 views a month article is at the wrong title.
 * If you really think the article is at the wrong title the right way to go about it is to do another move request in 6 months and get that discussion closed by someone else, then the original closing admin doesn't have to lose face and so there is much less WP:DRAMA. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, except my concern was not so much that title per se, but that title being used as a precedent for more "unnecessary disambiguation" on similar even-longstanding-redirect-does-not-establish-primary-topic reasoning. Still, what I'm hearing is that even poor justifications for bad decisions should be accepted for the sake of harmony, because harmony is more important than any title.  Or something like that, yes?  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's life.
 * It took until September 2011 for us to use the common name for the world's largest country. America still isn't a redirect to United States, even though I've never heard anyone use it to refer to the Americas.
 * I think harmony is more important than such a move request, yes. People make bad decisions sometimes . -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - B2C has been disruptive regarding page moves for years now, it's well past the time that it was stopped for good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support . Born2cycle's manner of arguing over article naming has a negative effect on other editors. I personally found it so grating that I took a month-long break from editing and a more patient editor than I, GTBacchus, is abandoning his admin bit in frustration. I'm sure we aren't the only ones who've been moved to avoid discussions over article titles due to Bon2cycle's participation.   Will Beback    talk    23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on Born2cycle's statement below, I am hopeful that this problem can be solved without a formal topic ban and am striking out my support for it.   Will Beback    talk    01:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of poor behaviour that shows these issues? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in GTBacchus' mouth, but I think his frustration is not just due to B2C's manner. It's also frustration with the idea that policies and guidelines are prescriptive, or sometimes it seems like it is even frustration with the fact that anyone even has that opinion. Obviously B2C is a posterboy for this movement; that combined with the fact that both parties are more than willing to "debate at length", there you go. The talk pages of the relevant guidelines/policies are littered with many exchanges between these two, often quite nasty on both sides. See this reply for an interesting example. Quite a bit of talking past each other. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If policy isn't prescriptive how on earth do you propose to resolve any matter that isn't trivial? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Bacchus took my name in vain earlier, I think it's worth pointing out that he appears to lack the proper temperament to be an admin. I recall a couple of years ago when he unleashed the most obscene, vile diatribe against me that anyone ever has - and that includes socks, trolls, and other malcontents. I started to wonder about his mental state, frankly. And this recent situation reinforces my theory that he's got bigger problems than wikipedia. He needs to get away from here for awhile and focus on what's important. No matter who gets banned, there will always be contentious editors. Maybe wikipedia doesn't do a good enough job of screening or testing of potential admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. You've gotten my attention. I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Switched to oppose. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. B2c's post above, showing that he gets it, is commendable. Great if other editors whose tendentiousness discourage participation in articles and talk pages where they operate could learn from this example. Writegeist (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Recommendation: When arguing a position, take your time and formulate the best possible reasoning in your first post. Where applicable, prefer diffs over rhetoric, and the shorter and tighter you can make your writing the better. Do this well, when other editors post opinions, you won't have any need to reply because you've already anticipated and addressed their points. If they simply disagree, don't respond unless you have good reason to believe to you can change their minds (part of AGF is assuming they read and understood what you wrote in the first place). Wikipedia policies/guidelines/essays are numerous, vague, and contradictory, editors are going to end up disagreeing what to do in particular circumstances.  Despite what the idealism of consensus says, sometimes it just comes down to numbers; win some, lose some. The confident editor is willing to let the other party have the last word because they know their argument is better.
 * The ideal way to contribute to a debate is one and done. Nobody Ent 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is more than a tad unrealistic. People don't anticipate everything everyone else says. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support time-based topic-ban from RMs and WP:TITLE. The user in question has been disruptive and tendentious, and shown clear wp:ownship syndrome for a long time. A signal needs to be sent that this is unproductive, even destructive at times, as we've seen over the past few days. Tony   (talk)  05:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheres the evidence? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not only on my usual pointing out the inefficacy of any Draconian topic bans, but on the basis that there is grossly insufficient argument in favour thereof in this case. Collect (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose He understands titling issues in a way others don't. Saying less is often more, slowing down, not needing to answer every point - those are things he could learn but that doesn't support a ban. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Comment User:Born2Cycle’s 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC) post does not come as a surprise; he obviously saw the writing on the wall and had only two options. The trouble is, he can logically *observe* that he has to change in order to not have privileges stripped from him, but he doesn’t internally *feel* the need. He’s merely following the path of least pain and is once again gaming everyone here. Now I see why User:GTBaccus—an admin—became so profoundly frustrated with B2C and decided to just quite Wikipedia altogether. The mentality underlying those who voted “Oppose” here exemplify why GTBaccus commented about how utterly broken Wikipedia is when dealing with tendentious editors. I’ve stated my intention, here on GTBaccus’s talk page to start an RFC/U over B2C. It is my intention that the remedy be an outright indefinite ban of B2C across all of Wikipedia. “Indefinite” doesn’t mean “forever” but it does mean he will not be playing everyone here like lab rats as he goes about his business on Wikipedia. The community has every right to protect itself from chronically disruptive editors. His lies and misdirection at justifying all that he did at the recent MfD over a dirtfile page he created amply demonstrates his method of operation and how he thinks. Greg L (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Born2cycle is too disruptive on a human level to be allowed to continue to work with human volunteers. This thread ought to be a formal RfC but short of that, I think B2C should be banned. I see from B2C's tendentiousness and IDHT behavior such as was shown at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon. How many more good editors will B2C grind down? There should be a stop put to the damage. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral at this point. I'm one of those who at one time was finding that B2C and I had the same position on many issues.  Over time, that has changed and we now often disagree.  If B2C is able to adhere to the limits above, then it may bypass the need for a community ban.  My thinking before that was posted that I would support a ban that allowed B2C to only post once in each discussion with a support or oppose and the reasons.  I felt that because despite all else, B2C does bring valid points to many discussions.  On the down side, there is the frustration for administrators.  While they need to justify their decisions, do they need to have a long drawn out disucssion when the decision is clear but not to the liking of someone.  While B2C implies that he many be the most involved in RM discussions, that does not give any extra weight to his opinions.  I could say that since I close a large number of the RM discussions I have a more knowledge and my option should have much more weight.  But that would simply be a stupid assumption.  It is all too often that you look at the listing for a proposal and say 'I know how that is going to play out'.  Then you look at the discussion and surprise, you are wrong.  No one is going to be right every time.  And maybe that is part of the problem here.  I don't believe that B2C accepts the fact that his opinion is not always going to be right or gain consensus.  That's just the way it works.  The bigger issue here is what, if any, damage B2C causes in discussions.  I suspect that his appearance scares some participants away.  I know that his participation scares away admins from closing many of the discussions that B2C participates in.  So at what point does the damage outweigh the good?  At this point, I'm willing to see if he can live with his suggested improvements.  The problem is that they are all rather subjective.  And he needs to add one - any violation of his terms results in a 3 month community ban from RM discussions - that will let him show the community that he understands the problems and they will really be fixed and we don't need another long discussion about this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Should editors be discouraged from asking admins to justify their actions?
Yes, I challenged the closing of Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts) at Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts), and notified the closing admin,, at User_talk:Aervanath accordingly. Others, including, , , and , shared my concerns and puzzlement about the closing, even after Aervanath tried to explain further. Aervanath also started a section about this at Wikipedia_talk:RM, where concurred with the decision, for an equally puzzling reason. Mike's reason was also questioned not only by me, but by, and. weighed in effectively favoring reversing Aervanath's decision. It was that discussion that GTB found so off-putting. Yes, I question RM decisions once in a while. I question decisions not whenever I disagree, or "didn't get my way", as has been suggested elsewhere, but when I have a question about the decision. Most times when I disagree, I recognize that the other arguments are reasonable, and closing in their favor, or "no consensus", is also reasonable. But in a few cases, like this one, the closing decision seems to make no sense at all. In this case Aervanath's decision rested on the assertion that there was "no consensus" on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic, even though the term in question had been a redirect to the article for years, and that was not even challenged. Because of the lack of competing uses on WP for this name, this case is more definitive than even Paris, Michael Jackson and Harvard with respect to ambiguity and primary topic (because of Paris (disambiguation), Michael Jackson (disambiguation) and Harvard (disambiguation); there is no Catholic Memorial School (disambiguation)). I think I've questioned perhaps a handful of RM decisions of the hundreds I've been involved in. Even if I'm off and it's as many ten, or twenty, I believe I violated no policy or guideline in doing so, and in fact was simply expecting admins to meet their responsibilities, especially WP:ADMINACCT which states:
 * "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

I'm getting the impression that some admins don't appreciate having to explain and justify their actions, and others don't like it when I try to get other admins to do so. I'm sorry having to justify decisions occasionally is not "fun", but I suggest it's necessary (frankly, I think WP would improve with more of it). GTB and others claim my behavior amounts to a violation of WP:TE - but I've reviewed it and I don't see which aspect applies here, and no one has explained that either. If I'm blocked for this, I will have been punished for trying to hold admins responsible for justifying their decisions when they make questionable ones (and questioned not only by me, but a number of other editors). I know WP cannot be improved by discouraging editors from asking admins to justify their questionable decisions. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are five Wikipedia pillars; three apply here. When a (1) consensus of editors is telling you that you're being (2) incivil, repetitive demanding of "policy" justifications for actions is (3) bureaucratic. Snippy comments like this add up and using many words while saying little wears folks down after time. Nobody Ent 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incivility aside, insisting on justifications is not bureaucratic. If a regular editor were to close a discussion without explanation it would be a simple matter for other regular editors in the discussion to simply revert his action. When an admin closes a discussion it's a different matter and when an admin leaves a weak or confusing justification behind it undermines the community's faith in that admin's ability to read consensus. As in the Catholic Memorial School RM mentioned above, other editors agreed that the close rationale was insufficient and I don't see any problematic behaviour from B2C in explaining his view and seeking clarification. He may well have acted differently elsewhere, but this subsection seems to be about a particular RM that, even if he had been abrasive, in my view (and others) he'd certainly been correct. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be perfectly legitimate to ask an admin for an explanation.
 * With regards to the discussion as a whole is there really a justification for having it? Is there any solid evidence of misbehaviour from Born2Cycle that stands up to scrutiny or do some people just not like him? In the real world, and on Wikipedia there are certain people I don't like - its not worth wasting too much energy over, and trying to remove them from the project because you don't like them is something that just creates WP:DRAMA - which is obviously bad.
 * The big tip I have is to be prepared to admit when your wrong - it makes you a better person, and be prepared to agree to disagree with people, if people were happier to do that we'd all get along better. And remember - only one day until the weekend! -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Lack of evidence
I'm still waiting for diffs of this being more than a minor problem.

I'm appalled that you guys are sitting here slamming someone, in this case Born2Cycle, without really presenting any evidence of wrongdoing.

Just because you don't like him is not a good reason to remove him from the community. In the real world you have to work with people you dislike and remain professional, that's life. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead, I may be prepared to provide a raft of diffed evidence in a few days' time—possibly Sunday UTC. I cannot manage to gather it over the next day, and it's really not a task I relish; I'm particularly upset at the departure of GTBacchus, which demonstrates that something needs to be done to protect the project. Admins, please do as you think best—close it or keep it open. I'm sorry to dangle something indecisive in this way, and I'll take your advice as to whether this timeframe is unsatisfactory for the noticeboard. Tony   (talk)  15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Plenty of evidence will be collected that demonstrates the following:


 * Born2Cycle has been chronically tendentious.
 * He has been told of this on at least several occasions
 * He denied it or otherwise exhibited an utter lack of being able to see this tendentiousness


 * It will also be clear that his manner and method of operation is to game and mislead. This isn’t about “slamming” someone we dislike. It is all about how tendentious editors are like a cancer: insidious, slow, agonizing, and seldom acute—like when someone writes Go to hell! in frustration and gets a 24-hour block.


 * Chronic tendentiousness is very deleterious to a collegial working relationship, which is essential to a collaborative writing environment. The simple fact is that WP:Tendentious editing is still Disruptive editing and the community has every right in the world to protect itself from it.


 * But this isn’t the place for such evidence to be presented; it should be an an RFC/U on Born2Cycle. Greg L (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect to diffs, it's hard when behavior is so diffuse and persistent, but not blatantly out of line in any given diff. A good example, though, is his long distractor post in the immediately preceding subsection above, titled "Should editors be discouraged from asking admins to justify their actions?" where he seeks to deflect criticism by focusing on a nearly irrelevant abstraction. He does this in discussions all the time, especially when people give him criticism or feedback on his tendentious behavior. As Greg says, however, this is probably not the time or place to try to make a case to do something about him. I'll volunteer to help dig up some diffs, such as times when I have attempted to tell him something about the problems he is causing and he has come back with nothing but denial and deflection. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Greg, Tony and Dick. Is Noetica going to appear next as well? You guys always seem to like casting your votes in quick succession. If you aren't interested in providing evidence, don't post threatening that you will, because it comes across as casting accusations with the illusion of evidence. If you are interested in providing evidence, gather it first and then post. If you want to open an RFC/U, go for it. You should be prepared to accept that there will be opposition to it, but if you think it's the right next step, by all means. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure enough, it looks like I commented only 4 hours after Greg, and 6 hours after Tony. What are trying to say?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On the long-standing legal principle under common law of innocent until proven guilty until evidence is presented we must assume that Born2Cycle is innocent.
 * Of note I have great respect for GTBacchus, but that doesn't mean I am going to abandon all principles to target someone he dislikes.
 * With regards to evidence there's no rush - if it takes you another few weeks to gather so be it, but you shouldn't be commenting until you have that evidence. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh… please do desist with your posturing (and “common law” arguments) and save it for the RFC/U when, I expect, you’ll advance some sort of great theory for why the burden of proof for not allowing B2C to disrupt this place until editors are tearing their hair out of their heads and admins are quitting Wikipedia altogether should be the same burden of proof as required to execute someone in the U.S. As for the shortcomings of this ANI, I wasn’t an advocate of this ANI and my first posts here were to end it. Maybe you didn’t know that evidence is being prepared here on a sandbox. So if you didn’t know, you do now. You are welcome to add evidence there too. Arguing your case will have to wait for the RFC/U to start, so please use the sandbox for what it is intended for. If editors want to !vote in the RFC/U to allow B2C to be part of the community despite the evidence that will be presented, their arguments will be scrutinized to see if they are credible and make sense. Greg L (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. And with regard to noble-sounding notions like “innocent until proven guilty”, there is no such wording on Wikipedia. We AGF until “bad faith is evident”; until it is clear that a given editor is not interacting with others “in a respectful and civil manner” (which is a prerequisite of Wikipedia’s Five pillars to be able to participate here). If not, all manner of remedies are available to us. Now is the time to end this poorly prepared ANI while those who’ve had the pleasure of interacting with B2C prepare their evidence. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Greg, if you bring some compelling evidence to the table I will change my mind. I don't view changing my mind as a big deal. Rather than complaining about my posts I don't see why you, or someone else, hasn't presented some diffs showing wrong-doing.
 * If there isn't anything compelling that he has done wrong then the case should be dropped as all it is doing is creating additional WP:DRAMA, which will drive more people away from the project.
 * The fundamental reality of this project is that it involves large numbers of people, so you aren't going to like everyone. Additionally you are also taking part in a project with large numbers of intelligent people, some of whom have a critical academic background. No-one here gets to be the cleverest person in the room, nor do they get to avoid having their positions challenged from time to time. Having your positions challenged and people presenting a strong case is a fundamental part of WP:CONSENSUS as that works on the strength of argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the sandbox with regards to this Born2Cycle's behaviour there seems less than ideal. Although he did in the end admit he was wrong for creating that page. Furthermore by going straight to MfD the user who did it didn't exactly go for the low drama route to solve it. The right answer would have been to ask nicely on his talk page first. Finally other involved editors had significantly subpar behaviour.
 * With this diff I'm not sure what anyone can point to that's bad about that.
 * With regards to Born2Cycle discussing things a lot, if he's the only one block him for WP:DEADHORSE. If he's not then follow through the WP:DR process rather than staying at the same level which is unlikely to succeed, you can't criticise him for doing that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * B2C drove an admin away from Wikipedia out of shear frustration from his tendentiousness. This isn’t about me “liking” B2C or not; it’s about how someone has to step up to the plate and see to it that this sort of chronic disruptive editing stops. Not surprisingly, B2C has been chronically tendentious with other editors, who have told him that, but he’s only ignored them and stated that the problem lies with them. Furthermore, B2C was contradicting his own serial lies on the MfD. I don’t understand why you feel he is such a good fit for participating in a collaborative writing environment and should be allowed to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. I can guarantee you that there are many editors who don’t share your sentiments. Now… You seem to be willing to argue in his defense before evidence is fully prepared on the sandbox—in fact, we only just got started. That suggests you will !vote on B2C’s side in the RFC/U; that is your right. But please note that not one bit of evidence of B2C’s chronic tendentiousness with GTBaccus is on the sandbox yet. There must be an ocean of that given GTB’s galactic frustration. But now that GTBaccus sang his his swan song this morning (he’s gone), someone else who is familiar with all those goings-on will have to step up to the plate and add it to the sandbox. One thing GTBaccus was exceedingly correct about is that Wikipedia is utterly broken in its ability to deal with tendentious editors. It’s my intention to use the sandbox and the processes used in the upcoming RFC/U to serve as a paradigm for how we go about dealing with editors like B2C so Wikipedia no longer stays broken in this regard. Greg L (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)   P.S. Let’s be exceedingly clear on something here, Eraserhead1: I didn’t start this ANI. I didn’t know about it until recently. And when I did weigh in, it was to say that it was going nowhere, I didn’t support it, and I motioned that it be closed. The material being gathered has only just started and there is far, far more to come. More to the point, the material being gathered is not for this ANI so you might as well not be so anxious to pronounce your displeasure with it here. When the evidence has been gathered together from the far reaches of Wikipedia, it will be used for an RFC/U, so please save your defense of B2C for there. I think I’m done here. This ANI should have been closed yesterday, IMHO. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close
I motion that this entire thread and its sub-threads considering Band-Aid solutions be closed. The proper place to address true, chronic tendentiousness is elsewhere. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the topic ban proposal has clearly failed, I don't see any further administrative action necessary here. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I second that. I'd archive it myself, but have contributed, so won't, but it would be nice if someone uninvolved could. If a RFC/U is being prepared, there needs to be no further discussion here. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant User
User:137.120.238.48 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/137.120.238.48 I know this is probably in the wrong place, but I don't have the faintest idea where to report this guy or get administrator intervention. A quick look at his history, especially in the editing of Street Fighter X Tekken, reveals he simply doesn't understand the idea of WP:NOR or WP:V. He also comes across as extremely arrogant whenever I try to explain to him why what he is doing is wrong  and he simply refuses to listen to advice from me. . He only seems to post once a month, which I can understand would prevent him from getting banned, but if he's simply refusing to listen to me, then could I at least request that an admin speak to him, and try to get him down a peg or two? Or at the very least tell me which page I SHOULD be reporting this to? 88.109.28.100 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Close this thread because it was also shotgunned at WP:ANI. For discussion, go to Arrogant User. Glrx (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?
Should I just quit? Please see the bottom of my talk page. I've worked for years at being a good admin and a good Wikipedian, and above all tried to treat others as I'd like to be treated. I've had my failings, and Baseball Bugs will be happy to trot out his prize examples of one or two out of the six or eight times in the last decade I blew my top. (I'll give you the whole list, if you want it; I'm acutely aware of my failings.) Now I've just done it again, and this time really feels like the end of the line. I already tried taking a break, but I just come back to the same crap happening at RM that I tried to get away from. I know I'm not the only one he's wearing down. Does anyone care? I don't try to excuse my behavior, except to say that every man has his limits, and if you cut me, yes, I bleed. You like blood? I know there are vampires here who do: go on, enjoy it! I cry out for sympathy from what I know can be a cold, cold community. I've given my best to you, for years. Please Wikipedia, how do I suffer this? Or if this is it, then let this be an announcement to the vultures: these bones are ready for picking. Oh, cruel Wikipedia... I don't want to leave; I've poured so much love into this project... :'( -GTBacchus(talk) 05:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC) is this how it ends? please, someone help me. I'm ready to hand in the mop, if that'll make it better...
 * Yeah, that'll sure show 'im, huh? Half  Shadow  06:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do I go about requesting a self-desysop? You're right, HalfShadow, asking for sympathy is inappropriate here. Where's the form I fill out to quit? Sorry for the histrionics. Please carry on, and someone delete this section, and me. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus, we've all had days like that. Your error was in hitting "save". It's your talk page, and you can remove that right now. (Indeed, I urge you to do so, it will make you feel better.) In fact....to heck with archiving. Just wipe that entire discussion out. Then, take a couple of days off from this place and think about what you have done here that you've really enjoyed. When you come back, go do those things.  But please come back.  Risker (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already tried that. What I really enjoyed is fucked up. I want the kind of break where I'm not an admin anymore. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GT, I agree 100% with Risker above. There are lots of unfeeling people (for many reasons) that only derive pleasure in dragging other people into the depths of despair - BUT, there are also a lot of very good and kind folks here too.  I'm only leaving the link because you asked, and I'd rather you chose to delete the thread, get a good nights sleep, and come back and find an area away from those that frustrate you.  You can request the de-mop at WP:BN, but if you do - I hope you'll still find a place to edit here, as your work is greatly appreciated by many.  Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I've already made the request. Sleep didn't work for the last six months; I don't see why another night should help. It's likely I'll still correct grammar, and maybe sort stubs or something. See ya around. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in doing anything rash. Just stay away from it for a few days. It's only a website. Notice we all got along without it for a day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not rash. Long simmer. Cooked. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no shame in setting down the mop for a while. Some of our best admins have done it, and have come back refreshed and ready to go. GTBacchus, just remember your work is valued here, even if we don't say it often enough (which we don't). Enjoy your time away from the mop. We'll welcome you back the moment you're ready to dive back in, however long it takes. 28bytes (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and goodnight. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Try a week of not editing wikipedia, not reading wikipedia at all, and not thinking about wikipedia at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoever does this desysopping self-request procedure: is there some way we could slow it down for a cooling-off period so GTBacchus can be persuaded to reverse his decision? We can't afford to lose him. Tony   (talk)  08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the relevant bureaucrat's noticeboard thread; the 'crats have done exactly that. Graham 87 08:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from moves proposal
So this episode was sparked by yet another case of obsessing about a requested move and pestering closing admins about decisions he disagreed with? This really needs to stop. It's a disruptive pattern, and that guy needs a topic ban from move discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support! Disruption should not need days of discussion (is it disruptive enough yet?). Just do the topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to notify the user you were discussing implementing disciplinary procedures against Fifelfoo (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, WP:POINTy section below nicely illustrates B2C's tendentiousness. The unpleasantness B2C brings to discussions frequently outweighs the good of their points -- especially since it's so difficult to find the points in the wallso'text. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Switching to neutral, some of the objections mentioned below seem to be sinking in.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose per . -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Defending yourself against accusations is now regarded as tendentious??--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but titling it can't-i-defend-myself-against-the-evil-admin-cabal sure as heck is. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So defending myself against an accusation of tendentious, in 7 paragraphs, is now an example of tendentiousness? Wow, there are a lot of violations of that on this page.  If you're going to accuse me of tendentiousness, please indicate which of the specific characteristics of a tendentious editor you believe I demonstrate.   I also request that admins potentially biased from having disagreements with me in the past identify themselves accordingly.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:REHASH is a good example -- see for a recent example. "Sure, let's have endless discussions about whether each of countless titles should be disambiguated even when it's not necessary for disambiguation..." "Not overturning this bad decision sets a bad precedent..." "saying there is "no consensus" on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic (which is the basis for the "no consensus" close) is nosensical..." "This dab page seems pointy and a violation of WP:DPAGES..." "'lack of consensus' alone is not a good reason to revert..." -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You believe those are an example of WP:REHASH? The first -- "Sure, let's..." (sarcastically) addresses 's "nothing to resolve" argument.  The second ("Not overturning this sets a bad precedent...") addresses his "not worth the effort" argument.  The third, "saying there is..." was part of any FYI to Powers.  The fourth, "This dab ..." was about a dab page that JHunterJ had just created.  Not only are these not the same arguments, but Station1 and JHJ seem to have been persuaded by at least some of what I said, and REHASH is all about repeating the same arguments without persuading anyone.  I suppose if you just skim the words without actually reading the discussion, it might look like a violation of REHASH, but really I don't see how it can apply in that discussion at all.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not 100% sure if only admins (which I am not) are allowed to participate in this "vote", but it seems ridiculous to me that someone should receive such a restriction, and allegations of POINTyness, for arguing an issue on which so many people have expressed agreement with him (and where the responses from those who disagree have been, frankly, so unsatisfactory in length and clarity). In full disclosure, I'm one of those people who agrees with him about how this matter has been mishandled, and I've appreciated him taking the lead in fighting it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussions here definitely aren't restricted to admins.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the area of article titles, B2C is one of relatively few who are able to think things through intelligently and see the errors in the well-meaning but mistaken arguments put forward by others. He gets frustrated when those others stick obstinately to their positions in spite of those errors having been pointed out, I suppose. But just as we wouldn't want to lose GTB, we also wouldn't want to lose B2C from this "topic" area.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I've actually sided with B2C in the past (Yogurt and Catholic Memorial), but I must say his style is appalling. this thread which related to the yogurt probably says it best. Hot Stop UTC 18:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a bit confusing, but I think that thread demonstrates how I respect and follow consensus. At 15:07 on December 7 Greg L decided to archive it, inviting a revert if someone disagreed.  I initially disagreed with closing that thread, and so re-opened at 15:10.  But within 20 minutes I saw that others wanted it closed, so I closed it at 15:27.  Perhaps unaware of all that, you re-opened it at 15:32, and I got blamed for it not being closed by by Kai445 (at 16:03) and Greg L (at 16:18).  So then I tried archiving it again at 16:35 .  That one stuck.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with who opened or closed the thread. It's comments like "at best, he was really pushing the envelope, and he clearly knew he was on thin ice", "I suggest that it would be helpful that he admit changing the spelling, as surreptitiously as reasonably possible, to be more in accordance with that used in his own region of the world, was not entirely innocent", and This particular section, started by Derek Ross, is about whether his motives for the original move that precipitated eight years of angst on the project were as "innocent" as he proclaims they were above...If you don't agree this is important enough to discuss, then find something you do think is important" why I chose to illustrate that section.  You were told multiple times by editors on both sides of the issue that your edits weren't helpful, but you continued nonetheless. Hot Stop UTC 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand what you were talking about. Yeah, I need to learn to use less harsh language, and to be less argumentative.  I know what I was thinking at the time -- something along the lines of "justice delayed is still justice" - but that's contrary to how WP works.  We don't look for "justice" or "punishment".  We seek to end undesirable behavior.  Evaluating the behavior of someone years ago has no place on WP.  Got it.  And thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support While I am sure he has good intentions, what I have seen of his discussion style when I have seen him in move discussions tends to sway closer to incivility and definitely tendentiousness as opposed to civil even tempered discussion. Any good points he brings up are far outweighed by the baggage he also brings with him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a target of B2C’s questioning of RM closes, I actually don’t mind being challenged. However, when those challenges become adversarial or admins are essentially being demanded to Justify their actions, they become tedious.  But there’s a simple solution.  There is no requirement to provide any rationale for an RM or AfD close. So, not providing rationale just disarms those who disagree with the close.  It’s pretty much a truth that no matter what the close is, someone will disagree with it.  And they have a right to express that disagreement.  Since as far as I can tell, admins are not obligated by guideline or policy to provide rationales or justify their RM or AfD decisions to other editors, editors who want to disagree with the actions of an admin should be cognizant of that fact. Admins should be collaborative and communicate civilly with editors to answer their questions, but I don't think we (admins) are obligated to justify our actions until everyone who disagrees is happy.  B2C pushes the limits in this area, but if he understands the above, he can still productively disagree.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken; per WP:ADMINACCT unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Nobody Ent 18:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points: RM and AfD close instructions do not require any additional comment or rationale in the close language. WP:ADMINACCT does indeed require admins to explain their actions when asked and I think in this case both involved admins did that. But I find nothing in that paragraph that requires admins to justify themselves to the point that everyone who disagrees with a decision is happy.  It is perfectly acceptable for an editor to say I don't agree with your explanation, but I do believe it is disruptive for an editor to continue to say I don't and won't accept your explanation and am going to keep pestering you and challenging your competency until you change your mind.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree there is no requirement for admins to justify themselves to the point that everyone who disagrees with a decision is happy, but that's not the issue. Not at all.  I addressed this in the section below.   But WP:ADMINACCT does say that administrators are expected ... to justify [their actions] when needed, and that's all I request, once in a while, and usually only when others agree with me, as was the case here.  If you have the impression that I challenge every decision with which I disagree, or even any but the most confounding ones, you're simply mistaken.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * B2C, you must admit you push the limits sometimes. But do you see what my position above is? I oppose the suggested topic ban.  I am supporting you in this discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Much appreciated.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A more reasonable interpretation of adminacct is the admin make a succinct explanatory remark at the time of the action. In some cases this can be as simple as "per wp:snow," but more contentious discussions would require slightly more. Concur that this is no requirement to make editors happy. Nobody Ent 19:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Neutral Repeated long-winded tendentious editing. Nobody Ent 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Born2cycle's comments below. Nobody Ent 03:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support To Mike's point above, he doesn't understand he is pushing the limit and has declineed to pull back, instead throwing up walls of text that would fatigue even the most patient person. I agree this ban is needed, specifically in light of characteristics 4 and 9 on WP:TE, which are fairly obvious from the linked to Yogurt discussion above and his own responses so far in this thread.  MBisanz  talk 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I suppose some might see this as another example of being tendentious, but this is the first time anyone has identified specific characteristics of [{WP:TE]] that they believe apply to my behavior, and so my first opportunity to respond to such.  4 has to do with not being given the benefit of the doubt.  For the most part most people do give me the doubt all of the time, so far as I can tell, but there are some people who don't sometimes.  I recognize that's a sign there's room for improvement in what I'm doing, but it's hardly a clear violation of WP:TE.  9 is about repeating the same argument without convincing others.  To the contrary, if I'm not convincing anyone, I back off.  In this latest Catholic Memorial School instance, many others agreed with, if not were convinced by, my arguments.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I see it as a clear violation.  MBisanz  talk 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you do back off if you aren't convincing anyone someone. I think that is the major problem people are having with you. You just keep going with the same arguments over and over with overly long comments that say a lot without actually saying much and refuse to either change your own mind or to let it go when people disagree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize many have that impression, and so there must be something to it, and I'm responsible for that. Perhaps I take Consensus too far?  What I try to do is what it says: "... editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense".  Perhaps citing a specific case where you think I went beyond that would help.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the whole page. "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided."-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with that and believe I naturally abide by it. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many people have to tell you differently before you change your belief?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When has B2C embarked on one of these adventures when nobody else agreed with it? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rarely, if ever. However, as with edit warring, being right isn't an excuse for being disruptive. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. But how is trying to find consensus through discussion, which includes trying to persuade those who disagree, and asking questions like this, disruptive? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SoV—there is an accusation just above, by DJSasso, that B2C doesn't back off when nobody is convinced. That is what I am trying to clarify. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant it more in the sense of the person(s) he is repeatedly aiming the comments at is not agreeing with him. Have adjusted my comment accordingly. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't trying to persuade someone who already agrees be the disruptive and pointless behavior? In fact, identifying someone who disagrees, or "The Most Interested Person" ("Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person") and working with them one-in-one in discussion lies at the heart of what WP:BRD recommends.  What am I missing? I mean, I certainly agree that repeating the same argument with someone who disagrees is problematic, and obviously some people are under the impression that I do that, but I know there is no evidence of it, because that's something I avoid because I know it's pointless and problematic.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose any admin-area topic ban of any editor. If otherwise warranted, block or ban the editor as needed, but don't wall off the admins. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – an editor who digs in and opines ceaselessly until everyone else gives up. Oculi (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Just reading some of these arguments that are being linked to is giving me a headache. I can't imagine how bad it would have been to be a participant in those discussions. Born2cycle seems to be acting as an obstacle to the RM process so it's in Wikipedia's best interest to keep him away from that area. --  At am a  頭 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my support, or at least suspending it, given Born2cycle's comments below. If he amends his behavior then a ban is no longer necessary. --  At am a  頭 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - If there are only problems with B2Cs editing in this area, we should remove the editor from this area. The other alternative is to remove B2C from the English Wikipedia entirely. If B2C wants that, I'm sure we can facilitate it. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Per B2Cs comments below. Should the issues persist then we can revisit this. Let's give B2C a chance to show they mean what they say. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I understand there is some frustration with B2C's persistence, it just so happens that in many cases he's absolutely right.  Powers T 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Powers. We probably disagree about as often as we agree, don't we?  For the record, I just want to say that I recognize and appreciate that being "absolutely right" does not justify being tendentious or disruptive.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose—I don't see compelling evidence here for a ban. B2C is overly-confrontational sometimes, and I wish that would stop, but I don't see anything rising to the level of a ban. RMs don't have any formal official appeal venue, so what can you do when you think one was closed poorly? Talk to the closer, see if there is any support for a "rerun", etc. Often, though, this kind of thing leads to a lot of static, but we should closely examine who is responsible for that static. Consider the Corvette fiasco—if you concede going in that questioning the closure and seeing if there is any consensus for a re-run is ok to do, did B2C do anything wrong here? Is B2C responsible for the character of the ensuing discussion? I'll reconsider if new evidence is brought to light here. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good example of his problematic behavior. "But at least you seem to admit that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has to be ignored in order to have opposed this move" - B2C. "I 'admit' nothing of the sort."-Pablo -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that exemplifies a problem how? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JHunterJ. Admins should expect that their actions will come under greater scrutiny than those of regular editors but they don't need to be specially cotton-wooled with targeted topic bans like this. If there's harassment or hounding it should be dealt with at an individual level first using policies that apply to everyone, which from what I can see doesn't seem to have been attempted. Specifically limiting interaction with admins would set a dangerous precedent and seriously impact an editor's ability to raise concerns he believes are legitimate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal as far as I can see doesn't call for limiting his interaction with admins. It just limits him from move discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The ban -- which I presume includes questioning admin's RM closing decisions -- is allegedly justified because of my "pestering closing admins ", in direct contradiction to WP:ADMINACCT.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing in ADMINACCT that allows pestering admins. Just look at your recent interaction with Aervanath. The title of the section was "does local consensus trump community consensus". You opened with "I'm perplexed by your 'no consensus' decision. Perhaps there was an oversight here?" After some discussion, you proceeded with "Based on the replies there, would you consider reversing your decision, explaining it better, or at least reverting it and letting someone else close it?" Shortly afterward: "Saying that this term is ambiguous and requires disambiguation, in the face of no dab page and a long-standing redirect from this term to this article, makes no sense.... Please address these serious fundamental problems with your explanation that multiple people have noted, or reverse the decision." Shortly after that, "You give equal weight to a pure WP:JDLI argument based entirely on personal preference as you do to one solidly steeped in policy, guidelines and convention." After that, you have "By the way, if you're making your decisions solely on LOCALCONSENSUS interpretations of policy and guidelines, that explains much." That easily passes the questioning line into badgering, and that's not even counting the discussion on the actual talk page. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that helps. But I was very frustrated, and it's unclear what an editor is supposed to do in this situation.  While you believe this constitutes badgering, and I'll admit it's getting close to the line, others say this about it: "He may well have acted differently elsewhere, but this subsection seems to be about a particular RM that, even if he had been abrasive, in my view (and others) he'd certainly been correct." I mean, it's not like I do this in any situation where I happen to disagree... in the vast majority of such cases I accept the decision and move on.  This is an exceptional case, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is, you do so many RM discussions that your exceptional cases show up more often than most peoples' routine cases. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be part of the reason it came to a requested ban yes. But I think the major reason its here is the part that talks about you obsessing about another requested move. Most of the comments in the discussion are talking about your actions in the move discussions themselves. Secondly there is a huge difference between asking once nicely for some clarification and then continually asking them for another explanation when you don't like the one they gave. A admin only needs to give you an explanation once, whether you like the explanation or not is not their problem. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Is there any room for a compromise here?  Like my agreeing to only questioning admins once?  And maybe limiting my participation in any RM discussion to, say, five comments (which might seem like a lot, but it's not for me, which is probably the main problem - so this could solve it).  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's definite room for compromise, but not in the direction you're going. Until you drop the "I'm doing what policy says, and none of the rest of you know what you're talking about" attitude, you're going to keep having trouble. Restricting the number of comments is not the point here.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then what do you suggest? I also think you misunderstand me.  When I quote policy in defending my behavior, I'm trying to explain why I believe my behavior is consistent with community expectations.  That doesn't mean I'm right or that I'm not missing something; I'm just trying to explain my point of view.  Above you said it comes down to REHASH, but your example of four statements were all parts of separate arguments to 3 different people.  I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just saying that that particular example is not a violation of REHASH, and not any characteristic of TE, as far as I can tell.  I've suggested that it's simply too many posts/comments that's the problem, but you've just rejected that.  Okay, then what is it?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it came down to REHASH, I said that was a good example of your tendentiousness. Another good example, as shown here and elsewhere in the thread, is you reading statements too narrowly, to the point of inaccuracy.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I'm sorry.  You did not say it came down to REHASH.  I said you did because that's how I understood the essence of what you were saying.  I asked which criteria of WP:TE applied, and REHASH was the only one you mentioned.  So in my mind you were implying that it came down to that. I'm sure I'm not the only who misreads on occasion.  Again, my apologies.   --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I read it as a ban from challenging RMs. In this case my rationale is that the proposed topic area ban is far too broad and the evidence too narrow to justify a ban of this scope. Why would we ban him from 'all RMs' when the problem area is exclusively described as 'challenging RMs'? That's excessive. Deal with the issue at the individual level first, THEN try a topic ban on challenging RMs, and only THEN try a topic ban on participating in RMs altogether. Jumping to the last step is inappropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposer has been criticized by B2C in the past for unwillingness to explain an RM close, and from the way this proposal is worded it seems like it is that aspect in particular driving this ban proposal, which is bothering me, too. If I wasn't willing to have this on my talk page I wouldn't close RMs. Or be an admin. Admins do arbitrary, bizarre things, and to ban people when they question them is really disturbing. I think if this ban goes through, it needs to be made really clear that despite the proposal's wording, it is ok to question admin actions. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is nothing wrong with bringing solid and well-substantiated reasoning to the RM process the way B2C does it. If anything, RMs could use more folks like him. If someone is getting a headache reading his replies, fixing it is as easy as clicking away from the page and contributing to something unrelated. That said, apart from providing the titling insight, B2C himself could try contributing more to other areas every now and then. We are creating an encyclopedia, after all, not an Ultimate Guide to Titling Everything the Right Way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 19, 2012; 20:51 (UTC)

Question. I'm currently involved in a couple of ongoing WP:RM discussions, including Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft and Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation). Does anyone think my behavior there is problematic? I believe I have the most contribute to WP in the area of RM discussions, because that's where my interests and expertise lie. But because these discussion are often contentious, by arguing strongly one way or the other I seem to sometimes engender animosity in others. Over the years, their numbers grow. Let's just say most of the names involved here are familiar... Is that a reason to justify banning me from these discussions? I repeat Eraserhead1's question from below: "Is there any solid evidence of misbehaviour from Born2Cycle that stands up to scrutiny or do some people just not like him? " Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think you fall for the trap of saying rather too much, and replying to people too quickly, allowing discussions to take place at a slower pace is probably more sensible. If you're replying within a couple of days that should be fast enough - and not so fast that people think you're obsessed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's starting to head in the wrong direction. "The current title, Fixed-wing aircraft, is an exception/compromise for no good reason", assuming bad faith from the people who made the original decision, and everyone who's !voted to keep it for that reason since then. "the only objective/non-JDLI way to decide this" - iow "I understand policy perfectly, so the rest of you just shut up". -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I see now how you might interpret it that way, but that's certainly not how I meant it. What I meant was that everyone agrees if it wasn't for the inability to pick either "Airplane" or "Aeroplane", the title wouldn't be "Fixed-wing aircraft".  In retrospect, I realize I might be wrong about that (we might need both articles), but that's beside the point, which is that I meant no disrespect to anyone.  I agree I should be more careful how I word things so that they won't be misinterpreted like this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral - a topic ban here would be an effective ban altogether. Moves is, after all, what Born2Cycle does. A RFC/U however, would perhaps have merit, although that too may end up being wikilawyered into stalemate. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there anything to justify an RFC/U? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look and decide for yourself. I can't do everything around here. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be taking an editor to RFC/U unless diffs are easy to find showing actual bad behaviour - you don't necessarily have to do it, but someone should. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that diffs would be required for a RFC/U. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 09:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Eraserhead has hit the nail on the head. Editors should question an admin's actions when it needs clarification but it's B2C's lamprey like approach that is causing any number of people to grind their teeth in frustration. I've had a read through the yogurt RM discussion and B2C, your responses there verge on histrionics and dramatic arm waving, to describe in less than flattering terms. Even after the participants repeatedly ask you to drop it, you just went on and on and on. I've also read GTBacchus's talk page, which sparked this whole discussion as well as yours,and GregL's. The one thing that leaps out at me the most is your near-obsessive need to have the last word. That I believe is why this topic ban has been proposed. Blackmane (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested a compromise of limiting me to how many comments I make per RM discussion, but Sarek said that wasn't the problem --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the issue really. Lets take a look at Catholic Memorial School. From my reading of the discussion you look to have presented a strong case. However that's kinda beside the point. Its not a WP:VITAL article, nor is it a particularly well read article, like say iPad (getting about 400k hits a month), only getting about 1000 views a month.
 * In an ideal world the admin would have changed their mind when you questioned the move. However they didn't, maybe they don't agree, or maybe they felt they will lose face if they change their mind. Given its a minor article of little importance when they didn't change their mind you should have stopped and moved on to discuss something else. The project isn't damaged if a 1000 views a month article is at the wrong title.
 * If you really think the article is at the wrong title the right way to go about it is to do another move request in 6 months and get that discussion closed by someone else, then the original closing admin doesn't have to lose face and so there is much less WP:DRAMA. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, except my concern was not so much that title per se, but that title being used as a precedent for more "unnecessary disambiguation" on similar even-longstanding-redirect-does-not-establish-primary-topic reasoning. Still, what I'm hearing is that even poor justifications for bad decisions should be accepted for the sake of harmony, because harmony is more important than any title.  Or something like that, yes?  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's life.
 * It took until September 2011 for us to use the common name for the world's largest country. America still isn't a redirect to United States, even though I've never heard anyone use it to refer to the Americas.
 * I think harmony is more important than such a move request, yes. People make bad decisions sometimes . -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - B2C has been disruptive regarding page moves for years now, it's well past the time that it was stopped for good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support . Born2cycle's manner of arguing over article naming has a negative effect on other editors. I personally found it so grating that I took a month-long break from editing and a more patient editor than I, GTBacchus, is abandoning his admin bit in frustration. I'm sure we aren't the only ones who've been moved to avoid discussions over article titles due to Bon2cycle's participation.   Will Beback    talk    23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on Born2cycle's statement below, I am hopeful that this problem can be solved without a formal topic ban and am striking out my support for it.   Will Beback    talk    01:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of poor behaviour that shows these issues? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in GTBacchus' mouth, but I think his frustration is not just due to B2C's manner. It's also frustration with the idea that policies and guidelines are prescriptive, or sometimes it seems like it is even frustration with the fact that anyone even has that opinion. Obviously B2C is a posterboy for this movement; that combined with the fact that both parties are more than willing to "debate at length", there you go. The talk pages of the relevant guidelines/policies are littered with many exchanges between these two, often quite nasty on both sides. See this reply for an interesting example. Quite a bit of talking past each other. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If policy isn't prescriptive how on earth do you propose to resolve any matter that isn't trivial? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Bacchus took my name in vain earlier, I think it's worth pointing out that he appears to lack the proper temperament to be an admin. I recall a couple of years ago when he unleashed the most obscene, vile diatribe against me that anyone ever has - and that includes socks, trolls, and other malcontents. I started to wonder about his mental state, frankly. And this recent situation reinforces my theory that he's got bigger problems than wikipedia. He needs to get away from here for awhile and focus on what's important. No matter who gets banned, there will always be contentious editors. Maybe wikipedia doesn't do a good enough job of screening or testing of potential admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. You've gotten my attention. I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Switched to oppose. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. B2c's post above, showing that he gets it, is commendable. Great if other editors whose tendentiousness discourage participation in articles and talk pages where they operate could learn from this example. Writegeist (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Recommendation: When arguing a position, take your time and formulate the best possible reasoning in your first post. Where applicable, prefer diffs over rhetoric, and the shorter and tighter you can make your writing the better. Do this well, when other editors post opinions, you won't have any need to reply because you've already anticipated and addressed their points. If they simply disagree, don't respond unless you have good reason to believe to you can change their minds (part of AGF is assuming they read and understood what you wrote in the first place). Wikipedia policies/guidelines/essays are numerous, vague, and contradictory, editors are going to end up disagreeing what to do in particular circumstances.  Despite what the idealism of consensus says, sometimes it just comes down to numbers; win some, lose some. The confident editor is willing to let the other party have the last word because they know their argument is better.
 * The ideal way to contribute to a debate is one and done. Nobody Ent 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is more than a tad unrealistic. People don't anticipate everything everyone else says. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support time-based topic-ban from RMs and WP:TITLE. The user in question has been disruptive and tendentious, and shown clear wp:ownship syndrome for a long time. A signal needs to be sent that this is unproductive, even destructive at times, as we've seen over the past few days. Tony   (talk)  05:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheres the evidence? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not only on my usual pointing out the inefficacy of any Draconian topic bans, but on the basis that there is grossly insufficient argument in favour thereof in this case. Collect (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose He understands titling issues in a way others don't. Saying less is often more, slowing down, not needing to answer every point - those are things he could learn but that doesn't support a ban. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Comment User:Born2Cycle’s 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC) post does not come as a surprise; he obviously saw the writing on the wall and had only two options. The trouble is, he can logically *observe* that he has to change in order to not have privileges stripped from him, but he doesn’t internally *feel* the need. He’s merely following the path of least pain and is once again gaming everyone here. Now I see why User:GTBaccus—an admin—became so profoundly frustrated with B2C and decided to just quite Wikipedia altogether. The mentality underlying those who voted “Oppose” here exemplify why GTBaccus commented about how utterly broken Wikipedia is when dealing with tendentious editors. I’ve stated my intention, here on GTBaccus’s talk page to start an RFC/U over B2C. It is my intention that the remedy be an outright indefinite ban of B2C across all of Wikipedia. “Indefinite” doesn’t mean “forever” but it does mean he will not be playing everyone here like lab rats as he goes about his business on Wikipedia. The community has every right to protect itself from chronically disruptive editors. His lies and misdirection at justifying all that he did at the recent MfD over a dirtfile page he created amply demonstrates his method of operation and how he thinks. Greg L (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Born2cycle is too disruptive on a human level to be allowed to continue to work with human volunteers. This thread ought to be a formal RfC but short of that, I think B2C should be banned. I see from B2C's tendentiousness and IDHT behavior such as was shown at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon. How many more good editors will B2C grind down? There should be a stop put to the damage. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral at this point. I'm one of those who at one time was finding that B2C and I had the same position on many issues.  Over time, that has changed and we now often disagree.  If B2C is able to adhere to the limits above, then it may bypass the need for a community ban.  My thinking before that was posted that I would support a ban that allowed B2C to only post once in each discussion with a support or oppose and the reasons.  I felt that because despite all else, B2C does bring valid points to many discussions.  On the down side, there is the frustration for administrators.  While they need to justify their decisions, do they need to have a long drawn out disucssion when the decision is clear but not to the liking of someone.  While B2C implies that he many be the most involved in RM discussions, that does not give any extra weight to his opinions.  I could say that since I close a large number of the RM discussions I have a more knowledge and my option should have much more weight.  But that would simply be a stupid assumption.  It is all too often that you look at the listing for a proposal and say 'I know how that is going to play out'.  Then you look at the discussion and surprise, you are wrong.  No one is going to be right every time.  And maybe that is part of the problem here.  I don't believe that B2C accepts the fact that his opinion is not always going to be right or gain consensus.  That's just the way it works.  The bigger issue here is what, if any, damage B2C causes in discussions.  I suspect that his appearance scares some participants away.  I know that his participation scares away admins from closing many of the discussions that B2C participates in.  So at what point does the damage outweigh the good?  At this point, I'm willing to see if he can live with his suggested improvements.  The problem is that they are all rather subjective.  And he needs to add one - any violation of his terms results in a 3 month community ban from RM discussions - that will let him show the community that he understands the problems and they will really be fixed and we don't need another long discussion about this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Should editors be discouraged from asking admins to justify their actions?
Yes, I challenged the closing of Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts) at Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts), and notified the closing admin,, at User_talk:Aervanath accordingly. Others, including, , , and , shared my concerns and puzzlement about the closing, even after Aervanath tried to explain further. Aervanath also started a section about this at Wikipedia_talk:RM, where concurred with the decision, for an equally puzzling reason. Mike's reason was also questioned not only by me, but by, and. weighed in effectively favoring reversing Aervanath's decision. It was that discussion that GTB found so off-putting. Yes, I question RM decisions once in a while. I question decisions not whenever I disagree, or "didn't get my way", as has been suggested elsewhere, but when I have a question about the decision. Most times when I disagree, I recognize that the other arguments are reasonable, and closing in their favor, or "no consensus", is also reasonable. But in a few cases, like this one, the closing decision seems to make no sense at all. In this case Aervanath's decision rested on the assertion that there was "no consensus" on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic, even though the term in question had been a redirect to the article for years, and that was not even challenged. Because of the lack of competing uses on WP for this name, this case is more definitive than even Paris, Michael Jackson and Harvard with respect to ambiguity and primary topic (because of Paris (disambiguation), Michael Jackson (disambiguation) and Harvard (disambiguation); there is no Catholic Memorial School (disambiguation)). I think I've questioned perhaps a handful of RM decisions of the hundreds I've been involved in. Even if I'm off and it's as many ten, or twenty, I believe I violated no policy or guideline in doing so, and in fact was simply expecting admins to meet their responsibilities, especially WP:ADMINACCT which states:
 * "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

I'm getting the impression that some admins don't appreciate having to explain and justify their actions, and others don't like it when I try to get other admins to do so. I'm sorry having to justify decisions occasionally is not "fun", but I suggest it's necessary (frankly, I think WP would improve with more of it). GTB and others claim my behavior amounts to a violation of WP:TE - but I've reviewed it and I don't see which aspect applies here, and no one has explained that either. If I'm blocked for this, I will have been punished for trying to hold admins responsible for justifying their decisions when they make questionable ones (and questioned not only by me, but a number of other editors). I know WP cannot be improved by discouraging editors from asking admins to justify their questionable decisions. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are five Wikipedia pillars; three apply here. When a (1) consensus of editors is telling you that you're being (2) incivil, repetitive demanding of "policy" justifications for actions is (3) bureaucratic. Snippy comments like this add up and using many words while saying little wears folks down after time. Nobody Ent 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incivility aside, insisting on justifications is not bureaucratic. If a regular editor were to close a discussion without explanation it would be a simple matter for other regular editors in the discussion to simply revert his action. When an admin closes a discussion it's a different matter and when an admin leaves a weak or confusing justification behind it undermines the community's faith in that admin's ability to read consensus. As in the Catholic Memorial School RM mentioned above, other editors agreed that the close rationale was insufficient and I don't see any problematic behaviour from B2C in explaining his view and seeking clarification. He may well have acted differently elsewhere, but this subsection seems to be about a particular RM that, even if he had been abrasive, in my view (and others) he'd certainly been correct. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be perfectly legitimate to ask an admin for an explanation.
 * With regards to the discussion as a whole is there really a justification for having it? Is there any solid evidence of misbehaviour from Born2Cycle that stands up to scrutiny or do some people just not like him? In the real world, and on Wikipedia there are certain people I don't like - its not worth wasting too much energy over, and trying to remove them from the project because you don't like them is something that just creates WP:DRAMA - which is obviously bad.
 * The big tip I have is to be prepared to admit when your wrong - it makes you a better person, and be prepared to agree to disagree with people, if people were happier to do that we'd all get along better. And remember - only one day until the weekend! -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Lack of evidence
I'm still waiting for diffs of this being more than a minor problem.

I'm appalled that you guys are sitting here slamming someone, in this case Born2Cycle, without really presenting any evidence of wrongdoing.

Just because you don't like him is not a good reason to remove him from the community. In the real world you have to work with people you dislike and remain professional, that's life. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead, I may be prepared to provide a raft of diffed evidence in a few days' time—possibly Sunday UTC. I cannot manage to gather it over the next day, and it's really not a task I relish; I'm particularly upset at the departure of GTBacchus, which demonstrates that something needs to be done to protect the project. Admins, please do as you think best—close it or keep it open. I'm sorry to dangle something indecisive in this way, and I'll take your advice as to whether this timeframe is unsatisfactory for the noticeboard. Tony   (talk)  15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Plenty of evidence will be collected that demonstrates the following:


 * Born2Cycle has been chronically tendentious.
 * He has been told of this on at least several occasions
 * He denied it or otherwise exhibited an utter lack of being able to see this tendentiousness


 * It will also be clear that his manner and method of operation is to game and mislead. This isn’t about “slamming” someone we dislike. It is all about how tendentious editors are like a cancer: insidious, slow, agonizing, and seldom acute—like when someone writes Go to hell! in frustration and gets a 24-hour block.


 * Chronic tendentiousness is very deleterious to a collegial working relationship, which is essential to a collaborative writing environment. The simple fact is that WP:Tendentious editing is still Disruptive editing and the community has every right in the world to protect itself from it.


 * But this isn’t the place for such evidence to be presented; it should be an an RFC/U on Born2Cycle. Greg L (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect to diffs, it's hard when behavior is so diffuse and persistent, but not blatantly out of line in any given diff. A good example, though, is his long distractor post in the immediately preceding subsection above, titled "Should editors be discouraged from asking admins to justify their actions?" where he seeks to deflect criticism by focusing on a nearly irrelevant abstraction. He does this in discussions all the time, especially when people give him criticism or feedback on his tendentious behavior. As Greg says, however, this is probably not the time or place to try to make a case to do something about him. I'll volunteer to help dig up some diffs, such as times when I have attempted to tell him something about the problems he is causing and he has come back with nothing but denial and deflection. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Greg, Tony and Dick. Is Noetica going to appear next as well? You guys always seem to like casting your votes in quick succession. If you aren't interested in providing evidence, don't post threatening that you will, because it comes across as casting accusations with the illusion of evidence. If you are interested in providing evidence, gather it first and then post. If you want to open an RFC/U, go for it. You should be prepared to accept that there will be opposition to it, but if you think it's the right next step, by all means. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure enough, it looks like I commented only 4 hours after Greg, and 6 hours after Tony. What are trying to say?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On the long-standing legal principle under common law of innocent until proven guilty until evidence is presented we must assume that Born2Cycle is innocent.
 * Of note I have great respect for GTBacchus, but that doesn't mean I am going to abandon all principles to target someone he dislikes.
 * With regards to evidence there's no rush - if it takes you another few weeks to gather so be it, but you shouldn't be commenting until you have that evidence. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh… please do desist with your posturing (and “common law” arguments) and save it for the RFC/U when, I expect, you’ll advance some sort of great theory for why the burden of proof for not allowing B2C to disrupt this place until editors are tearing their hair out of their heads and admins are quitting Wikipedia altogether should be the same burden of proof as required to execute someone in the U.S. As for the shortcomings of this ANI, I wasn’t an advocate of this ANI and my first posts here were to end it. Maybe you didn’t know that evidence is being prepared here on a sandbox. So if you didn’t know, you do now. You are welcome to add evidence there too. Arguing your case will have to wait for the RFC/U to start, so please use the sandbox for what it is intended for. If editors want to !vote in the RFC/U to allow B2C to be part of the community despite the evidence that will be presented, their arguments will be scrutinized to see if they are credible and make sense. Greg L (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. And with regard to noble-sounding notions like “innocent until proven guilty”, there is no such wording on Wikipedia. We AGF until “bad faith is evident”; until it is clear that a given editor is not interacting with others “in a respectful and civil manner” (which is a prerequisite of Wikipedia’s Five pillars to be able to participate here). If not, all manner of remedies are available to us. Now is the time to end this poorly prepared ANI while those who’ve had the pleasure of interacting with B2C prepare their evidence. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Greg, if you bring some compelling evidence to the table I will change my mind. I don't view changing my mind as a big deal. Rather than complaining about my posts I don't see why you, or someone else, hasn't presented some diffs showing wrong-doing.
 * If there isn't anything compelling that he has done wrong then the case should be dropped as all it is doing is creating additional WP:DRAMA, which will drive more people away from the project.
 * The fundamental reality of this project is that it involves large numbers of people, so you aren't going to like everyone. Additionally you are also taking part in a project with large numbers of intelligent people, some of whom have a critical academic background. No-one here gets to be the cleverest person in the room, nor do they get to avoid having their positions challenged from time to time. Having your positions challenged and people presenting a strong case is a fundamental part of WP:CONSENSUS as that works on the strength of argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the sandbox with regards to this Born2Cycle's behaviour there seems less than ideal. Although he did in the end admit he was wrong for creating that page. Furthermore by going straight to MfD the user who did it didn't exactly go for the low drama route to solve it. The right answer would have been to ask nicely on his talk page first. Finally other involved editors had significantly subpar behaviour.
 * With this diff I'm not sure what anyone can point to that's bad about that.
 * With regards to Born2Cycle discussing things a lot, if he's the only one block him for WP:DEADHORSE. If he's not then follow through the WP:DR process rather than staying at the same level which is unlikely to succeed, you can't criticise him for doing that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * B2C drove an admin away from Wikipedia out of shear frustration from his tendentiousness. This isn’t about me “liking” B2C or not; it’s about how someone has to step up to the plate and see to it that this sort of chronic disruptive editing stops. Not surprisingly, B2C has been chronically tendentious with other editors, who have told him that, but he’s only ignored them and stated that the problem lies with them. Furthermore, B2C was contradicting his own serial lies on the MfD. I don’t understand why you feel he is such a good fit for participating in a collaborative writing environment and should be allowed to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. I can guarantee you that there are many editors who don’t share your sentiments. Now… You seem to be willing to argue in his defense before evidence is fully prepared on the sandbox—in fact, we only just got started. That suggests you will !vote on B2C’s side in the RFC/U; that is your right. But please note that not one bit of evidence of B2C’s chronic tendentiousness with GTBaccus is on the sandbox yet. There must be an ocean of that given GTB’s galactic frustration. But now that GTBaccus sang his his swan song this morning (he’s gone), someone else who is familiar with all those goings-on will have to step up to the plate and add it to the sandbox. One thing GTBaccus was exceedingly correct about is that Wikipedia is utterly broken in its ability to deal with tendentious editors. It’s my intention to use the sandbox and the processes used in the upcoming RFC/U to serve as a paradigm for how we go about dealing with editors like B2C so Wikipedia no longer stays broken in this regard. Greg L (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)   P.S. Let’s be exceedingly clear on something here, Eraserhead1: I didn’t start this ANI. I didn’t know about it until recently. And when I did weigh in, it was to say that it was going nowhere, I didn’t support it, and I motioned that it be closed. The material being gathered has only just started and there is far, far more to come. More to the point, the material being gathered is not for this ANI so you might as well not be so anxious to pronounce your displeasure with it here. When the evidence has been gathered together from the far reaches of Wikipedia, it will be used for an RFC/U, so please save your defense of B2C for there. I think I’m done here. This ANI should have been closed yesterday, IMHO. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close
I motion that this entire thread and its sub-threads considering Band-Aid solutions be closed. The proper place to address true, chronic tendentiousness is elsewhere. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the topic ban proposal has clearly failed, I don't see any further administrative action necessary here. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I second that. I'd archive it myself, but have contributed, so won't, but it would be nice if someone uninvolved could. If a RFC/U is being prepared, there needs to be no further discussion here. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant User
User:137.120.238.48 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/137.120.238.48 I know this is probably in the wrong place, but I don't have the faintest idea where to report this guy or get administrator intervention. A quick look at his history, especially in the editing of Street Fighter X Tekken, reveals he simply doesn't understand the idea of WP:NOR or WP:V. He also comes across as extremely arrogant whenever I try to explain to him why what he is doing is wrong  and he simply refuses to listen to advice from me. . He only seems to post once a month, which I can understand would prevent him from getting banned, but if he's simply refusing to listen to me, then could I at least request that an admin speak to him, and try to get him down a peg or two? Or at the very least tell me which page I SHOULD be reporting this to? 88.109.28.100 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Close this thread because it was also shotgunned at WP:ANI. For discussion, go to Arrogant User. Glrx (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

i world like to make the page called SO R@n:D0ᴟ!
i world like to make the page called SO R@n:D0ᴟ! so i can make a reject &#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:red&#34;&#62;user:jake.edu&#124;jake.edu&#93;&#93;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:red&#34;&#62; (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid title by any definition of the phrase. Per all common sense and various guidelines, such a page would have to exist at "So Random!", which it already does.— Ryulong (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 11:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I believe you mean WP:Redirect. Making a redirect at SO R@n:D0ᴟ! would be a feasible request, even though it is not a proper page title or redirect choice. — Ryulong (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very implausible misspelling, considering that neither "0" nor ᴟ"" exist in the show's logo. The former is actually a pair of parentheses "" and the latter is a sideways "M". Honestly, I don't think that anyone would ever type that into Wikipedia's search box. This is just my opinion on the usefulness of filling out this request. --  At am a  頭 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On a second viewing, maybe that is a "0" done in a stenciled font, but I still find it extremely unlikely given that last character. --  At am a  頭 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking the Disney website, I see it rendered more-or-less as above on the home page. It's a hard call between "O" and "0", though, and it only appears in graphic form that I could see, not in selectable text. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disney? Is this the latest bambifan sock? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. This User uses Talk pages.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, hadn't noticed that! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is not needed: nobody is going to type ᴟ in a search box, and if by some miracle they do, they'll easily find what they're looking for anyway. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * see this File:So Random!.png the ᴟ is there Jacobsmithgatyahoodotcom (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a capital M in there. The redirect is not going to be made, anyway.— Ryulong (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 10:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Move page over existing redirect page
Could an admin help moving Norweigan Police Security Service (notice the spelling error) to Norwegian Police Security Service? Thanks in advance! – Danmichaelo (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For future reference, it's probably better to leave such requests at WP:RM. Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the move, and also for pointing me to WP:RM! – Danmichaelo (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Gibson_players
I don't know why but there are multiple problems with this section which include links to other pages and signatures not working. I am not sure if this is the place to post it but it needs to be fixed. --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did that fix it? there was an unclosed "nowiki" tag, which can wreck all sorts of havoc.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Typicly, WP:VPT is a better place to get such input. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok Thank You. It's fixed now. --Jamcad01 (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC closing at WT:INB
We had a discussion (which was RfC tagged) at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. However, before someone uninvolved could close the discussion and identify consensus, the bot had removed the RfC tag. Could someone head over and close the discussion and post what consensus is? It's not particularly controversial, but it'll be helpful for the many that work in that space to have a standard philosophy to follow. I've timestamped the discussion to prevent archiving for a few days. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I listed it above - Administrators'_noticeboard - a while back. Hopefully someone picks up one or the other of our requests. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did the bot remove it? Are the tags supposed to be removed after a month?  Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Requests for comment: RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically de-listed by the RfC bot after 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template). [ . . . ] If further time is wanted, editors can change the first timestamp to a more recent date, which will prevent the bot from removing the listing. Yeah Bots! --64.85.221.215 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick note - backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
Since a backlog at CSD is usually uncommon, I felt like it would be important to mention it here. Feel free to delete this notice once the backlog is cleared.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Request reopening/relisting of two NACs
Would an admin please re-open and relist Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Onward Muslim Soldiers (2nd nomination)? With 3 keeps and 3 delete/redirects each, a non-admin closed them because he felt that the sources presented were reliable and significant while other users disagreed. I thought it would be improper to re-open them myself, but consensus has clearly not yet been reached, certainly not to the point where a NAC would be appropriate, and the closer's rationale takes a position on the notability of the subjects rather than on the strength of the arguments, making it a vote rather than a neutral close. (And please let me know if DRV is the better venue for this - I'm not sure how it works with NACs.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above would be a waste of everyone's time. They were never going to be deleted. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not for a non-admin with an opinion on the subject's notability to decide. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you at least stop removing referenced content as you did here. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP's policy on reliable sources is not suspended during an AfD, so no. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, Armbrust has been asked on at least 1 occasion to stop performing NAC's on non-obvious AFD's. I know that before I was an admin, I got my wrist slapped for the same thing and stopped ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Neither of them look like good candidates for NAC also the closing looks a little like a !vote, see no harm in a re-list then an Admin close. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Roscelese clearly miss-presents the numbers in the AfD's. In the "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" two of the three redirects are essentially just votes without any base in policy and the first says: redirect, because the article existed for sometimes and is very short, a very week argument. There were no delete !votes in this discussion. In the "Onward Muslim Soldiers" are only 1 redirect and 1 delete !votes. In both cases the users advocating the articles to be kept, bring multiple sources, and there is a consensus between them, that they are reliable. By the way I have absolutely no position on the notability of these books, I didn't read them and didn't even know they existed until closing their AfD's. Roscelese also accuses me of evaluating "the sources as reliable and significant", but for the record I didn't read any of them. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm involved (as is Ros -- whose nominations were rejected).  That said, I agree with Tiger and Armbrust, for the reasons they state above.  This AN seems a bit POINTy to me, but that is perhaps in keeping with much of the tone/actions at the AfDs.  We all know that !votes are not simply counted, and a credible rationale for weighing the !votes here was presented.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any NACs that have good faith objections should be overturned. Just glancing at them, Armbrust's closes seem reasonable to me, but the worst thing that can happen with an overturn is that they stay open slightly longer and are closed the same way by an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Armbrust realllllllyyyy has to stop NAC'ing AFD's that are not basically snowballs. When he's given a mop, and judged by the community to have what it takes to weigh consensus, then he can close all he wants.  Until then, NAC's are supposed to be for obvious closes only ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reopened both. Whatever the right close is, these are far from suitable NAC candidates. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @BWilkins: Interesting opinion. But how could other editors decide if on adminship candidate can read consensus, if they only have a large sample of obvious decisions? @T. Canens Found your decision a little bit WP:CREEPY, just because I'm not an admin. I mean if you said, there was no consensus for keeping these articles, than I would understand, why you reopened them. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Prize and Bid redirect
Really disappointed that Wikipedia permitted a redirect under the guise of a reward for participating in a wikipedia survey. I will no longer use this service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.36.129 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain a bit what you mean? I'm not sure what survey you're talking about. I'm a bit concerned that you may been caught by a typosquatter; these are people who host material on URLs that are similar but not exactly the same as the website you're looking for. They may impersonate the actual website to try to get private information from you or other gain. If you can give more detail about the survey in question, we may be able to determine if that's what happened or, if not, to figure out what otherwise went wrong. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a squatter on Wikkipedia.com, but you probably know about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that one specifically is known, but unfortunately they are an issue. :/ I'll pass that one along to legal, just in case. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting another block for Wingard
Said user was blocked for a week, and continually removed their block, and are now back, continuing their antics as prior before. I no longer wish to deal with said user, so I'm hoping for a longer than a week block, possibly a permanent one, as they continually cannot learn from their actions. They continually show signs of WP:OWN and show no remorse for their actions and wish to endure in an edit war. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wingard was blocked twice for edit warring. He requested to be unblocked, saying he will no longer war, & again he wilfully continues to do so. Put the indefinite block into effect. He'll eventually continue edit warring once his block expires. Again, this needs to stop. Megastar LV ( talk )

I'm not edit warring, I'm just stating a fact. B & B hasn't been uploaded on the CBS home page yet! When it is, feel free to change the airdate and episode count. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingard (talk • contribs)

Yes you are edit warring, despite your attempt to state a fact. We clearly see that you are edit warring, so don't lie. Megastar LV ( talk )


 * Pretty much everyone who's posted to this thread so far was edit warring, but I've blocked Wingard indefinitely, because the previous 24 hour and 1 week blocks didn't seem to take. His replies make me think a block of finite duration would not be effective; I, for one, will need to see some evidence that he's going to stop doing it anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE and WP:ROPE (as I mentioned last time when I made the last block); and I trout myself for not indefinitely blocking when I had the chance. When you see stuff like, , , , , and he repeatedly blanks his talk page and flat-out ignores every piece of advice and warning down the pike (including this one. He promised the last time (like this time and this time) to stop his edit warring and harassment, but he has clearly not. --MuZemike 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. What do you mean by "continually removed their block"?  Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed the block notice is probably what was meant. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion of potential unblock conditions are on the go at their talkpage ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've agreed to unblock in 1 week, per some conditions I've laid out on their talk page. If anyone has any input into: (a) other problematic editing patterns beyond edit warring that I am not aware of, and (b) some pointers on the problems with their file uploads that I thought I saw someone mention somewhere (can't find the comment right now), I'd prefer you brought them up on my talk page, rather than theirs.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. I'm starting to think I'm confused about the file upload issue, perhaps mixing up Wingard with someone else.  It doesn't look like he's uploaded any files since 2008. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for help with a page move
I am a representative of the organisation Napo.

The current wikipedia page for "National Association of Probation Officers" was not created by us, although it is about us.

We are known as Napo, and have been for many years and do not wish to be publicized by the old name.

I have tried moving the page but have been told it cannot be done.

Can you please advise what can be done or if you can do this for us.

Many thanks

Keith Waldron Napo_Admin Napo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napo Admin (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit of a challenge - NAPO is a disambiguation page already ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm creating a move request at Talk:National Association of Probation Officers - we'll see how it goes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SFD backlog
Can somew admins please come and help at WP:Stub types for deletion? It's becoming backlogged agfain, including 3 discussions here from early November. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request on User:125.7.71.6
On 3 January, an editor from this IP address (which I've been told is a public library terminal) made this edit to Ecosystem. This edit was probably vandalism, and was reverted User:Jojalozzo, and the editor was warned (level 1). Less than one hour later, with no intervening edits, User:Nightscream blocked the IP address for a month. On 20 January, an editor (almost certainly a different one than the one making the vandalizing edit, and almost certainly a non-new user) made an unblock request. I believe the account should be unblocked, so I asked Nightscream. We had a conversation on my talk page which User:Amalthea joined. Nightscream has declined to undo the block.

My rationale for accepting the unblock is that a month long block for an IP address from which was made a single disruptive edit in the past month, and also made constructive edits during the same time, (see all of the edits in the contribution log for December) should not be blocked for a whole month. The last block prior to this was 2 weeks in duration, from December 2010. Nightscream has argued (see User talk:Qwyrxian) that the fact that the address has been blocked before, essentially we no longer owe the new people editing from that address any good faith, and thus are justified in escalating blocks on the IP address despite intervening good edits. As far as I can tell, Nightscream proposes that this particular IP address and other similar ones are now in a position where even a single piece of vandalism should result in an extended block, even if the address is used primarily for positive actions. Note that this is not an account with a specific "style" of vandalism (i.e., this isn't the Barney editor or a genre-warrior or someone who consistently makes the same type of vandalizing edits). Nor is this a school account, where the vast majority of edits are vandalism, and thus we slap down regular, increasing blocks. This is just a generic, unmonitored public terminal that demonstrates a mix of good and bad behavior. Nightscream's solution proposed solution is that if the editor really wants to make good faith contributions, well, xe should just register an account. Though I pointed out that this is in contradiction to both Wikipedia's principles and Foundation dictum, Nightscream still disagreed.

Thus, my only option is to bring the issue here to the noticeboard to 1) see if there is a consensus that this unblock was too lengthy and thus the account should be unblocked and 2) if I am correct, perhaps counsel Nightscream that this is not an appropriate way to handle IP address blocks with mixed editing history. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For an IP address with no recent blocks, I think 1 month is excessively long. The previous block ended on December 31, 2010. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading over the discussion, I agree that a month is excessive. I thought maybe there's something we didn't know, like a proxy issue, but Amalthea's comments suggest that this is not the case. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While the response hasn't been overwhelming, since so far everyone who has commented other than Nightscream feels that 1 month was too long, I'm going to unblock; it's already been about 3 weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism
Maybe some of you can keep an eye on this article and its talk page. An edit war was happening and I have tried to mediate--I think unsuccessfully--on the talk page. Admins assume they have some kind of special power that allows them to establish right and wrong, and I guess that's what I did. Feel free to read over the discussion and weigh in. More to the point of this board, I stopped short of protecting the article, and I hope there won't be a need to do that--but please have a look to see if the edit war starts again and act accordingly, with one exception: should Suehrname reinstate any of the Bahai criticism with a reliable source (not the one they originally had), then I suppose I gave them a fiat to do it, though I urged patience and caution. Both editors have been warned for 3R. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Copying other user's sandboxes into main space...
has copied User:RichsLaw/Expert witnesses in English law to Expert witnesses in English law and User:RichsLaw/Redundancy in English law to  Redundancy in English law. No credit has been given to which is probably a violation of GFDL and the the second has been identified as a potential copyright violation. Not sure whether these can be deleted or if AFD is required? Tim! (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a CUTANDPASTE problem. DMacks (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest: why on earth would deletion be necessary? Is User:Tim! claiming that these topic are not worthy of encyclopaedic coverage? If he is, then an AFD is the honourable path to take, rather than Wikilawyering. Highly likely to fail, based on notability being established by multiple, reliable external, academic sources, but hey, it is a free world. Mais oui! (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he mentioned that the second was identified as a potential copyvio. But also, fixing a cut and paste move requires deletion first, in order to move the page over using the move button, to preserve credit for GFDL licensing. Also, as a third possibility, maybe RichsLaw wasn't finished with the pages, in which case it might be good to hold off putting them in articlespace. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm pretty sure it isn't the notability of the topic, but rather not attributing User:RichsLaw as the author of the material, which would go against the copyleft licenses Wikipedia uses. See Copying within Wikipedia. — Moe  <font color="0000FF">ε  09:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is claiming (at least) and I agree that the way you relocated the content--cut&pasting his whole sandbox page to the article--may not have been appropriate. At the time, you had not made the null-edits to include his sandbox as the source in the new article's edit-history. There are several standard ways to move whole articles to new locations, and cut'n'paste is a fairly poor one (read the link I pasted above for explanation why and what the "right" way is). Without the GFDL, you would likely not have permission to edit anyone else's work here at all, so enforcing its minimal requirements does not seem like an abuse of process or wikilawyering. DMacks (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Terrible way to move information into mainspace, and also rather rude. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 09:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that pasting another user's sandbox into an article is highly rude and should not be condoned. Delete the current article and let the author move it in when they are ready. As the author has not edited since last October, it might be appropriate to move their sandbox to create an article while preserving the history—however, at least a week should be allowed after placing a request at their talk page. In case anyone is wondering "where is the policy that requires all that?", the answer is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy—we try to do what is right. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would endorse any deletion here. Proper attribution is required not just a null edit in the article history. Technically It's only a small violation but this was morally repugnant. We allow users much leeway in there user space to get things how they want. They can claim a lot of ownership on essays for example. I cannot believe than an editor would move another editors contribution without even asking, taking credit himself! That would put many editors off editing, I am sure. (Can't delete myself because I'm on my phone) <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the "copy-and-paste" pages. If the original editor susbequently seeks to properly move his sandbox pages to the mainspace, then that should be his right, and should not be the decision of other editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * RichsLaw has given his permission to move his sandbox articles into mainspace. Not that it applies here but I do believe that moving an editor's work with attribution would be proper when a Wikipedian has died. <font face="High Tower Text" size="1px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 12:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously guys... Just move the article and be done with it. I don't get why this needed a AN thread instead of a simple WP:CUTPASTE procedure... -- Luk  talk 12:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bungled
I need administrator assistance to remove an image I just uploaded. Someone else uploaded an image of the same name and my upload has replaced their image. The upload's |here. I won't re-upload until the correct image is undeleted. I appologize for the problem, it's not what I had in mind. <font color="#00ACF4">@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 16:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What is this?
Since I can't tell what this is, I don't know if it requires any action, such as nominating for MfD. Could someone please take a look? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the user's contributions, there's a bunch of other, similar pages in their userspace. User hasn't editied in 3 years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These look like unattributed copies of web-pages. I would suggest that they either be MfD's en-bloc or speedied as copyvios, and a not left on the user's talk page. They can be undeleted in the unlikely event that they are needed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Apart from possibly "hrunk". Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Ah! That makes sense. I'm going to tag them for speedy deletion as copyvios. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've tagged them all as copyvios (inlcuding Hrunk, which comes from a user page on Wiktionary and is not attributed) and have left a note on the editor's talk page, with a pointer to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the pages in question as they were technically copyvios in userspace as the user didn't attribute the original author/website properly as noted on the websites. I even deleted Hrunk for the same reason. As Rich Farmbrough said, I can undelete them upon the request of the user if they attribute the original works properly etc. AngelOfSadness  talk  20:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For most of the pages, the amount of material copied was far too much to qualify under WP:NFCC, or even broader American fair-use standards, so even attribution wouldn't legitimatize those.  For any of them which were taken from webpages which were not copyrighted, or were released under a copyleft standard, attribution would be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandal help, I'm overwhelmed
This didn't seem right for AIV, so I'm hoping I can get help here. I've recently stumbled across a ton of IP's, all starting with 201.19, that have been vandalizing articles for the last few months. This is not obvious vandalism, and so a lot of it has gone unnoticed, making it all the more harmful. It's consisted of adding directors to movies they weren't a part of, adding songs to soundtracks, and a multitude of believable but harmful edits. At this point I've realized I'm not patient enough nor am I skilled enough to comb through all these edits. I'm going to a link to a bunch of the IP's below, but I'm pretty sure there's more (although I've cleared a bunch already) but any help with this (and ideally with blocking the range or something to prevent further damage) would be much appreciated.
 * Special:Contributions/201.19.86.109
 * Special:Contributions/201.19.164.8
 * Special:Contributions/201.19.67.169
 * Special:Contributions/201.19.84.216
 * Special:Contributions/201.19.163.6
 * Special:Contributions/201.19.168.162
 * Special:Contributions/201.19.103.75

For a lot of these, going to the history of the vandalized articles turns up even more 201.19 IPs. Thanks for any help, and sorry if this is posted in the wrong place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * IP range is, which is pretty wide really... SpitfireTally-ho! 02:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD a week past due for closing
If I can get another admin to review this MfD and then close it appropriately, I would appreciate it. Since I participated in the discussion, I can't close it myself, and it's been open for 14 days. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jayron  32  19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

India Education Program - Pune pilot report
This is to draw your attention towards a report published by independent consultant Tory Read for the Wikimedia Foundation on the lessons and learnings from the Pune pilot of the India Education Program. The links are available below: See also: India Education Program/Analysis (discussion).
 * India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read (discussion)
 * India Education Program/Analysis/Quantitative Analysis (discussion)

Your comments are welcome. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Action of 25 January 2012 back to January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid
Can an administrator look at moving Action of 25 January 2012 back to January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid - it was moved without discussion. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the article is now at Action of 25 January 2012. I'm very much involved, but I really don't see why admin intervention is needed. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That name doesn't even begin to meet the naming policies... the New York Times only recently published an article about it, so maybe we should wait a few days to see what name gets used in the press. But the current name is untenable. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An update: I don't think this subject has any business at AN... however, while we're here, perhaps we can move protect it, or at least have more eyes on the name issue. I'm of the opinion that we need to wait a few days until there's more coverage and then maybe we can deduce a good common name. In any case, there's a discussion started on the talk page. It's not contentious [from what I can tell], but it'd be nice to get it right. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think an admin should move this (and definitely not as a BRD move). Looking at the history, the article began at "Action of 25 January 2012", was boldly moved to "January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid" by Lihaas, and was then moved back to "Action of 25 January 2012" by XavierGreen. Looks to me like the B and R have happened, now we just need some D – my suggestion would be to start a requested move (and yes, the current title is dreadful). On a side note, I'm not sure why this is at AN when any autoconfirmed user could move the article "January 2012 United States Navy SEAL Somali raid" at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've move protected the article, so any move will need to be done via WP:RM. "Action of (date)" is an established style of title for these sorts of articles, so the title is valid, if inelegant. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Inelegant is probably a better description than untenable. I'm gonna mark this resolved unless there are objections (if so just remove it). Shadowjams (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

inactive admin needs to deflag account

 * Since this really belongs at WP:BN, I've gone ahead and moved it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Original description and source of File:Bonifas.jpg
Hi, File:Bonifas.jpg was transfered from en-wp to Commons in 2008. As it has currently been nominated for deletion it would be helpful if the original description could be made available as it is unclear whether the original uploader provided a source. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No description or source was originally given. Danger High voltage! 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? It had a claim of own work via a template.  The uploader's userpage says that he was in the military in the 1970s, so a photo of a man who died in 1976 isn't impossible.  Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough
The acute situation of User:Rich Farmbroughs edits, discussed at WP:ANI, is gnoe now that he has (temporarily?) stopped his AWB runs. The chronic situation remains though, and AN is better suited for this than ANI.

The problem is that, for years and years, Rich Farmbrough has gone on editing sprees where a basically sound idea of intention gets a poorly thought out implementation, with many errors, often for little benefit. Furthermore, he uses these editing sprees to impose some of his preferred stylistic choices, like the capitalization of templates and parameters, against consensus and/or policy.

This has lead to two Editing restrictions, a number of blocks, and many AN and ANI discussions, some of them accessible through Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough.

In his latest AWB runs (over thousands of articles), he has created many errors, mainly to do with incorrect sorting (a sample is checked here). Looking further back, it turns out that he stopped this Persondata run for a while to add a category to a group of pages. Sadly, again, in many cases that category was added incorrectly. He corrected his own error in some 125 cases afterwards, but missed quite a few other ones; e.g. Netwitness, CSS Studios, Panorama9, CommunityOne Bank, and (most obviously) List of American exchange-traded funds are now incorrectly listed in Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ.

This raises the question: what, if anything, can be done?
 * Let him continue editing in the same way, and remove the restrictions
 * Keep and enforce the current restrictions
 * Remove AWB access and ban from any use of tools
 * Restrict editing speed
 * Block
 * Rewrite restrictions
 * ArbCom
 * Other... Fram (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So why are we creating a separate discussion from the ANI one above? I really don't think we need to fragment the discussion so everyone has to run back and forth trying to keep up. --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because sanctions (apart from immediate blocks to deal with an acute situation) are not handled on ANI, but on AN. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At least one simple solution is possible: the community could forbid R.F. from running large-scale jobs of all sorts (including AWB) from his main account, and allow him to run bot jobs only when those jobs have proper bot approval first. The purpose of bot approval is to give people a chance to point out all these side cases, and to also work out exactly what other stylistic changes the bot is permitted to make. In other words the purpose of bot approval is exactly to avoid the problems that are caused by the ad hoc large-scale runs that R.F. has been making. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just ban him from using any automated or semi-automated tools, widely construed. And also slap a hefty block on him for violating editing restrictions. He should know better by now. Let's not start another Betacommand-type circus with an automated tool user. Jtrainor (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This. Enough is enough. Farmborough has shown he cannot use the toys responsibly, they must therefore be taken away from him unless and until he can. No access to automated tools, ban use of scripts, put a rate cap on his editing speed. → ROUX   ₪  17:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ban him from making any side-effect changes on AWB - all options on the first tab (see here) other than that which is necessary for the task he's doing (if any). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One difficulty is that many of the changes are not built into AWB at all, he has gone out of his way to add them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you take my proposal, no one needs to go and check if specific changes made in his edit are standard AWB stock - he may not make any of those, either. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ban from using any automated or semi-automated tools, widely construed, per Jtrainor. Rich has been given myriad chances to follow his looser restrictions, and hasn't managed to get the hang of that. It's time to just accept that automated editing and him don't work together. I don't see a need to block/ban him also, as long as we implement a "no automated or semi-automated editing" restriction, as that will prevent the problematic behavior. Obviously if the restriction is implemented and he violates it, then blocks would be on the table. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a ban on semi-automated but requirement that any non-incidental (more than a dozen?) automated/semi-automated changes go through bot approval. We have the bot approval group for exactly these kinds of tasks and a widely worded block would create doubt about him using that approved process and also prevent more mundane but necessary semi-automated tools that he hasn't abused, like twinkle or huggle. Moreover, the problem is the small esoteric changes on big runs, not stock use of AWB. And he already has sanctions in place for those criteria. Tacking on the bot approval group requirement, especially because that project is aware of Rich's history, good and bad, would allow some formal oversight. At the very least I'd suggest Rich explore this option voluntarily because while there's a lot of good, necessary work he's done that otherwise woudln't get done, it's too much trouble to double check these things and the potential for harm from a small mistake is large. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shadow although I think a dozen is a bit low. --Kumioko (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone! I'm gonna block that SoB right now!
 * Uh.. maybe first I'll just point out that all those articles were already in the category, and if people had only listened to their Uncle Rich, and forbidden content categories in templates completely, rather than just "recommending" against them, this would never have happened.
 * Foolishly (but forgivably) someone put the cat in - this not only meant the another template had to be created for articles where the cat wasn't wanted, but inevitably many articles got incorrectly classified. In particular some 125 that transcluded navboxen where the template had been used.
 * Thanks to my heroic efforts the category is more accurate by having 125+ incorrect entries removed. If someone is complaining that I didn't remove all the wrong entries form the category, then they simply don't get it.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Per Shadowjams, any set of 20 or more changes in an automated/semi-automated or rapid manner made by Rich Farmbrough needs prior approval by the bot approval group; unapproved "bot editing" prevented by escalating blocks starting at 2 weeks. The last block (which was lifted due to COI) to prevent the negative impact of this kind of behaviour was 2 weeks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Did you even read what I posted? Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC).


 * You appear to be unable to comprehend the community's issues with your editing. You have been afforded plenty of opportunity to change your conduct, and have not done so. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh. Fram is complaining that I put articles in the wrong category. I did not. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC).


 * What happened with these particular articles, where you added a category and then removed it?  &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They were already in the category' - that is rather the whole point. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * This is one of the pages just before you edited it: . By looking at the bottom of the page, I can see that it was not already in the category. Adding the category, and then removing it, certainly has the appearance of putting the article in a wrong category. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK mate, look a little harder. Use your doubtless finely honed analytic skills. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Less cryptically put, the page transcludes NASDAQ, which included the category before [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:NASDAQ&diff=next&oldid=472353150 this edit]. Jafeluv (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * R.F. himself said above, about the NASDAQ template, "inevitably many articles got incorrectly classified". Given that he realized that, going through and re-adding the category to all the articles that transclude the template is clearly the wrong thing to do - first you have to make a list of the articles that should have the category, then you can fix them. Just adding the category to every article that transcludes NASDAQ is sloppy at best, and would not have made it through bot approval if it had been properly proposed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, first you resolve the problem, then the symptom. Once I had made the transition no new instances of the problem would be created. Any naive user can then resolve the categorisation (although it is not as trivial as you like to make out, for example one of the article you complain about, while not technically being NASDAQ quoted is the substantial business owned by a holding company which is quoted, and about which we do not have an article). You may wish to read Polya: "How to Solve It". Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Restrict from editing using semi-automated or automated tools (I don't think the word ban is appropriate in this context.) – If Rich finds editing using semi-automated or automated tools absolutely necessary, he should either seek approval for his use of such from the Bot Approvals Group or optimally, post a request on Bot requests and just let another user take it from there; I haven't seen a shortage of bot operators recently.
 * This incident has demonstrated clearly that Rich's use of even semi-automated tools is in violation of the bot policy; each edit using such must be judged before confirmed. Moreover, any editor using [semi-]automated tools is expected to be more responsive to feedback than the average editor due to the increase in rate and scope of edits. In contrast, Rich's response to feedback is frequently either condescending or dismissive, and he does not consider halting his current task and re-gauging consensus, which is the appropriate action whenever there's evidence of controversy.
 * Unfortunately, I have no confidence that if there is consensus for this restriction, he will heed it, as he does not even acknowledge that he's currently under editing restrictions. Indeed, in his most recent request for approval, he stated "for the record I am not under an editing restriction" . This concerns me. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editing restrictions are imposed by the community. Not by one editor saying "I am being bold and creating an ER". However since that editor seemed sane I chose at the time to work with them which was very effective, except when Fram kept sticking his nose in. And I also use BRFAs as suggested by other contributors here, which can also be effective except when Fram and CBM come and sabotage the BRFAs, which, these days, is always. Fram says he is raising this "because he is not welcome at my talk page". His drama is not welcome wherever he takes it, but to suggest that it is less unwelcome on a noticeboard than my talk page is disingenuous at best. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Before he blocked himself today, R.F. made a series AWB of edits to change the sort order of biographies of people with Japanese names, and then reverted himself on all of them. Based on his contribs he did all this after he commented here, but before he blocked himself. This seems to be another example of a task where, if he had sought bot approval first, the error might have been detected before all the articles were edited. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I wonder why he did it, this too is an example of how the AWB sort logic doesn't quite work right for certain things. Its a known issue and relatively minor issue that mostly occurs with non english names such as Middle eastern, diacratics and Japanese type characters. --Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true... and if he had been judging AWB's edits before confirming them, the error would have been detected before the first edit... &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 04:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * May be my settings of course, but I don't believe blaming this, even in part, on AWB is correct here. When I run e.g. Kuniaki Koiso through AWB, with Autotag, Unicodify and Apply General Fixes enabled, no changes are suggested by AWB. It seems to me as if the reverted changes were not suggested by AWB at all, but were Rich Farmbrough's own idea. Either way, doing this during this discussion is making it quite obvious why some action is needed. Fram (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since most of that was manual, your assumptions are flawed, your conclusions even more so. The fact that I decided to revert a substantial part of what I did last night, rather than chase through the items individually today was partially to avoid this type of stupid sniping -vain hope indeed. I am, it seems, being castigated by Fram for substantially improving a category, and by CBM for making minor improvements to a few articles. (CBM has said he doesn't follow my edits, it seems that he does.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC).


 * In what way does editing an article and then reverting that edit constitute an improvement to the article (] &rarr; )? In what way does adding a category to an article and then removing it constitute "improve a category" ( &rarr; )? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)It is not really clear to who or what you are responding here, and whose assumptions and conclusions you are criticizing. I don't think anyone is "sniping" or "castigating" you for reverting those edits; the question is why you made those 29 or so AWB edits in the first place, starting at Katsura Tarō and ending at Kuniaki Koiso, after you have just been criticized for adding incorrect defaultsorts to articles on Japanese people? Your reply here doesn't address this at all. Fram (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what Rich was trying to say is that he undid the helpful edit. Not that reverting his change was a helpful edit. In the case of these Person data name changes I would agree that the probably should not be using the Given name, Sir name format commonly used in English cultures but have the Sir name Given name formatting. I am not 100% of how that culture usually sorts the naming but I believe that they normally do it by Sir Name given name so it appears that the sorting that Rich was attempting was a benefit. --Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For Kuniaki Koiso, reading the article, the family name is Koiso and the given name is Kuniaki.The edit that R.F. made could only be correct if the family name was Kuniaki and the given name was Koiso (look at the defaultsort). But that is not the case. There are other examples of this among the ones he reverted. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)If he truly believed that these edits were beneficial, and no one complained between the time he made the edits and the time he reverted them again, then why the reverts? Anyway, according to WP:NAMESORT, it doesn't matter how other cultures sort, the English Wikipedia sorts always by family name - given name order. And even if someone is correct in his edits: when they are questioned, and (like here) many people are questioning whether you should be making such AWB (or similar) edits at all or without prior approval, then making a type of edits that has just been questioned (but not answered), in a manner that has met with disapproval, only sends the message that you don't care about the community and will do whatever you like. Perhaps that's not the intended message, but it certainly is the impression it gives. Fram (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You could be right on the name sorting thing. Like I said above I'm not quite sure on that one. To CBM, if he reverted it, for whatever reason then the problem is solved as far as I am concerned. He caught the error and fixed it. Thats all anyone could ask for. There are certianly other problems where this wasn't done but I don't think we need to dwell on this particular one. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One is not allowed to make a mistake and revert it? Some new rule perhaps? Seems like you are clutching at straws here. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * When you already know that something is an error, and these kind of edits are under discussion, then making the same error on 8 pages using AWB, and then reverting it, is not helping anyone or anything. Then, after you have noticed that your AWB edits were wrong (else why did you revert them?), making the same error on 21 pages again, and reverting those as well, is just ridiculous. If you want to test something, do it in your userspace, use preview, or stop after one or two pages. Fram (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what happened there at all. First you misunderstand what happened. Then you impugn bad motives to me. Then you tell me what to do. Even if you were right about what happened, this is a clumsy way to interact with another human being. When you are wrong, and keep doing it, becomes even more annoying.  Probably most annoying is when you are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but never admit a mistake. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Then please enlighten us and do tell what happened there and perhaps why you did it as well. Fram (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First off I did not make 8 edits and revert them. I made 8 edits then I reviewed them in detail, in some cases I undid some or most of what I had done, in some cases I made additional changes to infelicities of prose and other minor things, in some I may have done both.  Then I made some more edits, but realised there were some complexities I had not forseen, that weren't apparent form the first 8, so I reverted most or all of the second batch and went over the first batch again, together with a few others. Net result, some improved articles, me better informed everything is good. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Then please tell us which of the changes you made in these 8 edits we are talking about survived even in part? Half of this one, because you were lucky that it was half wrong before. Furthermore, your reply begs the question: why make 8 edits with AWB and only then review them? Why make 21 edits more, and again only then review them? Why don't you inform yourself before going on on short, long or endless runs of edits, instead of using the mainspace as your testing ground? Why do you think we have talk pages, projects, BRFA and so on? Just to prevent these kind of things. Why do you think you have editing restrictions? For exactly the same reason. If I wouldn't have checked your edits, despite your dislike of that, chances are that you wouldn't have noticed these problems at all, as evidenced by the remains of other errors in runs of years ago. Fram (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I was reluctant to "enlighten" you, I'm just feeding you. You don't read what I say, you just read what you think I am saying. If you restricted yourself to simply reporting problems in a polite thoughtful manner, instead of always behaving in an "I'm right you're wrong", process bound, confrontational, manner, you could actually be useful instead of a perpetual pain in the backside and waste of time. Now as well as damning everything I do that you can, you are trying to claim credit for the rest. Rich Farmbrough, 13:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

OK, I'm back from hiding. I'll just give my opinion on him. He should be banned from using any bots, period. I'm actually surprised he's still an administrator. He uses bots and violates restriction, yes we know that. I just want to know why he still gets to use bots anyway. Enough is enough. -- Hinata  talk   20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the vast amount of stuff I do is not only beneficial to the project, but even in Fram and CBM's avid pursuit of witchcraft there is nothing that can be found to complain about. And when I do make an error I go to any lengths to resolve it.  Those who have been working with me for years know this. When Fram tried to take me to Arbcom one arb commented. "The creation of the ISO templates, and edit to template:interwiki, is absolutely ridiculous to be brought up here. Rich did the right thing by creating those templates."   Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * People can read all the replies to that ArbCom case here. "Nothing that can be found to complain about" is a bit strange when you consider all the errors I pointed out, some of which you have then corrected, some of which you haven't. It doesn't seem though as if you have made any effort to see if there are more articles you edited that have the same problems as the examples I pointed out (e.g. this or this). I would rather describe your actions as "doing a minimal effort to resolve some errors that are pointed out to me" than as going "to any lengths to resolve it", but that's a question of perspective and attitude. If you had went to any lengths, you would have noticed articles like this one or this one. I have to admit that I do love someone with defaultsort and name = Texas, George W. Bush As Governor of. Another example? In 2009, you change a correct defaultsort to an incorrect one (using, of course, AWB) here. And then this week you use that incorrect Defaultsort as the "name" of the person in the persondata (somehow chaning one "Of" in "of", but leaving the other one alone). You may blame this problem on an earlier error, but since that one was also made by you, using AWB, I don't think it would help your case. Fram (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * support no automated tools, no bots, no semi-automated tools and a very short leash.--Crossmr (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let him continue editing in the same way, and remove the restrictions Perfection is not required, only good faith and reasonable competence. Thus far I've observed lots of rhetoric but little evidence of any actual harm to Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good faith is not an unending well. One would reasonably question the good faith of an editor that continually ignores community input and continually plugs ahead making edits he knows have issues. This is a cycle he often repeats and if one were to assume good faith, we would assume he would try to improve his process which there doesn't seem to be any indication that he's done.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct response to "Rich Farmborough not only refuses to follow his editing restrictions, he is claiming they don't exist, simultaneously claiming there is not any problem with his editing" is not to remove said restrictions, particularly when this is a problem that has been going on for years. → ROUX   ₪  13:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal
Okay, let's clean this up, since support seems to be clear. is:
 * Prohibited from using AWB or any other script-assisted rapid editing tools, broadly construed including bots, at any time across enwiki unless previously approved by BAG
 * Limited to a maximum of one edit per minute in mainspace
 * Required to submit any batch editing jobs to BAG for approval. Asking for approval must include source code for any bot or scripting.
 * Infractions to be met with the usual series of escalating blocks. Rich Farmborough may appeal to the community via AN for these conditions to be reviewed six months from implementation, or six months from the end of the most recent block, whichever is later.

Edited to add: Those who are claiming no detriment to enwiki might want to visit this page before saying so. Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough.


 * Support - as proposer. → ROUX   ₪  13:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose no evidence of harm to Wikipedia by RF editing has been presented. Nobody Ent 13:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to acquaint yourself with Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX   ₪  15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What about articles which were sorted correctly before he edited them, but no longer after he edited them? Whether it does or doesn't merit (other) sanctions is open for debate, but it is clear that quite a few of his edits made Wikipedia worse. Fram (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, evidence is diffs to article space. I do see that an RFC/U was suggested. Was one ever started? Nobody Ent 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the rest of this discussion? There are plenty of diffs there wher his edits made the article worse, not better. But if you want more examples, all of them not corrected at the time of speaking (despite his assurances of going to lengths to correct errors); incorrect defaultsorts are now added ,,,,, ... Obviously incorrect ones are the things like and . It doesn't take a long time to find these, and there are plenty, plenty more. Instead of checking his previous edits for errors himself though (apart from correcting some of those found by others), he has started on another tangentially related run of edits, without any interaction with people who know more about whatever he is trying to achieve to see whether he is correct in his changes. It's a pattern stretching back for years and over thousands of edits, many of which have been reverted, and many more which still are undetected. Fram (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is clearly an issue with defaultsort and name in (particularly) Japanese biography articles, which applies to many hundreds of articles - the vast majority not put there by me.  The best resolution is to fix as many as possible, not merely those I have been involved in. According to you, however, if I get a persondata element wrong, or even use a style you don't like, I am on the verge of destroying the project, and probably most of the known universe.  If someone else does it it, correcting it  "is of no value for Wikipedia". Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Oppose I can see no editing offences meriting this action. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to acquaint yourself with Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX   ₪  15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Begoon &thinsp; talk 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish to be clear: are you claiming that RF has not caused disruption, that he is not under editing restrictions which he has flouted (and has been under and done the same in the past), that there has not been a strong consensus that there are significant problems with his editing which he has categorically refused to address? → ROUX   ₪  16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't claimed anything I can see. I'm saying don't badger me. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Providing you with information is not 'badgering.' Not wanting to be badgered doesn't mean you get to opine without being challenged. Since you are not providing any justification, and you are ignoring information, one can only assume your opinion will be utterly discounted. As it should be. → ROUX   ₪  16:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with Nobody Ent and Begoon. From what I see above RF seems to be copping flak for making a bunch of edits and when he realised they may be incorrect he reverted himself. That's the exact response you want from someone doing semi-automatic editing. Also, one edit per minute is ridiculous – it's incredibly easy to go over that threshold manually. Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to acquaint yourself with Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX   ₪  15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no. He made thousands of edits wrt persondata and defaultsort, mixed with a few hundred for Nasdaq. He reverted 125 of the second group, which is a large part but far from all incorrect ones. But of the thousands of "persondata/defaultsort" related edits, he only reverted some of those that I pointed out as examples of errors, without looking for more similar errors (of which there are plenty). Furthermore, despite knowing of one particular group of errors in those, he made the same error in 8 more articles, reverted those, then made the same error again in 21 more articles, and reverted those as well. The reverting in itself is good, but why does he make these edits in the first place? There are plenty of errors from this recent edits remaining, and there are plenty of older AWB errors he created remaining as well (e.g. this example I pointed out above, where he changed a correct defaultsort to an incorrect one in 2009, but which he didn't correct when he corrected the persondata error today. Fram (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the NASDAQ edits were incorrect. And your other statements about he 8/21 edits are fallacious and misleading.  Theodora is an empress, it's not clear that she should be sorted by her family name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Having a reason to make some edits (like just putting them back in the categories they were in before, even the 100+ that were incorrect) doesn't mean that the edits weren't incorrect, only that they may have been somewhat more understandable than purely introducing new errors. I'll let you reiterate your defense of your 29 edits as often as you like, I don't think you will fool anyone with them who has looked at the diffs. And finally, if you believe that it is "unclear that she should be sorted by her family name", then you should have left it alone in the first place, instead of changing it around. (Semi-)automated edits aren't intended for "unclear" cases. At least the surname sorting is consistent with the other members of the Category:Kantakouzenos family. And including the "Wife Of Alexios 04 Of Trebizond" is just weird. Fram (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not. There is more than one person of that name, one other is, IIRC, "Wife Of Alexios 03 Of Trebizond" so it's a perfectly sensible sort key.  Your other points have reduced to nonsense and ad-hominem now, time for you to abandon those lines of argument. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

Support Let's head this nonsense off at the pass. Jtrainor (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you indicate whether "(Semi-)automated edits aren't intended for "unclear" cases." falls in the "nonsense" category or in the "ad hominem" one? Fram (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree there has been some problems but I still haven't seen anything warranting this action. --Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to acquaint yourself with Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough. → ROUX   ₪  15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to quit badgering every person who says oppose. — Moe  <font color="0000FF">ε  16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Informing people of information which may change their minds isn't 'badgering.' And you may wish to read the edit summary I used when posting, but asking Wikipedians to actually inform themselves before wading in would probably be asking way too much. → ROUX   ₪  16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I have read a lot of it and have been following it for some time. As I mentioned before I think there are some issues but by and large not worthy of a the proposal.--Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but unlike certain other people here at least you're doing better than claiming 'badgering' when someone calmly provides them with information. → ROUX   ₪  16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the personal attack, but when you leave a comment after every person who says oppose to your proposal, you can seem like you are badgering, regardless of how calmly you present your case. — Moe  <font color="0000FF">ε  16:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec x2) Oppose as written. One edit a minute is unnecessarily harsh. I may easily do 2.5x that with entirely manual editing; I'm guessing Rich is as technologically adept and as fast a typist. Also, I'm thinking about striking my suggestion above that BAG be used and just support BOTREQ. Upon reviewing the Betacommand 3 proposed decision (which I initially supported), then talking with my fellow admins and BAGgers, I don't think in principle the BAG should be used as a vehicle for arbitration or community ban enforcement. We should be used to handle any BRFAs necessary per BOTPOL (this is a superset of that), nothing more or less. I'd be happy to entertain opposing views, however. I'm also concerned about some of the discussion and bad faith assumed above but don't really want to go into it. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 17:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose escalation of conditions of editing? positive reinforcement is better than negative reinforcement. we need a standard offer for probational productive editors. <font face="Vijaya"> Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While Rich has made some mistakes, the percentage of incorrect edits is probably lower than that of the average editor. For example, if I have made a grand total of 100 mistaken edits (and I've probably made more!), it would be equivalent to almost 2400 mistaken edits by Rich. To be clear, I oppose this proposal, which I see as one of the many attempts to get bots kicked off Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, as far as I can tell, the proposal is only supposed to affect unapproved bots. It explicitly says Rich can still run approved bots.  Shouldn't we all be in favor of kicking unapproved bots off of Wikipedia?  They are already prohibited by WP:BOTPOL ("Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should block indefinitely"), but nobody seems to enforce this.  I'll leave it to others whether Rich needs yet another individualized restriction, but I do think BOTPOL should be enforced much more rigorously than it is, this incident being an example.  67.122.210.96 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what makes you say BOTPOL isn't being enforced rigorously; as far as I know, notwithstanding the above, no bots are being run without approval at this time. If you're aware of any, please contact me or any other member of the BAG either via our talk pages or Bot Owners' Noticeboard. Thanks, &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point me at the approval for the bot operation that triggered this thread? Yes I know it's not running right now, and we're currently discussing possible after-the-fact sanctions against the operator.  But I think not enough is being done to prevent this stuff from happening in the first place.  Look at how long it took in the ANI thread to get the bot stopped, for example. 71.141.88.206 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (new address)
 * You seem to misunderstand the bot policy. Semi-automated edits do not require approval because each edit should be confirmed before it's submitted. It's also worth noting that these edits were made by AWB and editing by AWB does require approval, though administrators are automatically approved. For more information, please see WP:MEATBOT and WP:BOTPOL. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 05:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear from earlier discussion that these edits were just about certainly fully automated (and therefore under BOTPOL) and not confirmed one by one. Have you looked at the ANI archive?  If Rich actually did examine and confirm all those edits, then that's a pretty terrible problem in its own right.  Anyway, per WP:MEATBOT, once the edits became disruptive, it doesn't matter whether they're fully automated, semi-automated, or speedy but manual.  Btw, it's amusing what Soxred's edit counter tool says about Rich's edits.  It says: "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 58 bytes) in /home/soxred93/public_html/pcount/counter.php on line 198" but takes several minutes to reach that conclusion.  Rich is a good and thoughtful editor in most regards so I don't understand why he keeps doing this ill-advised stuff with bots. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, with regret. Just make it stop. I'm bored. I'm bored of the diff-noise. The "for the record I am not under an editing restriction" is either delusion or dishonesty; Editing restrictions clearly exists (twice), and has done for some time. My hunch is the one-edit-per-minute is the part that will actually make the difference. It will reduce the speed of run-away damage by 600-fold 27-fold, down to a level where it is actually possible for other editors to review and clean up (ie. even at the worst case: maximum of 1440 edits to review/revert per day). …And if you have to wait a whole minute before saving (instead of 0.1 seconds 2.3 seconds ), you might as well hit Preview and check-over the page content. A bit like a normal editor tries to do. —Sladen (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Rich, yes, he actually did examine and confirm all those edits (AWB would have been prompting him to do so). I can't disagree with your conclusions, nor can I disagree that the edits should have ceased immediately once it became clear that they were disruptive. Finally, I don't disagree that he's a good and thoughtful editor in most regards. The only point I disagree on is that this was the fault of BOTPOL; it was the fault of the editor and it's being addressed by the community which is what needs to happen as this is essentially a conduct issue (and it regards an earlier editing restriction put in place by the community). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 18:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did Rich actually claim that? I didn't notice such a claim either here or in the ANI thread.  I think it was established in earlier ANI's that he uses a modified AWB, so all bets are off about its behavior.  But even if he's actually clicking "confirm" for each edit (indicating that he has way too much time on his hands), from the nature of the errors reported, it's obvious that he's not actually examining the edits in any meaningful way.  So I would treat it as automated editing.  Anyway, I've seen all this enough times from enough editors that I'm just tired of hearing wikilawyering over whether some edit rampage was automated, semi-automated, or whatever, since the issues end up being about the same regardless.  So I think BOTPOL should be rewritten to cover all high-speed editing like MEATBOT, i.e. any editing at a rate above some threshold regardless of how it is done, and the edit rates for unflagged accounts should be enforced by the wiki software, so maybe we won't have to deal with this any more.  67.119.12.141 (talk)    —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Let us prevent another myth arising "Rich makes 10 edits a second" - plucked out of air, and just not the case, at that rate my entire editing history would have taken less than a day and a half. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * My apologies. Now corrected; thanks for spotting that. —Sladen (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the server generally takes longer than 2.3 seconds to display a diff from when the link is clicked, so that speed is still faster than anyone can actually look at the edits even if they take no time at all in actual evaluation. That still seems excessive when done over sustained periods. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that is the point that other editors have made at various times too. My personal take is that further paper restrictions are going to be as fruitless and unproductive as the current paper ones (ie. ignored and denied).  The social issue is, and will always still be there, and can't be gotten rid of.  Blocking Rich completely isn't productive either, as once in a blue moon Rich actually does something excursively useful that contributes–that's not template case twiddling, or sorting screw-ups, or breaking the front page…
 * So a one-edit-per-minute technical measure should slow down the train-wrecks, without getting in the way of the real-genuinely beneficial editing. It's the only part of the proposal that I actually see as productive and whole-heartedly support.  The rest I expect to be ineffective as the existing blocks, which are presently denied.  If somebody ditches the rest of the proposal and just puts that forward and will get my Strong support because would achieve something useful without making things worse.  —Sladen (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's take a look at his current edits. He is again running some script or tool to change the persondata parameter for Japanese people articles, which goes against his editing restriction, but seems to be basically correct. He also changes the defaultsort for a number of them, but it seems unclear to me whether this correct. Some discussion before going on with this would again have been beneficial. The problem is with "no" names, the Japanese equivalent of "Of", "Van" or "Von" in a name (see Japanese name). Is the new defaultsort for these articles better or worse than the old one? I don't know, my gut feeling tells me that the old ones were better though. ... He has again edited hundreds of pages, without any discussion about these edits, and has again seemingly made a number of them worse (for Wikipedia), while the improvement (the removal of a comma in the name parameter to an invisible and mostly or totally unused metadata template) is of no value for Wikipedia and of rather hypothetical value to the rest of the world. Note how e.g. here he corrects part of his earlier error, but doesn't correct the error he made in the previous edit of removing a specific, separate correct sort to one category (changing Yoritomo to Category:Minamoto clan) Basically, the more you look in detail to these edits, the more errors you find in them...Fram (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at a number of cases where the defaultsort had been set up manually, the comma placement after the "no" seemed to be the result of more thoughtful editing practices by experienced editors in the field. If you can find consensus for the other position, then I will gladly change - but something tells me you have already searched for it. Stop clutching at straws and start being constructive. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Instead of guesswork, you could also take a disputed edit to places where more expertise may probably be found. I did this for you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. I have no idea if your edits will turn out to be correct or not, but the normal, contructive way of doing these things is first to get some expert opinion if you aren't knowledgeable in the field yourself. We have the luxury here of having editors from many backgrounds, we don't need to make hundreds of edits based on guesswork, we can discuss it first. If nothing else, perhaps you can take this with you from the comments by many other editors here; before you make large-scale edits, make sure that what you are trying to do is correct and based on consensus, not just what you believe will be better. Fram (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A logical deduction from the data available is not guesswork. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Oh, and congratulations on finding one error you made without anyone needing to point it out first, but could you please in the future, when correcting the minor error in the persondata, also correct the more major error in the defaultsort? I've done it for you in this case, as that is the fastest method of getting this actually corrected. Fram (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Damming with faint praise? It's very 2007. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Oppose per Reaper Eternal. Look, I won't pretend to understand bot editing of metadata, but it seems to me that Rich is giving reasonable answers here, and is neither trying to break Wikipedia, nor actually breaking it. -- J N  466  13:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I would support this but without the speed restriction. Instead I'd rather support no automated tools as above. If he can still edit too fast without automated or semiautomated tools to make mistakes then he's only hanging himself.--Crossmr (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Roux's account history?
In light of the repetitive badgering above, and the fact that I see quite a lengthy block log for personal attacks and harassment, can someone (roux themself?) fill us in on their account history? I tried looking at his talkpage for some indicators, but he/she only has a black banner and no links to past archives. This request is made in good faith in light of the questionable edits above. Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This version of his talk page prior to the black banner being added shows some talk page archives if that is what you are looking for. — Moe  <font color="0000FF">ε  17:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Archives are here: User_talk:Roux/Archives. Roux is an editor in good standing, and questioning their history isn't productive to this discussion. Yes, they're being ridiculous by copy pasting the same reply multiple times, but that's best just ignored. Nobody Ent 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And, yet again, the edit summary I left explained perfectly clearly exactly why I did so. I know it's asking way too much for people to actually pay attention to what I have said instead of what you have decided I have done, but do try, won't you? → ROUX   ₪  17:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a false assumption, lacking good faith, that editors disagreeing with you indicates they aren't paying attention. Nobody Ent 17:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an excellent assumption backed by four years of observation of discussions here. → ROUX   ₪  17:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as they hadn't been blocked previously for badgering discussions, I'm willing to let it lie. My unsolicited advice to Roux - cut it out.  Your proposal will stand or fall on its own merits, and you should assume good faith that they have read the discussion prior to commenting. Syrthiss (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The history of discussions anywhere on enwiki suggests that such an assumption wouldn't so much be an assumption of good faith as it would be about as much use as assuming that fish are particularly fond of international air travel. Plus your ridiculous 'advice' about good faith is particularly sickening in light of the fact that this section wouldn't even exist if you had done any or all of 1) assuming good faith, 2) reading the edit summary I left, 3) asking me on my talk page. What's good for the goose... → ROUX   ₪  17:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care if my advice is ridiculous or not as long as it is followed. Your edit summaries are not elucidating. Your black banner is not particularly inviting of comment so I didn't wish to disturb it (as much as I personally agree with its message). Syrthiss (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your advice is ridiculous because you did not follow it yourself. As such, it's eminently ignorable. And "copypasta so this doesn't get buried" isn't clear? Really? The other one's got bells on, have a go. → ROUX   ₪  17:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm not thrilled about the "grey matter" personal attack on me also, it's not something I'm inclined to waste a lot of time worrying about. Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Roux, in the past he got hot under the collar and attacked people (and was blocked for that) but I don't remember him having a habit of badgering people, exactly. I'd like to point out that none of his behavior in this discussion is anything like what he was blocked for years ago, not even close. --  At am a  頭 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I say, great. It's water off a duck's back to someone as big and ugly as me, so if it's not a pattern or anything, this is even more time than I'm interested in spending on it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another other duck! Cool. Nobody Ent 17:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that at all, in fact I rather like it. I think we may have met or something for you, particularly via the superb Heinlein quote, to sum me up so aptly. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen Roux around for years, and just thought of him as an "old hand" - worthy of some trust, he even made a helpful suggestion for my bot once - I was very surprised when he first commented on an AN/I, demanding blocks and bans.  I was more surprised when he continued - I think it was maybe four or five times to do the same thing - and meant to ask him why it was that he always jumped in with these attacks - maybe I had disagreed with him over comma placement on MoS or taken a contrary side on and AfD?  But I never before got around to checking his edit history - it seems that I became persona non grata round about here where he (incorrectly) asserts his WP:OWNership of his user talk page, while he was appealing a block for personal attacks.  So the mystery of why he is angry with me is solved, although from his edit summaries he is angry with pretty much everyone. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * This is part and parcel of how you deal with any criticism of your editing practices: you pretend there isn't a problem, and then ascribe frankly disgusting and insulting motives to those of us who do see a problem. That is pathetic. → ROUX   ₪  19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have never made any constructive criticism to these debates, just called for blocks and bans. That is the kind of extraordinary behaviour that calls for extraordinary  explanations. Maybe that's just the kind of person you are, maybe you don't need a reason, maybe you are a natural Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells, who has a very low opinion of everyone but himself "Course, the one thing Wikipedians hate is being informed before jumping in" - unless you include yourself in that remark? Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I refuse to contribute to this derail you are trying so very, very hard to keep alive in order to draw attention away from the continual disruption you bring to Wikipedia. → ROUX   ₪  19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed on an SPI case
Could someone who cares please figure out WTF is going on over at Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol. This exact case was rev deleted over privacy concerns a few hours before it was reopened; I'm not entirely certain how to deal with it, but its getting rather TLDR, and if anyone has an inkling, feel free to deal with it. This is above my pay grade. -- Jayron  32  03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh God, he's not really back again is he? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin Experienced opinions needed
There are various issues around Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism concerning consensus and interpretation of policy that need more eyes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. Silver seren C 21:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Willing to talk about being an admin?
Just a courtesy notice. :) There's a class looking at adminship on Wikipedia. They're hoping to do brief interviews (30 minutes or so via Skype (edited to add) or IRC) with active admins. I've signed up at User:Jaobar/Admins to Interview List 1. If you're an admin and are willing to help out, please add your name to the list like so: I don't think believe this is a major time commitment; just an interview with a single student. If you have any questions about format of the interview or anything, I'm sure they can clarify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [Skype or IRC]
 * *List sites and elevated user access levels
 * [Skype or IRC]
 * *List sites and elevated user access levels
 * *List sites and elevated user access levels


 * Thanks Moonriddengirl. That answers that question. Dloh  cierekim  23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed my note above to reflect that they've decided that IRC will also work, for those who would prefer an alternative to the Skype option. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MRG, I'd love to Skype with you, if only so you can follow the progress of your offspring. Let me go shave and dress right now. As for the class--I like to pretend that there's a modicum of privacy here...I do wonder what we all look like, though. Who's the prettiest admin? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not conducting any interviews. I'm being interviewed myself. :D Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't there used to be a userbox for Wikipedians who edit naked? Should people displaying it be discouraged from signing up here? Just saying... <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  15:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * fyi: User:Disavian/Userboxes/Nude -- &oelig; &trade; 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're clamping down on self-expression and professionalism simultaneously. And MRG, I know you're not interviewing--I was just looking for a chat. BTW, if your name is Maya (or Maja, I guess we still need to fight over that), then she (if she is a she) will be named for you. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint, but her name is Maggie, which is still a perfectly fine name. :) --  At am a  頭 17:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and who said WP is wp:not a social network? — Ched : ?  21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If they have time, maybe they should also look at interviewing some editors who are critical, or highly critical, of the admin corps and/or the way it generally operates and/or the way admins are generally selected. (To draw a parallel, if a class were looking at the tasks of Members of Parliament and how they are selected, then at secondary school level interviewing a few Members of Parliament would seem adequate, but at undergraduate level I would expect rather more.) There seem to be a few such people around the place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No way‽ I've never seen any. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 03:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Complicated history merge
The above section in which 24.107.242.174 is asking for sanctions against Sitush led me to check the history of one of the articles in question, and immediately I noticed a history problem: it's been the subject of a cut-and-paste move from Koontz House (Natchez, Mississippi) to Green Leaves, but after the move, both pages were edited in a bit of an edit war. How best to fix this? I'm experienced enough with history merges that I have the technical knowledge of how to do them, but I'm not sure which edits during the edit war should be left deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the technical process of history merges but the situation around that time was a nightmare involding a COI sock, who has probably continued socking on the failed AfD for the article. I would be surprised if it is possible to dissect the to-ings and fro-ings but, in essence, the article was completely rewritten by me. Sure, that presents a licensing problem but if it is even possible to WP:IAR on that then I think that I would be inclined to do so. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, I'm trying to learn: what precisely is the problem? There aren't any deleted edits in the history (if I'm looking correctly)--are you referring to what content should be in the article or not? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Looks like the two earliest revisions of Green Leaves and the two last revisions of Koontz House (Natchez, Mississippi) could be left out in a histmerge from Koontz House to Green Leaves (that would involve deleting Koontz House, restoring all edits but the last two, then deleting Green Leaves, moving Koontz House to Green Leaves, and restoring all edits of Green Leaves but the first two). Or something like that. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 01:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where the problem really kicked in. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. Only 2 revisions left out. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 02:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My problem was that I couldn't decide which revisions should be kept deleted, and since the edit war included repeated changes from article to redirect, I knew that not all of the revisions should stay.  Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: eyes on conservatism articles
Just in case people are not aware, there have been a few news stories floating around about some research that link conservatism, prejudice, and low IQ (e.g. this). I have not yet read the research myself (still trying to track down the original article), but doubtless there will be a flurry of people trying to edit it into conservatism articles in more or less unsavory ways. If you notice that activity, be suspicious; I suspect the editors will want to be using it as a critique of conservatism, but I sincerely doubt that is what the authors of the research were saying. -- Ludwigs 2 22:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this like promotion of the link? Beware - rodents may be dropping from mars tonight, watch out. (wiki bombing external supplied on request) You  really  can  22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ludwig2, thanks for the heads up. YouReallyCan, I'm not sure what the intent of your post was, but please refrain from making flippant comments on the admin noticeboard. Manning (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the occasional flippant comment, but that reads more like somebody who needs tp put the bong down and get some fresh air. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A summary of the study has been added to Biology and political orientation. Apart from that, I see no references in mainspace (but several on talk pages and user pages). --Lambiam 16:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One version of the edit was a straight copyvio of the abstract. The actual nature of the study was not a finding that conservatives have lower IQs (especially since income, education etc. enter in, and some people have speculated that lower measured IQ is not a measure of actual "intelligence" in the first place, and the study states that there are a slew of "mediating" factors).  IMO, it likely does not belong, but I was mainly concerned with using a "pop science ("livescience.com")" type article for making broad claims where "race and intelligence" has long been a major headache on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Straight Dope did an article on this issue. As this article points out, there are serious concerns about Kanazawa's reliance upon SAT scores as his basis of determining IQs.  This is a problem because many of the more conservative portions of the United States have a regional bias favoring use of the ACT (test) instead of the SAT. --Allen3 talk 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that the new study has different authors, researched different aspects, and used a very different methodology. In particular, at the heart of the current study are two large samples from the UK, where a couple of systematic long-term tests about the development of IQ over lifespan are done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but no one told me I was being discussed here. I guess that explains why Collect didn't bother to respond to me on the talk page before reverting again? I believe:


 * It is not a copyright violation to quote 70 words from an article abstract. That is simply fair commentary.  I could have paraphrased it a bit, but when dealing with content that is prone to accidental or deliberate misrepresentation, I prefer to stand right on the source.  Collect's edits - turning "anti-homosexual prejudice" into "anti-homosexual attitudes", and removing entirely that racism "was largely mediated via socially conservative ideology", cover up most of what the study was saying.


 * It is not inappropriate to include a LiveScience link as an additional source about the study. Clearly the study itself is the best source, but Wikipedia normally has readers on multiple levels.  Besides, for each time people who misapply WP:MEDRS do this, there's another time that they'll say it means to remove the real research reference because it's a "primary source" and say that only the secondary news article is OK.  I couldn't predict in advance which would happen.  The only time they're satisfied with a source is when it's in an old textbook, at which point it gets deleted for being outdated.  I could use other popular sources besides LiveScience, like  or, but I don't see anything wrong with the source I chose.


 * Allen3 may have a very valid point. I should add that Straight Dope reference.


 * Obviously there is editor POV involved here. When I saw the news article, I was very eager to spread the news.  I think, based on such complaints, some other people want to hinder its spread.  But the difference is, this is Wikipedia.  Spreading the news, getting the reliably sourced information onto the page is what this place is supposed to be for.

If people agree with my interpretations of these policies, I could use some encouragement. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely a copyvio to copy essentially the entire abstract. Period.  Essentially 100% of the abstract.  Sorry - anyone who does not see copying 100% as a copyvio has a problem.   And the LiveScience article did not back the claim that this was a 2012 study etc.  Use of a cite which does not back the claims made is improper.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh -- and your interpretation of what "mediated" means is interesting - it does not mean that conservatism increases racism.  Sorry about that - but your interpretation and use of the abstract imples that you did not read anything more than the abstract. Collect (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not copy the entire abstract. The entire abstract is 168 words.  The Discover magazine article I mentioned above copies the entire abstract though, so if you think that would be a copyright violation, then you can say I just linked to a copyvio here.  But I don't believe that either.


 * The LiveScience article came out January 26, 2012, whereas the early online publication of the 2012 study was January 5, 2012.  The authors of the LiveScience article corresponded with the authors of the study.  I dare say they might have heard about the paper which came out three weeks before.


 * It is things like this that make me feel that you are not applying policy in good faith, and I believe you have been criticized for this before. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh?
 * In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via socially conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact'
 * compared with
 * In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.
 * Appears to be an extensive direct copyright violation of an article abstract. And confusing as heck to readers to boot with the "n-15,874" quote which is meaningless to readers AFAICT.  The exercise in accusing a person who is following international law  and Wikipedia policy about copyright of "bad faith" is absurd.  And I thank you for bringing up an RFC/U for which 14 people were CANVASSED at the start <g> and where a bunch therof have been banned as sockpuppeteers, etc. as how you treat AGF.
 * And note also Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.
 * Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? Yes, my entire quote came from the source I said it came from.  That's generally a good thing!  That does not mean the entire source is in my quote.  The abstract - let me repeat the link, though it's in the article  - begins "Despite their important implications...".  And N is most definitely not meaningless: the fact that it's over 15,000 people being studied is what gives the study some credibility.  And if you really think there are legal issues in my making that quote, maybe you shouldn't have just quoted it twice yourself? Wnt (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As for that RFC/U, I didn't know about it until I did a search just now, so I don't know your criticism. If your complaint is valid, maybe you could have the current admin close reviewed/revoked?  Because I just went by the thing at the top, and skimmed even that. Wnt (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I should note that QUOTE only mentions one number, 400 words, as an "extreme" case of what could constitute infringement. And as I said, I just saw a reputable publication use all 168 words.  If there's someone out there who has some number less than 70 as a cutoff, he should speak up; I could try to reduce the quote to that without mangling the content so badly.  But I don't think that's what people believe. Wnt (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . Also WP:NOTSOLOMON. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata
Your comments are welcome at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30. Since TfD is not the most well-watched location, and this is a very common template (800,000 instances, so this TfD affects quite a lot of pages), I am trying to increase participation by some well- (or ill-) placed notices. Fram (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

RfPP backlog
Could any admins around give me a hand clearing WP:RPP, as there's requests over 24 hours old now. Thanks. Ged UK  13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor not quoting sourced material faithfully.
I have an editor on the Madhyamaka talk page, who, by his own admission is adding to quoted material. What is even worse is that he misrepresented an entire chapter as something else. Please see discussion. CO2Northeast (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the most deceitful comment right here.CO2Northeast (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * CO2Northeast: I am willing to look into this. In the meantime, would you be able to keep the discussion civil? I've commented about this at Talk: Madhyamaka and to you personally. Just stick to content. Sunray (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sitush
I am filing an case for for edit warring and ownership, and some other bizarre actions during the past few months. He has, as it appears, been warring on Yadav and Kim Kardashian, and owning the following articles: Ezhava, Ajmer Singh, Balwant Singh Sagwal, and Green Leaves, and Nair. (most of these articles are India-related). Although I have not edited some of these articles (as I am trying to stay out of a conflict), I've seen it rage on. Some of this has been reviewed in the past, and this is all very complicated, and I will do my best to summarize.

Their has been a lot of conflict going on with him at about ten other users at Yadav (most of those users, I believe, might be Indian, and members of that caste), mostly edit warring, and most of the time, he is correct with the info. But he has managed to get away with his warring, and he has been the one to warn his "opponents," as if he thinks he's not warring, which, I'm sure, is very frustrating for those users. I think it might be one of his ways to get away with his warring.

He has also been warring at Kim Kardashian, too, for a while, and all this warring has led me to believe he might need a block, but I have not talked that over with an admin yet. The warring, though is pretty much the same as at Yadav.

Although they have been constructive, he basically controls what goes in at out at Ezhava (this is more of a POV issue, which can lead to ownership). Here he introduces his own POV, and controls what goes in and out. He also seems to have an odd source of knowledge here (no bad thing, just that he might introduce too much). He also seems to answer to all inquiries on the talk page, from his POV, and I'm not so sure he's always correct. I'm not so sure the inquirers should be asking on Wikipedia, either.

He's not just been owning Ajmer Singh, and Indian basketball player, but some of his edits have been unconstructive. You can see in the history of that article his nonstop lines of edits, which leads me to believe he may be introducing untrue info/ his own POV into the article. Per FIBA websites, though, this article does appear to have multiple issues, not necessarily introduced by him, but some other users, including a deceased user (I can't figure out who that is, I just saw something about it in an edit summary.

It's pretty much the same at Balwant Singh Sagwal, but he has managed to get away with most ownership (and a few unconstructive edits) there. He and seem to both own that article, and work together (whom I think are both trying to develop), and may be introducing untrue content, per my small research.

At Nair, a Hindu group of castes, he has also been owning that article for a while, and made some unconstructive edits, and doesn't seem to like any of the edits by anyone who edits it, except Drmies.

Green Leaves, a NRHP registered house, is by far, the most complicated, and definitely needs admin assistance and rewriting. Sitush doesn't really edit that article, unless some user makes an edit that's either vandalism, or he doesn't like it. This summer he was edit warring there with, a confirmed sock of. I can't tell exactly what the conflict was about, but it seems mostly they disagreed about the date of construction (Sitush said uncertain; most likely 1836; Atterion said 1838. I don't know who's correct, but per my small amount of research, Atterion does appear to be correct about the DOC). Both of them left a lot of personal attacks in their edit summaries, and a talk page and history full of BS (one of the messages is a duplicate notice from Atterion's talk page, don't know what's up with that, just know its a WP:TPG vio), and I will be requesting revdel to those edits, and am considering moving it to Green Leaves (Natchez, Mississippi), a redirect, as that title meets WP:NRHP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.242.174 (talk • contribs)


 * Green Leaves update: at User talk:Sadads/Archive May 2011-December 2011#Moving Pages]], Atterion states he's a family member of that house, which may explain his and Sitush's knowledge of that place. Also, it was moved from Koontz House (Natchez, Mississippi), a NRHP stub created by .I'll admit, this user has a lot of knowledge of India-related topics, but appears to be from the UK. I will post updates below on what knowledge I gain for all these articles.


 * Please note the rubric at the top of this page: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest". I'm not sure this is the right place for your problem. Also the request to notify any user whom you bring here - I will notify Sitush myself in a sec. Please consider striking this and bringing it to a more appropriate board when you have some diffs. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't move the house article. Due to the complicated edit history (among other things, multiple cut-and-paste moves), it needs administrative work for a history merge or merges, and moving it before the merges are complete would further confuse things.  See a section below this one for a request for help.  Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, this is AN, and I'm an N, and I'm mentioned in the complaint. IP, what are you looking for? Who are you? And why bring me up? Sitush has worked (well) with a lot of other editors. This sounds like the kind of thing that's going to go nowhere, not just because there's nothing specific mentioned here (and the conflict on Green Leaves is a non-starter, considering the socking and what-not) but also because Sitush has applied knowledge, common sense, and Wikipedia policy to such (former) dungheaps as Nair--but competence is often confused with ownership, which is especially sad since so many of Sitush's enemies end up being blocked for disruption, socking, vandalism, soapboxing, etc. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, I can't find your WP:RfN anywhere. If you really are an N, can you please provide a link? --64.85.214.4 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: I'm an A. I'm not the sheriff. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012) - second call
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

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 subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture delist discussion needing closure
There has been a discussion on the featured picture candidates talk page over the last few weeks about how "delist" discussions should be dealt with. It would be good if we could get some closure- there have been no comments for some days. Can I request that an experienced editor who was not involved in the discussion close it, and post any conclusions reached? Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. If there is a more appropriate place for this request, please point me to it. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

disinformation
good day to everybody, i hope this is the right place to request the administrator's intervention. if this is not the right place, i do apologise and kindly ask you to indicate me the link where i can contact the administration fo wikipedia on really serious matters that i underline by the following text. It is about the so called "liberty of edition" in wikipedia, of course it is good idea to give chance to anybody passing by to write the things on wikipedia, but you should consider that the people write also about the serious things with really irresponsible and harmful way. There are delicate issues about international ethnic conflicts, massacres and etc. which are treated here very "easily". I saw that in all articles about my country Azerbaijan is always present the hidden hand of armenian virtual groups of propaganda which create a bad image of my nation and eternally suffering image of armenians...if the armenians are eternally suffering kind - it is not my deal, but i'd not accept that they attack my nation in all possible occasions spreading false about us. It is fact that in 1992 Armenian military forces massacred my civil people in Khojaly, it is fact that the armenian military forces have occupied something like 30% of my land and after all that they go around the world talking about my nation as "wild, aggressive and occupant"...what the facts do say and what your logics do say? isn't it ridiculous? why do wikipedia leave this kind of issues so "free"? why don't you use more sensible and severe moderation on these issues???? i have edited almost 3 times the articles which are obviously handled by armenian users that spread false image about my nation - azeri people. I ask the wikipedia administration to take severe and serious measures on this issue as the ethnic matters are not a joke, but bring to the wars and death...in almost all so called "armenian projects" in wikipedia the clear intent is spreading the lie about Azerbaijan, creating an eternally suffering armenian nation image. I bet nobody from wikipedia have ever checked properly the sources used by the armenian users which support each other exchanging ridiculous "honors" between them, for example see the page of user Sardur: his fans are armenians, no matter if they live in france, lebanon or elsewhere... I could write a book accusing the armenians in all possible crimes and base my speeches around on that book, it wouldn't mean that all the written staff in that book is true...almost all the sources brought by the armenian users are written by the separators with doubtful image... I start to loose my confidence in wikipedia's credibility as a source. I ask wikipedia administration to block all articles on conflicted base which touch azeri-armenian issue. However is not possible to go on long time on lies, the armenian users must know it...also it ain't a deal to prepare ground for more hate and conflict between nations spreading such unilateral doubtful information. I have also edited the article which classifies people in azerbaijan in non existent clans. This article is ridiculous and is written by somebody which has no sense of reality and loyalty. The term "yeraz" is higly offensive and shouldn't be let go on wikipedia as something "normal"...if you don't understand the gravity of this offense i'd explain it this way: for us "yeraz" is equally offensive as the word "nigger" used to discriminate the colored people... I will be waiting for the feedback of wikipedia administration. I'd like to understand also how to ask protection for single articles, I have read the instructions, but it say actually nothing and there is no link to be referred as the start point of protection request. thanks poster777 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumgait_pogrom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeraz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poster777 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Other than "tl;dr", I respond to "I ask wikipedia administration to block all articles on conflicted base which touch azeri-armenian issue." That I could get on board with. Would never happen but honestly the only way to ever get these articles in a safe and respectable state is to completely remove nationalist editors from the equation. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Poster and Sardur are edit warring over the Sumgait progrom article  | here's at least one example. I will note Sardur's been warned about any edit warring on any Armenian - Azerbijian article | here as well. Poster777 has no such warning, not on his page nor in history.

Not really sure what the edit warring is about though, but it looks like this is what his message is about. <font color="#00ACF4">@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) thank you very much for your attention and time, I'm especially concerned about the so called "witness" declarations which describe the presumed "tortures done on armenians", also the number of dead people and etc...they are of violent character and so make grow up the hatred in readers... also pls, pay attention to the article "yeraz" which offends azeri people that lived in Armenia...I'd thank also Golbez, i think that the only way of avoiding problems on ethnic conflict issues is blocking all articles related to them, as i know by my long experience, it is impossible to stop the provocateurs handling those articles...i don't know how it is possible to identify which user is more "nationalist" than other, so unfortunately the best way is blocking the relevant articles...i'd prefer not to run into any article about my country or people than seeing the false harmful ones... poster777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poster777 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit-warring, I'm just reverting a clear vandalism (with removal of referenced text), and I'm not the only one. Sardur (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Poster777 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)) I have edited last time the articles "Yeraz" and "Sumgait pogrom" which are handled by the armenian users continuously on their own interests. The articles of this kind are full of false information damaging the image of my country on propose. The users such as Sardur or Wikiboer (which may be the same person using different id's or the friends of mission) have no right to handle the pages which have nothing to do with them. For example Wikiboer openly offends the azeri people which lived in armenia and are displaced by violence from there in the article "yeraz". As i already ecplained that word is extremely offensive non official definition of that people. The armenians which never have been to my country have no idea and can't have it on how the things go on in my country - how the politics and powers are decided, what is going on here and etc. and so they have no right to handle the articles such as "yeraz" deliberately offensive and damaging context. If sardur put some "referenced" text it doesn't mean that it is automatically neutral and truthful text...well, then i'd bring the confession of Zori Balayan from his own book about the atrocities he did on little azeri children in Khojaly...it must be considered surely as "truthful and neutral" source by the armenian users as Zori Balayan is their idol, national hero...isn't it??? come on, you will deny it also? it is ridiculous:-)...as i told since the beginning - i ask the wikpedia administrators to block or better - delete forever any issue which touch azeri-armenian matters. I don't ask you to keep azeri part or armenian - i'm just fed up of the mentally sick armenian users which are obsessed of my nation and country, which go under any video in youtube to offend, defame our dead persons, our women, which go around the world even till japanese forums to speak bad about us with always false declarations, creating bad, hateful image of my country...it ain't fair. It ain't a joke, it is even not about a single persons life or reputation, it is about the whole nation which is sacked, offended, robbed of it's lands and no matter all these, is also blamed in non existent "crimes"...Dear administrators, users and readers of wikipedia - as you see we azeris don't create the alliances, the groups, sub groups everywhere on internet, we don't full the google pages with the deliberately propagandistic forums, web sites against armenia or russia or persians. Go and digit any key word on azeri-armenian conflict, you will run into only armenian web pages full of hate and falsity!!! The facts are in front of you - they do these things against us. It is really disgusting and coward way of arguing. See this case on wikipedia - the armenian and persian users attacking azeri pages, users and etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Final_decision do you think it is sane? or it is normal? why we should be attacked everywhere? what is the matter? what do they want from us? why these persons don't just live their lives without hating the persons that they never saw or heard???? why wikipedia pages should become the square of virtual massacre against us, the square of defamatory, falser? If this armenian propaganda will continue on wikipedia pages i will stop using wikipedia as a source or virtual encyclopedia and i think this "cancer" will sooner or later eat from inside wikipedia itself, the people will lose interest and trust in your sources. I have received some kind advices from Toddy, thanks a lot, but i'm not going to create groups of support in order to say the truth. If wikipedia is really a neutral and truthful source, it must care about truth by itself. You suggest me that I may be banned by the attacks of other users even if i'm not guilty, so i should find the supporters and etc...it is really funny...this is the way how wikipedia works??? i thought the things went on here in more serious way. So the truth is decided here this way? the most powerful one wins???? I can't accept it. It is first time that i register in wikipedia and edit something, in past i often saw unfair articles obviously handled by armenian users against my country, every time i shut down the page in order not to ruin my nerves. Finally in these days i've decided to protest. And this is the answer that i get from wikipedia? Pls, take my critics in better way and not on personal, you must understand how the person feels in front of so massive injustice going on in all over the world. I'm sorry for taking your time and space by long message, but i'm really fed up. It is enough for me. I lived abroad for a while, even there the shameless, false and exaggerated armenian propaganda made people fed up, i lived in europe and often the europeans were getting angry of this sick obsession of armenians against my people. I never commented them as they comment themselves better by their behavior...but i expect an appropriate approach from the sources believed to be neutral such as wikipedia. If somebody would create a page titled "nigger" with an offensive false info, i bet wikipedia would delete that page on instance. Why don't you apply the same measure on azeris? I already told you that "yeraz" is an offensive definition, furthermore that page spreads defamatory statements about the present day president of Azerbaijan, it is not about some daddy maddy or john doe, but about a president, it is an info without any prove taken from some doubtful unilateral sources...did any azeri create a page about armenian, french or american presidents stating false about them? why the page is not yet blocked and why the armenian user should have a right to edit it? did any azeri user try to create pages about any internal matters of armenians???? why that persons can't stay on their own???? I'm not going to waste my time on stupid virtual battles with armenian users which obviously has nothing important to do in their lives than sleeping in front of computer and guarding their false pages on internet. However i will take my own decision and proceed on the base of the results that i'll get here... I thank again for neutral view of some users on my request, however i am deeply upset for the easy approach of the administration on serious issues. It is not some childish forum where anybody would say some bla bla without any echo, it is wikipedia which is used by millions as a reference. How you can be so "easy" on such matters??? You may ban or do whatever you want to my account. I said all that i had to say. In few time that i used wikipedia i tried to be as much as possible correct and follow your rules. As you see after 3 tries of edit i stopped and didn't insist on battle of armenian users. I came to you, administrators, as a civil user might do, and asked your intervention. Cause i thought that here the things were more seriously treated. Not just letting the users to "natural select" between them - the stronger will win... I can be stronger, i can collect the other users, attack, smash the armenian provocateurs, stay here day and night guarding the articles and etc. But it is not serious!!! it is not the way that the virtual encyclopedia might work!!!! it is a childish way of doing things!!! I thought you had some very few selected, trusted, serious, loyal and neutral authors which had an exclusive right of creating, editing and updating of the articles... especially the articles which talk about the serious matters such as ethnic conflicts, massacres, wars, history etc. You may leave free the articles about silly cartoons, mangas, hobbies, but not this kind of issues! i'm deeply upset! thanks again for the attention. I have edited last time the articles that i named before, i have put also the sources, one azeri sourse, one american (seems to be from CIA archive), and even one armenian source...if again the armenian users will undo my edit by stupid excuses such as "no source", it means that they do it just for provocation. And if you will not take a measure about it, that will mean that you are on the same boat. I'm sorry for being so direct and "politically non correct". But i hope you'll understand me... i also tried to post my message as indicated by the rules using "tlrd", it is my first time on editing, so i do apologise if the message will not appear in correct format. poster777
 * For the record, I'm not Armenian. And this user should be blocked for his "mentally sick armenian users". Sardur (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And another insult (edit summary). Sardur (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The tl;dr version of the above is a combination of personal attacks against other editors, threats to disrupt Wikipedia and serious WP:IDHT issues. Warned user for such, and an admin may want to brief them on this ArbCom decision they apparently have a problem with. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

to the user sardur: it is really shame that you deny your origins, while you write in armenian, speak in armenian, think in armenian, fight for armenian and etc. The articles that you treat and guard night and day are of armenian interest...It is ridiculous, come on, you are the member of armenian wikiproject. It doesn't matter where you live, what citizenship you have. What is the problem with your origins? why do you hide it or deny it if it is so beautiful and glorious to be armenian? you wanna seem a kind of third part fan of armenians?:-)) it is a childish joke...however it is not my problem, if you have some reason of hiding your origins while hardly working for "great armenian case"... the "mentally sick armenian users" are those which constantly follow any issue hardly related to azerbaijan in general, which go around spreading false, hateful information against the whole nation of azeri non stop, which go under videos in youtube and write the sick declarations, offensive words, brutal, violent statements about the azeri victims of violence, which call their "brothers of blood" to violence, revenge against every turkish, azeri till the last breath. Are they normal for your standards??? if not, why do you feel offended? Do you find yourself for some reason in this category? i'm sorry, it is not again my problem. There are of course also mentally sick users of other ethnic origins, no exception for azeris...we also have our dumbs. However ours don't go around smelling the rubbish of other nations and countries... regarding my account: i'm not going to keep an account here, either "contribute" as after what i have discovered i don't consider the wikipedia methods serious on treating the global issues...I hope the administration will take my request and critics in constructive way and will try to remake something here, i'm just a little drop in big ocean of readers, so i presume my opinion may be not so important for you. But the ocean is a total of many drops... It is not only about azeri-armenian issues, it is also about any other global issue such as Rwanda massacres, Iraqi war, Bosnia Herzegovina and etc. The problem is present for any of them, any time any sickmind may come and provoke conflicts editing or creating the articles on that problems. The writing on wikipedia shouldn't be so easy. I'm definitely sure in that. However, wikipedia is no longer going to be a reference for me as far as it so "easy" and handled by doubtful authors. Thank you very much for your time. Pls, you can close my account. Best regards. Poster777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poster777 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone disagrees with the indef block I have just laid down (and the reasons in the block log) then feel free to change/remove/revert. It's the equivalent of his "close my account" request anyway ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure needed
Is this AFD a snow keep yet? I say yes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A few accounts on WP:BANNED not actually blocked
I ran across this page today while looking at some other things and noticed a few editors listed there are not actually blocked at this time. I understood that everyone listed there should be currently blocked, so I'm bringing it here to see if there's anything which needs to be done. Here's the current list of people not blocked who apparently should be: Discuss away! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zorro redux
 * Triton
 * Guido den Broeder
 * Zephram Stark
 * Jonah Ayers
 * Lou franklin
 * Mistress Selina Kyle
 * Wanli
 * Mr. Treason
 * Most accounts in your list are blocked as far as I can see, except these four :
 * Triton is now User:Triton (usurped) (and appropriately infefblocked) and the change should be reflected on the ban page.
 * Guido den Broeder's talk page redirects to User:Roadcreature, which is indefblocked. Main account should probably be blocked too.
 * Zephram Stark is supposed to be indefblocked according to the block log, but for some reason is not...
 * User:Wanli has never been blocked.
 * CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mysteriously, Mistress Selina Kyle's indefinite block seems to have expired; the last block log entry is an indef block from May 2006. Lou franklin was indeffed in the same month, and Jonah Ayers and Zorro redux four months earlier.  Unlike the other three, Selina doesn't seem to have left Wikipedia; she's actively discussing something on her own talk page.  Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked users can still edit their own talk pages. I'm guessing that most of these entries relate to a possible bug with blocks in early 2006? As the "list of banned users" page says, Wanli was blocked by developer intervention, probably in the days when admins could not block registered accounts. Graham 87 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: the last sentence of my previous message, see this diff. Graham 87 01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that blocked users can normally edit their talk pages; the issue is that this user (unlike the others) still wants to be active, so we either need to get consensus for unblocking or we need to issue a new indef block. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This case is being discussed on WP:AN/I, maybe we should drop a note on there mentioning that the account is not in fact blocked. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's weird that both the navigation popups and the user info tool show the accounts I did not mention in my first message as blocked; interestingly enough, if I go the block interface for Zorro, I don't get a "this user is already blocked" warning, and the block log notice does not appear in his contributions either... they don't seem to be blocked. Not sure why the scripts shows them as blocked but not Zephram Stark. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34014 --Closedmouth (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Mr. Treason doesn't have a registered account, I believe that was a name given to an IP vandal for ID purposes. I'm not sure what the deal is with Wanli... the user page is tagged as banned, but his block log is totally empty. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the link on the banned users page to point to the usurped Triton account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And since someone asked me on my talk page, here's the Mistress Selina Kyle discussion . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That reminds me: BAN has a problem.
 * On the one hand, we all know that banned users are normally permitted to edit their user talk pages, e.g., to appeal the ban per directions given in WP:UNBAN. BAN also says that "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail" (emphasis mine), not that all site-banned editors are always or automatically prohibited from editing their talk pages.  In fact, only a fraction of banned users also have a user talk page ban.
 * On the other hand, BAN also contradicts itself by saying "A site banned editor is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, on any account or unregistered user, under any and all circumstances, with no exceptions"—i.e., not even on their own user talk pages.
 * At some point we need to resolve this self-contradiction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nobody Ent 00:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How much review does an AfD need prior to closing?
In the case of Articles for deletion/Thumb twiddling the AfD had one neutral comment, and one keep vote, and, of course, the nomination for deletion. An experienced editor closed the discussion. The closing editor later replied that AfDs do not have a minimum requirement for participation. My intention is not to discuss the article's merits here. I'd rather see a discussion centered around AfD participation prior to closing. In the case at hand, I would have expected to see the article re-listed for discussion, and if we don't have such a requirement in these cases, shouldn't we? Rklawton (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:DRV. There is no numerical limit regarding participation in an XFD discussion, and no time limit beyond the 7-day minimum, excepting when WP:SNOW qualifies.  If you think a discussion was closed inappropriately for any reason, regardless of what the closer said the outcome was, then the proper venue is WP:DRV.  There, other editors can review the close and decide if it needs to be reopened.  Please use WP:DRV to contest deletion discussions for any reason, because that is what WP:DRV was created to handle.  -- Jayron  32  19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my original note, I'm not contesting the closure. I'm asking fellow admins if we want to establish a minimum for participation - though I like your suggestion that it wouldn't apply to SNOW. Until yesterday, I'd not seen a non-SNOW case closed with so little participation, and I think this needs to be corrected. The article in question makes a good case in point, but nothing more. Rklawton (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a decision that should be made only by administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So I shouldn't ask their opinion before bringing it up to a wider audience? Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While ElKevbo is correctly stating the obvious point that such a decision would need to be made by the wider community, there is certainly nothing wrong with raising it here first. Regards Manning (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Village Pump, or an RFC. I would wholeheartedly oppose putting a requirement on the amount of discussion - some are obvious and according to policy and really need almost zero discussion (sometimes people AFD something that should have been CSD'd, for example). Of course, NAC should never occur on AFD's with such a mélange of "discussion", should that issue arise ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is a perennial request that isn't likely to happen. Some articles just don't generate enough interest. Requiring an arbitrary quota of !votes to delete them is just adding layers bureaucracy to the process. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quorum requirements for voting also have the problem that they fail the participation criterion: in the context of AFD, that means you could change the outcome from "no consensus" to "delete" by voting "keep". --Carnildo (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How much review does an AfD need prior to closing?
In the case of Articles for deletion/Thumb twiddling the AfD had one neutral comment, and one keep vote, and, of course, the nomination for deletion. An experienced editor closed the discussion. The closing editor later replied that AfDs do not have a minimum requirement for participation. My intention is not to discuss the article's merits here. I'd rather see a discussion centered around AfD participation prior to closing. In the case at hand, I would have expected to see the article re-listed for discussion, and if we don't have such a requirement in these cases, shouldn't we? Rklawton (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:DRV. There is no numerical limit regarding participation in an XFD discussion, and no time limit beyond the 7-day minimum, excepting when WP:SNOW qualifies.  If you think a discussion was closed inappropriately for any reason, regardless of what the closer said the outcome was, then the proper venue is WP:DRV.  There, other editors can review the close and decide if it needs to be reopened.  Please use WP:DRV to contest deletion discussions for any reason, because that is what WP:DRV was created to handle.  -- Jayron  32  19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my original note, I'm not contesting the closure. I'm asking fellow admins if we want to establish a minimum for participation - though I like your suggestion that it wouldn't apply to SNOW. Until yesterday, I'd not seen a non-SNOW case closed with so little participation, and I think this needs to be corrected. The article in question makes a good case in point, but nothing more. Rklawton (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a decision that should be made only by administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So I shouldn't ask their opinion before bringing it up to a wider audience? Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While ElKevbo is correctly stating the obvious point that such a decision would need to be made by the wider community, there is certainly nothing wrong with raising it here first. Regards Manning (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Village Pump, or an RFC. I would wholeheartedly oppose putting a requirement on the amount of discussion - some are obvious and according to policy and really need almost zero discussion (sometimes people AFD something that should have been CSD'd, for example). Of course, NAC should never occur on AFD's with such a mélange of "discussion", should that issue arise ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is a perennial request that isn't likely to happen. Some articles just don't generate enough interest. Requiring an arbitrary quota of !votes to delete them is just adding layers bureaucracy to the process. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quorum requirements for voting also have the problem that they fail the participation criterion: in the context of AFD, that means you could change the outcome from "no consensus" to "delete" by voting "keep". --Carnildo (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Move String quartet No. 14 (Schubert)
User DavidRF pointed out, quite correctly, that this title should have a capital Q, to make it the same as all the other titles of string quartet articles. However, when I try to move it from "String quartet..." to "String Quartet..." Mr. Wiki tells me that the article already exists. Can someone fix this problem for me? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Revdel List of past General Hospital characters additional opinions
There is a request for revdel due to copyright violations for List of past General Hospital characters - after a brief discussion here - which notes the central issues to this request (which started here), I thought it best to get some additional opinions given it's revdelling almost the entire edit history. Thanks in advance for your sage insights. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fsol's copyright violations on Libertarianism
(notified at their talk) persists in inserting the following copyright violation into Libertarianism despite warnings. A preventative block may be necessary. For a user edit warring to insert a claim regarding property rights into a lede by violating copyright is amusing, but the edit warring and persistent copyright violations need to end. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Vallentyne, "is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things" from,
 * Your addition, "is the political philosophy that holds individuals initially own themselves and have property rights in external things"
 * In particular, "own themselves and have ... property rights in external things"
 * User was notified regarding answer at their talk.
 * 1. A sequence as small as nine words cannot be considered as a copyright infringement. However that is not my judgement to make.
 * 2. In the case and administrator will consider these nine words have a copyright attached to them, then, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we should reformulate the essence of the source. Blatently misquote it by saying the opposite of what it actually says is not a solution that abides by Wikipedia guidelines, neither is removing the reference entirely, as it is an academic and peer-reviewed publications is judges as one of the most reliable sources to come across.Fsol (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding in order: nine words, with the same expression, elision of points, and same order is plagiarism of the text itself, it is a copyright violation—you have taken text directly from Vallentyne, and the text you have taken is not a "natural" phrase, but a complex explanation and summary, it is the first sentence from the article. I've had this kind of observation regarding "close" "paraphrase", or verbatim copying as I'd describe it in this instance, in MILHIST's bugle.  I've advised FAC on this.  I have the habit of spotchecking FACs for precisely this kind of error.  Regarding point 2, a close reading of Vallentyne demonstrates that he establishes Libertarianism as a political philosophy (§1¶2), and that the individual is a basic moral principle of society (§0¶2–3, passim).  You might also be aware that the tertiary you're citing is a philosophical theory encyclopaedia, is not peer reviewed by the general scholarly community but by an editorial board, and conflicts with other field reviews (per WEIGHT) such as Long (1998) and the magisterial and widely acknowledged Woodcock (1963).  Moreover, point 2 fails to address the fact that your proposed (and repeatedly reinserted edit) is a copyright violation because you're taking the words out of Vallentyne's text verbatim. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo - you may want to read WP:QUOTE. This is a nine word phrase, identified as a quote and with proper attribution and a citation. That doesn't come within 1000 miles of a WP:COPYVIO. Manning (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What quotation marks? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I misunderstood your original complaint. Regardless, nine words (in a four and five word clause) is not a copyright infringement under any circumstances. If this involved an entire paragraph of text with only token paraphrasing then you might have a marginal case, but this is nothing. WP:PARAPHRASE may be of some use here to get a sense of when the line gets crossed into COPYVIO territory. I assure you, this example is well on the acceptable side. Manning (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Manning, your reasoning is spurious. The sentence duplicates the position in the work (first sentence), it duplicates the exact expression, it duplicates the precise reasoning.  Source to source the words are not wikipedias, they are Vallentynes.  They are directly Vallentynes and are used without quotation, mangled, and under wikipedia's own voice.  It is blatant plagiarism as it directly steals the concepts and mode of expression, and as such amounts to a clear copyright violation.  Valid paraphrases do not duplicate content, mode of expression, purpose in work, and voice. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is not spurious, it is based on ten years of examining potential copyvios on Wikipedia. You are of course free to disagree with my assessment, but your above stridency has ended my willingness to discuss this any further. Manning (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I am strident, but you appear to be insufficiently versed in plagiarism as copyright violation, and also have a stridency (though, given the conduct of copyright abusers, one which appears to be situationally appropriate). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon the interruption, but for the edification of everyone reading this exchange we should note that Manning is correct. We do not consider plagiarism to be copyright infringement, because it isn't.  Copyright violation is illegal, plagiarism is unethical.  Keegan (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not even entirely certain it's plagiarism - when you look at the two short phrases, there is no obvious way of restructuring them that preserves the original meaning, which makes them valid exceptions under WP:PARAPHRASE. IMO assuming the content is valid (an untested assumption) it would still be preferable to quote the original 23 word sentence, and then attribute/cite it correctly. Regardless, there's no copyvio issue here. Manning (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a regular there and potential copy vio is only one of several problems with that addition. It's not a summary from the article, it's against consensus, and it's against consensus because it is stating a sidebar item as a central tenet. Fsol's only argument for warring it into the lead is that it is sourced. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no copyvio concerns with this specific item. However that does not mean I (or the admin body) endorse (or oppose) its inclusion, and any claims that the admins "approved" this sentence are nonsense. (I'm not saying that will be the case here, but that tactic has been tried before). As a general note, the admin boards are not a place to resolve content disputes. Manning (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. I just wanted to clarify that a reading on the copy vio is not a reading on the content inclusion question. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with Germanic Neopaganism article
I request the attention of any administrator on what's happening to the Germanic Neopaganism article. A user named ThorLives has been systematically deleting material since last November, essentially reverting the article to a months-old poor, incomplete and unsourced version. Here you can read the former version of the article. Here you can see the extent of content deletion that has occurred over the last two months.

Despite complaints by various users no-one has intervened to stop this and restore the article to its decent state. ThorLives originally claimed to represent the Odinic Rite, a notable Germanic Neopagan organisation, and continues to claim to this date an involvement of many years with Odinism (ie the Odinic Rite). He has been using this claims to modify the article according to his personal ideas on the movement (Germanic Neopaganism). However in November the Odinic Rite Internet Information Officer took part to the discussions on the article talkpage and stated that ThorLives is actually not a member of the OR and does not represent it in any way (here his intervention). -- Bhlegkorbh <font face="Century Gothic" size="1">Talk  11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. Whether or not that user has any affiliation is irrelevant unless it prevents them from editing objectively. Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist Catholic neo-Platonic pagan myself. I am not sure yet this needs an admin's intervention. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that Kim Dent-Brown is on the case as well. For the record, the earlier version referenced above, this one, has a slightly better lead but also features a laundry list of organizations and their URLs, and falls totally foul of WP:NOTDIR. I have, in the meantime, restored part of that lead. What the Odinic officer (from out of steorarume) has to say is interesting but has no bearing on the article, and they themselves--admirably--invoke neutrality. I move to close this: there is no need whatsoever for admin intervention; what's needed is editors with a bookshelf full of reliable sources. The insinuation that some user needs to be punished for their edits to the article, the claim that there is wholesale destruction going on, they are both unfounded. Bhlegkorbh is urged to reconsider various Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted this has come to AN because I hope it will bring some more eyes - and in fact has already done so, thanks Drmies. Disclosure: I am an admin but have been editing there as what I hope is an honest broker between editors with strong views and have not used my admin privileges. I have some sympathy with the article's topic, being Wiccan, but no great familiarity with the detail.


 * I try to AGF and I'm probably a bit of a softy as far as trying to keep people on board, but I must admit Bhlegkorbh  has strained my ability to AGF to breaking point! Since November s/he has made about 45 edits to the article talk page, complaining about the article's quality. I have encouraged him/her to make changes to the article but s/he has only made three; two minor typo/formatting and one massive reversion to a version of the article that was several weeks old and embodies the "perfect state" to which s/he wants it to be returned.  Bhlegkorbh  did not on that occasion discuss the reversion before or after the fact, and I note that this AN post has not been mentioned there either, nor on ThorLives' talk page (I will rectify that in a second).


 * I agree with Drmies view that this complaint is unfounded but I'd like to see if anyone else has feedback in case (a) my perspective needs knocking straight or (b) I have things about right and we can offer Bhlegkorbh  a definitive community view. This would be very helpful for the future of the article. <font face="century gothic"  color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Appears to be moot now as the OP has indicated that s/he is retiring from Wikipedia. If someone uninvolved would like to close this, I suggest we are done here. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User has reverted the blanking of their Talk page, so we'll leave this up a while more. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page headers as dispute "resolution" venue instead of RfC/U participation
I note that today another user with a suspended RfC/U has returned. Shakehandsman has refused to engage with the RfC/U declared it harassment and disappeared from Wikipedia for a month. After his return, he vents on his talk page header with various accusations and gloating against other users. . Without prejudging the merit of the RfC/U on him, Shakehandsman's method of dispute "resolution" still seems inappropriate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you've properly considered your own method of dispute resolution? If you have an issue with an editor the usual thing is to approach them directly about it on their user page. Exok (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I observed that as well, and I chose to discuss it with them personally. It's usually a good first step before proceeding to the drama boards. He has alrady modified he remarks somewhat as a result. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wise words Exok, thanks. For the record there is no gloating nor any resolution, I've simply explained clearly my reasons for returning and stated my position, providing evidence that vindicates me. It's undeniable that I have been subject to significant harassment and various other unpleasantness on Wikipedia and despite there being no case to answer I did previously thoroughly engage with the RFC/U thoroughly debunking all 13 points of "evidence" that were provided (and i was even interupted in doing so by users posting in an area reserved exclusively for my comments). The header is simply a temporary update to my notice of departure and I'll move it lower down the page if it really offends people and I have already tweaked one sentence that I realise could potentially have been misinterpreted. TBH it would have been nice if a fraction of this level of concern had been given to the blatantly false comments and bad faith littered throughout the RFC/U - a page that must have had vastly more views than my talk.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on your engagement in the RfC/U. However, I don't think that this is enough to address the concern that you are using your talk page header inappropriately per WP:UP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, here's the link to the previous AN discussion about said RfC/U: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive230. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've re-opened the RFC per your request, let's take this and all related matters up there. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey?
I received via e-mail (presumably through Wikipedia's e-mail facility) a request to participate in a survey about Wikipedia. Without revealing names, the investigator is a PhD candidate at the City University of Hong Kong, and the return address and URL for the survey do indeed seem to be from that institution.

Is anyone aware of the legitimacy of this survey? Is it sanctioned by the WMF, or is the Foundation at least aware of it? Just checking out of an abundance of caution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Just noticed that the username the email supposedly came from (listed at the bottom of the mail) is not a name I can find here.  If someone from the WMF wants to contact me via e-mail -- preferably someone whose name I would know from seeing it here (i.e. Phillipe) -- I can pass along the particulars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I chose not to respond because: (a) the email contained a unique-ID link to the questionnaire (ie which email/accountname it had been sent to), (b) the first questions then asked were personal details, (c) those personal details were not skippable when left blank. —Sladen (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)  Normally I'd just merrily fill a form like that with junk/misleading data; however since I care about Wikipedia and if it indeed genuine, I'd rather than do that.


 * I can't see anything at meta:Research:Projects that sounds like that. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I will pass on responding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We need clearer guidelines about security and surveys as I mentioned here. Things like legal threats lead to instant blocks, and there should be something similar for those who run unapproved surveys (blocked until survey is WMF approved or withdrawn). Exploits are going to occur when admins respond to surveys targeted at damaging Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, it starts to look a lot like phising, which is something we should be protecting ourselves from. FWIW, Philippe asked on my talk page to e-mail him the survey info, and I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded to the survey weeks ago. I don't remember answering anything too personal and I haven't been sent any (additional) spam. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This survey may be wonderful, but there will be malicious surveys and we need to start protecting the community by making a policy analagous to WP:NLT to say that any editor who asks another editor to complete an off-wiki survey will be blocked until it is established that the survey is WMF approved or the survey is withdrawn (that would include removal from the website notified in the survey request). If a "no unapproved surveys" policy were in place, editors (and admins in particular) would think more before responding to unknown people at unknown websites, and there would be a reasonable chance that any wide-spread survey notification would be reported. By the way, attackers are sufficiently clever to not cause any visible damage while more targets are being gathered (if you suddenly got spam or if your account was compromised, you might alert others that it was possibly caused by the survey). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should work out more ways that people can possibly harm others by purporting to study Wikipedia. I also think that a "block non-identified surveyors on sight" policy would be a wonderful way to welcome academics potentially interested in Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I am rather pessimistic when it comes to security. I take your point that an instant block may not be a good approach—what about a polite request to explain the situation at their talk page (a request that would lead to a block if ignored after reasonable notices are given)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem with that in the present instance is that I couldn't find a username which corresponded to the one listed on the e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange. If Wikipedia mail was used, there should have been a footer visible at the bottom saying This e-mail was sent by user "Example" on the English Wikipedia to user "Another example". The "Example" user may have no user page or talk page, but Special:Contributions/Example should show that the user exists, even if no edits. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, my e-mail has that footer, but I must have been typing in the name incorrectly, because when I cut-and-pasted it just now, I found the user: User talk:Ling JIANG. Another editor has left Ling JIANG a note pointing them to meta:Research:Subject recruitment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Prods not expiring?
I'm sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place. . . I really have no idea if this should be on AN or AN/I or somewhere else. Anyway, looking at Category:Proposed deletion there seems to be a lot of pages which have had prod tags for more than 7 days but which aren't in Category:Expired proposed deletions‎. It looks like something isn't working right with the proposed deletion template or whatever it is that makes the prods say they are expired. Calathan (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone to a few of the articles that have prods that should have expired, cleared the page cache, and the template changed to show that they were expired. There is something odd going on though. --  At am a  頭  22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, I'm clearing out the backlog but there are dozens of articles. Also nobody was deleting the empty prod categories, I'm not sure if that contributed to this problem, usually an admin zaps them right away. It looks like I might have to get back into the habit of patrolling prods again if other people aren't doing it. --  At am a  頭 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the template is not working; I wonder if it might be in some way the after effects of the shut-down.  DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The trick is that the oldest prods currently in play are from 23 January (I just cleared 22 Jan), long after the shutdown. Proposed deletion/dated calls for Template:Category handler, which adds the expired PROD category; is there something going on with that template, perhaps? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been doggedly going through these prods, and I've cleared out tons but can't keep up. I cleared out everything proposed up through the 24th, but many prods from the 25th are still there and they have all expired by this point, and now prods from the 26th are going to start expiring. I could use a bit more help if anyone is interested. :) Just make sure, if you aren't familiar with prods, that you look over the criteria before deleting (that it hasn't been deleted and restored before and that it hasn't survived AfD or a previous prod). I also look at the articles' talk pages, sometimes people who object to deletion don't know that they can just remove the tag unlike a CSD or AfD tag and will protest deletion there (any objection to deletion makes the deletion controversial and the prod invalid). --  At am a  頭 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like an issue with the job queue. I did a null edit on one and it appeared in the list.   The page linked to from Special:Statistics to view the size of the queue appears to be broken so I could not check the stats.  This does point in the direction of a technical issue that needs to be reported to those who actually run the system/code.  I don't think this is associated with the toolserver, but there have been issues there of late. Just remember, this is just a hunch. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen the same thing happen with BLPPRODs occasionally; it usually resolves itself fairly quickly. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this issue is related to the thread at WP:ANI about the user who accidentally created a page with the prefix for the Turkish Wikipedia? Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can probably tell from the redlink above, everything from the 25th is now gone, and if the 26th gets cleared out during the day we won't be backlogged on prods anymore. :) --  At am a  頭 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The backlog is now cleared, as of this moment all expired proposed deletions are dealt with. It looks like the initial issue is now resolved. --  At am a  頭 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Call for Beta Testers - new unblock tool
Hello administrators! User:TParis, User:DeltaQuad, User:Thehelpfulone, and I have been working recently on a new web application to assist with reviewing unblock requests. Currently, the general unblock process is to make your appeal on your user talk page, then email unblock-en-l AT lists.wikimedia.org if that doesn't work, then make a final appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee should that fail. Unfortunately, the mailing list has a number of problems associated with it. It's easy for appeals to get forgotten, prone to more than one person replying to the same request at the same time, and in past months it's frequently been the case that only a very small number of administrators have been handling all requests coming to the list (often more than a dozen or so daily). We have developed the Unblock Ticket Request System, or UTRS, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, to alleviate these issues and make the unblock experience much easier for both administrators and blocked users.

Before we officially launch this tool, however, we are looking for administrators to help beta test the tool. No prior experience in reviewing unblock requests is necessary, however we do require that you currently hold the sysop flag in order to have an account on UTRS. Interested administrators should apply for an account at http://toolserver.org/~unblock/register.php ; once your account is approved, you will receive further information via email about how the test will be conducted. Testers will also be asked to complete a survey after the test to document their experience with the tool.

If you have questions about UTRS or the beta test, please feel free to ask myself, User:TParis, User:DeltaQuad, User:Thehelpfulone. You can also email the development team at unblock@undefinedtoolserver.org - all of us will receive the email. I'll also try to keep an eye on this page should any questions be asked here. Thanks to everyone who can assist with the beta test! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there any on-wiki pages I can point WP:UTRS at?  MBisanz  talk 05:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, most of the discussion that led to the development of the tool took place on the unblock mailing list. I'd rather we not have too many references to it on-wiki just yet either; as we're just starting the beta test, it's probably best if people that are actually looking to be unblocked not accidentally end up there. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Acheron, Victoria
Hello,I would like to bring to your attention the article Acheron, Victoria, that IMHO should be checked. From august (this was the situation), it was really enlarged by the contributions of some anons and new users. The problem is that most of this contribs are unverified/unsourced, lots of sections are biographies, other are unclear or possibly not notable for an encyclopedia (an example), and other sects (and subsects) are empty. I'm also checking if all the content is free or a copyvio. Note: "Acheron History Project" (instead of "History") as section title sounds very strange, as a way to intend the article as a sort of AcheronWiki.org main page. I hope that this is the right place to request a "check" for an article. Sorry for eventual mistake and thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like one person - and IP's, but that's probably the same person before they got a user account - needs to learn about referencing. I've reverted their most recent additions and left them a note.
 * The article needs work to fix it up; any unreferenced info can be removed by anyone - and some of it should be removed. Other parts could possibly be referenced.
 * I can't see any need for admin intervention. DerBorg, for this type of issue, it'd be best to first contact the person adding the material, and ask them. For help, you're probably best asking on help desk, and/or a wikiproject (Australian Wikipedians' notice board). I've added a request on the latter .  Chzz  ► 01:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for checking the article. Effectively, I've first supposed to "call" WP:HD but I didn't know the "how-to" in cases as this one. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with my user page & Admin dashboard
While looking for a list of unblock requests so I could fix a broken one, I discovered that not only could I not find it on my userpage where I thought I had it, but that my userpage isn't displaying properly anymore. Can anyone recomment a better Admin dashboard for me? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You could take a look at mine for a smaller example. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I use a simple one on my main user page, but it's more shortcuts than content. I do keep counts of the categories, though, and have a toggle if Snotbot finds bad AFDs. User:Ultraexactzz/usefulitemstemplate. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I stole it, Ultra--I hope that's OK. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New file upload wizard
I'd like to present an idea I've been working on, about a new file upload wizard. I have written a working draft that is currently at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft. To test it, you will need to activate the Javascript, by adding

importScript('User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/uploadscript.js'); [update see below]

to your personal .js page (Special:Mypage/vector.js).

The idea is to have a wizard-style dialogue that guides the user through all the necessary decisions about copyright, sourcing and fair-use issues. Ideally, it could be deployed as a Gadget, or through site-wide js, once it's in a stable working state.

All help in further developing, bugfixing, testing and feedback will be greatly appreciated. I suggest discussion to be held at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: on advice from User:AlexSm, I have moved the script page to MediaWiki:UploadScriptDemo.js, so it can be tested even without changing one's personal .js. The new method of testing is now:
 * Either access the wizard page through the following "withJS" link: [ Reload with script]
 * or change the reference in your personal .js to importScript('MediaWiki:UploadScriptDemo.js');
 * Sorry for the inconvenience if you already edited your .js with the old value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Noel Ashman
is SALTed, presumably due to Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman; we now have Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noel Ashman.

In light of the AfD/deletion log/SALT, I ask admins to check it out, decide if it's acceptable, and please let the AFC creator know (

Not *quite* sure this is the best place to ask, but due to SALT I thought it might be; wasn't sure where else. Thx,  Chzz  ► 17:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a userfied copy of a deleted version that's had some edits at [User:Todayilearned/Noel_Ashman]. Some of the references in the AFC version are pretty bare but the details can be pulled from the user copy.  No clue on if it's viable.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Input required - we could discuss it right here. Presumably, it's WP:AUTO but still... an article is an article.
 * Or if someone wants to BOLDly make a decision - go for it. I guess, if it's 'accepted' (ie moved live), it could always go to AfD again.
 * Equally, if someone chooses to 'decline' it and tell 'em why, is fine by me.
 * I can't make the call regardless, 'coz of lack of the bit.
 * Incidentally, I have not alerted the user to this discussion; wasn't sure that'd be necessary/helpful in this inst, but if someone thinks it is, go for it.
 * TLDR is: "I can't 'accept' it anyway, due to SALT, so that's an admin thing. Someone make the call".  Chzz  ► 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd hesitate to do so. It was salted for a reason. That reason is because it has been deleted 6 times. It was deleted once as spam, then once as a result of an AfD. Then it was recreated and deleted per G4 (recreation of an article deleted at AfD). Then it was recreated yet again, but nobody was willing to use G4 because it wasn't close enough to the version that was previously brought to AfD. So instead a second AfD was run, and it was again decided to delete it. After that second AfD, it was recreated twice more and each time deleted per G4.


 * My suggestion is to ask that the notability of the subject be confirmed before we even consider this (through the usual means; multiple significant coverage in reliable sources). I see that we can derive two conclusions from this article's deletion history; that some people really want this subject to be in Wikipedia, and the community really doesn't think the subject meets WP:N. --  At am a  頭 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention Noel ashman which shows more deletions of the subject. --  At am a  頭 00:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the references I could verify in the AfC request (the ones that are online) and they are passing mentions (an article will be about something totally unrelated to Ashman and he'll just be mentioned as the proprietor of some establishment mentioned in the article). I suspect that all of the references are along those lines, which is why this article has been deleted so many times. --  At am a  頭 00:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This belongs at deletion reviewwhich is the usual & proper venue for a discussion on restoring a salted article. The afc page can be taken to MfD after that, unless DelRev decides to restore the article.   DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chzz has retired/wikibreaked/left rather abruptly so I've been following this discussion. I'm going to go ahead and decline the submission, while pointing out this discussion, deletion review and the AfD. I think that covers everything pointed out here, right?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  01:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Query
Got an email from a user whose user page I've deleted a few times (it looks a bit silly) who sent me an email to say they want their user name deleted since it's causing them personal problems:"Hi, i was wondering if you can tell me how to remove or change my username. if possible i would prefer to remove everything so that it cant be searched on Google or wiki. my info has deleted, so thank you. However i was also hoping if you could please remove the user name or just change it to something else and like remove the whole thing. it was a prank and the name isn't real. no one exists on such name and now it has caused problems in personal life. please help. thanks." Your advice is appreciated, privately I guess. . Drmies (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can suggest they request a new username, something meaningless as is often done for users who use their RTV. I guess I can't say anything more without knowing the specifics. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I pointed them thattaway. I could give more details but I don't want to focus more attention on the matter--though I don't understand the problem in the first place. I think we can safely close this. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mirrors will have picked up the page too, and may not disappear so fast. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CENT notification
Hi - I thought the community should have a notification about what imo is a quite important RFC about the spreadingsantorum website and whether or not we should be linking to it from en wikipedia articles and I added it to WP:CENT  - it was quickly removed diff - is it wrong or objectionable to attempt to attract community comments to this RFC using a link from WP:CENT? If so, please advise how to raise the profile of this RFC. User:Nomoskedasticity has removed it again after another user replaced it, Centralized discussion revision history - claiming its only a content dispute, but the main objections are WP:BLP and that it is an attack site created to demean a single living person. Is it a discussion of enough president to warrant centralized notification? thanks -   You  really  can  20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My god this has gotten out of hand. Can we gat some non-American or politically neutral American admins to watch this a bit closer? We've had two bitterly worded RfCs on this in the past week, the page itself is on lockdown, I'm just not sure what else can be done...  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * - Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
 * @Sven - Your comments are nothing at all to do with my question.   You  really  can  20:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CENTNOT is fairly clear about what issues do not go in the CENT template, and content disputes are among them. There are elements of BLP and ATTACK, certainly, but the disagreement at its core is whether the site can be discussed or linked without violating those policies. And that's a content dispute. If you're looking for somewhere to post notices regarding the RFC, you might post a note at the BLP noticeboard, or at the Administrator's Noticeboard in the context of "This is gonna get heated, please keep an eye out". UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like a couple of other admin opinions as to this issue - It seems quite reasonable to me to bring such a discussion via WP:CENT guidelines, to a wider community audience as per - Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - Is it acceptable under WP:BLP policy to link to external Blogger (service) sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person.  -   You  really  can  21:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CENT might be appropriate if there were a proposal to change a policy of some sort. The issue in this RfC is only the interpretation of policy as it applies to a single article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures  - User:Nomoskedasticity, what are your objections to the usual benefits to be expected from the wider community opining on this issue?   You  really  can  21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin opinion -- content dispute, not suitable for centralized discussion.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another admin opinion (Disclaimer: very involved) : Discussion is ranging into the realm of whether WP:BLP or WP:ELOFFICIAL is more worthy of upholding. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Virtually every content dispute is about the proper application of some policy or guideline to a content question. By your logic they would all belong on CENT: they obviously do not, or CENT would lose all its usefulness. That clause means discussion about existing policies etc. as such, not as applied to a particular content question. T. Canens (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a policy clarification that is worthy of WP:CENT publication - Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - Is it acceptable under WP:BLP policy to link to external Blogger (service) sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person.  -    You  really  can  22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I noticed that in the past disputes on that page were tagged with &mdash;another misunderstanding of what that other venue is for, which probably stemmed from the same confusion that T. Canens dissected above.   ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think WP:IAR should be invoked to use CENT for the spreadingsantorum linking issue because it is more than just another content matter. The issue concerns whether there should be a clickable link to an attack site—a link that would never normally be considered except for the fact that it is an outrageous and novel form of attack, and the target has a certain ability to incite such attacks. The wider community needs to be involved to determine whether WP:BLP is relevant to a case like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the instant you use it for this content dispute, the next one has a precedent, IAR or no. CENT is useful only because it is used sparingly, which is why CENTNOT exists. This is not a fundamental change in policy (or any change in policy at all), nor is it a wide-ranging conduct issue, and so it does not need to be on CENT. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone wanted to start an actual policy discussion, that would be CENT-worthy, but it would need to be somewhere appropriate like WT:BLP and would need to consider why it's ok to link to the godhatesfags website twice from the Westboro Baptist Church page (a website that attacks a large group of living people), to David Duke's website twice from his article (despite its vile anti-semitism), to the website of white supremacist website from the Stormfront (website) page (a websit attacking living people on racial grounds). Oddly none of these links is the subject of massive debate like the santorum case... why does there seem to be far greater concern about an attack on Santorum than by attacks on homosexuals, blacks, Jews, or other minorities?  If you want to continue to focus solely on Santorum then I suggest you keep it and the other endless debates on the campaign page (or whatever it is titled next).  EdChem (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Yes, I find the interminable debates around this neologism that continue to downplay or ignore Santorum's homophobia and portray him as a helpless victim and ignore the harm he did that led to his being attacked very irritating.
 * Whether or not he is a helpless victim or you take the position that its his own damn fault for not supporting same sex marriage is irrelevant, the important issue for us to consider in regards to wikipedia policy, is that - WP:BLP seems to me to apply to - and encourage us not to link to external sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person .. that can't be said of broader opinionated sites in regard to groups of peoples such as the stormfront website. As the linking ot such a site is pretty much, totally unknown on en wikipedia, the outcome of this will set a precedent for any future externals created to demean and attack single living people, for this reason I feel the community would benefit from the RFC receiving as broad a notification as possible. You  really  can  09:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated the RFC advice to link to CENTNOT. Yes, this dispute is a big mess.  No, CENT is not the right venue for advertising it.  But you can and IMO should use all of the other recommended options, such as issuing Please see messages to all of the connected WikiProjects and BLPN.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems a more appropriate way to garner attention than the faux elevation to a discussion about policies (rather than their implementation.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of note I also placed (a month or so ago), what was interpreted by some as a single page content, a dispute that had already made rounds at a RfC and DRN and was in the process of a second RfC to help gain further community viewpoints. Because it was less with the individual page dispute and more a discussion of applying statistical means to a collection of various data qualified as Original Research that Wikipedia did and had the implication of affecting other "List of XXX by usage" articles I listed the article. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CalTech: Rankmaniac 2012
More of a heads up, but CalTech is running a program 'Rankmaniac 2012‎', where students are invited to optimize the Google ranking of a page on Wikipedia. I noticed this morning that XLinkBot is on it's 3RR limit for that page due to persistent spamming of links to that page, edit warring to get a link in/out etc. I have therefore semi-protected Rankmaniac 2012‎, and blocked all the involved accounts (logged in users indef, IPs for a month, the latter because I don't know how long the project will take, expecting that one month should be sufficient). I also went forward and blacklist the links. As Wikipedia is a sitting duck for spammers, I'd think to bring this notice to a wider public, this may not be over. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugly, and totally agree. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as a notice, I think it is rather ashaming that an institution like CalTech is using such programs in their teaching. It is all rather innocent, but it does result in their students getting a name as spammers, which, by the collective memory of the internet, may hunt them in years to come.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, but if you feel this way, you should tell them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, not sure if that is my responsibility (actually, that is CalTech's responsibility). It would be nice to tell every spammer on Wikipedia that they are not being very responsible in their actions, and that their actions can have severe side effects (in a way, we do warn them, and some of the editors here were warned for that as well), but that is quite a huge task.  However, I do believe that it is our task to protect Wikipedia from abuse.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Caltech has very little control over what professors there choose to teach; it's an extremely faculty-controlled institute. --Constantine (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope they know that wp pages are all served with rel=nofollow so none of those spam links get page rank. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the page. Even though the wording was not ultra-spammy, the sole purpose was search engine optimization, which falls under G11. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And salted for a month. Feel free to unsalt if you believe I overreacted. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a very good call IMO. Manning (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd think the organizers would have informed the students that spamming on Wikipedia is both ineffective (due to rel=nofollow) and unethical. Someone should write to them and request them to work with us before the contest commences. <font style="color:darkblue; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px grey;">ZZArch <font style="color:#FFFF66; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px darkblue;">talk to me 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone want to deal with User:131.215.159.157/Rankmaniac 2012 and ? MER-C 05:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted that page and sent an email to their professor, asking him to tell his students to stop. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the professor's email address? I would not mind sending an email to him myself. <font style="color:darkblue; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px grey;">ZZArch <font style="color:#FFFF66; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px darkblue;">talk to me 05:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Professor's email is adamw at caltech dot edu. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I blocked the offending editor and asked him to tell his colleagues we will delete all pages and block all editors until this nonsense stops. Manning (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See http://courses.cms.caltech.edu/cs144/ – Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was afraid they would return. Unfortunately, spamming Wikipedia is not ineffective, as suggested above. The rel=nofollow just solves a little part of the problem, it still pays to have your links here. I had a post from someone on my talkpage about this who seemed to have been caught in an autoblock on CalTech. They were inclined to talk to the teacher in person.
 * It is good this is just a class, they do not actually earn money with this. About '..tell[ing] his colleagues', don't worry, they will continue until the class is dismissed, you know that the one student that will not stop will get the highest page rank on search engines. As for the students, they should all fail their class, they got caught. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is unethical and suggests that the lecturer of a course on "the ideas behind the web" doesn't actually understand the first thing about how Wikipedia operates. So much for CalTech being one of the world's leading universities... Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. As far as I can tell, there's no evidence that the professor ever mentioned wikipedia; the report at the top of this section is misleading, or mistaken.  Rather, some of the students figured they might make some hay here.  Yes, he should have warned them off, but it's hardly unethical if he didn't think of that.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that I do say that it is their target to get the Wikipedia page high ranked, which is a wrong suggestion. I think the goal is to get a link highly ranked, but I have yet to see what is the exact goal of this exercise.  Anyway, asking students to spam so they will get high search engine rankings for whatever reason, or even supporting a scheme where that is the goal, and whether they are using (the standard sitting duck) Wikipedia for that goal or not (in a way a good choice, it earns you a lot of points for the ranking), is IMHO pretty unethical.  This is a very bad considered action, which may have real consequences, and does not shed a good light on CalTech.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Adam Wierman wrote on the 30th of January: "Homework 4 was released today and is now available on the course web page. So begins Rankmaniac 2012...  I look forward to seeing all the crazy things you do.  (Remember not to get me, or Caltech, in too much trouble though!)" (ref).  Well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Emailed Prof. Wierman and explained the issue. Hope he would understand. <font style="color:darkblue; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px grey;">ZZArch <font style="color:#FFFF66; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px darkblue;">talk to me 07:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure Caltech, despite the place's reputation for pranks, knows where to draw the line (not just in pranks, that is).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem set is here. It is due February 10. Problem 1 on it is to get an image highly ranked on Google or Bing in searches for the phrase "rankmaniac 2012".  The instructions do not say to spam Wikipedia; they also don't say to avoid doing so. Cardamon (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it I feel we have been imported into an updated version of Real Genius? Surely it would be the work of seconds for the prof to tell his students to play nice by email.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that that several of the students are going quite far beyond just spamming Wikipedia, with botnets, proxies, and various full-on blackhat techniques being discussed. Students at Caltech will often run with projects far beyond what would be considered acceptable elsewhere, even with discouragement from professors, and the network admins here usually aren't too concerned: I once knew someone who used a number of computer lab computers to run a DOS attack in order to censor personal information on a site that would otherwise result in punishment for his house; the network admins asked him to move the attack elsewhere because it was slowing down Caltech's network... --Constantine (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But, as we have already noted, spamming Wikipedia doesn't work. Probably just a few lower-end students trying their luck, because I'm assuming the brightest students should've already known that... <font style="color:darkblue; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px grey;">ZZArch <font style="color:#FFFF66; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px darkblue;">talk to me 22:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the people at Caltech affected by the IP blocks, by the way. It's worth noting that the students appear to be primarily using the wireless network—as they don't have offices, they don't usually use wired connections. The wireless network is behind NAT and blocking those IPs will have significant collateral damage. Editing yesterday, I had to switch from wireless to the wired line in my office... not too big of an inconvenience, but probably a larger issue for many students. As an aside, I came here to make a simple redirect for Replat, and now I'm posting on AN again. Oh dear... --Constantine (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel that this is one of those newsworthy things. Caltech blanket banned from Wikipedia! Although, if possible, I'd definitely like to resolve this issue privately with the professor in question; I'm still waiting for his response. <font style="color:darkblue; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px grey;">ZZArch <font style="color:#FFFF66; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px darkblue;">talk to me 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We've only banned editing. If we blocked them from viewing the site until Feb 15, that would seriously get their attention. (Of course I have no idea how we would do that, either technically or procedurally). Manning (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gotten a response back from Adam, and he's quite apologetic about the situation. He had apparently already told his students to avoid Wikipedia, will deal with that more concretely, and will be contacting people who emailed him about it. --Constantine (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I take back my criticism of him made above: it seems that the fault is with his students. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor Wierman got back to me and was very apologetic about the whole incident. He posted an entry on the course blog asking students not to use Wikipedia, and also said he will make the same request in person when the class reconvenes on Monday. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Same here. See . I think the situation could be considered resolved by now. <font style="color:darkblue; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px grey;">ZZArch <font style="color:#FFFF66; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px darkblue;">talk to me 01:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Zzarch, unfortunately, spamming Wikipedia DOES work, it only does not work for your rankings (on major search engines), it still gets your links around on internet which does have an effect in people following them. the rel=nofollow thing just takes out a part that we can take out (well, we could no-index the pages as well), but that part is minor. There are still people writing and selling software to spam Wikipedia, and they don't do that because they don't know it doesn't work, they do it because they do make money with it. The same goes for having your page up here, that page does get indexed (just not the links).

I'll assume that the students will behave, and unblock the IPs, and shorten the blocks of the users. No need to give them more pain then --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan Savage
Can an uninvolved admin close this discussion at Talk:Dan Savage. I think that there is a clear consensus and many people has commented that it should be closed. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Remember that any uninvolved editor may close an RfC, especially one in which consensus is that clear. :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 06:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Was going to close it myself as an uninvolved experienced editor but decided in the end that it wasn't worth the trouble given that an "admin" had been specifically asked for. Dpmuk (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Move Here We Go Again (song) to Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato song)
I need an admin to move Here We Go Again (song) to Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato song). I would do it myself but for an existing redirect. According to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Here%20We%20Go%20Again%20%28song%29 and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Here%20We%20Go%20Again%20%28Ray%20Charles%20song%29 the Here We Go Again (song) page is only getting a few more hits than the Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) (6417 vs 4325 in the last 90 days) although many people looking for the Ray Charles song probably accidentally view the former. Here We Go Again (song) should redirect to Here We Go Again. Also many of the viewers at Here We Go Again (song) are probably looking for many of the other songs listed at Here We Go Again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. I've requested the deletion of Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato song) to perform the move. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  03:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All done. Graham 87 09:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Bit of a backlog at Requests_for_page_protection. Was going to do more but have limited time tonight....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I dealt with up a decent handful, still needs attention though. The Trapt one was hilarious, they are certainly tenacious. Manning (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but I"m going to go be a neutral admin there. I know something about that kind of music, though I know nothing about Trapt beyond once seeing one of their music videos.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, there's no edit warring or talk page discussion going on and I suspect they can work this out. Unwatchlisting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable source
Do Wiki administrators consider the blogsite consisting of facts and info connected to early Hanna-Barbera (1950s and 1960s) cartoon shorts, actors, animators, storyboard artists, who have worked at the studio in its early years and includes, individuals who have been dropped by the studio for one reason or another.

There are several reasons that show this site as being a reliable source, which could be used to improve many articles:
 * It has articles written by contributors for specific people and shows, therefore The Wikipedia article on the Jetsons, for instance, could benefit with facts, that are currently not available here.
 * The articles mentioned above have been referenced by California or New York newspaper columns (such as The Tribune), in some cases have references from the individuals, themselves for whom the articles have been intended.
 * A part from their work in animation, the site also provides very little known facts about the actors' radio careers, which are rarely included in Wiki.

These, however are the reasons for not allowing this source and highlighting its weaker points

Radiohist (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the things written there are not neutral.
 * So far, the only page here that has YOWP as a reference is Red Coffee's, and describes it as an animation blog page.
 * Several contributors may not consider a blog page as something that should be called reliable.


 * This is the Administrators noticeboard. It is not a forum for resolving content disputes. We have a dedicated forum for discussing what is and is not a reliable source at WP:RSN. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attack
Hello there. Please see this user's contribution. The user was warned for breaking three-revert rule but still keeps vandalizing and edit warring our History of Georgia (country) page. And yesterday he/she made a personal attack in an edit summary. Looks like this user is here only for vandalizing. –BruTe Talk 08:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I look further ... I'll assume you have actually advised the user that you have reported them here, as per the big orange box when you edit this page? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I have not looked at it. Thanks. –BruTe Talk 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

One of brute's apparent friends mentioned my mother in a bad context on my talk page in Georgian so I'm the one under assault of couple of editors. They work like gangs, changing my edit one after another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give a diff about that "bad context"? I can't really find it.. And you were warned for breaking 3RR rule but was continuing edit warring. That's all. –BruTe Talk 08:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

none of the involved users ever warned me of any rules, they just deleted my explained cahnges, including you. You did not even bother to notify me that you were giving me a bad name here until you where asked to. You seem so concerned about preserving the nonsense a blocked user put in the Georgia template that I am thinking that all of your gang is one and the same user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock template - user friendly?
Am I the only one that thinks this isn't user friendly? I know that I occasionally stumble upon someone who hasn't been able to make it work and always have to find an example before I can fix it. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No you're not :) I've often found that especially for new users unfamiliar with wiki-markup as well as site policy (perhaps explaining their block) the unblock request is malformed. I'd be amazed if we haven't missed a significant number of unblock requests simply because the template has been used incorrectly or not at all. What the solution would be I don't know - maybe a preload template and a button to create the appropriate edit section in block notices? EyeSerene talk 11:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like what we have to contest speedy deletions? That might work. And I may be the dumbest admin around, but I have a hard time responding to unblock requests. Maybe I don't do it often enough, but I have to reread and relearn the instructions every time. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be the dumbest admin aroundDisputed  Chzz  ► 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * shouldn't blocking admins be keeping an eye on a user's talk page after they've blocked them? — Ched : ?  21:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, it's not required for sure and if I had every user talk page on my watchlist then I'd have... A lot, I guess. Plus it doesn't do much good, it's not like you can decline an unblock for someone you yourself blocked, so you aren't really the best person to review unblock requests in the first place. --  At am a  頭 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I only watch a small percentage of user's I've blocked, but a lot of my blocks are username-based so they are pretty cut and dried. I really like the idea of having some soret of automatic thing like they have for appealing speedy noms, we just need a coding guru to sort it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful to have a prominent link to help me or admin help in the message displayed to blocked editors? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Any experienced user is going to be able to use the unblock template. Any inexperienced user is just going to create another account. And unless they do something egregious and so are picked up by checkuser, no one will ever know, so it doesn't matter. Egg  Centri  c  15:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is really not the case. Brand new users request unblock every day. You can tell they really are new because of the ridiculous reasons they give for wanting to be unblocked, such as one I just saw today where a blocked user was arguing that he needed to be able to control the article on the company he worked for because his boss told him to. But we do also see a lot of users who badly mess up the unblock request process, failing to state a reason, using he wrong template, that sort of thing. I'm sure this can be fixed, we just need the right nerd to step up and do the necessary coding. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just found out that my post saying the same thing got caught up in an edit conflict. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But it still doesn't matter. If they don't get a response they will just create a new account, they won't sit around for months awaiting one. Promise you. And any exception to that is so irredemably stupid that we don't need them editing. Egg   Centri  c  21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The db-templates have a nice big button, which adds a new section to the talkpage with a pre-programmed part. Would that be an option here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like this? User:Madman/Sandbox (Obviously the editintro and preload would need to be tweaked.) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks relatively moron proof. I think the biggest problem, though, is the way that you can't put whatever you like in the unblock request reason... some things need to be formatted, such as quote marks. How is your average good faith inexperienced user who has done something foolish enough to end up blocked to cope with that? Egg   Centri  c  21:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I just previewed an unblock request with quotes in the reason and see no problem. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 22:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, I had a feeling there was a problem but can't reproduce it, and I forget exactly what the problem was. Could someone block me please, using a template (that is important, possibly) or whatever - i.e. use a template block message and so on, cause I'm sure there was a problem with that but forget what it is. Then please unblock me with a note that the block was experimental. Meanwhile, I will attempt to try to reproduce whatever the problem was, on a user sandbox page. Cheers Egg   Centri  c  22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually don't worry about it - I tried a bunch of things and I couldn't produce a problem. I am sure there was a problem once, but it isn't there any more. Have speedy-tagged the sandbox page I was using... Egg   Centri  c  22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So, yes, it's possible, but I predict we'll need a good amount of consensus there's a problem with the current template before we can change it to something like this. AN seems like the right place for this, but maybe the VP also? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologise, I really should have provided the example - see . I've seen editors do this before. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Madman's prototype is a huge improvement over what we already have. Even if it's not completely foolproof, it's a large step in the right direction. EyeSerene talk 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:KimvdLinde: Canvassing, disruptive editing, false polling, etc.
Woops, posted to wrong page; moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please delete copyvio picture
Please delete copyvio picture File:Aryan shiva ravi.jpg, deleted before twice as copyvio--Musamies (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Can you point to the earlier uploads? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the history of page Pan parag ravi aryan.--Musamies (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed
Case summary can be seen here

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc ( powwow ) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist has requests dating back to December, which I don't think have been actioned. Could someone please take a look. Cheers.  Chzz  ► 10:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reposting; was archived without response on 31 Jan  Chzz  ►  12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump  Chzz  ► 13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump  Chzz  ► 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC) (Have I gone invisible?)
 * Speaking for myself only, it's not that you're invisible, it's that the page seems pretty incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already frequent it. A note on the talk pages of a few admins who you know have worked there before might lead to better results than a note at AN. Although it's possible the problem is just that I'm the dumbest admin around... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Same here... I'm sorry I can't be of help, but can't make heads or tails of that page... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll thumbwrestle you both over the "dumbest admin" title. I think I'd do more harm than good at that page. I consider myself reasonably competent at most admin duties but some things I just don't trust myself with... The spam blacklist, proxy checking, rangeblocks, obscure image copyright questions, etc. --  At am a  頭 20:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just brought this back in the hope that someone competent in this area can take a look. --  At am a  頭 17:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the regex behind the spam blacklist (and I've added a couple shock sites to it before), but I'm not certain when "spamming" becomes "too much spamming". Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion required
Can someone please undelete File:Fortsaginawscotts.jpg? The file was labeled as "unused" because someone redirected the corresponding article, Fort Saginaw Mall, in bad faith. I'd like the image back because it's a non-free historic image of a building that no longer exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia protected edit requests
Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is currently backlogged and needs admin attention. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog
There is a backlog to clear at WP:RPP, with one article (Digital divide) in desperate need of an indefinite semi.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some help needed on Men's rights
Per this request on my talk, which I keep managing to not get around to and don't foresee getting to in the near future, would any admins be interested in trying to wrangle the situation going on on Men's rights and its talk? The article is under a custom-crafted article probation, and it seems to need near-constant uninvolved-admin eyes refereeing what goes on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cybermud's problematic behavior has continued - it would be appreciated if an admin could step in and look at it. Referring to another editor as a princess seems to be a pretty damn egregious violation of the terms of probation. Kevin (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As does this soapbox rant which has reached Godwin's law standards, as well as unsourced claims that certain BLPs are "misandrists". This editor has already been topic banned once for battleground behaviour by User:Killerchihuahua

, but it seems to be continuing. --Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just placed him under a one-month topic ban. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For starters, I'm not aware of BLP issues regarding talk page comments or there being a need to source personal comments in talk pages when they are directly tied to the article (and its sources.) In any case, with regard to Michael Kimmel there was aWP:RS that he is misandric in his own article.. or at least there was.. you removed it, and its source, right about the same time you posted this comment.  Neither of which, of course, has anything to do with the article Men's Rights even though Sarek has, apparently, taken you at your word and used it as justification for topic-banning me from a separate article (citing something about BLP.)  Also, fyi, Godwin's law applies to comparing opponents to Hitler, not making analogies, which directly compare nothing and no one to Hitler or Nazi Germany, to illustrate a point.  A not so fine line but you seem very willing to split hairs with me, as can be evidenced by a long edit history between us that you choose not to mention in your assessments of my editing behavior.--Cybermud (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dissociative identity disorder
The (henceforth DID) talk page has been a horrible, slogging mess for a good two weeks now, so there's a lot of text if anyone wants to read it and external input is both needed and requested, but this is a much more focussed issue. recently posted a lengthy section on the talk page aimed at individuals with DID (some minor copyedits as well). I removed it as soapboxing that was irrelevant to improving the page itself. Tom then replaced it, and it was removed again by. Well, it has since been replaced as part of a new section - Talk:Dissociative identity disorder. I see this as a pretty clear and inappropriate misuse of the talk page based on a very specific personal (and professional) point of view of a couple editors. Within the scientific literature there is a pretty clear and bitter dispute between those who think DID is caused by significant trauma in childhood, and those who think that it is produced by bad therapy in adults (henceforth traumagenic and sociocognitive hypotheses respectively). I've been consistently pointing out that there are many reliable sources for both positions and therefore both sides should be included in the article, to editors who fall strongly on both sides of the debate. This lengthy talk page posting includes a section ("Signatories") where editors offer to be contact points for the article, which could be an invitation to meatpuppet (or not). Either way, it seems a fairly clear inappropriate use of the talk page.

Though I would welcome outside input and involvement on the page, my specific question for admins and community at large would be the appropriateness of this section of the talk page. As far as actual edits to the main page, they're surprisingly minimal and the main page has only been locked down once for 3 days (and for a stupid reason utterly unrelated to the traumagenic/sociocognitive hypotheses). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Highly inappropriate for a talkpage or elsewhere.  Equating disagreement with holocaust denial and calling opponents sociopaths is textbook battleground behavior.  I propose a topic ban from DID articles, broadly construed.  Skinwalker (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is the point of view of some editors. The point of views of every editor involved in the recent content disputes and discussion is clearly available for all to see on the talk page. The section was created as a response to the perceived bullying (by, among others, WLU); it may not be the perfect solution, but I feel its current existence as part of the talk page is warranted. After some of the content disputes are resolved, and (more importantly) after discussion becomes more civil and accessible as a whole, the section may outlive its usefulness. My point here is not to accuse or condemn WLU, but simply to point out that there are several different sides to this issue which warrant a much closer examination and no hasty decisions. —danhash (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, please come and help. However WLU's behavior is already being looked at. Please contact Salvio Giuliano and see this page for more information~ty (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, a rudimentary google search shows recent off-site canvassing for the pro-DID faction. Skinwalker (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting the most recent timestamp in that discussion - Jan 23rd, then 21st, then 15th - and given Tylas' newness, I don't think this is a deliberate violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. The only new account on the DID talk page is  and he has an opinion diametrically opposite that of Tylas and Tomcloyd.  In my opinion, meatpuppeting isn't an issue, and I will leave a note on Tylas' talk page indicating this sort of thing isn't a good idea.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to extend good faith to new editors who may not understand this tactic is not acceptable. I'm more concerned that TomCloyd - who is not only a seasoned editor but a Wikipedia Regional Ambassador - thinks that activism, namecalling, and flagrant violations of Godwin's Law are appropriate ways to resolve a content dispute.  Juice L's behavior seems to have been quite unhelpful as well.  Skinwalker (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, during the last few weeks, Tom's been using a lot of words like sociopath, holocaust denial, bullies, abuse, and victimizing. I don't expect this kind of persistent personal attack from any editor, much less from one who says he's a mental health professional.  I've never seen such inflammatory comments about contributors resolve a content dispute; have any of you?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been posting to the talk page occasionally after a notice at WT:MED a few days ago. I've not edited the article and have no interest in doing so.
 * The dispute is your average, basic appalling mess. Basically, we have a "true believer" of a mental health professional(?), who wants Wikipedia to reflect what he tells his clients, versus WLU, who wants the article reflect the non-trivial skepticism present in the academic literature.  And we have just enough additional inexperienced folks (including one or two people who have been labeled with this condition) involved that the talk page is long and chaotic.  We've already had multiple explanations of basic things, like the important difference between a psychiatry textbook and an advocacy website and the fact that Wikipedia articles follow the MOS rather than our old English teacher's idea of a proper outline, but the bigger, and probably unsolvable, problem seems to be that the DID proponents really, really, really need this article to minimize any skepticism about this condition (which, whatever its cause or its proper classification, does produce significant suffering for the affected people).  I begin to see the appeal of a "block 'em all" approach.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So I tried to delete the section by Tom Cloyd in the talk page that deals with the hardships of DID-persons who tries to edit the article. It is totally inappropriate for it to be on the talk page. If he want to have it on his own userpage then I have no issues with that at all. It also likens anyone who doesn't believe his world view to holocaust deniers. My removal was immediately reverted, so rather than edit-warr over it, I come here hoping that I am not the only one who thinks that it should be removed. This is the section I'm talking about:  Juice   Leskinen  21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As is apparent to anyone who looks through the page history (which I assume any administrator taking action would do), Juice was very intent on keeping his name attached to this section (and apparently wanted his name at the top of the list of "Signatories" as well). —danhash (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Danhash, does that mean the section is appropriate for the talk page, per the talk page guidelines? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My statement was not that the section is appropriate for the talk page per the guidelines; my statement made no indication one way or the other as to the validity of the section. I was simply pointing out some facts for context's sake about Juice's apparently duplicitous actions. When involving previously uninvolved parties in an already-heated, lengthy discussion, it is often easy, at least at first, to see the first arguments you are presented with as reasonable and the opposite arguments as unreasonable. It is extremely obvious that Juice's actions were not in good faith to absolutely anyone who chooses to examine the editor (or even just the page history), but the page history is so long and is growing at such a rapid pace that I thought it would be helpful to make a comment bringing to light the fact that Juice was arguing against a section he fought very hard to (deceptively) include himself in. —danhash (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please would an uninvolved editor immediately remove section If you have DID and are editing this article or this Talk page - please read this as an obvious and unhelpful violation of WP:TPG, for example, as was done in (which was immediately reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done it. Given the obnoxious comparison to holocaust denial, and the blatant soapboxing, it looks a slam-dunk violation of not only WP:TPG but WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and basic common sense. REgardless of the righs and wrongs of the issue (of which I know relatively little), that isn't the way to achieve 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now we just need to hose down the talk page for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Andy, who are you, and why should I not revert? I can see you have opinions, although I see no support for them. We've had a lot of that at the DID article. Not exactly impressive, and hardly defensible, either. If you're an admin., make that clear, so we (I) know what's going on. I came to the DID article some days ago, hoping to improve the article. I have found that to be utterly impossible. The ruling clique there have no interest in this, and they are getting away with it. Wikipedia's reputation is not exactly burnished by this fact.

As for achieving consensus, the DID deniers and POV pushers at the article, who are quite willing for the article NOT to present the actual view of my profession, have NO interest in any consensus but the one that results after they run off the vulnerable and those who actually work professionally with DID. I am such a person, and I do not have all day to disagree about single words, to type responses to endless digressions, and to generally wear every one out. Consensus is not about to occur at the DID article, not on anything important, I assure you. WLU alone will see to that.

Let me tell you a story. One of my DID clients was raped repeatedly by her father from ages 6 through about 11 (her memory strangely isn't very good for the exact ages of these rapes). She would fight back, but her father held her down and raped her, again and again - sometimes several times a week. If necessary, he beat her first. When she finally told her mother, she was beaten for lying. When she told people at the school she went to, the family left town - this happened several times. While you may not appreciate this, here is what I know: during the period of time her sense of self SHOULD have been developing, she was in effect carpet bombed by sustained periods of intense fear, as well as intense physical pain. Do you know what happens when a grown man rapes a young girl? Would you like me to paint a more graphic picture? No? Well, she had no such choice. Neither do I when I'm with her. This is about reality, not damned policy statements. No one came to her rescue. No one believed her, when she asked for help.

Her developing sense of self was blown into over a hundred pieces, and has stayed that way for a number of decades. She has parts of self today which show up in my consulting room and function more or less normally, and parts which simply cower and whimper as if they were being beaten, and parts that scream and cry about how it hurts "down there". Would you like to join me in my consulting room to watch this? If you did, you'd understand why I call this a "holocaust of the self". Are you beginning to get the picture? Maybe you also see why my description of some of the editors at the DID article as "personal holocaust deniers" is dead center correct. In point of fact, NO words I can come up will adequately convey the horror of this woman's story, much lise my disgust at encountering editors who glibly want to tell her (as one editor plainly has one editor with DID) that a therapist "manufactured" (my word) her DID. That's just obscene. This is what is happening while people here are fussing about my use of the word holocaust. That just defies credulity.

Ignorant people who argue that there DID such as hers can be faked, or created by someone (that's never been done, in truth), are exceptionally hurtful to people like this woman, who come to the DID article hoping for useful information, and hoping that their family might learn something useful about them which they are unable to impart - and finding a number of people quite willing to suggest to them that their daily pain is a fiction, an artifact of evil or unskilled therapists.

If you do not care about the two individuals with DID who managed to figure out how to contact me this past week, and who were gravely distressed because of the hostility and dishonesty on full display on the Talk page, concerning the reality of DID, be clear about it. Say "We have no place for such people at Wikipedia. We don't care for your pain. Take it somewhere else. We're serious Wikipedia editors. We don't have time for whiny women and their improbable stories."

I am sick to death of people who should know better, who at least should approach this subject with some humility, and maybe go through 1/10 of the effort I've gone through just to understand what in hell is happening with a person with DID, not to mention what to do with it. There should be no place at Wikipedia for them. None. This is freedom run amok.

There is a group of people editing the DID article who are quite obviously preventing constructive development of the article, and who are also manifestly hurting emotionally vulnerable individuals who SHOULD have access to the editorial process (THAT is the accessibility issue I have raised). Exactly what part of this do you not understand? If the damned rules say we cannot address this problem, and that there is no place at Wikipedia where we get conspicuously to care about these people, and to try to find a way to include them, then the damned rules are wrong. I shouldn't have to tell you this: the "rules" at Wikipedia are not that important; it's in the P&G, and you know that. Care to ask Sue Gardner which matters more - rules or people? She's female. She very likely gets it what it means to be a minority female in a male dominated world (that's the editorial world at Wikipedia I'm referring to). Go ahead - ask her. I never have, but I'm quite comfortable betting on her answer.

So what's it going to be? Exactly how big a man are you? You can support the people whose behavior is socipathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them), or you can work for a Wikipedia that is humane, and makes a place for all. What's it going to be? Rules or people? In my world, real men defend the weak, and make a place for all, knowing that diversity breeds strength. Ignorant people defend people whose behavior is quite correctly characterized as sociopathic.

If we don't take this issue up on the Talk page, where everyone actually IS, where do we take it up? Having removed my statement, we now have nothing to discuss. People won't see it. Now THAT's a sure fire consensus building method.

OK...you have the floor. Let's see what you can do.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. And neither have I defended 'sociopaths' (though as individuals with severe psychological disorders they surely deserve defending, in the same way that others do). What I have 'defended' is a basic principle from the distant past of Wikipedia - that it is possible to disagree fundamentally with another editor without implying that he or she is an agent of Beelzebub. If you are incapable of accepting this, you are probably best advised to pursue your cause elsewhere. I have nothing more to say on the matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just got home and read the DID page - and as usual, nothing is getting done. So many editors seem to be focused on deleting things on the talk page or correcting English or whatever, but those are minor issues. We have a major roadblock to overcome first - simply being allowed to edit the DID page without WLU reverting and stopping us. I am considered a new editor, even though I joined WP and edited a few things a few years ago ( think it was. I have not looked at the actual dates). My introduction to Wikipedia on the DID page has been a nightmare. I have been sworn at, bullied, looked up off Wikipedia and more. I don't know how anyone could stay and work in that environment - in fact not many have. One must agree with WLU, or nothing will get done. (Sorry, WLU, but it's true. I don't want to say these things, but I want to work on the article.) I want to thank Tom Cloyd for standing up for those of us that have DID. We really don't need to feel attacked just for trying to improve a WP article. It should not be so difficult to work on a page. ~ty (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Grump - I can see how this can be confusing, but this is how I read the problem addressed above: Mr. Cloyd said" "behavior is sociopathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them)" We all have some sociopathic tendencies, it's just how far we go on a scale measuring those tendencies. It is not antisocial personality disorder which is what I think you are calling a sociopath. We are getting off track again. This is far from our main issue on the DID page. ~ty (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer the "why should I not revert?" question: because the section removed from the talk page is wholly inappropriate for a talk page at Wikipedia. The guideline is at WP:TPG but the stronger fact is that talk pages just do not do that. The removed section is visible in this . Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To close a sort of a circle, I've raised the accessibility issue (i.e. if WP:ACCESSIBILITY covers emotionally hostile talk pages) at the project and pointed the discussion here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Tom Cloyd
It is abundantly clear to me, in reading this section and the article's talk page, that Tom Cloyd is powerfully emotionally involved in the issue of DID, and that for exactly that reason, he is not equipped to edit collegially on the article or its talk page. It is not, and will never be, appropriate to use articles to POV push, to use talk pages to post partisan screeds, or to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to shout about how you feel one group is victimising another. That's simply not ok. Wikipedia is neither medical advice nor therapy, and we provide information about medical conditions, not encouragement to patients, or judgment about those who question/support the condition. It's apparent to me that Tom Cloyd is unable to accept these facts, and that he feels very strongly that our article and its talk should be a source of therapy or advocacy. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban for from Dissociative identity disorder and its talk page. Said ban may be lifted by the community upon Tom's convincingly explaining how he intends to edit according to our neutrality and battleground policies, and his accepting that Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You miss the Point Ms. Nutter - The whole problem is that no progress can be made on the DID page. WLU keeps us on the talk page, busy - not allowing progress and arguing every point. He would like the page to remain as it was before this group of new editors arrived and he is outstanding at this. Most humans would be frustrated and give up. Many, in fact, have ran from the page in frustration - stating this is the reason. Tom is simply, out of frustration with WLU, trying to find ways to allow those who would like to contribute to the page to do so. WLU is as strongly passionate about keeping the page as it was before this group came as Tom Cloyd is about helping those with DID to be able to edit the page without being so bullied. I think you are totally off base with this proposal. You have not dug in and watched the problem from the start like I have. You are ranting about something you have not looked into at all. You are just taking one thing from this page and making a blind judgement about the whole problem. I am sorry to argue with you, but please do not judge before looking into the entire matter.~ty (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be best, Tylas, if you did not accuse other editors of "ranting" or making "blind judgments" without acquainting themselves with the case. These can be construed as personal attacks, and do not help convince anyone that the article is not being subjected to emotionally-charged, rather than neutral, editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Ms. Nutter. That was not my intent. :( ~ty (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather agree with Tylas' interpretation of your ban proposal. More below. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Tom Cloyd - After considerable thought, I'm at peace with my thinking about all this. I'm leaving Wikipedia. for those who have interest in my thoughts, you'll find them here. Tom Cloyd (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wonderful piece Tom. Your enormous talents are lost here. There are so many better uses for them than spinning your wheels trying to make progress against those like WLU.  Best of luck Sir! You have my utmost respect and admiration.~ty (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban, as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This behavior is completely unacceptable. Skinwalker (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support When this was brought up at WP:FTN I came to the article to take a look, but the massive walls of text on the talk page as well as the intense emotional climate makes it difficult to even figure out what is going on. Some time away from the article to cool off would be ideal. eldamorie (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An indef topic ban isn't necessary for a simple "cooling off period". —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See WhatamIdoing's comment below for a good explanation of why, in this case, an indef is actually the best way to create a "cooling off period." Blocking's not really necessary but there are behavioural issues. eldamorie (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - but emphasis support for the ban being repealed if Tom demonstrates an appreciation for how NPOV actually plays out. Despite numerous uninvolved editors providing comments, they are never good enough.  Unlike everyone else on the talk page, whose behaviour appears to be improving, Tom's appears to be degrading.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As part of "everyone else" you forgot Juice, who should be one of the first to be blocked or banned if anyone at all is. You have seen just like everyone else his inappropriate behavior. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that given the gravity of this discussion, I've alerted Tom via talk page and e-mail about this new sub-section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks WLU. I should have done that as soon as I started this section, but it slipped my mind. Apologies all around :S A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I give. You win WLU. I am gone. ~ty (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope you will give Tom ample time to formulate a response before indef topic banning him. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant support per 1) the obviously inappropriate and emotionally involved SOAPBOX post from Tom Cloyd at 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) above, 2) including his appeal to Sue Gardner (who isn't an experienced editor anyway, and he should have appealed to WP:MEDRS and WP:COI instead of the irrelevant authority of an inexperienced medical editor), and 3) the analysis by WhatamIdoing above at 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC).  This appears to be a most unfortunate case of a "true believer" with a COI, unable to separate individual clients' experiences from the necessarily objective approach to encyclopedic editing based on reliable medical sources.  WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here, and for the article to advance, the talk page needs to focus on sources, not people.  I should disclose that I have previous experience working with WLU on medical articles, and I know he does that. The reason I'm "reluctant" is that it's unfortunate that very few psych articles on Wikipedia can advance, precisely for these reasons (psych professionals engage them, disregarding our policies, and using Wikipedia to further their own interests).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – Tom seems to be the only current editor of the article who really has adequate experience and knowledge of the whole subject at hand. It would not be correct to just pop by the DID talk page, read up on the last few days, and then make a judgement that he is not fit for editing the article or talk page. He is knowledgeable about DID and has personal experience in dealing with it, of course he will have his own point of view—everyone else has their own point of view too. It seems as though most of the times he has made a substantive, thought out, well rounded post (which of course would be somewhat long; the length of his replies is entirely appropriate), others are quick to respond to one or two simple points that he has made, ignoring oftentimes the main point of his arguments. Tom has tried for quite a while now to combat the attitude held by some (seemingly at least 3) of the editors on the DID page of being oppositional for oppositional's sake, or else just plain biased. Tom has his point of view as does every editor, but he explains himself and is willing to engage in discussion—to the contrary of some of the editors with opposing viewpoints. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – I am walking away from WP and of course the DID page, but I wanted announce my strong, strong, strong, strong opposition to this motion. My reasons are listed in the above text.~ty (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - It is not Tom who is keeping the page at a standstill - it is the lack of actually substantive edits and fighting about everything all at once instead of one thing at a time. I believe Tom, tylas, myself, WLU and most of the other editors just coming in or playing a more minor role can work together but this is not a battleground for sure and the fate of the world does not hinge on the DID article page.  I agree that Tom needs to stop the soapboxing.  But he knows a ton about the field and has good information and sources - it is a communication problem that can be worked out without blocking (and definitely not indefinite blocking) and Tom is not the only one who has been causing it.  Takes two (or in this case many) to tango.  This might stop the problem temporarily but at the same time will stop improvements to the article - and there have been a few things that have gotten done in the past few weeks even though no one can tell because of the insane talk page. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But something to consider FF, is whether Tom is willing to abide by the policies and guidelines that underscore a successful editor on wikipedia and the project as a whole. That includes things like WP:CIVIL (which   ), overall compliance with the P&G (,, , idiosyncratic understanding of issues such as the use of the accessbility tag , the role of WP:MEDRS , WP:MOS , WP:CONSENSUS  , claims that specific policies don't apply such as WP:NOR , WP:NPOV    , wikilawyering over the meaning of policies  and of course the obvious misuse of the talk page that was my initial post here.  Then there's generally irksom comments that others lacking postgraduate training are essentially too stupid to understand why his way is better    , , or that because he treats DID he is correct on wikipedia .  Keep in mind, I stopped looking January 24th, and these issues have gotten worse, not better, over the past two weeks.  Everybody is bound by the P&G, you don't get to ignore them or pick your preferred version because you think you are right.  Everybody thinks they are right, but they need to demonstrate it using reliable sources - and you don't get to discount a source because you disagree with it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think things are beyond salvageable. A lot of people have thrown insults around in the past week or two related to the article, accusations of bad faith and POV pushing and threats etc. Almost everyone involved has done some or all of these things in fact - including you, WLU, though I agree everyone's behavior is improving (but I'd include Tom in that).  But I'm not arguing about any of that or trying to blame anyone - we are obviously all passionate about this topic - and I do think things need to change but I see hopes of it happening since the article was locked down earlier this week. Sticking with oppose. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly support the ban at least for the article. I'm on the fence about the talk page, because to the extent that he has sources to support his POV, Wikipedia needs to know what those sources are.  (Tom's promised to provide a list of sources he recommends, but hadn't done so last I checked.)  The talk page behavior has been appalling (and, sadly, has been getting worse), but perhaps being limited to the talk page would help Tom remember how to win friends and influence people.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can all just quit. You have already run him off. Not everyone is into manipulation by collecting friends. WhatamIdoing. ~ty (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tylas, let me suggest that you read GoodBye. It might help you understand why experienced editors don't normally believe people who make noisy claims about leaving.  Threatening to leave is a well-known manipulative ruse regularly used by people who feel they are losing a dispute like this.  Wikipedia probably sees a dozen such claims every day of the week.  In the vast majority of cases, such people never actually leave.  At most, they might stop editing for a couple of days, but in the end, their claims to be permanently departing are almost always just as factual as the fairytales parents read to little children at bedtime.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for another and he has not said one word, yet you accuse him of that too. I for one would never come back to this place. It's very dysfunctional.~ty (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you keep telling us. However, I don't see any evidence that you are following through on your threat.  My recommendation to you is that you either (1) stop publicly threatening to leave or (2) that you actually leave.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, read WP:DIVA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Apart from the issues correctly raised in the topic ban proposal, there is (visible at the bottom of this section which includes "telling the truth IS what I do). If Tom works on some other articles he may come to understand why Wikipedia is organized the way it is, and why some people are not helpful as editors for some articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The editor just isn't getting it and this subject is clearly too personal to him. Colin°Talk 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. TomCloyd has left wikipedia, and from what I have read, I think it is unlikely that he is going to return, so I don't see any point in topic banning someone who is not active on the encyclopedia. While I agree that TomCloyd has broken WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I believe that an 'indefinite' topic ban is a gross over-reaction and will serve only to drive an expert away. The reason(s) that I think that an indefinite topic ban is an over-reaction, is that other less harsh measures have not been tried first, such as mentoring or even a transient 'cool-down' topic ban of 1 month. I do agree with TomCloyd, in his POV and concerns about wording and WP:WEIGHT given to 'dubious' minority viewpoints, that dissociative identity disorder is well established as a mental disorder arising out of prolonged/repeated severe (usually early age) childhood abuse; conversely I agree with people who are concerned, upset and angry with Tom's poor control of his emotions and his inability to separate strong feelings, from 'disinterested' policy and guideline based encylopedia editing. I would be happy to mentor TomCloyd and try to get him to see why some of his outbursts have been inappropriate even if the other person/side is 'wrong', i.e. two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe a voluntary topic ban of say a month or two and myself mentoring. If serious and repeated problems arise again, then I would support a more 'draconian' approach but only as a last resort. Lets be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water here. -- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked with LG before and would have no issue with Tom being mentored by him/her. The originally proposed ban was only to last until evidence that NPOV and BATTLE were understood in accordance with the community at large.  If a month from now Tom indicates he sees what he did wrong, he's welcome back on the page as far as I'm concerned.  The traumagenic position does need to be represented and I'm certainly not interested in reading up on it - but it can't be represented as the only, only important, or dominant opinion unless there is good evidence for it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason that I think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate is because it might end up being much shorter than a stated-length ban. "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent".  Indefinite bans can be reversed as soon as the underlying problem appears to have been addressed, in this case by Tom "convincingly explaining how he intends to edit according to our neutrality and battleground policies, and his accepting that Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi WLU, thanks for the words of support for my mentorship idea. I firmly agree that the iatrogenic cause and any other minority causes should be included in the article, wasn't saying it shouldn't be. I think there is good evidence for the traumagenic position, given that the World Health Organisation (ICD 10) and the American Psychiatric Association (via DSM) accept it as a legitamate psychiatric disorder; we don't need to find evidence to support the expert psychiatric/psychology viewpoint to justify which view should be dominant, the mainstream viewpoint should dominate. We as wikipedians, should not be looking for evidence to support the ICD and DSM, mainstream position, we should give most weight to the expert consensus. ADHD has a fair amount of controversy surrounding it, but we don't give most weight to the ADHD is just a personality variation type position and try to undermine the DSM and ICD10, we give most weight to the viewpoint that ADHD is a real disorder; however, both sides are still presented with the mainstream viewpoint being fairly described. In the meantime we need to resolve behavioural issues and the editing environment on that article talk page. WAID, I see your point; however, given that Tom says he is leaving Wikipedia a ban of any description is now probably unnecessary.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should note that I am not concerned with WLU's editing on the article, as I know WLU, edits within guidelines and policies, but there is another editor who regards the consensus viewpoint of the DSM and ICD as pseudoscience and fringe and would worry that that could lead to a badly written article. It kind of reminds me of an editor who tried to push the view that Bell's Palsy was a 'conversion disorder'. Again, though I do not in any way deny the concerns problematic behavioural reactions Tom has displayed in a stressful editing environment.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Literaturegeek, I worry about that as well. I am very new to wikipedia, only three weeks or so, but I learn pretty fast and am going to be reviewing the literature which I am only slightly familiar with right now. I think we can make the article really great and I 100% agree on your ADHD comparison.  Additionally, if you are referring to user  Juice Leskinen as a huge POV pusher still contributing, he/she has been banned for socking. Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that was the editor of whom I was concerned about.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support indef ban until TomCloyd indicates willingness to abide by community standards, which includes persuing changes to the MOS through proposals there. TC seems to have the same issue we've had with other expert contributors: believing that his expertise in the field trumps Wikipedia's established processes and style conventions. We encourage experts to contribute their knowledge, but no one reacts well when an expert decides they're going to "fix" Wikipedia to conform to their standards. There's a bit of a disconnect where some experts believe it's insulting for non-experts to school them on a subject (such as Wikipedia's MOS, which differs from academic styles); I can appreciate that, but expertise does not trump working within the community's standards. An expert contributing to Encyclopedia Brittanica would not be allowed to dictate page layout in the encyclopedia entry for their subject of study. I'd say mentorship by User:Literaturegeek would be ideal. It would give TC the opportunity to contribute while learning a bit more about the whys of our P&G. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, as from his actions and statements, this editor does not care about Wikipedia policies, or the opinions of experts in the field who have opinions contrary to his, all he cares about if putting his own personal views into the article and censoring all others out of some misplaced sense of activism. Furthermore, statements above that he falls under the trap of other "expert contributors" seem to give him more credit than he has demonstrated that he actually deserves. For an alleged mental health professional he sure tosses around accusations of sociopathy against his perceived enemies rather freely, and he seems also to be completely unaware of extremely important historical cases of the diagnosis in question and major papers on the topic by world renown experts. If he shows a willingness to be mentored and conform to our policies he could be unblocked later, but I rather think he would be unwilling to do so based upon his actions and call to action. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Update regarding DID dispute
It may be of value to note that one of the editors who Tom was in conflict in with, was POV pushing that sexual abuse of prepubescent children did not cause mental health problems and was using sockpuppeteering to do this; the editor, Juice Leskinen, has now been blocked. I am not comfortable with TomCloyd being seen as the only problem editor here and some leeway should be given as the vast majority of people are opposed to pedophilia due to the harm that it causes. Juice Leskinen was of the viewpoint that DID was not caused by early childhood abuse and that DID was pseudoscience/FRINGE etc and was using a sockpuppet on other articles as well, to disguise his agenda perhaps. Many people would find editing alongside/against a disruptive editor such as Juice Leskinen, to be a stressful situation.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE of the update. :) I have been informed below that this problem editor showed up late on in the dispute and that TomCloyd's problem behaviour pre-dates this editor's arrival on the talk page.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see there is someone with sense that is watching this issue. Thank you Mr. Literature. You seem wise and caring. The problem still remains that many of us see WLU the same way you have come to see Juice. I know WLU is an ingrained part of the WP community and knows how to follow the WP rules and has gained friendship in doing so, but this does not dismiss the fact that he too appears to do what Juice does. He is just much smarter about it.  That does not excuse pedophilla POV pushing. Also (so I am not lectured again by the ladies here) note that I left the DID page, not that I was leaving Mr. Cloyd alone in this battle.~ty (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The greatest problem Tom presented to the page was the unwillingness to adhere to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and when presented with explicit proof that his actions were completely against said guidelines, his response was to proclaim the guidelines flawed and didn't apply - based solely on his judgement. Juice's postings on the page were not helpful (and he's been banned as a sockpuppet anyhow) but I would argue Tom's were both worse and escalating. In addition, the original statement opening this section indicated a greater problem - Tom's belief that his mission of saving all those diagnosed with DID and ensuring they never saw any evidence of a debate over the creation and existence of DID overrode the purpose of wikipedia.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree WLU that Tom was a problem editor and was causing disruption; I do not support Tom's behaviour, I just thought this was his first WP:BATTLEFIELD and that he was capable of reform with mentorship or a cool down topic ban (preferably voluntary). This opinion could be wrong or naive. I agree that DSM and ICD viewpoints are not the sole viewpoint and significant minority opinions should be included and why each side thinks the other side is wrong. Tylas, I did read over WLU's talk page comments, not all of them but from what I read, WLU seemed to be fine and didn't see any problems.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to LG's comment above that "Many people would find editing alongside/against a disruptive editor such as Juice Leskinen, to be a stressful situation.": I'm sorry, but that excuse just does not cut it here. I do not know what JL was up to, or what sockpuppeting was going on, but TomCloyd's problems on the article were severely uncivil and major violations of NPOV and etc. before JL ever showed up.

The very first thing Tom did when he showed up was to agree with Tylas on a talk page comment without noting that he was already friends with Tylas on his own personal web page. In fact, they are from the same state, and from Tylas' statements about her/his multiple personalities, may even be his patient. There was a meatpuppet case opened on them, and it was ruled that, for the purposes of 3RR conflict resolution, TomCloyd and Tylas should be considered the same editor. (As I had pointed this out to both of them, WLU's interpretation above that Tylas should be excused for off-site attempts to meatpuppet the article because it was done out of ignorance does not make any sense, as both editors had been linked to the appropriate policy and knew that such activities were not allowed here, yet they did it anyway.)

When Tom couldn't force his own POV onto the article he immediately started canvassing editors he saw had conflicts with WLU on other articles to bring them into the fight. Most of the supporting commentary above opposing the ban are these editors (danhash, particularly). I was personally attacked as a supposed sociopath and someone working for the forces of darkness, etc., long before Juice showed up. Juice was a latecomer to the article, and in fact was such a caricature of the kind of person Tom was accusing everyone of being I half wondered if it wasn't a fake account created to try to paint everyone who disagreed with him as being just as bad.

The bottom line here is that both TomCloyd and Tylas simply do not understand or will not accept that Wikipedia cannot be used to push their own personal views onto the article. As a coordinated tag team group of editors, in my opinion both should be blocked. Certainly Tylas has not contributed anything to the page other than blind acceptance of whatever Tom did or suggested doing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi DreamGuy, your post does not make sense, presumably because you misinterpreted my post. Reread my post please; I described TomCloyd as a 'problem editor'. The other problem editor in my view was Juice Leskinen.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reply does not make sense, as you missed the entire point. Regardless of whether you also called Tom a problem editor, above you try to claim his bad behavior was possibly due to another problem editor's actions, which is clearly not the case, as it predates that editor's involvement. Frankly, why should anyone be concerned with how stressed Tom got dealing with a one off editor who showed up very late to the party and made comparatively few edits and comments when everyone else was stressed with dealing with Tom *and* that other editor? You're trying to make excuses that do not fit the facts. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the exact timings of when Tom exhibited problem behaviours and the arrival of the other editor. I accept that I was wrong and made a mistake; I am an outsider looking in, trying to make sense of a heated content dispute. I am still of the view topic banning him is not justified, not least of all because he has left wikipedia. I don't see the point in topic banning someone who has left wikipedia.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have updated the post above based on what you told me; my intention was not to mislead anyone and I am happy to say I was wrong.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this whole section is pretty moot - the offending talk page section has been removed. TomCloyd has voluntarily withdrawn from the project.  If he comes back, then we've got a reason to discuss.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, time to move on. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... as a point of fact, when disputes heat up like this, there are a lot of editors who say that they are leaving Wikipedia but don't actually do it. Sometimes these are sincere resignations followed by equally sincere changes of heart, and sometimes they're deliberate efforts to stave off formal sanctions.  (Consider the number of RFC/Us put on hold because the editor wrongly thought that if he laid low for 30 days, a magic timer would go off and he would be free of accusations.)  The advantage to proceeding is that, if Tom were to voluntarily decide to reappear, the community would not have to re-discuss this whole mess later.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom is no longer here to defend himself. I personally think that most (if not all) of his statements were justified, and anyone not involved in the discussions would need to spend a considerable amount of time reading and examining a whole array of edits and talk pages before having any sort of idea of the context of the situation. There is simply no point to continued discussion of any kind of ban. So much time and talk has been focused on individual words used by Tom, while the meaning of what he was actually saying in the "offending" statement has been largely ignored. This is exactly one of the main reasons we do not have a blanket "no profanity" policy. It is not individual words regardless of context that are offensive (to reasonable people); it is the message conveyed by words that are formed into statements. Tom usually explained himself in his statements, and he always explained himself further upon request. See Tom's response to Fluffernutter's "Please consider redacting some of your commentary" request on Tom's talk page. You may not like his direct style, but that doesn't matter; you may not like Tom, but that doesn't matter either. Additionally, please do not forget that there was an excessively rude and inflammatory POV-pushing editor (now banned for sockpuppeteering and who should have already been banned for his bad faith edits), who was part of this whole thing too, yet almost all the focus on the previous controversy on the DID talk page is directed at Tom, simply because he upset the status quo. There is no further point to this discussion—move on! —danhash (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. Hash summed up the problem beautifully and the link he provided to Mr.Cloyd's statement is essential to understanding the problem. Mr.Cloyd was attacked, but he was not the real problem on the DID page. The real problem is probably here to stay.~ty (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dan, let me say this again: There is a point to continuing the ban discussion.  The point to continuing the ban discussion is that if we don't, and Tom comes back, then we'll have to deal with this all over again upon his return.  The possible futures are three:
 * We can finish this discussion now and be done (either way).
 * We can suspend this discussion now and revive it when Tom returns.
 * We can suspend this discussion now and be done if and only if Tom never returns to Wikipedia.
 * Given the fact that Tom's made more than 2,000 edits over the last few years, the likelihood that he will never return to Wikipedia is IMO quite low. In fact, his last edit to his talk page indicates an interest in returning someday:  "I am closing the door on Wikipedia, for reasons that are very clear to me, but I'm not nailing it shut."  So IMO it's now or later, and it's far more efficient for the community to deal with it now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the conversation WhatamIdoing is referring to - Mr. Cloyd was talking about not "nailing the door shut on the PTSD article" that he was the main contributor to. He was in no way talking about the DID article or ever working with WLU or Dreamguy again. He resigned from working as a WP Regional Ambassador, which took up so much of his time that he had taken the last year (maybe even 2 years?) or so off from his work as a therapist to do it. This is how the WP community repaid him. It's sad that a group of Administrators and editors are working together to try and get rid of an excellent contributor who was trying to do the right thing - and if anyone actually read the entire process, as Mr. Hash said, they would know this. Now, Mr. Cloyd has moved on and started another community, off the WP site and it's going beautifully. I can't imagine he would have interest in coming back here. Luckily some of us can still enjoy his enormous talents and knowledge.~ty (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WAID, say it as many times as you like! It doesn't change what I said, which you apparently wholeheartedly dismissed. Let me respond to each of your options:


 * 1. We can finish this discussion now and be done (either way).
 * So let's finish it! Stop replying and it will be done.
 * 2. We can suspend this discussion now and revive it when Tom returns.
 * No need to revive it, at least in its current form, because if Tom comes back, his behavior will be different (even if it wasn't, you cannot predict his future behavior). Why do you think he left the project? His style was not appreciated here, and he realized that it was pointless to try to reconcile the differences between his viewpoint and those of his opposition, so he moved on to another project where he would be more appreciated. This seems most reasonable to me.
 * 3. We can suspend this discussion now and be done if and only if Tom never returns to Wikipedia.
 * An indefinite suspension of an inactive user's previous activity, which he has since ceased and has made no indication of continuing. I think this is a fantastic way to spend our time! This is already simply space-wasting and archive-inflating discussion.
 * You don't like Tom or his behavior. Move on! If he comes back he will act differently, and you can then use up more space with your opposition. You insist on continuing the discussion yet completely ignore the arguments in my previous post; you do not seem to have any intention of a reasonable discussion but only to force the outcome you desire. Spare us all the continued lecture. —danhash (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This inquiry is so childish. I agree with Mr. Hash and feel like I just went through a Middle School Razzing. My tweens exhibit more mature behavior than what I have seen here. WAIT succeed in protecting her buddy WLU - for now, by shifting blame to Mr. Cloyd. That is all that occurred.~ty (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 3 pedophilia POV pushers on the DID page
(Redacted) ~ty (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me make this clear: Continuing to accuse editors of being pedos on Wikipedia will get you an indefinite block. If you have serious concerns, you should probably email the arbitration committee. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See Child protection for the proper way to voice such concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Moonriddengirl. I thought this was the place. I am sorry. ~ty (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232

 * Moved from ANI. Nobody Ent 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hit the wrong button and sent a bad edit summary-- I have reverted the premature close since new information just came to light. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of ongoing disruption from the user formerly known as User:Rlevse, including returning to the project apparently multiple times since exercising RTV under a cloud, continuing old grudges, abusing if not the letter then the spirit of the sockpuppetry policy, and apparently engaging in many other disruptions that have been kept secret from the community, I'm proposing a community ban for User:Vanished 6551232, formerly User:Rlevse. The other thread which details this abuse is here - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is moot as to Rlevse/Vanished 6551232/PumpkinSky/etc, which have been blocked, and is not ripe for discussion as to any future incarnation of Rlevse. Should he seek at some future time to return, that would be the time and place for such a discussion. This is supposed to be a forum for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" (Emphasis added). There is no plausible basis for concluding that intervention is required at this time. Fladrif (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the last time, he initiated RTV. He was not indefinitely blocked. There was nothing preventing him from ever coming back to Wikipedia. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Rlevse/Vanished account is blocked. The PumpkinSky account is blocked. Your are confusing blocks and bans. I never said he was banned. But it is a simple fact that those accounts are currently blocked (in the first instance because Rlevse requested courtesy RTV and then continued to edit from the Vanished account) and no-one has asked that they be unblocked.Fladrif (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose No. Hurricanefan25  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Absolutely not. There is no behavior warranting a community ban. I am so sick of this. Every time an issue like this comes up on AN/I, the very first "solution" is a community ban. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Really? Every time? Seems like the previous solution was to allow him RTV, which he then abused multiple times. How else do you propose we prevent his continued returning and disrupting the project? Oh, let him vanish again, but this time he really will! Right. Just more typical Wikipedia bias, otherwise known as special rules for special people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? Nothing was done that deserves a community ban. One sockpuppet is not cause for a community ban&mdash;if that were the case, we'd better go ban several of our best editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL @ one sockpuppet. If that were all then I would never have proposed a ban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why does Category:Suspected wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse turn up empty, Sockpuppet investigations/Rlevse is a redlink, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse only contains User:PumpkinSky? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because nobody tagged the socks? Because admins want to hide his abuses? And did you miss the entire episode regarding his other abuses? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagged what socks? You normally seem like a sensible editor, but claiming an admin conspiracy is a very poor substitute for providing diffs and actual evidence when you make a ban proposal. List these socks, or link to them, or something. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments copied from the previous thread:


 * Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I saw. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only other sockpuppet that Rlevse supposedly had (that I know of) was . However, no evidence was ever presented that BarkingMoon == Rlevse, so the sole accomplishment was that BarkingMoon left the project in disgust. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd be more inclined by a large margin to facilitate Rlevse's return to active editing under a failed RTV. My76Strat (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know the negative history of Rlevse, just had good experiences with the user. But I saw nothing troubling enough for anything more than a warning wrt the Pking account.  None of the diffs I looked at in the above discussion were overly troubling.  If you're going to propose a ban, you need a lot more than waving at a discussion.  Can someone provide diffs that they think justify this ban? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per My76Strat (ec), same inclination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Used to be an excellent user, not only doing good work but also encouraging others by handing out well designed awards. No justification for a perma ban. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A serial plagiarist who keeps returning to perpetuate grudges against other editors? Very useful. This project is hopeless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I went into details about his plagiarism today, s. Paraphrase but how, there is danger for the project, he copied the line "and was designated a State Natural Area in 1986", copied word-for-word from the source!!! (sarcasm intended), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)


 * And a former ArbCom member! You have to have a sense of humor or this place will drive you crazy.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, and the snow close is imminent. That's fine, close this then and I'll go back to my coffee and NPP. Beating one's head against walls give one headaches. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My76Strat has the right idea: Rlevse clearly wants to still be here, he's failed at RTV several times, and he'd be better off to return to the Rlevse account, subject to some guidance, and staying away from DYK and FAC.  He can learn to paraphrase, and if he checks his old grudges at the door, and stays away from his weak spot (which is DYK and its inherent copyvio problems) he should be able to return successfully-- there would be many eyes on him.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, we don't need this. Enough.  Keep him indeff'd at least. (That is now revdel'd-- it was an extensive post of private email.  Anyone wonder who leaked the arb-list now?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per sandy --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was still trying to finish when the thread was moved :) I'd be more inclined to say that should Rlevse return, he should be under some guidance, and should be required to stay away from DYK and FAC until the community feels that he is able to understand correct paraphrasing and check his grudges at the door.  Although requiring them never works, an apology from Rlevse to Raul654 would be a good start, too-- giving an indication that he understands where he went wrong and how much damaged that caused. :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck per this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a much better proposal. However, Rlevse should pick which account he wants to use and stick with that one, so that people can watch for any introduction of close paraphrasing. He does a lot of good work referencing and contributing to articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, whichever account he picks isn't an issue. But ... ummmm, well ... he also has problems recognizing and understanding reliable sources, which is one of the other reasons I'd prefer he not go back to DYK until he's gained a better understanding in that area as well.  He wants to contribute and can make worthy contributions, but unfortunately, his personal weaknesses coincide with the general weaknesses at DYK, and he tends to become very forceful there, which helps preserve the status quo.  On the other hand, if Montanabw and others can work with him on articles, he could improve in those areas.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck per this.  Keep him indeff'd at least.  Last chance too many. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Rlevese has been a good, and long-time positive contributor. I support dealing with the concerning issues so he can return to productive editing.(olive (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Oppose He's been a productive editor, we have too few, end of story.  I agree with what Sandy said in her comment of 17:17--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My76Strat has it about right, but the grudge matches do need to be left at the door. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose : Please check out the copyright investigation, which is proceeding quickly, and is finding practically nothing. My opinion: if the user wishes to return, he has to resume using his original account (the Rlevse account). --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let him keep his new name, if he likes it better. Wasn't someone going to reach out to him last night?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right; the name does not matter as long as everyone is aware. I will put a message on user talk:PumpkinSky right now. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an admin could snow close this? Nobody Ent 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can give everyone involved a chance to weigh in, and be sure that consensus has formed? For example, do ya think Raul might have an opinion here?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * oppose per My76Strat and SandyGeorgia. and others. — Ched : ?  17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)  revised — Ched :  ?  20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As long as the Rlevse history is attached to whatever account he intends using, I don't see a problem here. He chose to vanish and should be allowed to unvanish, if that's what he wants. --regentspark (comment) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support - BarkingMoon is PumkinSky, PSky was created two days after his BMoon account was exposed, and they are both sockpuppets of the serial copyright violator User:Rlevse. He had and has no intention of assisting in resolving those issues and his latest sockpuppet has now created a load more work - he returns and attacks users from previous disputes - There are additional issues with this user as Will Beback mentioned - I have an additional complaint that I will leave as historic. Arbcom know more than they are saying - any support for the user is misguided to say the least. I realise there are users against this but later I will be happy I said it.   You  really  can  18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, since there are other issues (including one that is important to me, a failure to fully understand WP:V, a core policy), I haven't entered my comments here as either a Support or Oppose-- just a way forward if there is consensus for such. And if he were to return without some sort of guidance, restrictions, and oversight, I would certainly not be in favor. I-- finally-- have completely lost trust in the ability of some of our illustrious arbs to be impartial. Again, while apologies can't be required and are rarely helpful, in this case, one might give an indication that he understands all that he caused and won't do it again.  Without that understanding, troubled editors rarely turn into productive ones, and just move into more and more problematic socking-- something we should seek to avoid here if we can.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck, having seen an extensive private email posted by Rlevse/PumpkinSky before it was revdel'd and oversighted -- no. Just no.  Keep him indeff'd.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and in choosing to support "facilitation" I do mean to imply incorporating everything else that is prudent. My76Strat (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * oppose Looking at the CCI, the problems there are a few close paraphrases (and not egregious ones either - he is trying to properly paraphrase. He mostly seems to miss the point about copying structure, which isn't always easy to grasp). A lot of quality gnomish edits are apparent in that report. I'm not sure that any of his recent stuff would meet the legal definition of "copyright violation". I'm mostly ignorant about the earlier account, I wasn't really around then. Re: YouReallyCan above: if there's something about past behaviour that isn't being mentioned, it probably should. There seems to be a consensus from the Featured people that his contribs to discussions there weren't helpful, he should probably stay away from that area. If he needs help properly paraphrasing things, he needs to ask for help. Lots of good writers at DYK/GA/FA who would be willing to rework drafts for him. The account-hopping wasn't right, and he needs to acknowledge that. The Interior  (Talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Make return conditional on helping with the CCIs. Per the recent measures against two other editors, the former Arb needs to pitch in to help solve the problems he created. There are now two CCIs: one for the original account and one for PumpkinSky. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Grossly excessive. Prioryman (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: Rlevse/PumpkinSky is a positive contributor, a good, solid editor, and once the CCI on the Pumpkin Sky account is done, he will be one of the most closely scrutinized editors ever. I'd challenge ANY other editor to not have the occasional close paraphrase in their collected contributions and have the nearly 800 articles analyzed that is happening at the CCI. (And to help when you have a hard time seeing close paraphrasing is a bit awk, don't you think?) Frankly, though this individual has some spats with other editors, it's just the usual wiki-drama and snark --  his tone is really small potatoes compared to some of the really nasty vicious bullying attacks I've seen from trolls that no one ever seems to block. I think that he gets dogpiled on because once things get to a certain point, he chooses to not engage any longer.  Some people are that way, but it's not an admission of guilt, it's just a throwing up of hands.  I say allow a quasi clean start with a new user name so the red flags don't immediately spring up -- though maybe with doppleganger notes on the other pages for those who care.  The sockpuppeting was, IMHO, consistent with his personality, which clearly is to avoid certain types of engagement and given that the initial reason Rlevse left was over a tempest in a teapot, I'd say that the sockpuppet concerns should be viewed as a RTV gone awry, and tossed as Fruit of the poisonous tree provided that he henceforth edits openly.  Raul, I don't know you and I am sure you are probably a nice person who just disagrees with Rlevse, and the disagreements are not comfortable, but what little I looked at was just the usual wiki-drama, I've personally endured much more vicious attacks on wiki from people no one ever blocked (wish they would have, but oh well...).  Montanabw (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with you in spirit, but I do need to point out that you don't seem to have followed his entry into the FAC situation, which does not fit this description at all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sandy said it well. I do not, however, subscribe to the storm-in-a-teapot metaphor, Montana. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; support indefinite block until editor has agreed to conditions and addressed past issues. --Rschen7754 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As per Montanabw and further, WP:RTV issue is not yet resolved.Actually it is being discussed in Village Pump .There is no clear policy yet that a user who returns after WP:RTV under a new name will be blocked indef for socking.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If Rlevse is going to edit here he needs to do so transparently. My impression is that some editors here are unaware of the extent of deceitfulness and subterfuge in which Rlevse engaged under his original account. So long as Rlevse is retired/vanished/inactive there's no harm in allowing his positive contributions to be remembered foremost. But if he is active then the full history of his editing and bureaucratic activity needs to be discussed. I am very concerned that he may intend to regain positions of trust.   Will Beback    talk    21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will Beback here. There are appropriate second chances, and there are wise decisions that acknowledge second chances have been spent. I do not know the extent of Rlevse's copyvio problems, but the fact that he refused to address them, then lashed out at Wikipedians, leaving with a dramatic and immediate exit, instead of acknowledging there was some kind of issue to be dealt with is problematic. What's worse is that he created PumpkinSky to antagonize some editors and engage others, like Giano, for unknown reasons. This is an ex-ArbCom member who ruled on the impropriety of just this kind of behavior, ending in the blocks of others, so arguing that he didn't know what he was doing is ridiculous. If Rlevse wanted to return so he could edit articles of interest, he would have done so without calling so much attention to his abrasiveness and inability to communicate in a meaningful way. RTV is too often abused by editors with significant problems who return without addressing those problems. I keep seeing this Wikipedia-is-a-workplace argument for civility, but there is no real-life situation in which someone leaves a place of employment and can return without anyone else noticing, just to irritate the folks with whom he disagreed in the past. Surely the manager who allowed that would himself be fired. I don't have a problem with an editor returning if s/he intends to work not only on articles but his own issues that forced the RTV in the first place, but what's left to respect of Rlevse? How long until he regains his admin status and runs for ArbCom again with half of Wikipedia reminding all not to be so judgmental, and the other half righteously indignant or so far beyond caring about such a negligent system that creates this circumstance that they just are editing drunk all the time? --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the reasons for this are clear, and have been well-stated by others. Collect (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment as one of the people now working both CCIs, All I can say is that I want EVERY ONE OF YOU on this thread to please to go over there and help, seeing as how you started this in the first place. There are something like 1,800 articles now on the two lists and will be more if you add Barking Moon.  If everyone agrees to review even one each of the major ones and 5-10 of the little ones, it would be a huge help.   But please, also ask if your edits from five years ago were all perfect too, OK?  We probably have 10 wiki-gnoming and cleanup edits to every substantive one.  The stuff on Rlevse going back to 2005 or 2006 is simply a huge pain in the butt to review, many articles have changed substantially, other, smaller ones less so, and of the couple I've found that have some question, they are so close to the line that I can't see any way to phrase it all that differently, personally, and asked others to peek and see.  Frankly, I'm starting to worry about editing anything myself -- I get jumped on for OR if I write stuff I know, then find sources, but if I read it first, how can my mind not be "contaminated" by the phrasing?  At the level we are scrutinizing Rlevse on close paraphrasing (and still, few problems, probably no worse than most of us with a long edit history), we may wind up deleting half the encyclopedia if we applied it rigidly across the board to all articles -- heck 3/4 of the encyclopedia.   Montanabw (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Curious, who are you referring to with "seeing as how you started this in the first place"? Amalthea started the CCI, knew about it before even the arbs, and actually, to date, none of us know how Amalthea came to realize that PumpkinSky was Rlevse.  If you want to point at some who contributed to this, perhaps the people who should be doing the cleanup are all the DYk regulars.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Amalthea has now posted a detailed summary on how he came to that conclusion: . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose but Rlevse needs to help clean up those CCI's. <font face="Verdana"> Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose — what a lynch mob. Alarbus (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per My76Strat. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban, support indefinite block until issues are addressed, and support requiring him to help with CCI cleanups. Perhaps require mentorship for a time to help cut down on future infringement.  If he can't learn to write in his own words after that, then this should be revisited.  Kcowolf (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I closed this proposal per WP:SNOW after roughly 10 hours of discussion and overwhelming opposition. This was swiftly undone by SandyGeorgia on the basis that new information had come to light&mdash;presumably because she suspected that this new information would alter the course of this proposal. In the several hours since, however, opposition has continued to pile up. I respect that one must feel strongly about something to reverse a closing admin's decision while involved, but at this point, a SNOW closure looks virtually inevitable. Sandy, do you still feel this proposal needs to remain open?  Swarm   X 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You "closed this proposal per WP:SNOW" immediately after new evidence came to light, and immediately after I struck my previous position. Did you not notice that many subsequent !voters were "per SandyGeorgia" (and My76), hence if I had changed my position, that might be relevant?  Does that not give you some clue that closing a discussion overnight, and not allowing for time differences and others to weigh in, might not be wise?  I'm always amused at admins wanting to close off discussions at the speed of light, when this is the Internet and not everyone is on 24/7, and always think it curious that admins think their decisions are God-like.  Yes, I always feel that discussions shouldn't be closed when half the world is still asleep, and closures like this do nothing to mitigate my suspicion that they sometimes result from the IRC crowd drumming up a freshly minted admin to close a controversial discussion off post-haste.  There is plenty of conflicting information coming out here, with arbs and CUs not even caught up yet and on the same page-- what's the hurry?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not this IRC crap again... You know, even not-so-freshly-minted admins close off controversial discussions from time to time without the "IRC crowd" drumming them up to do it. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me go on record as opposing the ban as well. He needs to stop shooting himself in the foot, though. No more battling old foes or posting private correspondence, for starters. 28bytes (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't suppose I really need to pile on, but the proposed remedy is excessive. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. User abused the RTV, sockpuppeted to return to former battlegrounds, and has apparently no intention of reforming. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since other non-admins are speaking up here, I will too. I was distressed when Rlevse left. I still find it hard to believe BarkingMoon PumpkinSky is the same person. But nothing I am aware of that either of them did justifies banning, and the use of e-mails to tell someone not to return strikes me as dirty pool. It would be best for the project if Rlevse returned; whatever people feel he must then answer for or help clean up can best be dealt with then. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I find it hard to believe that a one-time respected and respectable character - one who is an admin and gets elevated to arbcom - plagiarizes articles - gets caught - quits - and sneaks back in - pretending to be an enemy of the featured article project - and attacks other editors - and you want him back?...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support community ban; the copyvio issues are minor in comparison to the disruption visited upon FAC by PumpkinSky. I've just had occasion to revisit an old thread on Cas's page, and the time that PumpkinSky wasted because of revising old grudges is absurd.  All things considered, I don't think he can be rehabilitated.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support indef block, Oppose ban for now at least. Rlevse was an good administrator, but with some serious flaws. The RTV thing is a clear abuse of the system, especially that his accounts were going back to the reasons why Rlevse did a RTV (which should have been denied because there wasn't any harrassment or ousting involved when he invoked it, just that he didn't want to be involved in the criticism). His behavior with his sock involving FAC is obviously a grudge, and the BarkingMoon behavioral evidence is way too damming. A restriction must be made in order for Rlevse to come back to the project, including limitation to one account, topic ban on DYK and FAC, interaction ban with SandyGeorgia and Raul, plus some mentoring. I think that's the best for Rlevse, remember all this mess would have been avoided if only Rlevse cooperated with the community after the Grace Sherwood incident. Secret account 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Rlevse clearly lacks the competence required for source-based writing without plagiarism or even copyvios, and instead of dealing with this problem constructively he has been blaming everybody else for it. In part this is the community's fault for not noticing the problem earlier, but his behaviour since invocation of RTV has been atrocious and must not continue. RTV is essentially a voluntary self-ban that comes with some privileges. Rlevse has been trying to profit from these benefits without sticking to his part of the contract, and then he accused Will Beback of blackmail merely for pointing out the obvious consequence. When we get socking by a disgraced ex-arbitrator who plagiarised on a large scale and ex-bureaucrat who vote stacked, then there is simply no reasonable alternative to a full site ban. Hans Adler 11:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when you put it that way... - jc37 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Hans. Raul654 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Support I've looked at the various threads for awhile now, and was on the fence. The copyvio, while annoying and causing now a lot of work, was something I was willing to WP:AGF about, as rephrasing vs summarising could potentially be a near thing at times. But I think I have to agree with Hans Adler here. I would also support Secret's suggstion of an indef block with restrictions on returning, as an alternative, but since unfortunately Rlevse has apparently been gaming things for awhile now, I don't know if we could trust that he would not continue to do so. - jc37 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the additional information that came to light since my previous suggestion that he be required to help in the CCI, I think some interaction and topic bans may also be necessary if he decides to return in an open fashion. However, my bet is that he will sock again, relying on his wikifriends for concealment and defense even in "obvious sock is obvious" circumstances. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky emails
Pumpkinsky just a few minutes ago posted an email thread between himself and user:Will Beback. Beback wrote to Pumpkinsky asking if he planned to continued returning, in violation of RTV, and stating that if he did continue returning, Beback would post heretofore damaging information concerning Rleve's previous behavior involving user:jojo. The resonse (from Rleve) was both profane and suggested that the arbitration committee was aware of this, and actively suppressed it. Rlevse said he would not be intimidated, and that's why he was posting it. Mbisanz oversighted it shortly thereafter, on the pre-text that they violated Will's copyright. (And if you believe that's the real reason they were deleted, I have a bridge to sell you) I'm reconstructing the conversation entirely from memory, but that's teh gist of it. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the posts before they were oversighted revdeleted, and that's pretty much it. We don't need any more of this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, Raul, it was User:JoJo. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not oversight them nor did I suppress them. I rev-deleted them. Any administrator can still review them. Also, per WP:EMAILABUSE and that famous arbitration case involving Giano Durova, posting of other persons' emails on-wiki is forbidden as a copyright violation. Arbcom and any admins can still see the text there.  MBisanz  talk 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Requests_for_arbitration/Durova: :Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee."  MBisanz  talk 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to a request on my talk page, I can confirm that the two edits corresponding to IDs 474620971 and 474680170 have been revdeleted and not suppressed and should be visible to any admin. -- Avi (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for creating confusion by saying they were oversighted-- since I'm not an admin, I didn't know. I have now struck and corrected to say they were revdeleted.  At any rate, I can no longer see them (non-admin), but I did see them before they were revdel'd.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. There are actually three processes, though we often refer to them as "oversight" as that was the first (hacky) technique used:
 * Revdeletion can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia admins (and technically oversighters, stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
 * Suppression can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia Oversighters (and technically stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
 * Oversight was the process used for the old method which did its hiding at the server level prior to the development of the revdelete extension, and all-but-completely removes the revision from history. This is essentially irreversible (it may require custom code from developers, and I'm not certain that would work). This is pretty much deprecated and has not been used since 2010.
 * Hope that clears some of this up. -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concerns about copyrights, etc. I think that the privacy of emails should be maintained. That said, I did not say anything to Rlevse/PumpkinSky that I would be embarrassed for others to see. The key points, already expressed here, are that very disturbing behavior by Rlevse came to light after his RTV, which I chose not to make public at the time since it was moot. I did share it with the ArbCom so that it would be known. One of the senior ArbCom members agreed and said that the matter would be revisited if Rlevse returned. When I wrote to PumpkinSky I informed him that this material was being kept private only so long as he was inactive, but that if he might return then it should be made public. I asked for his assurance that he was not planning to return. The responses were very inflammatory.    Will Beback    talk    02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To the best of my memory, that summarizes what I read before it was revdeleted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Will. You've been very helpful. Now, given that we are discussing whether or not a community ban is in order, and given that his response suggests he is very likely to return, could you please go into details about that disturbing behavior on Rlevse's part? Raul654 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, some disclosure - I've known Rlevse for several years and I once considered him a friend and respected colleague. I've just read the correspondence in question, and I am utterly appalled at all of this. I simply cannot comprehend what sort of brain-snap has occurred in Rlevse that has led to this behaviour.
 * On a positive note, I wish to strongly applaud Will Beback for his thoroughly dignified and professional handling of this matter (and invite other editors to do the same). Manning (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't parse the above at face value. A thing that is private might best remain private if disclosure serves no other benefit beyond curiosity at the expense of a living person. To state "if he might return then it should be made public" would constitute a threat of reprisal against what would be otherwise proper. If the matter is of importance and directly pertinent to things the community should be aware, the agreement to keep it private could be a dis-service to the entire constituency. Without asking for details, can you explain the nature of the private information held? My76Strat (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Undeleted
With Will Beback's consent, I have undeleted these e-mails so that non-admins may view them. 28bytes (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this helps greatly. My76Strat (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rlevse's actions as bureaucrat
Here is what I wrote to the ArbCom in July 2011:


 * By mutual declaration, User:JoJo is Rlevse's wife. She is from Thailand and her written English is broken. She edited for a couple of years, most recently in June 2010. She has mostly worked on articles related to places in Thailand. Other than some work on Wikiproject Thailand, she has not edited any administrative page with two big exceptions. She has participated in over 60 RFAs and RFBs, including 28 in which Rlevse also voted or handled the closing. Some of those closures were discretionary and JoJo's vote made a noticeable difference in the percentage. I see no cases in which they showed a difference of opinion.


 * Most of JoJo's comments are brief and uninformative, but a couple of them show greater knowledge, including correcting a candidate on a policy interpretation and commenting on another editor's overall career. Her total lack of involvement with other project pages makes it hard to believe that she would be such an avid and informed voter without some input by Rlevse, at least. The best case is that JoJo heard her husband discussing these editors, and then made up her own mind even if unintentionally repeating what he'd told her. Another possibility is that she was his meatpuppet or proxy in RfAs and RfBs.

I think this may represent a serious violation of community trust. Regardless of other issues surrounding Rlevse and account blocks, I do not think that the user should be granted any special user rights that involve trust until these issues have been resolved.  Will Beback   talk    02:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Somehow this doesn't surprise me. One of the two tkses of JoJo was in a RfA vote . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. I would be interested to see the close calls Will mentions above, not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome, but with the goal of learning how we can better identify groups of !voters and attempt to find a way to discount groups we can clearly see are meatpuppets of each other.  MBisanz  talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cavalry and Panyd. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since my name has been brought up... a few comments: 1) Gingko and I often share perspectives/views---not always, but often, which is why we've been together for 15+ years. Thus, similarity in !voting is not uncommon.  2) One way to avoid meat puppets among spouses is having them be open.  3) In my case, my wife's being an admin was one of the reasons why I ran---as mentioned in her nomination statement, she wanted me to gain the tools so that I wouldn't ask her to do something when I saw it needed to be done.  4) Of bigger concern than spouses (as a general rule) are those who associate together on IRC or other mediums.  I don't think spouses are a huge risk because they are often known.  (Generally my wife and I won't get involved in disputes where the other is invovled.  If we do, we generally disclose the fact that we are related in the specific discussion.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With that in mind, I do think it might be something to include in our WP:COI. If I saw a discussion which my wife was involved, I would not close that discussion as it might be perceived as a COI issue.  That being said, as it wasn't part of the policy and it might be hard to notice every editor on an RfA, I wouldn't jump too fast at this.  Also, what is the point of dredging this up now?  Are we going to go back and ask all admins who were promoted by Rlvese to undergo a new RfA 2-3 years after the fact?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome" I see it as a chance to learn and refine our policies, not re-run old elections.  MBisanz  talk 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think that JoJo made those !votes independently, and it seems likely that she didn't make them at all. IOW, the account was used, at least occasionally, as a sock puppet and on other occasions as a meat puppet.
 * Second, this is being brought up now because it is necessary to review Rlevse's edit history if we are going to discuss his future editing here.
 * Third, there's no evidence that anyone was at fault in this matter besides Rlevse himself.   Will Beback    talk    04:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another interesting element is the "fix count" shared edit summary between the JoJo and Rlevese  accounts. Note that per analysis below, there aren't many overlaps in idiosyncratic edit summary usage between these two accounts; only a couple of tkses and one plain oops, but four "fix count" by JoJo in RfAs. Quite an interesting temporary focus on counting every vote in some RfAs she must have had. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, let me get this straight. Are we looking at the possibility that Rlevse used his wife's account to double vote (because they appear to be his edit summaries), or that he encouraged her to vote in a way that determined the outcome of certain RFAs, which he then closed?  Also, can you (Will Beback) specify which close RFAs were affected by her one vote?  I see that one was Requests for adminship/Franamax-- very close, closed by Rlevse, voted on by his wife with an edit summary that resembles his edit summaries, and entered within two minutes of him editing.  Have I got that right?  What are the other cases?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have notified Franamax of this discussion. Also, I don't believe Jojo !voted in that RFA - only asked a question.  7  03:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 7-- I hadn't gotten that far yet. I supported Franamax, so am relieved :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courtesy notice User:7, ummm, what? I answered the questions I was asked in my RFA, mostly in the order they showed up, but I think a few took longer to think about. I think JoJHutton's question was among the last, or the last one. I got the impression later that there was a relation between that account and the closer of the RFA, but no-one would let me go back and rewrite history to suit my own affairs. ;) 'Tis all in history so far as I know, and I answered the way I would to anyone who asked then or would ask now, my honest response. I did interact with the vanished user previously, in a suspected (and resolved) sock-puppet case several years ago, but other than that have just been eating popcorn on this one. Is anything more needed? Franamax (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a few cash bribes and you'll be in the clear. Cheers Manning (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) It's a joke! We're in dire need of a few laughs, frankly :)
 * (ask Moni3 to bring the ... Alarbus (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Goodness, Franamax, I don't see that anything was ever needed from you-- you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, has nothing to do with you, and as you know, I was a supporter anyway, so I don't see how this new information casts "anything" your direction. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a very good case has been made that there should be a [1] after Rlevse's entry here. I've put in a query at WT:AC asking what the process is for this. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I should note that BarkingMoon was quite keen to get into voting on various things as soon as he registered: RfAs, RfBs, banning votes, ArbCom reform, etc. (I'll add some diffs per request if you can't find them.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ANd might we also mention that the arb descriptions (of contradictory technical evidence) beggars belief, since they knew of evidence of inappropriate editing with his wife's account, and they knew that Rlevse as a former arb knew how CU worked. We've been duped. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have NOT been duped, and this is going entirely too far, SandyGeorgia. What in heaven's name would any arbitrator gain in trying to pull a stunt like that? We of all people know what "the community" does to users who get caught out, particularly those with advanced permissions or higher profiles. So, for that matter, do you: you've had that target on your back too. So please stop this. There was contradictory technical evidence, and it was reviewed and assessed by non-arbitrator checkusers.  Risker (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at WT:ARBCOM.  Much of this could have been avoided if we weren't getting conflicting information, and if the community is allowed to do what it is supposed to do in cases of inconclusive tecnical evidence.  If we aren't allowed to do that, history will repeat in other similar instances.  And yes, of all people, I do know what it feels like-- I'd like the same courtesy to be extended to me as is extended to those who abuse of RTV, Cleanstart, any other policy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy - I appreciate that emotions may be running high right now, but Risker is right, there is no reason to accuse the arbs of anything, least of all a conspiracy. Firstly Arbcom have precious little reason to treat Rlevse with any form of favoritism. Secondly, the evidence was reviewed and was inconclusive. If they had acted without conclusive evidence then the outcry from the community would have been savage. (Hell, they get enough grief when there IS conclusive evidence.) Manning (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Risker. There's no one questioning that JoJo exists, and I don't think anyone questions that her edits to Thai articles are her own. There is a concern that some of the edits attributed to her name may not have been made by her, or were unduly influenced, but it is easy to imagine technical evidence for some edits clarifying that it wasn't a pure sockpuppet account. I assume (while understanding the danger of assuming) that identifying technical evidence indicating different people doesn't mean every single edit is by a different person, only that some edits can be so verified, therefore proving that the account is not a pure sockpuppet account.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light "> SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (That said, I sympathize that SG has gone through a month or more of pure hell, tough enough on its face, and now it appears that a major portion of the hell was by a former trusted editor now abusing that trust. when the dust settles, we should be taking a hard community look at RTV, and CleanStart, and rethinking what we should allow.)--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light "> SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the need to look at RTV and CLEANSTART is what this is all about (for me), and your sympathy about what kind of hell FAC has been through is noted and much appreciated. (My response to Risker was over at the ArbCom talk page, where much has now been clarified). I do hope we'll sort these cleanstart and RTV issues, because having reviewed some old threads just in the last few hours, the disruption and time wasted was absurd.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the emails between Will Beback and Rlevse, and in them Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, he will publicly reveal the information about Rlevse's wife's editing. If not blackmail, this is unilateral, extra-judicial administrative action.  I thought WP's administration didn't do things this way anymore. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here is Rlevse. I haven't taken any administrative actions regarding him. Do you have a comment about the allegations here, or are you just taking potshots?   Will Beback    talk    04:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you an administrator? Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?  And, did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the evidence is on-Wiki. In previous discussions with the ArbCom, et al, there was agreement that the information was moot so long as Rlevse was not editing on Wikipedia, and that it would be relevant if he returned to editing. If you think that it's OK for a bureaucrat to use his wife's account to affect the same RFAs that he closes then we have a fundamental disagreement over ethical behavior. But again, this isn't about you or me.   Will Beback    talk    04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, I asked you three yes or no questions, which you have yet to answer. I will repeat them:
 * Are you an administrator?
 * Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?
 * Did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question number 1 looks like one you can answer on your own. Is this an interrogation of administrator Will Beback? ---Sluzzelin talk  04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 - I'll answer them for you as you seem to be having trouble gleaning the obvious answers yourself. 1 - Hold your mouse over Will's name. The 'sysop' tag is quite evident. 2 - No, he didn't, no-one has said he did, not even Rlevse. 3 - "Threaten" is misleading, he behaved as any admin would have behaved in the same circumstances. RTV is a contract, and Will simply pointed out the consequences of breaking that contract. Manning (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you all are affirming that Will Beback was acting as an administrator in this case. Now, can you point me to the administrative guidance or policy which recommends or encourages admins to threaten editors with publicly releasing privately-obtained information about their spouse's editing history unless they agree to stop editing Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does anyone besides you say this information was privately obtained? From what I can tell these are just diffs found on-wiki? AniMate 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "confidential info" is probably the better phrase. Will Beback kept the information to himself for future use.  Now, again, is the way WP's administration works?  Do we "get the goods" on other editors, keep the information in the bottom drawer, then bring it out and privately threaten the editor to "expose" them if they return to Wikipedia?  Was Rlevse returning to wikipedia as a beauracrat, or just as an editor (small "e")?  If so, why privately threaten him with it?  Why not bring it out if he requests restoration of his admin privileges?  Again, can you point me to the administrative guideline or policy which recommends that WP admins do things this way? Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I was Will, I'd point you to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)... Prioryman (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68 I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Rlevse invoked RV. That "right" has consequences attached, specifically, that if one decides to return (in spite of a promise not to) that previously unresolved issues are now back on the table. Reminding Rlevse of the consequences of his actions is a prudent action; if not required, certainly a reasonable step. That doesn't make it a threat.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light "> SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I informed PumpkinSky of this thread so that he could reply. His response is here:    Will Beback    talk    05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Per requests, here is a particular example of the JoJo account participating in a borderline RFA which Rlevse closed. JoJo !voted in the same direction as Rlevse's discretionary close. Requests for adminship/Aervanath.   Will Beback    talk    17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, yeah, but if the relationship between Rlevse and JoJo was disclosed on their user pages, and no objection was made back then, what difference does it make now? This information was at least available then, no one said anything.  Indeed, Rlevse closed it even though his relationship was disclosed, and for all he knew, at the front of everyone's mind.  It may have been ill-advised for Rlevse to make the call on the RfA, but the information was available, no one objected, and it's over.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, all we know is that Rlevse claimed to have a wife named JoJo. Unless anyone can vouch for her existence, she may be like the cousins and brothers whom we often see blamed for bad behavior.
 * Second, the level of involvement in RFAs which the JoJo account is totally incompatible with her involvement with other parts of Wikipedia. It is really hard to believe that someone who had almost no involvement with the project would !vote in over 60 RFAs.
 * Third, the level of expertise about the careers and policy interpretations of individual editors with whom she'd never interacted is also incompatible with someone who elsewhere showed very limited English language abilities.
 * The almost-inescapable conclusion is that the RFA !votes were made by Rlevse himself, either by dictating to his wife or by using his wife's account, if he even has a wife by that name. If anyone doubts that conclusions they should review JoJo's other edits.
 * Even if we put the best possible spin on the facts (meaning JoJo is a real person who decided these votes on her own), the conflict of interest created when a wife votes and a husband decides the outcome raises the kind of questions listed above. At best, it is very, very poor judgment.
 * Finally, who actually reviews RFAs routinely on a vote-by-vote basis? Is there any reason to think that editors or other bureaucrats noticed that Rlevse's wife was participating in the RFAs he was closing and approved of it?   Will Beback    talk    04:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that what happened is that it was noticed by multiple editors but as Rlevse was in rather a more powerful position than at present, no one particularly cared to make an issue of it. After all, it is only one vote, which can hardly affect things that much.  The discussion of the Thai articles makes your suggestion that Rlevse was socking by making up an imaginary wife implausible.  At the end of the day, under your theories, Rlevse created a sockpuppet for the rather limited purpose of voting or asking questions in a discussion which he was closing.  He then made it much more likely it would be noticed by disclosing that it was his "wife" on the sock's user page and his own.  In other words, he went to a lot of effort for very limited return; had he wanted to materially affect the outcome, he could simply have !voted.  The vote of an arbcrat is likely to carry weight with it; the vote of an arbcrat's "wife" not so much.  In other words, I fail to see that Rlevse had any motivation or return on what was a very risky move if JoJo did not in fact exist.  It also doesn't make sense that given Rlevse's abortive attempts to return to Wikipedia, he would not have used the JoJo account at some point, if it was within his control.  If JoJo does not exist, that is also somewhat inconsistent with your effort to motivate Rlevse to remain away through your asking him to consider the effect on his wife (I am charitable here) and also in his angry reaction.  Much too much in both cases for a souped-up imaginary girlfriend.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is likely that JoJo actually exists and actually made the edits to Thai articles. The main issue here is whether she independently made the edits to the RFAs. You haven't addressed those issues.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That, I think, could only be told though extrinsic factors. Possibly by asking her.  Has she been notified, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that a review of her editing history is sufficient to show that it would be extraordinary for someone with so little general involvement in the project to have such extensive, and occasionally insightful, involvement in the RFA process. What sort of "extrinsic" factors do you think we could use to resolve this?   Will Beback    talk    01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes ... except for the fact that Rlevse's wife can be expected to try to take an interest in his interests. I suspect that it really didn't interest JoJo judging by the dormancy of the account, but she pottered about the Thai area to please her husband, and probably followed his contributions and took an interest where he was taking an interest.  I suspect that that is why Rlevse felt free to close those RfA's:  he knew she really didn't care that much.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than speculating extensively on possible psychology of the married couple, i think it's easier to simply look at her edits. It's just implausible that she is the author of all of those !votes.    Will Beback    talk    01:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More of Cla689's questions for Will Beback

 * Another question for Will. You say that ArbCom was aware of all this and had said they would act on it if Rlevse returned.  So, why were you involved now?  Can you point to the diff or email in which ArbCom directed you to act on their behalf and authorized you to use a threatening tactic in an attempt to coerce Rlevse into leaving Wikipedia even though he isn't community banned? Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68, can you answer a question for a change? Please comment on the issue of a bureaucrat's wife !voting in the same RfA that he closes, always voting the same way, and showing much greater knowledge of Wikipedia norms than she does in her other editing. Does that seem like acceptable behavior to you?   Will Beback    talk    05:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Separate issue. This is the administrators noticeboard, right?  So, let's make sure that we're following correct administrative procedures.  In the emails, you said ArbCom (specifically NewYorkBrad) had said they would handle this Jojo stuff if Rlevse returned.  Rlevse returned.  So, did ArbCom handle it?  Were you acting on their behalf?  Were you authorized by them to handle it?  Did you tell them in advance you were going to threaten Rlevse with proclaiming the information if he didn't banish himself?  Could you say here which arbitrator delegated this administrative action to you after they had previously said they would handle it? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone is welcome to comment here, even you. But I think your questions are getting a bit tendentious, and are increasingly off-topic. If you'd like to know what the ArbCom thinks then you should ask them. As for this thread, I get the feeling your trying to turn this into an attack on me, so I've split this out.     Will Beback    talk    06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the time it took you to separate the sections, you could have made a good start on answering the questions. I will continue to wait for your responses.  And, I have asked ArbCom for their side. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68's questions reveal a misunderstanding so deep that explanations and answers are unlikely to be helpful. In brief, there is no admin misconduct by Will, and no threats in the tone suggested by the misguided questions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. AniMate 07:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Same agreement from me. I provided a thorough answer to the questions earlier. The answers were solely based on examination of the evidence, I have never discussed this issue with Will (or any other admin). This ongoing insistence indicates either incredible ignorance of how WP works, or just harassment for some personal reason. Manning (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68 has a long-standing feud with Will, so I'd say both explanations are equally likely. Can we get the personality politics out of the way and get back to discussing useful things, please? Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no feud with Will and I actually think I've never interacted with either Will or Cla68 before  but I must say that email exchange made my skin crawl. I don't wish to minimise the gravity of Rlevse's actions, which should indeed be discussed, but Will's emails came across as threatening. A very sub-optimal way to handle the situation, in my opinion.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not appropriate. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * agree as well. — Ched : ?  15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will's actions were entirely appropriate and above board. Thank you Will, for your yeoman's work. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Assume for a moment that instead of withholding his observations until now, Will Beback had released them while Rlevse was "vanished". I can immediately imagine the outcry over grave dancing and similar concerns in that hypothetical scenario. We routinely suspend RfC/Us when editors say they've departed for the same reasons. It seems a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choice. Again, I find the blame-the-messenger approach unconstructive. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, Will did nothing wrong. This community's rush to accuse people of "grave dancing" and dismiss everything they say is significant, especially in cases involving longstanding contributors. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree. WP:RTV states: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently." By invoking the right to vanish, and vowing to never return, Rlevse was able to avoid having these things brought to light. In choosing to violate that pledge, Rlevse also chose to risk the consequences. Blackmail is reprehensible because you are coercing a person into meeting your demands by threatening to expose poor behavior. I don't see that Will was trying to get Rlevse to meet any particular demands. He was warning him that he would be effectively giving up immunity, which seems to fall under our guideline on vanishing. --  At am a  頭 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding to Atama's point - the allegation that a 'crat had abused his position is one of the most serious I can think of. Will was being very decent by keeping his findings private under RTV. It is an admin's responsibility to disclose evidence of wrongdoing, under the banner of our general duty to protect the project. If Rlevse returned but Will failed to disclose his evidence, Will himself would have been in severe trouble. (I recall an unrelated case a few years back where an Arb was made to step down for failing to disclose similar evidence of editor wrongdoing). Rlevse would have been entitled to due process about these allegations, but Will would still be required to voice his suspicions, and he would have faced consequences if his non-disclosure was discovered. Manning (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with Atama's formulation, but it would seem to me that such an email would have to be written very carefully to not come across as threatening, even if that wasn't intended. I saw Raul's description but I didn't see the email itself.  From the differing things that some people who have seen it have said, it sounds like it might not have been written carefully enough, but that there is room for AGF.  67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The email as leaked by Rlevse himself has now been un-revdeleted again. It looks fine to me. Hans Adler 11:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diff. It was nearly impossible to read in normal page layout. Even in diff mode it's unclear who says what towards the end. Unless I'm reading that wrong


 * was actually written by Rlevse? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I like this quote from PumpkinSky when opposing a RfA recently "What else is there we don't know about?" . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief, I thought this way of doing things in WP had long passed. The demand, "Please reply at your earliest convenience. Otherwise I'll assume this is part of an ongoing pattern which is likely to be repeated, and act accordingly." is bullying, especially since Will Beback said in the same email trail that he had been told that ArbCom would handle it. Cla68 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic every warning that asks vandals to cease and desist or else they'd be blocked is also bullying. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to make threats. That's why I established this.  Notice, Will Beback edit warred to remove a threat he had made from that board, even though his name wasn't stated.  Thus, he already knew that making threats isn't acceptable behavior.  Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. The repeated use of the word "publicly" convinces me that Will was trying to pressure Rlevse through intimidation involving his wife; certainly it appears Rlevse took it that way.  It isn't actually outing as the relationship was disclosed.  Still, it's a rather ugly way to behave.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - Decontamination of admins promoted by Rlevse
With a number of issues coming to light concerning Rlevse's actions as a 'crat (particularly where Jojo's votes may have influenced the outcome), we potentially now have the awful situation where some admins might have the legitimacy of their promotion called into question.

I'd like to kill that entire notion as quickly as possible. It does nothing but destabilise the admin body, and does not contribute to repairing the damage caused by Rlevse during his time here. (Furthermore I hope no-one here wants to see respected admins such as Franamax have their legitimacy questioned for something that was entirely not their fault.)

So my proposal is presented below. I sincerely hope this is not controversial. I'll also point out that this in no way diminshes the severity of Rlevse's transgressions, it merely seeks to remove any taint from those who were innocently affected. Manning (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Barring any actions for subsequent admin misconduct, the legitimacy of all admins promoted by Rlevse is hereby reconfirmed by the admin body, regardless of whether there is any (known or as-yet-undiscovered) evidence of bueaucrat misconduct by Rlevse during their RFA.


 * Support as nom. Manning (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I appreciate the intention, the "admin body" has no remit for such. We are elected by the community, not invited to a club by other admins. MLauba (Talk) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A fair comment. What alternative do you think would be best? Manning (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * None at all. As others below, I doubt there is actually a problem to solve at present. If there were any of the promotions that turned out to be bad apples, an RFC will address the substantial issues, and the promotion itself will be a sideshow. In the same way, nothing we can do at this stage will ever prevent the mere fact of an Rlevse promotion being brought up as an argument. I fail to see how this could ever be done in good faith, though. Not over a year after his last promotions. However, assuming that the trend below actually reverses, the correct body to decide to validate Rlevse's promotions a posteriori remains the community. I believe a proper RFC at the village pump or WT:RFA would be a better place to do so. MLauba (Talk) 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Manning, why do you contend that Rlevse's promotions may have been invalid when his relationship with Jojo was disclosed on both's user pages?  Possibly something should have been done at the time, but whatever Rlevse may have done later does not turn these into offenses.  Whether or not Rlevse's fellow crats and the community noticed or cared about the relationship, it was disclosed, and that's an end to it.  Also per MLauba.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the wording of the proposal above, I don't contend it, not do I discount it. My objective is solely to prevent otherwise fine admins dragged into something that is not their concern. Also, if that IS the end of it, then let's say so here and now and not permit the issue to be dragged out. Manning (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Invalid procedure There is no "contamination" to deal with, no reason to doubt their validity in any way, and this "reconfirmation" is, in fact, an insult to them. Collect (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noble, but one of the reasons I generally stay out of Requests for Adminship is that I think that it should not primarily be the admins that trust the new admin, but the non-admins that do that. If admins now reconfirm admins who may have been promoted inappropriately, that will only give an effect of clique formation.  Oppose.  If there is need for this (of which I, per Collect, am not sure of), some kind of RfC (which then maybe should be closed by some of the current bureaucrat corps) or other community discussion is a better process.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If there is any particular problem with a decision then it can be challenged, but there is no suggestion of that here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "contamination" for anyone to "decontaminate". T. Canens (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just went through the past RFAs and RFBs that Rlevse closed as "promote". Of those, only 3 met the following criteria:
 * The support was below 80%.
 * Jojo voted Support.
 * None of the RFAs Rlevse closed as support were below 70%. None of the RFBs Rlevse closed as support were below 85%. Of those three admins I mentioned, 1 resigned (possibly under a RTV sort of deal), 1 was desysopped for inactivity, and the 1 that remains self-identifies as semi-active. Two of the closures had an extended rationale as it was closed under bureaucrat discretion. I'm not going to post names here to start a witch-hunt, but you get the idea. --Rschen7754 04:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose If there are issues with individual administrators, then those issues can be dealt with on an individual basis. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Collect. Why don't we nullify every arbcom case Rlevse has ever voted in and delete every single page he ever edited, just to be on the safe side? Apologies for the sarcasm, but this proposal is pure overkill. --Conti|✉ 13:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * here ya go .. ya can have that back too. Just un-freakin-believable — Ched : ?  14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC) BTW .. "the admin. body"? .. wow .. I didn't even know such a thing existed.  Sigh, I wonder why there's such a disconnect between folks here .. oh wait .. I've been reading for the last few days .. No .. I don't actually wonder. — Ched :  ?  14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; process wonkery for process wonkery's sake. Per Collect, this attaches a presumption of stigma to editors who don't deserve it.  Moreover, a blanket declaration like this would muddy the waters in the (decidedly unlikely, but not utterly inconceivable) event that further, more serious shenanigans are uncovered.  It's a lose-lose proposal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't understand a word, not the words, not the spirit. The top of this page says "Are you in the right place?" - I doubt it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - A reference to any admin's name as a plausible example of an admin who might "have their legitimacy questioned" should be stricken from this discussion and removed from edit history. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A flawed bureaucrat may nonetheless take actions that are not, themselves, flawed.  His fall from grace doesn't mean we have to undo all of his works.  Wikipedia does not need its own Donatist heresy.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)