Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno talk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Requesting reappraisal of a block



 * Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel/Archive


 * Notifications:, ,.

User:Edgeform was blocked a while back as a result of the above SPI. I have become concerned that there are some contradictions in the behavioral evidence of socking, and that a good faith user may, perhaps, have been blocked in error. I've discussed this with HelloAnnyong, the blocking admin, and he thinks that I'm mistaken, which I might well be, but I would be more comfortable if some more eyes would take a look at this. I'm also notifying the two checkusers who have been involved in the SPI. This gets rather complicated, sorry, but please bear with me.

The case centers around the BLP of a San Diego-based neuroscientist, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and some of the pages about topics of his research. These topics include autism, which (in ways unrelated to the BLP subject himself) is something that sometimes attracts editing agendas. I originally raised the SPI that led to the block (the second in the archive linked above), based upon an IP edit,, that has a now-hidden edit summary, claiming to be an "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform". At the time, it appeared to be a blatant admission of socking, and the checkuser data indicated that the accounts, including the IP, all geolocated to the San Diego area, with the two named accounts having a shared history of interest in editing in these topics.

I have also been editing the BLP, because my attention was drawn at my talk to content disagreements in which the two named accounts were among those involved. I don't always agree with either Neurorel or Edgeform, but I don't see them editing in bad faith. Their edits tend to have the same point of view, but not necessarily the same writing style. Other editors, who self-identify as being in the BLP subject's San Diego lab, tend to be very sensitive about what they perceive as criticisms of the BLP subject, and these concerns led to an earlier SPI, the first in the archive linked above, and also led to the request in my talk to look at the BLP in the first place.

After the block, an IP claiming to be Edgeform contacted me at my talk, based on my own history of editing in the BLP, and sought my help in overturning the block: here. The edits by the "outing" IP had been rather clumsy, whereas the IP claiming to be Edgeform was reasonably articulate. I discussed it with HA here, and we agreed then that there would have to be a request for block review, which never happened, perhaps because Edgeform gave up.

Since that time, there have repetitively been troll-ish edits from various IPs using public computers in the San Diego area, repeating the "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform" edit summary, see: 1, 2, and 3. However, that third incident, the most recent, was different, in that only Neurorel, and not Edgeform, was named in the edit summary. Googling the supposed real life "[name]", gives two possibly related results: a professional baseball player based in San Diego, and a young boy who has autism and whose mother writes a blog about him. I doubt that either of these persons is actually doing the editing; it could be a third person who just happens to have that name also, or it could be a sarcastic use of the name by a troll. What bothers me is that there seems to be a pattern of repeatedly trying to get both Neurorel and Edgeform blocked, by making these "look at me!" edits that are really just about the edit summary, and that, with Edgeform blocked, the edit summaries have started only naming Neurorel, who is not blocked. It does not make sense to me that a single person would be behind both the Neurorel and Edgeform accounts and also be making these accusatory/boastful edit summaries. It's plausible that the IP is someone else who actually knows of genuine socking, but it is awfully strange that they would be so persistent after the person they are accusing has been limited to a single account. Behaviorally, it seems more like someone else in the San Diego area (perhaps associated with the lab?? – but not the editor who contacted me at my talk, I'm quite sure) who just wants some editors removed from editing the subject area.

I know it's complicated and ambiguous, but I'd appreciate some additional opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking purely at their use of edit summaries the two are very similar but there are also subtle differences. Both like to use caps and finish sentences/sentence fragments will full stops, Neurorel slightly more consistently. Both prefer double speech marks for quotations. Neurorel makes a few more typos and likes the word "reorganize", whereas Edgeform never uses it. If I was forced at gunpoint to make a decision I'd say perhaps meatpuppetry or some other form of collusion similar interests and points of view rather than socking, but since the effect is the same I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong). EyeSerene talk 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neurorel is not currently blocked, fyi, although the template on their userpage says they are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me, then, ask this: If (if!) we think it's more likely to be meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry (which makes sense to me, regardless of whether the accusing IP is acting in bad faith), then does it really make sense to block one account and leave the other account alone? I understand the rationale for socking (limit one user to a single account), but it doesn't seem to make sense for meatpuppets. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * timestamp --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And remember the principle is against abusive sockpuppetry. Unless these accounts are !voting or revert tag-teaming (which shouldn't happen anyway) there is little issue here, regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Both users have been active at Roger Bingham too. I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here, despite the similarities in style.  It would be easier if the accounts would disclose if there is a relationship. Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC).


 * That would certainly clear things up. I tend to agree that we should give Edgeform the benefit of the doubt and unblock. I find Tryptofish's explanation for the IP editor(s) behaviour plausible, and if we have no evidence that Edgeform and Neurorel have been tag-teaming there seems little point in keeping Edgeform blocked. Related to that I've struck some of my earlier comment, which came across rather more strongly that I'd intended. EyeSerene talk 13:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you! I have previously left notes on the talkpages of the two checkusers who took part in the SPI. Tiptoety said that he doesn't currently have anything to add, while WilliamH said that he is looking into it further, so I'd be inclined to give him time to reply here if he should choose to. As for the question of tag-teaming, my observation would be that, although the two accounts consistently tend to reflect similar perspectives about editing the pages that interest them, I really see no evidence of them actually tag-teaming, in the sense of working together at the same time to support one another's edits or talk comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither did I to be honest, which is why on reflection I struck part of my earlier post. EyeSerene talk 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * timestamp --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, it looks to me like there will not be any more discussion. Unless someone objects, I would like to ask that an administrator unblock User:Edgeform. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * timestamp --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RS/N recommends preventative action against encyclopaedia disruption
As a result of the following discussion, where systemic and disruptive deceit in relation to references was uncovered, WP:RS/N recommends preventative action regarding User:Legolas2186's editing and would like administrator action on the matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

After becoming suspicious of a source used by User:Legolas2186 in a recent GAN entry, I looked further and found some more suspicious references used by Legolas2186 to support other recent GA expansions that he has been undertaking. I have asked Legolas to respond but I have not been satisfied that the sources are not faked. Here are the cites I have a problem with:


 * Was used in Madonna: Like an Icon until I removed it:
 * Used in Keep It Together (Madonna song) and Oh Father:
 * Used in Saqib Saleem:
 * Used in Saqib Saleem:
 * Used in Saqib Saleem:

All of the above-listed cites were added by Legolas2186 as part of a drive to bring the article to GAN. If anybody here can help him by verifying one or more of the cites, please do so. Otherwise, it would appear that Legolas2186 has been fabricating references in order to create or expand articles and thereby gain credit for GA. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)A search of People magazine website does not show such an article, nor can I find "Christina Jansen" who is meant to be the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that Legolas lives in India and the time now is ± 00:00, Binksternet hasn't waited to Legolas to reply him and immediately started to research in the articles he mentioned challenging offline sources (just because he can't access to them (Talk:Saqib Saleem/GA2)). I suggest Bink to wait until Legolas explanation before he starts to question the reliablility of an user (WP:AGF). Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See also. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not newly discovered today, so it doesn't matter whether it is midnight somewhere. I signaled the serious nature of the unverifiable cite at Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon/GA1 on February 7, eight days ago. Legolas did not respond even though he edited other articles during that time. On February 10, I asked him about a problematic reference at Talk:Saqib_Saleem and he responded very quickly there on the talk page and also by offering to send me scans of the physical pages, but he has not yet sent me any scans. On February 10, I began looking at other articles he was involved with and found that he had used an unverifiable Becky Johnston article from June 1989 Rolling Stone so I corrected it to the same Becky Johnston in May 1989 writing for Interview under a different title. (This unverifiable source was added by Legolas in August 2011.) This appeared to be sloppy work, not necessarily bad faith, since the writer's name was correct and the quotes were correct. Yesterday and today, I looked for more recent sloppy work in articles that Legolas was involved with and I found the Paul Zollo cites that I cannot verify anywhere online. Legolas has not posted here for three days but I am not willing to wait for him to respond before I ask the community to try and help me find whether the cites listed above can be verified by other means. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does matter that is midnight, as he is sleeping right now (see his contributions, he rarely edits at this time), and it matters as I told you that is seems like you can't wait until he answers. As you said he offered you the scans, but you never asked to him send them to you, the only thing that you did was start to check all his recent work to see if his offline sources are "falsified". This sounds more like a revenge of something rather than a concerned editor. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I asked him for the scans soon after his offer. He continued editing for two more days but he did not respond yes or no about the scans. This thread is not about whether Legolas is sleeping right now, it is about whether he has been putting sloppy citations into articles since August 2011, or possibly putting knowingly wrong citations into articles more recently to attain GA credit. The first step is a plea to others in the community to see if the cites are verifiable. As such, it does not require Legolas to respond. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that I can find no evidence of that People Weekly article in databases that catalog the magazine. That issue doesn't even seem to exist. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not just the references listed above. - in that edit a vast amount of information was added, including the sentence With SongTalk magazine, Madonna explained that "isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of my marriage, I could only reach out to the stability of my family roots, and 'Keep It Together' is for that only." supposedly sourced by one of the references listed above and page 122 of the book Madonna: Like an Icon by Lucy O'Brien. The book is viewable on 'Look inside' option on Amazon.com, and there is nothing of the kind on page 122. Page 131 does however say There is the sense that Madonna, isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of her marriage, is reaching back to the stability of family roots. but that is written solely by the author, and not a quote from Madonna. I find the suggestion that an editor has fabricated references and a quote from a living person to be very troubling, and would suggest this is moved to another noticeboard. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A People issue from Jaunary 2008 would one of the following:
 * Vol. 69 Issue 3 - 1/28/2008
 * Vol. 69 Issue 2 - 1/21/2008
 * Vol. 69 Issue 1 - 1/14/2008
 * not volume 581 issue 50 dated Jaunary 5th. A database search turned up no articles by that title or author. Major US magazines have different overseas versions, so this editor may be using the Indian version of People, if such a thing exists. But that would have a different ISSN, and the ISSN provided is for the US People.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to that book the edition was published in August 1989, several months after the alleged May 1989 publication date. From what I have been able to learn about SongTalk it was published quarterly with "Spring", "Summer", "Fall" and "Winter" names used not months. There is a full transcript of the interview from the summer 1989 edition, it does not contain the quote attributed to Madonna, so neither of the references added are real even if we accept by "May 1989" what was really meant was "Summer 1989". I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcript as it matches the excerpt in the book I linked to, I certainly believe it more than Legolas2186 at this point. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Songtalk interview is also in Zollo's book "Songwriters on songwriting" (ISBN 0306812657) so it might be worth checking there. It's not currently available at my library so I can't check it.  67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Could administrators comment on appropriate actions and enact them? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that Fifelfoo closed the discussion at RSN here with the summary RS/N recommends preventative actions over sustained and deceitful encyclopaedia disruption This has been moved to WP:AN to request preventative actions. However the discussion as closed does not contain anything like a consensus for "sustained" or "systemic" "deceit", nor any mention, let alone "requests", of "administrator action on the matter".  Considering that discussion of the verifiability of the disputed edits was still in progress at the close, I would suggest that this request is at best premature and at worst disruptive in itself.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At least two works that simply do not exist—it is deceit, and this kind of violation of good faith, encyclopaedic conduct and standards has previously been treated as block-on-sight. IP 86.186 suggests fairly clearly that such action is necessary ("this is moved to another noticeboard").  Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is no consensus, discussion is continuing, and one user saying "moved to another noticeboard" is very far from being a consensus asking for "administrator action on the matter". If you believe that disruption justifying block-on-sight exists, bring it to AN/I under your own name, just don't claim support from a non-existent consensus.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. If he's falsifying sources he needs to be blocked, end of. The evidence in this thread (I have not read the RS/N thread as of yet) is enough to block him until this gets sorted out (and nobody is going to object to blocking someone who's quite blatantly making up sources). — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 22:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with another editor, please find a more acceptable way of saying so. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wikilawyering. While the first word in Jeske's response might be regrettable, the sentiment he's expressing is one that I, and probably others, agree with. Fifelfoo was right to bring this here.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Slow down. Let's not block anyone "until this gets sorted out". Let's sort it out first, and then decide what to do next.  I don't know Legolas myself, but I see his name pop up frequently in productive or helpful places, and he's been here a long time and does a lot of writing.  I'm not saying it's impossible that there is intentional falsification, but I'd be really surprised if it is; I suspect there's a less sinister explanation.  One that may still need to be addressed, perhaps, but intentional falsification of references is a pretty strong thing to be assuming.  I think it would have made the most sense to leave this at RS/N until we heard from him, but I guess that ship sailed already.  But there should be no blocks, or threats of imminent blocks, until we hear from Legolas. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If he dosen't come here and address these issues within an hour of resuming editing, I'd say that an indefinate block be issued with the unblock condition that he explain himself on the talk page before being unblocked. I agree we shouldn't move to block him before he responds, but this is serious enough to warrant an immediate response from him.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If he dosen't come here and address these issues within an hour of resuming editing, I'd say that an indefinate block be issued Is this a threat? He has a life, you know, he is at work right now, and doesn't our policy state "block are preventive not puntatives? What will a block prevent, vandalism from his account? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  02:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes actually, given that there's demonstration that in two sampled instances he violated WP:V through deceptive citations that appear on the surface to be good but are non-existent. Citing non-existent texts is a heinous attack on WP:V, and there is a reasonable assumption of future bad faith given the deceptive nature of the attack on V.  It is conduct in the territory of copyright violation and plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the issue Tbhotch. I didn't say "he has to drop everything including his real life and address this right now", I essentially said "he can't go back to editing the project until this is addressed". He might not have time to make any edits to Wikipedia for several days, and that's fine by me, but it wouldn't be appropriate for him to edit Wikipedia, when he does have the time to do so, until after he comes here and addresses this. As to the second piece of your comment, I would see this as a preventative block, the aim being to prevent him from adding any more sources to articles, since there appears to be a problem with his sources not existing.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As for me, I think Legolas2186 should be made aware that this is the first issue he should address upon resuming editing. A block would serve, and it would be easier to administer than a half dozen admins constantly visiting his contributions page to see if he has resumed. However, the latter method would work fairly well, and with so many eyes on the issue, I seriously doubt Legolas will get away with faking another reference in the near future. Moreover, I wish that Legolas will learn from the experience and will resolve to use only true blue citations in the future. He has been a valuable editor but he needs to know that snubbing WP:V cannot continue. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with the previous point, the outcome I'd like to see is rehabilitation and improvement. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fabrication of material is about as serious a charge as is possible, and, if shown, should result in a community ban on the perpetrator. One of the few places I support "draconian soutions." Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say pause this discussion until he chimes in with his side of the story. He may have simply written the wrong magazine name (very easy to do if he was starting to look at People while citing his material from a different magazine) or done something like that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Web search finds Christina Jansen is credited as the photographer of Lucy O'Brien in this interview (in French), that looks like it contains the types of info cited to "Meeting the woman behind She-Bop" in the Madonna: Like an Icon article (perhaps someone who reads French can check a detail or two). Lucy O'Brien is apparently the author of another book called "She-Bop" (about female rock musicians) so I wonder if some overseas edition of People Magazine had a translation of this interview, and the interviewer's name got garbled by the magazine or by Legolas. Or perhaps the French interview's credits were incorrect, or maybe there is another interview with O'Brien someplace that was actually done by Jansen. As an aside, the "Like an Icon" article looks excessively promotional IMHO, from the brief glance I took at it. I didn't make any attempt to check into how it got that way. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to note, further incidents related to this user of adding citations to documents that do not appear to exist have been uncovered. To allow this thread to archive, the RS/N thread is being set to not archive; at least until editors there have scrubbed fallacious claims from the articles.  Editors or administrators with an interest in removing falsified content would be very welcome at the RS/N thread to muck in. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone with that number of edits is likely to try again, a check should be made of new usernames that they haven't started up again. This will takes ages looking though and probably some of it will never be fixed, between sneaky POV pushers, copyright violators, and outright plausible fabrications like this I don't know which is worst for fixing. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Small prod backlog
Everything in Category:Proposed deletion as of 11 February 2012 is past the 7-day threshhold and can now be safely deleted if anyone's willing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What backlog? :P - F ASTILY  (TALK) 10:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * TPH, I assume you mean evaluated by an administrator and deleted if appropriate. PROD reviewing is not simply a matter of checking the clock and pressing the 'delete' button. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob)
Moved from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring-- В и к и  T   00:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose a topic ban for Youreallycan on all articles related to Rick Santorum/Dan Savage/Santorum and any and all articles related to the controversy over the Santorum neologism. His edits today were made with a purposeful intent to disrupt multiple pages and to violate the 3RR. Furthermore, his self-revert is entirely disingenous as he intentionally started an edit war to disrupt the article; the self-revert doesn't excuse his behavior. Concerns about this disruptive behavior were expressed by multiple users, including Roscelese, Salvio giuliano, and Badams5115. After being asked to stop many times, the user failed to acknowledge the problem and instead decided to attack homosexuals, saying "if thats not pretty enough or promotional enough for them then excuse me. What the issue is is beyond me, they want to link it to R Santorum but they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle." This is clear battleground behavior with a clear purpose of disruption as its goal. I ask at this time that administrators and editors alike ban this user from all related topics. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This proposal should be moved to WP:AN... Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 02:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of that. However, I think it needs to be discussed here first, as it concerns this report.  The fact of the matter is, if this were any other user, they would have been immediately indefinitely blocked.  I'm curious why that has not occurred, considering that the block log of the user shows a consistent pattern of 3RR violations and edit warring. In other words, why was this user not blocked today? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, and propose that the topic ban be indefinite and apply also to all topics related to LGBT, broadly construed. There is no reason to assume that the editor will ever edit in good faith in this topic area, based on his attack. He has lost all credibility. Community ban may be in order. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only time I have had a very negative experience with the editor in question is in regard to the biography of Charlie Crist and prominent allegations of the politician's homosexuality. Back then, the editor contributed as Off2riorob, and he was militantly anti-anything homosexual. The unreasoning discussions can be seen at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive99, Talk:Charlie_Crist, and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive94, with some angry spillover into Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive108. The topic is one that Off2riorob cannot address without bringing his strong feelings to bear. A topic ban would perfectly suit the problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Charlie Crist, I can see no evidence that Rob/YRC was "militantly anti-anything homosexual". Instead, he seems to have been (militantly or otherwise) trying to avoid Wikipedia repeating dubiously-sourced speculation about Crist's sexuality, seemingly motivated by political point-scoring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sourcing was not dubious; it was newspaper articles conforming to the BLP guideline of WP:WELLKNOWN. I can assemble a collection of diffs of Rob's reactionary responses if it becomes necessary. I don't think this is the venue, however. I continue to be in favor of a topic ban for the guy. If a more appropriate venue is chosen, I will wish to comment at length. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Move this to the right spot please. I will hat it otherwise. Arkon (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong noticeboard - take it to ANI. TFD (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I want to make sure that people are aware this is not isolated to Charlie Crist issues and not merely over-zealousness in enforcing BLP. In this discussion, YRC (then editing as Off2riorob) made, among other offensive comments, remarks attacking users on the basis of their sexual orientation, saying that "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world," and saying that Wikipedia should ignore sources on an actor coming out of the closet very publicly because "This is not the gay times - get over yourself." Most recently, he chose to vandalize several articles, including a BLP, apparently for the sole purpose of making LGBT people angry. It is absolutely clear that he is incapable of editing with any kind of neutrality on this subject and a topic ban is long overdue. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is ti possible this account may be compromised and should be blocked as such?— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 517,568,225 ) 00:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that initially when I saw him repeatedly vandalizing Rick Santorum, and asked him about it, but it seems that that's just how the user chose to express his feelings about LGBT people. Which is obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with, but not indicative of a compromised account. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed what I assumed because I encountered this user a few times and s/he has no way acted like I saw now.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 517,571,635 ) 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Following WP:BLP is not "vandalism" and the POV evinced by those making such a claim is real and substantial. Using Wikiprocesses to remove those who seek to obey Wikipedia policies is abhorrent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, WP:CANVASS may have been violated here. Collect (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you direct us to the place in WP:BLP which states that it is okay to vandalize an article on a living person because one believes that it will make LGBT people angry, or which states that it is acceptable to attack people based on their sexual orientation? I don't seem to recall that part of the policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Absurd claim -- WP:BLP makes clear that certain edits must be removed. Obeying WP:BLP is not, has not been, and will not be vandalism as you appear to opine. Collect (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that there are BLP issues to do with this article, but how the diffs given might constitute following BLP needs some explanation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But, Collect, he was adding a BLP issue, not removing one. Silver  seren C 01:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, this is a knee-jerk defense of YRC rather than anything based on the evidence linked. Alternately, I'd love to hear you defend this and this as necessary to enforce BLP. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Collect. Nobody Ent 00:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the responses to Collect. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for the Rick Santorum/Dan Savage/Santorum topic area. The edits are so like vandalism that I can seriously not tell them apart. It is quite clear that there is some sort of agenda that Youreallycan is driven by here and it is certainly not beneficial to Wikipedia. Having him stay out of the topic area and go and edit other articles would be for the best. Silver  seren C 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob does tend to snap - and this is about the most extreme example so far. No comment on the topic ban idea but his approach to BLP is fairly consistent in helping keep out scurrilous BS. Like him I share the concern that there is a tendency for minority(ish) groups to jump on the slightest of rumours and make as much out of it as possible (case in point being homosexuality). Not to defend his actions, of course, but there is an underlying extant issue here that also needs to be addressed. --Errant (chat!) 01:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chugging through the edits; he's been upset about the Santorum article and related fallout for some time. And this seems to be the burnout issue - a topic break might be beneficial. I'd actually suggest the better approach might be to wait for him to come back online - Rob tends to calm down after these incidents. If people feel this is a continual issue then RFC/U is probably the better venue. On the subject of homophobia.. "meh", some of his comments seem quite rational - others seem upset, but more intended to be aimed at his percpetion of an agenda on WP rather than broadly at homosexuals. --Errant (chat!) 01:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well put, with one caveat. Accusing people of having a so-called homosexual agenda is often coded language for something homophobic.  At the very least it can be divisive, as accusing people you don't agree with on Wikipedia of promoting any sort of agenda tends to drive people away from reasoned consensus, and doing so on the basis of a personal identity matter like sexual orientation makes it all the more sensitive. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; I wouldn't call his comments well thought out, at all! In my experience that problem is a zero sum game; whatever you say someone will hate you. I do think there is an "agenda" here - although not necessarily a concious one. I've considered raising it before (back when I still fond BLP work interesting) but, sadly, I think it is still too divisive a topic. I figure make do as best we can till sexuality isn't such a hot button and then see. But there is still a problem. --Errant (chat!) 01:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I certainly know what it's like to get too fired up and do something stupid. A topic ban is far too drastic. A block for a few days would probably be better to allow him to cool off. Also, concur with Collect regarding canvassing. Definitely agree with ErrantX above that editors are far too sensitive in these areas, as I very well know. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree to a block instead if that's the consensus. But something needs to be done. I don't think we should allow vandalistic edits, even if they are being made by long-standing editors. Silver  seren C 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really surprised no one blocked him for this edit war. As Silver seren above says, "The edits are so like vandalism that I can seriously not tell them apart." 28bytes (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk of vandalism is absurd: the appropriate word is frustration. For months, Wikipedia has been used to amplify an attack that associates Santorum's name with shit and sexual lubrication jelly that leaks out of the anus after anal sex (we also have a handy list of images). Youreallycan opposes that, and should be thanked for their efforts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's okay for Youreallycan to vandalize a BLP because he supports your point of view on the neologism issue? Lovely. That really is a sterling example of applying policy. If only I had known that vandalism was acceptable if the user in question was really frustrated! Then maybe I'd have talked to users' therapists before reporting them to AIV for inserting images of penises into articles. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would it be vandalism to add an accurate statement to an article when that statement is just describing the campaign-against-living-person in plain-speak? If the statement is vandalism, what do you think of the use of Wikipedia to promote an attack on a living person? Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some background for those who have not followed the loooong proceedings: A politician (Santorum) expressed absurd views regarding homosexuality; an LGBT activist attacked Santorum by associating his name with anal leakage; activists at Wikipedia amplified that attack by inserting mentions of it in multiple pages; a bunch of editors want to retain the essence of the attacks because it's verifiable/notable/exciting/free-speech. A very small number of editors like Youreallycan oppose the use of Wikipedia to link to attack sites (there's probably a large number of such editors, but they don't want to spend time in such a circus). The community should support editors who oppose BLP violations, even when the target is obnoxious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Should the community also support editors who insert BLP violations because they feel other editors are obnoxious? Because those are the edits we're talking about here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So we should support them no matter what they do to disrupt Wikipedia? That's a ridiculous proposition. He added a BLP violation to the article, this is not alright. Silver  seren C 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that it's ok to use Wikipedia to amplify an attack that associates Santorum's name with shit and sexual lubrication jelly that leaks out of the anus after anal sex, but it's not ok to put that in an article? Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that it's not okay to put that in the BLP about Santorum, that's very clearly a BLP violation. It should be kept in the separate neologism article, which is already linked in Santorum's BLP. Silver  seren C 01:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia. If this is a voilation in the BLP, it is also a violation in the neologism article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is no distinction at WP:BLP about what type of page it applies to, nor should there be. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Silver and Roscelese here. YRC's behavior here was absurdly inappropriate and he knows it.  If I was a sysop, I would block him in a flash for doing this on a BLP, and I'm stunned if he honestly made these edits not expecting a block or topic ban.  There's no way in hell AGF can be stretched to make these edits anything other than absurd. Kevin (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Collect, and per Johnuniq. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the way this discussion is currently going almost a textbook example of WP:FANCLUB? The only difference is that Youreallycan wasn't blocked first. Silver seren C 01:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It's just you, resorting to ad hominem attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * And you just made the ad hominem fallacy fallacy, which is prevalent on Wikipedia, where people are accused of ad hominem attacks when they didn't make one. In linking to the Fanclub essay, i'm saying that all of you are defending Youreallycan without refuting the BLP violations that he made, you're defending him without an argument. Stating that you're doing as such is not an ad hominem, as i'm not attacking you personally, i'm attacking your point of argument. Or your lack of one in this case. Silver  seren C 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The link to the essay was an ad hominem attack. If you'd wanted to 'attack my point of argument', you could have done so. You didn't. Instead you linked to an essay which one has to assume you agreed with, instead - and do you not see the irony here? I stated that I opposed the block, on the grounds cited by Collect and Johnuniq. You imply that I should have given my own arguments. Why didn't you do so in response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I linked to the essay as a general statement that the opposes already made with an argument were either nonsensical ones or ridiculous ones, neither of them refuting the edits made by Youreallycan at all. Thus, the arguments were being made just as a general, "I support Youreallycan", regardless of what he does. As for the arguments made...


 * Collect's argument still doesn't make any sense and I wish he'd clarify it, as he states that following BLP is not vandalism. But adding that sentence to the article wasn't "following BLP". The options are either that it was a BLP violation or, if not, then it had nothing to do with BLP at all. It certainly wasn't following it.


 * And Johnuniq's argument is that, if a user is one that opposes BLP violations, then we should ignore any of the negative, harmful things they do on Wikipedia, because we need people that oppose BLP violations. Is that an argument that you're really supporting? Silver  seren C 02:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. That isn't Johnuniq's argument. That is your miss-characterisation of it. AS for Collect (who I frequently have disagreements with - no fanclub here), I quote: "Using Wikiprocesses to remove those who seek to obey Wikipedia policies is abhorrent". The fundamental policy - WP:BLP - has been repeatedly breached by advocates of the 'santorum neologism', who have used all sorts of excuses to spread this frothy mixture all over Wikipedia. That Rob/YRC reacted in the way he did was unfortunate, but given that the whole neologism campaign was intended from the start as a provocative personal attack, rather than as part of a reasoned debate, I somehow think that Rob's behaviour on Wikipedia is the least of our problems regarding this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should the fact that there are other problems prevent us from sanctioning misbehavior as it deserves? The user vandalized a BLP and has been making personal attacks on LGBT users for months. This is behavior that would merit a block at the very least if it happened in any other topic area, and this one shouldn't be any different. Consider another fraught topic area (indeed, one so fraught that it's under ArbCom): should a user who vandalizes articles on Israeli politicians and attacks Jewish users escape sanction simply because it's a very difficult topic area to deal with? Would we say that that user was just so angry about the representation of Palestinians on Wikipedia that his behavior was justified? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What Rob did wasn't vandalism. It was ill-advised, certainly. As for Rob "making personal attacks on LGBT users for months", I'd ask for evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is not the gay times - get over yourself."
 * "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world"
 * "if thats not pretty enough or promotional enough for them then excuse me. What the issue is is beyond me, they want to link it to R Santorum but they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle."
 * Evidence has already provided above and more will be provided as necessary. As for Rob's edits, they were equivalent to vandalism, as he knows perfectly well that his edits were not acceptable, which is he why he chose to self-revert after disrupting multiple articles and edit warring. He's been blocked 15 times previously for this behavior.  Clearly, he's not willing to change his behavior, so I see no reason for him to continue to be allowed to edit in this topic area. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Silver; I agree with you over these edits. A major problem. Where we disagree, I think, is that rather than seeing someone needing to be sanctioned I see someone who needs a bit of a hand to avoid these sorts of meltdowns. This is not the first occurrence; it happens, he has a break, he comes back all calmed down. As I said above; a topic ban might be the solution here (we should see what Rob thinks, he is usually quite rational about these discussions), but it is worth exploring other options. --Errant (chat!) 01:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that point of view. If everyone was arguing along those lines, i'd be much more sympathetic to it. But i'm having issues with the lack of argument being made here by others in regards to Youreallycan's edits. Silver  seren C 01:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with that. It's my view (admittedly from the sidelines) that this is an entrenched issue, and in one sense Rob, here, is a clashing point. Perhaps it is worth looking at mediating the wider issues as well? --Errant (chat!) 01:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, when did Wikipedia become therapy? What sort of "hand" does he need?  What he needs is a plank to the head and a block until he rethinks what he hopes to accomplish here.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that I agreed with that view, just that I understand it and can sympathize with it. But, sympathize or not, I also understand that, in almost every case, trying to help someone out so they don't do this is futile. It will happen again. It always happens again. This situation right here is yet another "again" in a long line of agains. Silver  seren C 02:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think this isn't really about homosexuality, nor BLP; the real focus of the dispute is between inclusionists and deletionists, a long-standing and wide-ranging dispute over editing philosophy.  For example, just recently I was going back and forth with him at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents; though this started with a Santorum vote, we also discussed a situation where, bizarrely enough, I was claiming BLP and he was saying it didn't apply, because I wanted to keep in the part where people cited by Anders Breivik repudiated any association.  The weird part is, I honestly didn't know Youreallycan was Off2riorob at that time - it's just that, well, he's the one I disagree with the most, or vice versa.  (except maybe Collect...)  As expressed there, he believes in "editorial control" (a phrase he used in that conversation), whereas I believe in a Wikipedia which is sort of like a Google search, just better written and more comprehensive.  Now, maybe he has a right-wing or anti-gay POV that directs his "editorial control"; that's hard to prove and I won't claim to.  But to me, the mere act of having "editorial control" is to abuse it.  It doesn't matter if it's pro-gay, anti-gay, left-wing, right-wing - if you're taking out facts to make an article look "less unseemly", chopping down what should be a comprehensive resource into one that fits your notion of the world, well that's always a bad thing.  I would value a community decision to curb deletionism and defend sourced material - beginning with a strong interpretation of WP:WELLKNOWN - much more than any specific action against Off2riorob/Youreallycan. Wnt (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well said. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Support If somebody can explain to me how is this "following BLP policy"?? Some background about his "strong feelings" regarding this topic:. Any user who made edits like thisthis edit war would be blocked, but he didn't. Obviously, different standards are applied to him.-- В и к и  T   02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this comment in edit summary directed at Roscelese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwind (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)  (note: This is "В и к и"'s account name. Collect (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - What this entire Santorum-in-Wikipedia affair has exposed is a clear and undeniable bias in how members of this project treat BLP articles of politicians. The antics surrounding this...from Cirt's original bad-faith and slanted creation of an article primarily on the non-existent word (atrocious behavior that has extended to both Commons and Wikiquote, I might add) right on down to the present day where a bunch of editors have sought to push the "frothiness" to the spotlight of every Santorum-related article possible.  This kind of amateur-hour bullshit was never allowed to fly in in  Obama article and related spinoff articles, in regards to all the half-baked political opposition out there from birthers to death panels to teleprompters.  Anyone who steps up to preserve both the spirit and the letter of BLP policy...again, p-o-l-i-c-y...should be barnstar'ed, not shunted out of a topc area by wiki-opponents.  If a few toes get stepped on in the process, so be it. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-existent word??? Unencyclopedic maybe, but at least from a corpus linguistics standpoint, it appears to be a perfectly cromulent word. See santorum for multiple citations.  67.117.145.9 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you review the edits in question (as seen above)? They are not in any way "preserving BLP". - SudoGhost 03:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, I did. A bit of frustration when dealing with agenda-driven editors is quite understandable. Tarc (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He is free to feel frustrated. He is not free to take out his frustration on other editors and on readers by vandalizing articles and making personal attacks on users of other sexual orientations. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now we're lobbing accusations of vandalism and the tired repetitions of "OMG HOMOPHOBIA" ? You're concocting misdeeds where none actually occurred in order to get an opponent topic-banned.  The number of times this dance has been tapped in this project is beyond count. Tarc (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, this is a knee-jerk defense of YRC rather than anything based on the evidence linked. Alternately, I'd love to hear you defend this and this as "concocting misdeeds where none actually occurred." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. You're the one defending the linkage of a living person to a made-up name that describes the mixture of feces and KY.  All he's doing is telling you exactly what you're supporting, in the full graphic detail?  Don't like it?  Does it make you squeamish?  Then perhaps you should reconsider the part that you unwittingly play in Savage's anti-Santorum campaign every time you support the santorum-to-Santorum linkage. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that the majority of editors who support Wikipedia's covering a notable neologism need to be sanctioned, then put that in motion on your own, instead of derailing a process because you're still sulking about the community disagreeing with you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Understandable, but not permitted, and exactly why blocks and topic bans exist, to prevent disruption (whether intentional or a result of frustration at other disruptive editing, the end result is the same). The edits were not vandalism, but neither were they "preserving BLP".  Just so it's clear, I don't support a topic ban in any way (while I see a problem here, a topic ban is overkill imo), but that doesn't mean that this is simply an issue of someone abiding by BLP and nothing else. - SudoGhost 06:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think I need to rephrase my general statement in comments with Andy above. Based on further comments made in this discussion, i've realized that, for the most part, this isn't a "I support Youreallycan" issue, it's a "I hate Santorum (neologism)" issue. It's good to know that AN can be just like ANI on occasion. Silver seren C 03:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why mischaracterize stuff? Wikipedia is being used to promote an attack on a politician. Some editors oppose that, and support the efforts of other editors who also oppose the abuse of Wikipedia and BLP. Anyone describing Youreallycan's edits as vandalism or BLP violations has to first explain why the misuse of Wikipedia to promote an attack is not likewise vandalism or a BLP violation. Call it a POINT violation if wanted, but the edits are perfectly defensible as implementing the consensus of the editors who have dominated the campaign-against-living-person articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing the subject. I supported Off2riorob/Youreallycan's position on the RfC.  This discussion, however, is not about my support for Off2riorob/Youreallycan, it's about his disruptive behavior on Wikipedia and his attitude towards homosexuals.  As a heterosexual, I feel that we have a responsibility to step forward and defend our gay brothers and sisters, and to say "never again".  Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough of what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough of allowing Off2riorob/Youreallycan to disrupt Wikipedia. Enough of allowing Off2riorob/Youreallycan to attack and marginalize gay people ("This is not the gay times..."When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal...they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle.")  Enough of allowing Off2riorob/Youreallycan to violate WP:DISRUPT, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and especially Etiquette, which Off2riorob/Youreallycan violates on a daily basis. This is a behavior problem, and a topic ban solves the problem.  Why are you against it? Do we need to mete out a 16th block?  He hasn't changed his behavior from his last block. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So why are we talking about topic-banning Rob on articles related to Rick Santorum/Dan Savage/Santorum etc, rather than on LGBT topics in general? If there is a wider problem, it should be addressed directly, rather than dragging this long-running 'debate' that does little for the reputation of anyone involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, believe me, I think a broader topic ban or a site ban would be more than appropriate. But this is a start. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we please stay on-topic here? Some users feel that Wikipedia shouldn't cover the santorum neologism. If you feel that way, that is lovely for you. It's also irrelevant to this discussion unless you feel that agreeing with your position excuses all other bad behavior, in which case you should really say so explicitly. Because that's what we're talking about here - vandalizing Rick Santorum's biography, attacking LGBT users going back months on a variety of pages and topics. If you feel that anything is acceptable in the service of getting Wikipedia not to cover the neologism, there's not much I can say other than that you disappoint me. If you don't feel that way, then enough with the smokescreen of how YRC is Fighting the Good Fight and Just Has Feelings, just address the behavior at hand. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Homophobic comments such as these are not okay. There are many more examples of antigay attacks by Youreallycan/Off2riorob, as have been pointed out above, and whatever good work he may do does not excuse this persistently poor attitude towards fellow contributors. Shrigley (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you supporting a specific topic ban if you think the problem is more general? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been stated in the proposal, Youreallycan's activity on the santorum substance's articles is uniquely disruptive and has no redeeming value. I would actually prefer a broader topic ban on LGBT-related articles if consensus is for it, but I will first try to assume as much good faith as possible, because I have the hope that giving him the chance to contribute civilly on other articles would be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Shrigley (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing homophobic in those 3 diffs. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that there's a homosexual conspiracy to label everybody as homosexual that he must fight against is not homophobic? Think about how that would be received if he similarly tried to deny the identity of Jews. Oh wait, he does that too. Maybe the topic ban needs to be even broader! Shrigley (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need stronger diffs and proof for your accusations. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For gay people, it's really old and tiring to see homophobes portrayed as victims, whether because they think they're being persecuted for being Christians, defenders of BLPs, or something else. It's best not to say anything that can be construed as homophobic, because if you're even getting close to the line, you're poisoning the editing environment. Shrigley (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * " It's best not to say anything that can be construed as homophobic, because if you're even getting close to the line, you're poisoning the editing environment". So now Rob is on trial for saying something that might be construed as homophobic? Funnily enough, I was reading our (excellent) article on McCarthyism earlier, for entirely unrelated reasons, and somehow this seems rather apposite. The simple fact here is the santorum neologism campaign was/is an attempt to fight dirty, rather than actually confront issues, and as such, those involved are hardly in a position to play the victim card. I abhor bigotry, whether it is racism, sexism, homophobia, or any of the myriad other varieties - but objecting to Wikipedia being used as a soapbox for rather infantile personal attacks isn't homophobia - particularly when such personal attacks seem motivated more by party politics than by the actual issues involved. If Santorum is a homophobe (which, judging by the evidence, seems self-evident), then attack him directly as such - but not on Wikipedia: that isn't what it is for. This idiotic name-calling campaign seems to me to have achieved nothing other than making everyone involved look unsuited for anything but kindergarten. If you wan't to take the moral high ground, get out of the gutter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he's a pedophile, too. Are you done? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the comment about not making comments that can be construed as homophobic is unnecessarily hypothetical. Rob made and continues to make comments that were/are homophobic. If he didn't know that they were, it would be easy to AGF if he apologized for unintentionally giving offense and then changed his behavior, but he continues to make the same comments, often verbatim, after it is pointed out to him that they are offensive. he is intentionally creating an unwelcome environment for users whose sexual orientation does not match his own. As I've already said, this has been going on for a long time and has nothing to do with the santorum neologism - it's just that O2RR/YRC's position on the santorum neologism apparently makes some users think that everything else he does is shiny and beautiful, even if it's vandalizing Rick Santorum or making personal attacks on other users. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two questions. Firstly, how do you know what Rob's sexual orientation is? And secondly, are you suggesting that Wikipedia should treat contributors differently based on their sexual orientation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on Rob's long history of offensive comments about LGBT people, I believe I can make a reasonable guess that he is not LGBT, and no, I would also support sanctions if he had repeatedly (eg.) suggested that heterosexuals were forming a conspiracy to edit articles, made derogatory references to practices he perceived as being exclusive to heterosexuals, or said that heterosexuals were immature/backward/in a different world from himself. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I'll make a 'reasonable guess' too. You wouldn't... Why should my guess be less valid than yours? Anyway, this whole 'neologism' campaign has been based on nothing other than provocative name-calling from the start, and if people react badly to such infantilism, why should we hold them more accountable than those who decided to use Wikipedia for a soapbox in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think the behavior of other users has crossed the line, please file a report on it rather than derailing this one because you share the offending user's views. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of the "offending user's views" do you think I share? That Wikipedia has been abused as a soapbox? Yup, I'll plead guilty to that. As for the rest, we haven't had a trial yet, so the 'guilty' verdict seems premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does cross the line to try to censor notable subjects from Wikipedia while accusing those who support inclusion of acting in bad faith to further an agenda. AndyTheGrump, from what I have seen of your efforts elsewhere you have been strident in objecting to what you consider the introduction of identity politics into the encyclopedia.  It's fine to disagree with the content, but it is not fine to accuse those who see encyclopedic value in the subject of pursuing personal agendas.  Some homophobes may be gay, who cares?  If a comment is hurtful to reasonable people who identify as LGBT and who aren't just eggshell skulled or taking mock offense, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation or even the intent in the heart of hearts is of the person making the offensive comment.  One mistake is excusable, but if they won't stop making homophobic comments when asked to stop, they lose that excuse. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think in places this discussion has strayed away from making a case for WP:disruptive editing into a sort of political correctness that we really shouldn't be trying to enforce. Yes, I remember ArbCom made some unfortunate advances in that direction in the Noleander case, but still, a few hints of anti-gay sentiment are no reason to sanction an editor.  To dismiss his !votes in an issue, maybe, if you don't think he's being objective in such a case, but still, we all have our opinions about things.
 * The real issue the OP raises here is that Off2riorob/Youreallycan does feel rather comfortable reaching for the revert button; that's not new. In this case, it's not the usual bit about deleting sourced material under an expansive notion of BLP, but rather to add a rough way of saying things.  Wikipedia articles aren't censored, but the source at the end of the sentence (like Savage's original column) says "lube and fecal matter", not "shit".  What's odd is that for some time people were tiptoeing around the precise phrase under BLP-related justifications, and now he's going the other direction instead.  I didn't follow the context and I suspect he was trying to make a WP:POINT here, perhaps in relation to the second to last edit before he started, which changed the term "sodomy" introduced by Eustress a week previously with suppression of what she moved to the footnote by Collect shortly thereafter.  In general I think it's best to follow what the source actually says, neither sugar-coating what it says nor coarsening it for shock value; in this case if anything I'm actually rather sympathetic to not detailing the whole definition word for word because it's not really about what Santorum said or did but just some columnist.  From the history it looks like the edit warring was enough to get the article full-protected within a day, and one way or another, that shouldn't be a permanent state of affairs.  Which means that people have to reassure themselves, one way or another, that he's not going to pull something like this again once it is unprotected. Wnt (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, Rob strongly opposed including the (quoted, non-slangy) definition of santorum in the article, so the absolute most charitable way to describe his recent edits would be WP:POINT (deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). Of course, we can't be so charitable, because he also stated that he did it in order to anger LGBT users. As for your other comments, can you please explain how a consistent pattern of attacks on LGBT editors going back for months is "a few hints of anti-gay sentiment"? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With any minority group there is some distinction between those who object to perceived "activism" that they disapprove of, and those who are simply bigoted against the group. Not always a large distinction, but one which I'd want to see better diffs for before making.  To make an analogy, many Americans are annoyed with Zionism, AIPAC, aid to Israel, and the controversies that country gets us involved with, but honestly do not view this to be "anti-Semitic".  Also, besides lacking proof, there's also the question of what proving him to be anti-gay would actually accomplish.  Wikipedia doesn't have a policy mandating nondiscriminatory beliefs, only a general requirement that editors not be disruptive or interfere with creation of neutral articles.  This evidence more directly concerns these actual policies than the motive involved. Wnt (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is unsound and inaccurate. Recent Gallup polls taken in early 2012 show that the majority of Americans support Israel, in the 70% range, and that's clearly reflected by foreign policy. Your assertion that "many Americans are annoyed with Israel" isn't supported by the facts. Furthermore, your analogy is hopelessly flawed, as Jews have equality under the law and homosexuals do not. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, we've run off topic here. "Many" <> "most", and we're talking about equality under (a nonexistent) policy, not the law of some country or other which may or may not. Wnt (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I find the comments cited, going back over both accounts, to be disturbing, his mindset in editing in this topic does not seem to be conducive towards working well with others.  -- Jayron  32  05:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If he's really the homophobic, Jew-hating Nazi, then bring stronger diffs to prove it and site-ban him. The topic ban looks like nothing more than "this guy keeps us from bashing Santorum". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, have you not looked at his edits that prompted this thread? How the hell does making those edits on Rick Santorum's article equate to "this guy keeps us from bashing Santorum"?  These aren't the edits of some stalwart BLP defender, they are the edits of someone who is apparently way too emotionally invested in this area to follow even basic site policies. Kevin (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do stop complaining about how debates on this site don't go the way you want and actually look at the diffs of him vandalizing BLP material and attacking LGBT editors. Protecting a user with a long history of misbehavior is a petty and spiteful way to get back at the community for not supporting your position. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "My position" being what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * Comment; I know I have a very different, much less restrictive view on BLP than Youreallycan, so I'm somewhat biased towards finding a reason to topic ban him, but I'd like to hear from him first. Sometimes people lose their shit, and I'd rather push for sanctions based on someone's typical behavior, not their worst few moments.  However, I'll also say that screaming "BLP BLP" at the top of your lungs doesn't obviate the need to present an argument backing your position up beyond a vague wave, nor does it automatically make other people's positions BLP violations; as I've said elsewhere, BLP isn't something to bludgeon other users in an argument with, and it shouldn't be used as one.   The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 07:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The suggested topic ban is one that I see as a single step in the right direction. In my opinion, the topic ban should encompass all LGBT topics and related bits. I am convinced that YRC/O2RR is unable to separate his Wikipedia work from his strong opinions against gays. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- this editor is manifestly unable to contribute productively in this area, with obvious and repeated violations of WP:POINT and WP:EW. Anyone not seeing a problem in the diffs presented above is implicitly enabling other editors to conduct themselves similarly, and we really don't need that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, and not necessarily because of the "shit" edits, though those sure aren't the best behavior I've ever seen. However, what I see going on here that's most concerning is a behavior that's much more pernicious and harmful&mdash;crying BLP. Even with just a couple of quick basic searches, I was able to find tons of high quality sources covering the "santorum" neologism and controversy at length and over quite some time. So the information is not unsourced or poorly sourced, it's not some flash in the pan thing that was gone as soon as it was there, and it's not private. The only thing left is if it's being given undue weight&mdash;and if editors disagree in good faith, that's a normal NPOV discussion, not a BLP one. Using cries of "BLP! BLP!" to silence good-faith disagreement on appropriate weight is not acceptable. Considering the exceptional weight given to the BLP policy, we must apply it carefully, and never to whitewash or end discussion of well-sourced information's inclusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I am not particularly familiar with the neologism here, it seems to me that this involves more than the editor's conduct, but a dispute about which lines have been drawn in the sand. Suggest an RfC/U if you are so inclined.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the diffs above showing the conduct? Is that conduct okay?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * YRC's conduct is inappropriate whether it occurs in isolation or whether it is part of a larger problem that would entail sanctions on more than one user. Taking this view is actually counterproductive: if we can't agree to sanction an editor for the most blatant kind of misbehavior (pointily inserting vulgarity into BLPs because he believed it would make LGBT users angry, months of personal attacks) then what precedent are we supposed to cite in the hypothetical larger case you would like to see held? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Edits like are factual, I think. The hair splitting distinction between "shit" and "fecal matter" debated above is not something over which someone should be handed a topic ban. Even if Youreallycan is doing them as some sort of WP:POINT violation with respect to his own beliefs, I don't see the harm to Wikipedia. Whether an accurate description of that issue is WP:DUE or whether it should be couched in vagueness and euphemisms is an editorial decision normally taken by consensus. If the consensus against the description has been already established (I don't know, the talk page is to tl;dnr) then at best a 3RR 24th block is warranted for that. Articles on politics are contentious. See for example Requests for comment/Shakehandsman. For the larger issues, e.g. claims of homophobic agenda, take it to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a POINT violation, but it was also done for the express purpose of pissing off LGBT users, as shown in diffs elsewhere in the thread, and that shows that YRC just can't edit neutrally when LGBT issues are concerned. Also shown by the long history of homophobic diffs, of course. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not seen the compelling evidence of a "long history of homophobic diffs" that you claim exists. Please take this case to ArbCom, or at least to a RfC/U, because this noticeboard format is unsuitable for discussing evidence like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you believe that AN is not the appropriate venue to discuss a topic ban? Unless I'm mistaken, AN often imposes topic bans. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have just wasted an hour of my life reading the diffs in this thread. There is no homophobia represented there. They all unambiguously represent anti-activism. Would all you activists please just go away and stop trying to use this encyclopedia to push political agendas? --Anthonyhcole (talk)
 * Ah yes, it was just anti-activism when he said that LGBT people were immature and backwards. I'll remember that excuse if I ever forget myself so far as to call Jews retarded children, because of course it's just in opposition to the activism in the I/P topic area. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Diff for "LGBT people were immature and backwards"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Paraphrase of a comment in this discussion (let me know if you can't find it and I'll hunt for the diff, argh). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my point above about the presentation of evidence in this case. The few diffs shown are here are not compelling that he is a long-term homophobic POV pusher. Too much handwaving involved here. I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exits, but that it just hasn't been presented here. In the Muhammad images case, the evidence that got Ludwigs2 sanctioned was better presented in the Arbitration format. On AN[I], practically the same evidence resulted in no action. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point about an evidence-commentary format being helpful, but I'm not sure that that's a reason to ignore a long pattern of misbehavior since we are here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment may leave the impression that you are assuming bad faith about the intentions of the previously uninvolved editors who are simply unaware of this "long pattern of misbehavior" you assert. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which and why? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment at 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC) because it uses the word "ignore". You are implying that editors here are aware of a pattern of homophobia, but are just refusing to pay attention to it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was in reference to your comments specifically - I got the impression that you acknowledged that YRC had a long history of on-wiki homophobia, but believed that the AN format was preventing us from dealing with it productively and thus that we should end the discussion. Is that the case? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please keep this discussion open until at least late next week, as the majority of editors in the states are offline enjoying a three-day holiday weekend. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is actually an argument for closing the thread before that happens. We don't need more editors in this discussion who make wiki decisions based on their high level of involvement in USA politics. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I must strongly disagree with your opinion. Most Americans are not involved in politics at all, and many non-Americans live and work in the states. Forgive me for saying this, but it sounds like you know very little about the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, with reluctance. When Off2riorob changed his username after a previous controversial episode (related to this topic, if I remember rightly), I advised him to chill out, cool down and step away from topics that get him worked up. He responded positively so it's disappointing to see the same problems recurring in the same topic area. If he's getting so agitated by a topic that he can't exercise good judgement in editing there, he really needs to refocus and do something else - I can absolutely relate to that as I've been in the same situation. So if he's not willing to voluntarily withdraw from the Savage/Santorum topic area, I'm afraid a topic ban is the last resort. Prioryman (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I looked at You/Rob's block log and it is no better nor no worse than many of his accusers. For example, going back to Dec-2010, both user:Binksternet a-certain-unnamed-editor and You/Rob have 3 blocks each. Where is Binksternet's a-certain-editor-who-shall-rename-nameless-until-further-notice's topic ban proposal? Banning should only be used when lesser sanctions have been exhausted. If he was truly as disruptive as his accusers claim, why only 3 blocks in over a year? And what about his accusers? Their participation here is against policy. Per WP:CBAN:
 * Involved editors should identify themselves and recuse themselves from this discussion. – Lionel (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So I see you've switched from trying to shun me to suggesting a topic ban for me. What topic would that be, Lionelt? What topic is it that I cannot edit neutrally? I hope you spend many happy hours trying to find one. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. I forgot about the shunning. Thanks for the reminding me! I owe you. – Lionel (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Lionelt, you're not exactly the least involved user here, but this also has nothing to do with the discussion - if you think Binksternet should be topic-banned (from what topic area???) then start a new thread, rather than introducing yet more total irrelevancy into what is supposed to be a serious process. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. The problem is not blatant homophobia.  The issue is playing "BLP" card as a means of winning a content dispute, when the relevant policy to cite is really NPOV.  This is disruptive and must be stopped, but it is a result beyond the reach of this thread because the wrong thing has been complained about.  I am concerned that there are in fact activists using Wikipedia to advance agendas, and that editors should be able to confront activism without being labeled homophobic, racist, or whatever.  Two wrongs don't make it right. Jehochman Talk 10:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but a right can help correct a wrong. If topic-banning Rob will cut down on the offensiveness and disruption we've seen in the past few days, it might not be enough, but it would create a safer editing environment for the users Rob has spent months attacking and prevent him from vandalizing more articles in this topic area. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Youreallycan claimed that anal sex "referred" to the homosexual lifestyle. However, statistically speaking, homosexuals have anal sex far less than heterosexuals, and according to some studies, gay men appear to prefer fellatio instead.  To quote Tristan Taormino, "The idea that all gay men and only gay men have anal sex—one that the Religious Right would like us to believe—is simply not supported.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that any single group defined by sexual orientation has a great deal more anal sex than any other group."  I believe that Taormino's comments are supported by good data. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that your proof he is homophobic? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is proof that he's ignorant. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I know you're only trying to help WP here - but what you are doing is coming off strongly as activism. And not good activism either. Comments such as As a heterosexual, I feel that we have a responsibility to step forward and defend our gay brothers and sisters, and to say "never again" are not only patronising but downright worrying as to your agenda here. I'm far from unfamiliar with homophobia and from the comments of Robs you have posted I'd say he is anti-activist, no anti-gay. On the other hand your comments are exactly the form of cheer leading a lot of LGBT activists are now trying to get you all to drop - it just re-enforces the stereotype. Hope that makes sense. --Errant (chat!) 11:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense, as 1) I'm not a communist activist, and 2) I've previously complained about activists using the Santorum neologism "to harass a BLP" (see Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Archive_6) As for saying "never again", if you think one has to be an activist to say that, then you are confused about what it means.  I'm curious what my "worrying" agenda is supposed to be here, beyond proposing a topic ban. Please tell me what's on my agenda so I can update it. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed the key part of your quote that stands at issue. I will quote a local activist here, who is better at explaining the problem you've run into; "There is a worrying growth of heterosexuals jumping on the bandwagon of gay activism, often claiming it in solidarity. Of course that's not unappreciated. But it often feels patronising, they usually miss the key issues and more than anything it makes us feel different again. These people ask "what can I do to help", and the answer is do your own thing, for yourself, and the world will grow a better place. I don't need to be defended." On to that you've added a slogan with the misfortune of being currently associated with a right wing group... which is more than a bit confusing! --Errant (chat!) 11:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we see the world vastly differently, and you've completely misunderstood/misinterpreted my comments. It is not "associated" with a right wing group, but it may be used by one.  The "slogan" has been used in almost every context, and is actually more associated with the LGBT community in the present day, particularly in terms of not being a victim.  In studying countercultural movements, you run across it quite a bit.  Here's one of many uses: "Pride, we remember, began as a protest, a collective "never again" heard one year after a raid on New York's Stonewall Inn bar turned into a riot of resistance, a demand for fair and equal treatment." Forgive me, but I've never heard anyone complain about heterosexuals "jumping" on a gay rights bandwagon, nor could I possibly comprehend what that means.  It must be a new concept that I'm not familiar with, and it sounds pretty terrible. Nobody "owns" the bandwagon of equality that is guaranteed to every human being. Anyone who thinks they do is seriously deluded. Gay rights is equal rights. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to show you how patronising your comments can appear to your "gay brothers and sisters"; that you've taken this argument all the way through to equality and finished with the ever-so-cheerleader "Gay rights is equal rights" is exactly a demonstration of the issue at hand. It's sad that we have to have these discussions in such a politically charged context; one day when we have realistic equality and trust then perhaps it will be different. Till then it just re-inforces my view that I shouldn't get involved in such topics. *sad face* --Errant (chat!) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that there's no more patronizing comments on planet Earth than "I'm trying to show you..." What you still don't understand is that real human beings have gay brothers and sisters.  I'm afraid you are reading my words at a different level of literalism than the ones I'm actually writing.  This kind of literary disconnect is quite common on Wikipedia and is best handled, not by trying to show someone something, but by asking questions.  In any case, feel free to use my talk page to continue this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

 * Oppose per Tarc, Jehochman above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consider addressing the criticisms of Tarc's and Jehochman's arguments, which include, but are not limited to, the fact that they're whitewashing clear evidence of vandalism and personal attacks because they support his editing position. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal. I do think that YRC should take it easy on the editing, but he has been a constructive user and a model contributor to the BLP noticeboard.  Nothing in the diffs listed above proves homophobic behaviour.  A topic ban is not warranted. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When a user begins vandalizing BLP articles and begins (or rather, continues) attacking users based on their sexual orientation, he can no longer be said to be a constructive user or a model contributor. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there is some very pointy behavior linked above, it looks this is actually part of a very long, complicated dispute so I think an RFC/U (or an Arbcom case, for that matter) would be a better idea than an immediate topic ban. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are they mutually exclusive? The behavior is obviously disruptive and, based on past evidence, seems likely to continue; why should we let it go on, creating an unsafe environment for editors and lower-quality articles for readers, because we can't do everything at once? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support a topic ban. I'm not gay and have no dog in this fight, but anyone who says vilely homophobic things like "This is not the gay times - get over yourself" or "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world" is no different than a racial bigot or an anti-Semite. Imagine him saying, "This is not the Jew times - get over yourself" or "When the African-American segment matures...they will have progressed into my world." Need I add the bigoted codeword "lifestyle" he uses elsewhere, when homosexuality is biologically based and not a choice? A person making these kinds of homophobic comments is soapboxing at the very least and spreading bigotry in the veiled guise of "Hey, I'm just tellin' it like it is." No. He's not. He's spreading homophobic vitriol, and that is not a neutral position.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: A topic ban on all topics related to LGBT is appropriate and long overdue considering this editor's demonstrated inability to contribute constructively to articles in this topic area because of a deep antipathy to the subject. He has clearly acted in bad faith. I've removed many POV nationalistic, rascist, religious, and sexuality-related edits from articles, most of them vile and hateful, but I was particularly taken aback by this editor's recently thrice-added edit summary and defense, which revealed that the editor's approach to the subject was purely and strongly viceral and not amenable to rational treatment of the subject. I've rarely seen such purely visceral comments, even from fly-by IP trolls. What's most disturbing here is that this is not a newbie editor by a long shot, and that, in spite of a long history of bigotted remarks, he has still been allowed to edit in this topic area. Tenebrae makes a good point when he says he doubts that similar rascist or anti-semitic remarks would never have been tolerated. The editor is clearly abusing the project to advertise his anti-LGBT views, and clearly has no intention to stop. An indefinite topic-ban on LGBT related articles, including politics, seems the most lenient solution to the problem. Other editors have been community-banned for much less, and I would gladly vote for that if it were an option. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Generally per Johnuniq, Tarc, Jehochman, and AndyTheGrump/McCarthyism; also agree with Lionel that users who have an obvious direct involvement should be disregarded if they continue to comment here. I didn't check all the edits linked above, but the ones I saw certainly indicate edit-warring and poor taste – feces is probably more encyclopedic than shit – but not any vandalism, disruption or BLP violations. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, those who oppose Rob's vandalism shouldn't comment, only those who support it? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not vandalism. Nobody Ent 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In your somewhat strange interpretation of the English language, what part of the phrase "[those] who have an obvious direct involvement" sounds like "those who oppose [what they believe to be] Rob's vandalism"? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And what constitutes direct involvement? If you're going to rattle off half a dozen users whose comments you support who have been involved in this dispute for months, and then turn around and call for people whose involvement has been slight and tangential to be ignored, it's not hard to figure out that this is about ideological positions rather than prior involvement. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide diffs indicating how I've "been involved in this dispute for months"? I've no recollection of any significant involvement at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like "half a dozen," it was slightly an exaggeration; he didn't name six users, not all have been involved in the long term, although he named nearly half a dozen and some have been involved for a long time. Sorry for not being clearer! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet strangely enough, neither Andy nor any of the other three members of that half-dozen were indicated by the diffs above as being involved in YRC's edit war that purportedly triggered this complaint. Wonder who was?


 * It's hardly unusual for ideologues to view anyone who disagrees with them as being driven by ideology. And technically, they may be correct. My position here could, I suppose, be attributed to ideology; the ideology that opposes using Wikipedia to advance personal or group positions – political, religious, social or other. The two people I agreed with above whose edits I've followed most closely seem dedicated to the same ideology, whether the article be Barack Obama, George W. Bush, George Soros, or Sheldon Adelson (examples; no actual edits to each implied). It's the observation of neutrality over time that makes me feel their opinions are worth considering. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * YRC's edit war triggered this complaint because it was vandalism on a BLP which was intended and carried out in a disruptive fashion. But do go on complaining about me because I disagree with your interpretation of policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The political activism surrounding all this is getting truly tiring. Hopefully this all dies down as soon as we find out that Santorum won't be the candidate for the next US election. --Conti|✉ 19:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose on what grounds? It's great that you have Feelings about activism, but that's not really relevant to the diffs presented, which show YRC vandalizing a BLP to make a point and stick it to users whose sexual orientation differs from his own. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are going to topic ban everyone who tries to get the "alternative" definition of the word into one of our articles, we'd have to topic ban a lot more people than just him. :) --Conti|✉ 22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean? I'm aware that there has been a debate as to whether to include the definition, but as far as I know, only YRC/Rob has a. inserted the text in question, b. done it after voting against including the defintion in order to make a point, or c. stated the intention in doing it to anger LGBT users. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's two more users who inserted the definition: . I'm pretty darn sure there are more. Either they all are BLP violations, or none of them are. --Conti|✉ 23:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I referred to the text in question and I referred to it for a reason. Do you really see no difference between a sourced quote of the actual definition and a vulgar paraphrase meant to offend? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't the neologism vulgar, and meant to offend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Without conceding an answer to your question, which is not relevant, is Rob's text copiously reliably-sourced in the way the neologism is? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say it was a reliably-sourced paraphrase of an obnoxious personal attack. And yes, the fact that people have subverted Wikipedia policy in order to repeatedly add this personal attack is highly relevant. If you don't like people talking about 'fecal matter' in honest terms, don't spread it all over Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll say to you the same thing I said to F&H: get back to me when you've succeeded in changing all instances of "feces" in Human parasites to "shit" without being blocked. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would I wan't to do that? Of course if I wanted to be Pointy, I could change them all to - presumably you wouldn't object... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the "sourced quote" is a vulgar definition meant to offend, no I don't see a difference. As I said, I'm tired of this, and I'm tired of playing this game. The whole "alternative definition" thing has one goal: To attack and insult a political opponent. There are undeniably people out there that want to attack and insult that political opponent here on Wikipedia under the pretense of "neutral editing". And that's getting a tad bit annoying. --Conti|✉ 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Conti, Jehochman, Tom Harrison, Anthonyhcole et al. -- J N  466  20:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you care to respond to any of the criticism of their arguments? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose — Ched : ?  21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTEs are typically ignored. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, those making accusations of vandalism would really benefit from reading and understanding WP:VAND. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true -- the edits are not vandalism -- they are WP:POINT (aka disruptive). Apparently that's okay, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:NOT about a user adding vulgar unsourced language to a BLP because he thinks it will make people of other sexual orientations angry. That seems to be the definition of vandalism, actually. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So... "the shit and sexual lubrication jelly that leaks out of the anus after anal sex" is unsourced, but "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is not? Really? Is there a new rule at Wikipedia that all content must be a direct quote, no more paraphrasing allowed? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, F&H. Why don't you go to, say, Human parasites and tell me how editors there handle your complaint that you're totally just paraphrasing when you substitute "shit" for all instances of "feces"? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sorry this dramha is all in my name - excuse me for that - I edit many/all topics in dispute, many thousands of edits in disputes, in defense of a WP:NPOV in regard to living people WP:BLP - I lost it on the Santorum issue, Rick Santorum has been/is basically under attack at wikipedia and has been for months, it may well be his own fault but BLP protects irrispective of that. I agree to/won't edit the related articles again - the Neologism and the R Santorum BLP, broader restrictions than that I would object to - and see no need for - I have no topic focus at all, and basically just assess and work all and any articles as they arise. - I need a break from Santorum thats for sure - in fact I am having a wikibreak from the rest of February so as to freshen up - I have only glimpsed the comments here so as not to take them personally. I hope this statement, apology, is enough to close this thread down so as users can get back to more creative situations. You  really  can  21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That will certainly defuse the situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can't speak for everyone but IMO that's very collegial and mature of you.  If you take a chill break and decide for yourself when you're ready to return, I'll be on the welcome back committee.  Hope this doesn't sound like unwanted advice, but knowing where the buttons are to push that make some people upset doesn't make it a good idea to push them.  This "gay agenda" thing does strike a nerve for many, and you can make the exact same point without pushing that button and maybe get them to actually listen.  Cheers,  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary. The community soundly rejects this attempt by Viriditis and his cohorts to censure an ideological opponent. I think I can summarize the community's position on this issue: we do not ban editors just because they piss off an ideological group. Bans are based on misconduct, not unpopularity. Closing admin has my permission to use my comment in their official closing decision. – Lionel (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The community has not soundly rejected anything, as most people are on a three-day holiday vacation. Nor has this been an attempt by myself, as I did not initiate this topic ban on this board, nor have I worked with or coordinated with anyone else to do it.  And, I don't think you can accurately summarize the community's position on this or any other issue, as the discussion shows that there is broad general agreement that Youreallycan's behavior was a form of misconduct.  Furthemore, I have not taken a single "popular" position in this discussion.  In fact, most of the positions I take and will continue to take, remain totally unpopular, and I hope that remains the case in the near future.  If you have trouble understanding that statement, then you also have trouble understanding the philosophical underpinnings of what it means to be "popular". Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Mostly per Tarc. I think Yrc's edits were well meaning - to enforce BLP standards on the relevant articles, though he strayed into some WP:POINT territory, apparently out of frustration. I think he needs a breather from this particular issue, but it seems like he's going to do that anyway. Volunteer Marek 22:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to close: Youreallycan has agreed to voluntarily take a permanent break from the troublesome set of articles. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NOT a permanent break. He can return when he deems appropriate. – Lionel (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a permanent, voluntary break per his own words. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban, and support closure of discussion, as moot, given YRC/Rob's comment. I do, however, think that there's a lot for him to think about, as there are numerous legitimate concerns that have been raised here. I'd also like to make a suggestion: short of a topic ban, it might be a good idea for a (self-imposed, initially) editing restriction to not more than one or two edits per day to LGBT-related pages, broadly defined. That way, there would be less of a chance of things escalating to where a "lose it" situation arises. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "less of a chance of things escalating to where a "lose it" situation"? Have you been reading the same thread that I have? There is no chance of this escalating. The community has soundly rejected the Topic Ban proposal, the premise it is based upon, and all of the arguments in Support. IOW Snow Oppose. – Lionel (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The community has not soundly rejected anything. The United States is in the middle of a three-day holiday weekend, and most people are on vacation.  If you can't recognize the concerns of your fellow editors and meet them in the middle, and agree that there are valid concerns that need to be addressed, then I'm afraid you've taken nothing from this discussion that would help you understand the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Obviously YRC is frustrated with the political motivations behind the general Savage campaign to trash Santorum being used on WP, as are many of us.  However, that does not suggest that he be topic banned as such.  Unforutunately, however, this method seems to be a familiar refrain on WP.  Get opposing views blocked so you no longer have to deal with them in the future.  In general, the political activism regarding this and now the Romney smear campaign being propagated on WP are extrememly distressing.  Arzel (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The constant extremist attempts here to smear political candidates is shameful for wikipedia, which alleges to have a "neutral point of view". The Santorum stuff reminds me of the various smears against both Palin and Obama, 3-4 years ago, whose articles I helped defend and was pilloried for it, which is why I don't edit politicians' articles anymore. Wikipedia's record on this stuff is shameful, and further damages our credibility with the reading public. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Obama and Palin subject areas have their own cluster of fringe-y derogatory subtopics that, like the spreadingsantorum site, are notable enough for their own article but too minor or irrelevant to even mention in the main biography. As here, you had periodic attempts on the one hand to add coverage and wikilinks to the main article, and on the other you had soapboxing and accusations that the very existence of these sub-articles was a disgrace representing everything wrong with Wikipedia.  One big difference is that there, the long-term effort to add fringe stuff to discredit Obama was found largely to be the work of several editors running sock farms.  It was they, not the mainstream Wikipedians, who were defacing the article and leading one strident attack after another on the regular editors.  Bugs, you and a few others got into trouble there not for being on the right side of the content and sock battle but for being boisterously and hot-headedly so.  We can talk about content questions all day long, but when editors deface articles to make a point and accuse each other of being here to promote their politics rather than edit articles we have a problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob): Motion to close
Youreallycan has agreed to voluntarily take a permanent break from the troublesome set of articles per his own words: "I agree to/won't edit the related articles again - the Neologism and the R Santorum BLP". Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * May I ask then why the article Rick Santorum was fully protected for three days, two days to go, without any warning that I have seen nor any discussion? I'm told it was because of Rob's edits, which makes less than no sense to me - since when do we lock an article because one editor is editing in a manner that someone objects to? Is this not overkill?  See this exchange. Request a return to semi-protection, and/or a coherent explanation of why the page is suddenly locked. Tvoz / talk 02:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I have several theories, most of which involve collusion, so I'll keep them to myself at this time.  However, it is clear that the protection rationale was totally gamed to coincide with the the three-day holiday weekend in the states. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No rationale was even given, no warning, and no explanation. Will someone lift it please? (I know this is not the proper forum for requesting unprotect, but I don't want to be accused of forum shopping.) This whole thing is very disturbing - I am not commenting here now on the edits, as I haven't looked closely at them, but I am saying that using full protection in this way is highly suspect and should be reversed immediately. Tvoz / talk 03:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not permanent What YRC said is not relevant as the consensus here is clear: the community does not like activists misusing the encyclopedia, and there is no suggestion that YRC is under any pressure to take a break, or that any break has some kind of time constraint. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said it was permanent?  Please point me to the place on the article talk page where this lockdown is explained, and the editors counseled about what they need to resolve to get this back to semi-protection. I asked this question on the talk page and was told that the problem was one editor's "vulgar comments" - that is presumably YRC. If that is the reason, then why was he not blocked, with the page left alone at semi?  If the consensus is that he is acting as some kind of activist, and his statement that he would take a break from these pages not enough for the community, then give him a temporary block, or topic ban him or do whatever you think is needed to that editor.     Someone else then said it was "multiple editors who were edit-warring". If so, where is the warning to the editors involved? If there are other "activists misusing the encyclopedia" then they should also be warned and blocked.  You don't just swoop down onto a page like this and fully protect it for three days with a cryptic edit summary and no real explanation or counseling on how to best go about getting whatever it is worked out.  It's wrong, and seeing as this is the page of a presidential candidate, I would expect extra caution to be taken. There are many eyes on that article - and clearly some of them are admins, as admins have participated in some discussions there - so why the thundering silence?  Tvoz / talk 09:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see I misunderstood Johnuniq's "not permanent" comment about the community not liking activists misusing the encyclopedia, and thought it was in response to the related question about why the page was fully protected instead of the editor warned/blocked - I see that he was talking about whether a topic ban for YRC would be permanent, not about the page protection. Sorry for the confusion. Tvoz / talk 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not see "permanent" nor do I see any basis for any assertion that concensus was for any topic ban here. Anyone closing should note that YRC has indicated that he intends to take a "break" from the area where most of the noise has been coming from, but that is all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When half the experienced editors and admins on a page feel you should be banned for and the other half don't, you're on notice that something has to change. That's hardly a ringing endorsement, and if you look at the way people divided into camps here accusing each other of political agendas it's all the more troubling.  The noise YRC averted by backing away is that of a train wreck that would surely have gone to an RfC/U or Arbcom.  That's likely not happening now, but there's no guarantee of a positive outcome if this comes up again.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India
Hi, i have created a WikiProject Mangalore and would like to add it to this template. However it is protected and only administrators can edit it. Its maintainer is pissed off at me, because i was a bit impatient and opined that he was ignoring my request. Refer this. He reprimanded me for it and suggested that i ask elsewhere. As such, i would appreciate it if someone would do it for me. Thanks. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me!   23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was about to unprotect this but after checking the Wikiproject templates for United States, Germany and France I noticed they were all the same, and presumably most other country wikiprojects. Why is it necessary to fully protect these?  They are only talk page headers, never in article space.  In my opinion, no more than semi-protection is justified and then only if they are being heavily hit with vandalism.  Spinning  Spark  08:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Jarry1250's tool, the India template has 87,432 transclusions, and I suspect that similar templates for other major country projects would have comparable numbers. These are definitely heavily used templates; the template section of WP:PP refers to protecting templates because vandalism to one might affect "hundreds of other pages" — if less than a thousand transclusions can justify protection, over 87,000 definitely should get it.  Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So maybe semi-protection, but I feel uncomfortable with full protection. The kind of vandalism you speak of is rare from confirmed users.  WP:PP also says "Therefore, they are frequently semi- or fully protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors."  They are on talk pages and not highly visible to our readers and do not contain material that is likely to be a BLP or other similar issue.  Just looking at the history of the US template, it was unprotected September 2010 on the grounds that "Consensus at ANI seems to be that protection should not be applied, despite high level of transclusions" but subsequently semi-protected and later fully protected with no other rationale than "highly visible template" with apparently no intervening problematic edits that could have triggered this action.  Spinning  Spark  20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The context for the September 2010 protection, if I remember rightly, was that HJ Mitchell used a semiautomated process to protect all templates that had more than a certain number of transclusions, and people thought that it went too far because it protected templates that were often updated by non-admins, such as Template:NRHP date for lists/dates. I think the point was that we should apply heavily-used-template protections individually; if so, individual protections like this or like the US template would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think full protection is definitely appropriate in cases like this. To see the havoc that can be caused by template hacking, see WP:ANI--it involved invisible clickjacking that took the user to site with anti-Semitism and possible malware. And I know this has happened before.  Someone whose doing something that nefarious won't be bothered by the trivial amount of effort needed to get autoconfirmed. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged accusation against an administrator
As the admin user:Salvio giuliano protected the article, and the stated rationale was theirs, I cannot see Viriditas' remark as anything other than a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA upon Salvio. – Lionel (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We should act in a way to minimize disputes and avoid personal feuds. How does this post accomplish that?  How about leaving a friendly note for the user whose behavior concerns you.  Perhaps they don't understand how others perceive their comments.  If that doesn't work, you could go to WP:WQA for assistance.  There is nothing here for any administrator to do, other than give you some advice, which will probably be similar to mine.  I hope this helps.  Jehochman Talk 03:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see Salvio giuliano's name anywhere in the comment Lionel took out of context of another discussion. Lionel, could I ask you to please get out of my bedroom, and my mind?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Jehochman, not sure what you think a "friendly note" would accomplish here. Viriditas isn't one of our more jovial editors.  (I don't think V would disagree with this.)  WQA is pointless as you probably know.
 * @Viriditas Come on man, he quoted you, just because you didn't name names doesn't mean what you said (or insinuated) is vague. Own up or strike. Arkon (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Notified Salvo, please do this next time. --Rschen7754 04:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to notify him since no such accusation has been made. Lionel has an overactive imagination which would be put to better use on articles that could use his creative touch and flair for fiction.  I would, however, appreciate it if Lionel would discuss such things with me first before pretending to be able to read my mind again in the future.  Perhaps we will have another opportunity to discuss such things very soon. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK Viriditas. "Overactive imagination"? When you referred to "protection rationale" in response to Tvoz's remark about Rick Santorum, were you referring to this: ? – Lionel (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't, my brother from another mother. I was referring to a comment I made about this subject at 12:00 on my talk page, six hours before you started this new drahmafest.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to reality. Hope to see you there soon. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could the person who was supposed attacked please complain? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Any admins paying attention to Wikiquette assistance ?
Just wondering whether maybe a few more admins can keep an eye on Wikiquette assistance as there is generally not much assistance.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As administrative action is specifically not requested at WQA I think it is pretty low on the admin radar. Maybe try WP:VP as a way to inform users in general that help is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or WP:EAR may be willing to help.  Spinning Spark  20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then i'd suggest it's quite a pointless page. If admins are ignoring the page and excessive incivility often needs a block, it would stand to reason some issues are being left to fester rather than being solved.--Crossmr (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are admin stalkers who intervene when over the top stuff gets posted, but that usually goes to ANI nowadays. I started years ago when a banner appeared over my watchlist -- maybe it's time to do that again? Nobody Ent 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When I was a regular at ANI, if a thread came that urgently needed admin attention, i would personally take it to ANI, or less urgent one I would recommend the filer to move it . We have "moved" templates for a reason, and blocks are not supposed to be handed out via WQA. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Bwilikins position is roughly what my understanding is here: WQA takes care of itself, and is supposed to operate without the overt threat of sanctions hanging over the participants heads, unless it gets out of hand. If a specific issue does get out of hand there, the proper course of action is to seek specific administrator intervention at WP:ANI, with a consice but complete description of the problem, with diffs, including WQA disruption.  However, AFAIK, other DR noticeboards like WQA and WP:DRN and WP:RSN and WP:MCQ and stuff like that do not normally result in admin sanctions directly.  The idea behind those noticeboards is to avoid having to use the admin tools... -- Jayron  32  05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Essentially correct -- the idea is that editors don't come to WQA seeking sanctions but rather third party assistance in working through issues. The goal (which happens every once in awhile) is for both/all parties to walk away at least content and resume editing. However, in case of egregious behavior lurker admins will usually step in and just block whoever needs to be blocked. Requiring an official referral to ANI in these circumstances would just be unnecessary bureaucracy. In the lesser cases the difficulty is well documented difficulties in civility enforcement. Since posting a incivility/personal attack report in the ANI shark tank is just playing admin roulette -- while I don't want to let stuff that should be sanctioned go, if a complaint is deemed bogus the complaining editor will get boomeranged and be worse off than if I just tell them they have to suck it up. It's just not a good situation.
 * We are short on good volunteers -- how do we get one of those watchlist messages implemented? Nobody Ent 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just place a request here. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement closed
Civility enforcement

An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee: Mlpearc ( powwow ) 02:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Any admins live near East Lansing, MI?
Greetings,

Some of you may be familiar with THIS CLASS at MSU this semester where we're exploring and studying the concept of the Wikipedia administrator. One of the class projects is to create a model of an admin portal that organizes admin tools, discussions, etc. These portal proposals are being developed in student sandboxes. Many admins have generously agreed to volunteer their time to speak with our students as noted HERE. These conversations will help students to complete their assignments and better understand what Wikipedia admins do (and why they do what they do). Anyhow, one group would like to add some video to their admin portal project and were wondering if any admins live near East Lansing, MI. Of course, you would have to be willing to be interviewed, and to have video of your answers put up online. If you're interested, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks so much. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Users spamming using email feature - possible IP tracking scam - see User talk:Ling JIANG
User needs a good hard banning. Also might be a good idea to remove the email feature for users with less than 1 contribution. Megapixie (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 33761? Nemo 10:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I can't imagine how a user could get unreasonably blocked without editing.  We'd just have to resolve the issue of 0 extant edits vs. 0 deleted edits; it would be a bad idea to be able to remove email access simply by deleting the pages a user had edited.  Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the status that people wanting to recruit for projects using WP email need the OK of the Research Committee. ?  DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * user has been notified of this tread on Sept 18 by another editor.  DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a method to SPAM Wikipedia admins... and no way to opt-out beyond disabling our email addresses. Not good. Not good at all.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response. I just noticed the discussion about my case here. Actually, I just find out the target Wikipedians for my study and send them WP emails manually. Since Wikipedians seldom expose their email addresses publicly, I only find this way (i.e., WP email) to get access to them. I have no intention on spamming the WP email feature, and really apologize for this if the use of WP email breaks any rule in Wikipedia. I'm wondering whether there is any requirement or permission needed for using WP email for survey. If there is, I'd like to apply for such permission. Ling JIANG (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look at research committee. It lays out the approval process that you need to go through. Kevin (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin, thanks for your guide. I'll have a look at the details to find out the specific procedure. Ling JIANG (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You were advised to do this more than three weeks ago Josh Parris 05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Database error - can't tell if deletion worked or not
Could another admin confirm that these 4 images were deleted or not File:NIPPSS1.jpg*File:Amethyst bradley ralani.JPG*File:Andrew Weinreich in 2010.jpg*File:Church.gif - I continue to get error "Last attempted database query: (SQL query hidden) - Function: LocalFileRestoreBatch::execute" - Thanks!! Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All appear as being on Commons with the "View or restore X deleted edits" line; all of them have a deletion log entry of:


 * (del/undel) 03:05, 22 February 2012 Skier Dude (talk | contribs | block) deleted "_____" ‎ (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 11) (view/restore).
 * Your error message notwithstanding, everything seems to have worked fine. This is in contrast to File:Church.gif, where it seems that you deleted the description page without deleting the image itself.  Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * These files do not actually seem to be on Commons. I think some error during the original deletion caused the database to be in an inconsistent state. Restoring and then redeleting seems to be the trick. T. Canens (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right. I wasn't paying close enough attention; I just assumed that they were on Commons, because I could see the images and the "View or restore..." link simultaneously.  Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Muchas gracias - I tried restoring, but that didn't seem to work either and I couldn't get the cache to refresh :0 Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had the same thing happen trying to delete File:Along the Shore, New Castle, NH.jpg, but the restore/re-delete trick worked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the image page look like that of File:Byyourside.jpg? If so, it sounds like you've encountered MediaWiki bug 33292, and you should probably add a comment to the bug report so the developers can figure out what's going on. --Carnildo (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's perfectly what it looked like: image there, no description whatsoever, no history tab, and the link to the deleted edits (which include everything except the most recent file version) is visible. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reported - and thanks again Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rescue
Having been deleted following Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13, the deletion reviewed at Deletion review/Log/2012 January 27 the template has been re-created, I have taged to for WP:G4 (which was removed with the edit sum Its no longer been added to anything. I don't think you can speedy delete it. No harm in leaving it for historical reasons and to prevent broken links) I then restored it to the Deteted template messages version which has also been reverted. Can a administrator please look into what's going on and protect the page. Mt king  (edits)  00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical retainment of templates (and many other things) is commonplace. It is clearly not meant to be in use, as it states on the page, but is retained so that old page revisions that would contain it do not have broken links instead. I don't see the problem here. Historical things shouldn't be deleted. Silver  seren C 00:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mtking, not sure you realize, but the rescue template is wrapping inside of a template of it's own that marks it as an old template on any pages it's used on. Go try to use it in the Sandbox and see for yourself.--v/r - TP 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, the ARS should not be allowed to retain it in this fashion like some sort of martyr's rock. If it is to remain as something other than a redlink, then it should be clearly labeled as a deleted template and not still fly the lifesaver imagery. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc, that seems a bit harsh. We don't need to hold over their head our 'victory' in TfD and DRV.  The template is clearly marked and wraped in another template that prevents it from being used.  It only exists in this fashion to prevent the redlink rescue in old revisions of articles.--v/r - TP 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is the "This template is deprecated" text not enough? Reyk  YO!  01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed the "This template is deprecated" text is enough, it is not as if the template contains any information that related to the article it was placed on. Mt  king  (edits)  01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. Due to the (silly) ongoing edit war on the template, I have just protected it for three days. I'm off to sleep now; fellow admins, feel free to unprotect without asking me should a consensus emerge here. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Tdeprecated be used in these cases? → Σ  τ  c. 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: it says that the deprecated template has been replaced by another one, while it was my impression that the TFD said that this one should be removed and not replaced. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Its not being used any longer, nor hurting anything at all. What possible reason would there to be to destroy it? You won. You somehow got enough people to show up to convince the opinion of the closing administrator to prevent it from being placed on any articles in need of Rescue. For historical places that link to it, its best to show what it was, instead of a dead red link.  D r e a m Focus  01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a deletion discussion; you don't need to add a vote to your comment. By the way, is this edit considered simple enough and housekeeping-like enough that it's appropriate while the template is protected?  I immediately self-reverted; the only reason I did it was to make it easy for you to understand what I'm asking about.  Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it much matters either way on the categories. Those categories could only show up if the template was transcluded from a live page with a revisionid older than the template deletion. Since all such transclusions were removed, these categories can never show up on a live version of a page because any new edits will have a higher revisionid. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is an obvious G4 speedy. Kept because article histories contain its usage?  Seriously?  There are literally hundreds of deleted templates that show up as redlinks in article histories.  I'd like to see a very good reason why this one deserves special treatment. Resolute 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There doesn't seem to be any real need to keep it around, other than some kind of shrine. Reyk  YO!  01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We generally delete templates because they're unfixable, because they're redundant, because they're unused and won't be used, or because they violate core policies. As this one was deleted because of the way it was frequently used, rather than because of a design problem or because it was never used, deletion isn't as helpful of a solution.  The discussion's goal was to ensure that this template wasn't transcluded or substed in other namespaces; its preservation with the notice of deprecation will go along with the result of the TFD without causing the problems with tons of article histories that would result from deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the prominent arguments in the deletion debate was that this was redundant to the real AfD template. Also, this is now unusued and won't be used.  So tell me again why this shouldn't be speedy deleted? Resolute 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look at the discussions at AFD and DRV, it's clear that the consensus was not for pseudo-deletion or faux-deletion, but for deletion. How is this not a db-repost? Tangentially, I tagged ARS/Tagged and Afdrescue for CSD yesterday (although the former was removed, for some reason). Both of them should go to the same place that ARSnote is now, and where rescue ought to be. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As soon as it is unprotected, I will file another TfD, then. This isn't about lording over ARS...if I wanted to do that I would have joined the recent ANI attacks against their deletion discussions...it is about respecting the consensus of the Wikipedia community.  The consensus was that this thing should be deleted, not left intact with some weird "we won't use it" pledges. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama. Resolute 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Do we keep other old transcluded templates to help make sure previous versions of articles appear correct? If or if not, why is  special such that it should deviate from the norm? In other words, can we de-politicalize this and look at the underlying (at least, as stated) issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Templates are routinely deleted without any consideration as to how they will make old versions of the page look. I happen to think that's a mistake (it is probably technically feasible to have articles display the template as it looked at the time the revision was made, even if the template has been edited since), but common practice is what it is at the moment. NW ( Talk ) 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case since the template added nothing of significance to the article, why not just have it produce "white space" then fully protect the template. Mt  king  (edits)  06:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens' question is the relevant one here. I've never seen a deleted template get re-created for the sole purpose of ensuring that old revisions look nice.  It may be that it happens from time to time and I've never come across it, or it may be that it happens rarely or never.  If it does happen from time to time, I highly doubt it would happen on something that doesn't affect the content of an article, like a maintenance template.  I can't imagine it would ruin someone's day to see Template:Rescue on an old revision instead of the life-preserver template.  If this type of template re-creation is truly as uncommon as I think it is, then I see no reason to apply special treatment to this particular template.  &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, who cares if our articles look like crap, as long as the bureaucratic niceties are preserved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's old article revisions. They arn't exactly pretty with or without the template because of that big red bar at the top.  I personally don't care if the template is kept for historical purposes, but that argument is flawed.--v/r - TP 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. ((TFD==Delete) && (DRV==Endorse) == Redlink). Page histories are full of redlinks and other brokeness; relax and breath normally; this is ok. This is a camel's nose to get this all overturned. Alarbus (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid. We don't need to discuss this, because we already did, twice as a matter of fact. The community has already spoken, and it said to delete thos template, and then it said it again. Whoever recreated it needs to be blocked for deliberate disruption per WP:POINT and the template, in accordance with the already clearly expressed will of the community, needs to be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't recreated; it was restored, along with the talk page. Kanguole 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, not quite: it was first recreated (as an empty, and non-functional, Deleted template stub) by the previous deleting admin Ironholds [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Rescue&diff=475483688&oldid=471220437]; then the old content was recreated on top of that by Rich Farmbrough [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Rescue&diff=476345128&oldid=476344705] and the prior history restored. The first step may not have been speedy-worthy but didn't technically do what was intended; the second step should never have been done without authorization from a DRV, and in my view does fall under speedy-repost. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the instructions for the template that after the article survived the AfD the template was to be removed? I ask because if the only argument for restoring the deleted template is that it preferves the look and feel of the article historically at that point it shouldn't be restored in it's full glory.  A simple 1 liner of "This article was tagged with the Rescue template"  that links to the ARS (or it's successor) page explaining about what the rescue template was.  It satisfies the need to indicate that the article was tagged and also minimizes the amount of influence said tag has. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One (of the meany issues) that were discussed at the TfD was the wikiproject "advert" in main space, so any link to the ARS would not be acceptable, I also don't see it as acceptable to keep a template for only history reasons (see my comments below). Mt  king  (edits)  03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're all for confusing future editors in wondering what this template was intended to do just so you can stick it to ARS? Take your pound of flesh and move on.  The template is consensus deleted, we're just quibbling over the final disposition of a few edge cases.  Unless your permanently volunteering to provide a NPOV explanation of what the template was about every single time an editor asks about what the template was supposed to do. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not true that this treatment is totally unprecedented. See Template:Expand and Template:Deleted template. Not common practice but not totally invented out of whole cloth by the "desperate" ARS. 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * not to mention the fact that it was recreated (albeit just with the "this template was deleted" text) by the admin who deleted it in the first place! 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the community discussion about using this ? as it seams to be the work of just one editor ? I can perhaps see the logic for having while current versions of articles use a deleted template, however when all examples have been removed then the template should just be removed. Mt  king  (edits)  03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We generally use being deleted while removing templates. deleted template was the work of quite a number of people and has never been controversial in and of itself. There was a community discussion about deleted template and there was also a notification left at WT:TFD after it was created. There was also further discussion on AN and probably elsewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the deleting admin, I have no problem keeping it as a deprecated template. Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why User:Ironholds wasn't notified of this discussion; I thought it was required/polite. . Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? There was no consensus in either discussion for it to stay as a deprecated template. And the ARS wonders why they have such a bad reputation for creating such needless drama. Are we seriously going to have to go through another tfd. This should definitely be speedied. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Us vs Them" comments by a small number of editors above are part of the reason we've ended up here in the first place. To clarify a few things which others commented or touched upon: I asked Ironholds to restore rescue's talk page and edit history and add deleted template. He indicated he was swamped with other community issues and with his blessing I asked Rich Farmbrough to handle it. I knew Rich Farmbrough would know how to apply deleted template since he had done some of the initial work on the template (I've made quite a few complex logic code changes to improve it since then). Talk pages of templates are routinely deleted under CSD G8 and the talk page of a template which has a long history and lots of discussion should be left intact for historical purposes. Using deleted template makes this fairly straight forward and easy. Using deleted template also further discourages someone from creating a new template with the same name. This has happened a number of times and that really tends to break old page revisions. The logic code used for deleted template works like this: Old page revisions prior to the template's deletion show the original message box of the rescue template. New transclusions and edits display the red notice and do not display rescue's original message box, and are categorized in the Category:Pages containing deleted templates maintenance category. The template page for rescue itself shows both the red notice and the original message box. rescue does not fall under CSD G4 and I would caution the handful of individuals who are threatening to TfD rescue yet again that doing this is not productive and will further waste the community's time. It does not harm Wikipedia in any way to preserve the talk page and edit history of the template, and while doing so had not historically been routinely done, we didn't have a working solution for doing this until the latest expand discussion in January 2011. With the above out of the way, the handful of individuals ranting about Ironholds, Rich Farmbrough, and ARS need to double check who they are ranting about. If they really want to rant about someone, they can rant about me, since I'm the one who asked Ironholds and Rich Farmbrough to handle this task. ARS didn't have anything to do with it, and while I've occasionally "rescued" some "hopeless" articles at AfD, I'm not a "member" of ARS and I have rarely participated in discussions at WT:ARS. That said, I'm likely to ignore any ranting directed my way because it doesn't serve any constructive purpose and doesn't help improve Wikipedia. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tothwolf asserts that G4 doesn't apply to that template. I think that's a grey area, and it might be worthy of a WT:CSD discussion. But essentially for G4 to apply to a page, the page would have to be:
 * A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy of the page that was deleted.
 * Given a deletion result per consensus during its most recent deletion discussion.
 * A page where the reason for the deletion must still apply.
 * Not "userfied".
 * Not undeleted via DRV.
 * That third criterion above might be the sticky point. If a template is no longer in active use, does the reason for its deletion still apply? With the text stating that it's a deprecated template, it won't be effective as canvassing or a rallying cry or an advertisement for ARS or whatever objection someone would have to it even if someone does try to use it. Does that deprecation effectively remove that criterion from any template? In that case, why don't we just add such text to every template at TfD that should no longer be used rather than deleting them? --  At am a  頭 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, and as I mentioned above, should someone attempt to transclude rescue via a new edit, it will only display the red text and if the page is saved anyway, it will be added to the maintenance category where we can monitor and remove the transclusion. This is far better than having confused editors who didn't know of the TFD getting a red link when they attempt to use the template, etc. I know some editors thought such an approach might work for all templates, but I'm not sure we would really need that. The current design of deleted template works well for message box templates, but might not work well for other templates in it's current form. For message box templates which have previously been heavily used, deleted template seems right now to be the best way to handle them. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Atama, if a template is no longer in active use, it would be deleted at TFD anyway. And Tothwolf, clearly if the template is deprecated it would be better for it to show up as a red link that doesn't work than to allow it to exist in any fashion any more. If it is necessary to keep the template so it can be prevented from use, then simply include the coding that allows it to be tracked but remove the former functionality and formatting.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could simply salt the template so it doesn't get recreated. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ryulong, please go back and re-read what I wrote above. New transclusions of the template do not display any "former functionality of formatting". Only old page revisions accessed via edit history links with a revisionid prior to the template's deletion will display the original template's message box. Any new transclusions display a red notice and are added to a maintenance category. While I think a small number of people have been blowing a lot of things out of proportion, the very idea some have put forth that "ARS is going to continue to use rescue now that its history and talk page have been restored" is simply absurd. The code in deleted template simply doesn't work that way or allow it. &lt;soapbox&gt; I can understand how some editors might not understand how deleted template works, which is why I explained its logic code above, but beyond that, I'm growing tired of the anti-ARS propaganda (both blatant and disguised) that I've been seeing both here and elsewhere. Such propaganda and fear mongering fly in the face of our policies and if it were being done towards any other "group" of editors here on Wikipedia, such as say new page patrollers or FA writers or whatever, it would have been stopped and/or brought before ArbCom long before it got to the point where it is at with the current anti-ARS crowd. In fact, if ARS itself simply didn't exist, those pushing the anti-ARS propaganda would certainly be doing the same thing to some other group. On an individual level, members of ARS appear to be very tolerant and I've noticed that despite the persistent attacks by the anti-ARS camp, while a few ARS members tend to fall into a pattern of being baited and then finally lashing out, the majority of ARS' members simply ignore the anti-ARS rhetoric. I can't say the same for the opposing camp however. At times I've been astonished at the level of intolerance I've seen from the anti-ARS camp. Individual members of ARS apparently genuinely feel that keeping whatever material they are discussing is in the best interests of Wikipedia and helps improve our coverage of a particular subject. While that may or may not be the case depending on the particular discussion, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs and should still be able to feel secure that they won't be persecuted here on Wikipedia for voicing them. So... why am I speaking out if I'm not even a "member" of ARS? As a community, this is our problem, and somebody needs to say it. To the anti-ARS crowd: The majority of the community has been able to co-exist with ARS just fine. The problem is you, not them. Suck it up, work things out, and go write an article or find something else constructive to do. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You tell others to assume good faith while assuming stunningly bad faith of them. You tell your perceived opponents to stop being intolerant, while comparing them to nazis. What is wrong with you? Reyk  YO!  20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My perceived opponents? I think you need to re-read some of what I wrote above because I've made it quite clear that I'm not in either of these camps. I've been sitting back and watching people go at it for weeks and I'm now simply calling it as I see it. If you feel offended by my reference to First they came… above then I apologize. My intent however was to point out the apparent "persecution" of ARS by a small anti-ARS minority within the Wikipedia community who've chosen to turn the TFD of rescue into a cause célèbre and use it as a staging ground to further propagandize and attack their perceived enemies within ARS. Given that, I feel my reference was spot on. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a blindingly obvious G4. The deleted revisions thing is BS many templates that no longer exist appear in deleted revisions. This is slighting the community concencus by bringing back a contraversial template without discussion. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  06:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you in the right place? Please see the top of the page: "Review of a deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review.".  The template was at TfD multiple times and so it seems right and proper that it should have several performances at DRV too.  See also WP:LIGHTBULB.  Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On a related note, if an administrator could restore the documentation subpage and add Historical, this should allow the red notice to properly display directly below the original message box on the template page itself (see Expand for an example). Right now the preloaded documentation message box is being displayed in between the original message box and the red notice and it might be possible for some people to miss seeing the red text on the template page itself. This doesn't have any effect on the logic code used by deleted template so any potential transclusions will display the red notice text correctly anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think.  MBisanz  talk 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The name parameter for Ambox was what was causing the restored documentation page box to display in the wrong location. I'm not sure why just yet, but I've removed that parameter so it displays the red notice text correctly now. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, here as go. Ambox includes the code which would cause this to happen:


 * It also looks like the subst parameter cannot be used without name, so either no has to be passed to Ambox, or the subst: check has to be done externally to Ambox when deleted template is used. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. Consensus at the TfD and DRV was clear, and that was that the template should be deleted. Not quasi-pseudo-half way deleted but retained as some kind of memorial. Deleted. Are we going to start restoring articles because other articles have redlinks in their histories now? How ridiculous can you get? And congratulations to Tothwolf, who with his extensive explanations of the coding feasibility and "BAWWW! I'm, like, totally neutral but the ARS are blameless angels fighting the evil hordes" handwringing, has managed to deflect from the real issue- which is that the template should not have been undeleted at all. The consensus is what it is, and people simply need to accept that. G4 and salt. Reyk  YO!  21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From my viewpoint, neither "side" is particularly happy with the current situation. ARS doesn't have their template anymore, and the hardcore anti-ARS camp isn't happy that the template has been wrapped in deleted template in order to prevent new transclusions and allow old page revisions to continue to work. As a member of the larger community, I for one am glad that the talk page which had been speedied under CSD G8 is visible to non-administrators now. Deletion of the talk page resulted in a loss of transparency as to the discussions which had been taking place there prior to the TFD and incoming links to the talk page had been made non-functional. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Things I see above: "Sorry, but no, the ARS should not be allowed to retain it in this fashion like some sort of martyr's rock."  "And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama." "knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid." "And the ARS wonders why they have such a bad reputation for creating such needless drama."  Ummm, Really?.  You guys are creating your own drama.  Who cares about this, really?  You are arguing about the proper treatment of a deleted template for historical purposes.  As some are doing above, figure out the standard rule, discuss it, come to a result.  Meanwhile I'll work on building an encyclopedia.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue
Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

It is a shame that some just refuse to accept the community consensus and edit was to keep a sentimental/historical copy of what was deleted in project space, but it seems an official TfD is the only thing that will work here, as one wikiproject saw fit to edit war to keep speedy tags off and keep the old template itself in. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ARS is sitting around a fire perusing the template history and listening to .--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTICE - It seems the deletion discussion has moved into the backlog. Took me a while to find it so I am leaving the link here for anyone still interested in commenting there.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page archives
Could an administrator please restore the talk page archives and sandbox edit history? I've been able to find 4 talk page archives and another talk page so far, but there may be others as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * /Archive 1
 * /Archive 2
 * /Archive 3
 * /Archive 4
 * Template talk:Rescue/doc
 * Template:Rescue/sandbox
 * Could an administrator like, not do that, and not take any more admin actions related to this until the current TFD is closed? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With your comment at TFD and now here, I certainly don't understand what exactly it is you don't want us to see in the talk page archives. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know or care what is in them so I'll thank you to leave your backhanded accusations at the door. They were deleted as a result of a community decision to delete the template. A decision that was upheld at DRV. None of this should have been restored without a new discussion first that clearly overturned the previous consensus. That's how WP works, as I'm sure you are already aware. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't particularly care what is in the talk page archives, then you shouldn't really be all that concerned if they are restored for transparency reasons, either. The talk page was not deleted per any sort of community discussion so it might be best if you stop attempting to mislead others who may be following this discussion. If the deletion of the template itself was as non-controversial as you and a few others have tried to claim, then there also wouldn't be any reason for a small minority of individuals to try to prevent non-administrators from seeing the talk page archives now would there? --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because speedy deletion is supposed to only be used for non-controversial deletions, and because the G8 criteria for speedy deletions specifically excludes talk page archives : "This excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user pages, user talk pages, talk page archives, [...]" I again ask that an administrator please restore these pages for the purposes of transparency. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I again ask that they not for issues of ignoring a clearly established consensus that we are now being asked to ignore for completely specious reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is on the verge of being seen as disruptive, IMO. The Template is gone; it only exists at the moment because of the extremely poor judgement of Rich Farmbrough, and will likely be deleted for good as no one has put forth an actual argument as to why a prior finding of delete should not be honored.  There is no need to retain discussions abotu a template that does not exist. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the talk page archives will likely provide a useful insight into how the template evolved, how it was perceived, and the problems that led to its removal. I do not see the value in leaving those discussions deleted, lest we reinvent the same issues and errors again. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be terribly opposed to moving the contents of the talkpage and related subpages to some subsection of the ARS project page if you really wish to preserve the conversations. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Tarc's suggestion makes a lot of sense, frankly. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that this is even at TfD again is frankly deplorable. It should have been speedily deleted (which is why I again CSDed it; Milowent reverted me).  What little esteem I had for the ARS is now completely gone; they refuse to respect two consensuses  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's back at AFD. If there is a consensus in that discussion, then whatever that consensus is can we please please please please please please please please please just implement it and put an end to these layers of meta-discussion?  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Though it may not often happen, I agree with Tarc: the simplest place to put the discussions is as a subpage of the ARS WikiProject, with the appropriate indication that they are historical; I'm pleased he acknowledges the legitimacy of the project at least to that extent. From the standpoint of anyone who cares about XfD/deletion/inclusion, from any point of view, this is not a matter of principle, or a matter which will either way greatly impair the efficiency and effectiveness of either deleting or keeping articles.   What does interfere with both deleting deletable articles, and keeping keepable ones ,is spending any more effort on this. We do still need to design what a good template to indicate that there is an especially urgent need & practical possibility of better sourcing or otherwise strengthening an article. A good many unimprovable articles get challenged, and sourcing is not always easy, & so it helps to have something to focus attention on the most likely and important candidates.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How would we deal with existing incoming links and pointers to the original location though? How are editors in the future who wonder "What the heck was this rescue template and why was it deleted?" going to know that the talk page archives can be found in a different location in project space? This could be solved with a soft redirect of course, but that too would end up deleted under CSD G8 due to the use of automated tools and would defeat the stated purpose for maintaining the talk page archives in project space anyway. It seems the most logical and straightforward thing to do is simply leave the archives in their original location and use deleted template. If not for the apparent vendetta some people seem to have for certain ARS members, this would most certainly be a non-issue. Even with expand we never had this much drama, and the TfD for expand was pretty darn contentious. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request
This close is on the near horizon - there is no objection to the fact that it is ready for closing - one user just wants to say - please close this - the comments below are mine - this is a hotly disputed issue and needs a strong close to resolve the dispute -


 * Involved Users are looking for two combined experienced administrators, that have no ascertainable involvement in this sector under discussion and are willing to close the complicated and lengthy RFC discussion on the "santorum" neologism article. - Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism - You  really  can  22:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They should also not have a strong history of taking a particular POV on BLP issues. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP - is an en wikipedia policy not an issue - You  really  can  22:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There might be people who have been, just for example, involved in forming the policy, and would have the policy go further. At any rate, the admin should come to this fresh without strong POVs about how the policy should be applied.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a policy, and one which people can have different views on. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and as with any policy, editors can have a strong POV on how it should be applied. That's all I was saying.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Colleagues, the administrator who chooses to close this will make sure they are uninvolved. You don't need to propose criteria for who can close this. Jehochman Talk 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a side observation on one of the comments above, while BLP is a policy, there can still be “BLP issues” with an article….it’s standard terminology. Dreadstar  ☥   23:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no harm in letting the RfC run the nominal 30 days; although the count seems clear, a new argument was presented only a few days ago. Perhaps, if it is let run, a really convincing argument will be presented on one side or the other.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The harm, though not deadly, is that the talk page is already at 592,000 bytes, about twice the length of The Great Gatsby and not exactly the great American novel. The longer we wait, the more noise the closing administrator will have to sort through. Ongoing discussion is still civil, but is mostly a matter of repeating the same points and soapboxing.  59 editors weighed in during the first 14 days but we've had only 1 new editor per day since then.  If we were making popcorn it's safe to say all but the last few kernels have popped and if we leave it on the stove much longer it's only going to smoke.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So move the RfC to a subpage; it's been done before. The problem (aside from protecting the RfC from archiving while active) is that other discussions  arguments are ongoing; for example, the renaming sections need to be closed and possibly reopened as a discussion to find an acceptable name.  Personally, I find it possible for a neutral admin to find that WP:BLP would be clearly violated, which would override WP:CONSENUS; I think it would be violated, but not clearly so.  A close might not be in favor of the majority.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can take our chances, as even you feel it's not a clear violation. If you feel that way, an admin will be hard pressed to say that the consensus on the proper interpretation of BLP is with the minority.  Nice metaphor Wikidemon ( Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  09:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Arthur was not making that claim as "clearly" as you indicate. The political editors may not be as attuned to BLP as the ones who deal with BLP every week.  This is one case where the background of editors with specific regard to the issues raised should be weighted by any closing admin.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Volunteer I'm willing to volunteer as an uninvolved admin. I previously closed a Santorum RFC on whether or not to use the word 'vulger' in the lead.  I've not participated at the article on the politician or the neologism at all.  My only concern is that I've been involved in a dispute with BeCritical in the past so if s/he feels I can't be impartial then that's fine.--v/r - TP 14:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Volunteer - No past history whatsoever. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can help out too if needed. Closed the recent merge RFC, but otherwise I don't remember any other history. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a comment / request, please don't encourage the involved users on the page to get into opposition research on the suitability and bias of all the potential closers. There's been some attempt to negotiate the closing procedure and specify the choice of admins, and a lot of discussion on that.  Speaking as one of the involved editors myself (though I don't think the issue is terribly important, I do have a strong opinion), I trust the integrity of any admin who feels they are impartial and knowledgeable enough to weigh in.  The fairest result, if not the most predictable, is to take our chances and let the admin corps do what they're elected to do.  Some people asked for two or even three independent admins.  Now we have three volunteers so why not huddle or something amongst your administrator selves, and get to it?  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've followed that discussion (and talk page) for the last little while as an administrator. I would recommend that three uninvolved admins get together and decide on a close. It's going to be a contentious decision either way, so better to do by committee - no-one knows which way any of the three "voted", so you will all be hated equally but only a third as much. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So is somebody going to actually do it?? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Triumvirate
New subsection for the triumvirate of closing admins—,, and —to discuss the close.

For background about a triumvirate panel of closing admins, see the January 2011 discussion at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9, where wrote:

The first use of a triumvirate was at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227, where the admins discussed the close at WP:AN. Their discussion and analyses and the result were then posted to Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26 and Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26. I have contacted TParis, Timotheus Canens, and Xavexgoem to review the discussion at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Cunard (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One preliminary matter: should we do this at a subpage of the talk page, or at AN? I'm more inclined to believe that doing it on a subpage is better than AN. T. Canens (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, looks like we are using a subpage. T. Canens (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Request that an uninvolved admin re-close the Mbz1 ban
Per comments, I think we should also avoid the appearance of impropriety in this case. Discussion found at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive231. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Look, mbz1 is never going to recognize the legimacy of anything done here, so why jump thru hoops for her?  Do you think someone else closing it will make her shut up?  Does anyone on the planet think she isn't banned?  I thought that thread was a silly waste of time and electrons, and even I think she's banned.  Indeed, she was basically banned before that discussion.  Almost everyone seems to think ignoring meta is a good plan, but step one of that plan is to... you know... ignore meta. I'm not going to archive this after only one comment, but the best outcome I can think of is that no one else comments on this thread, and it dies a natural death. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply think closure by an uninvolved admin would be the professional way of handling this, if I may recycle a term recently drummed up by ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, so, if it's needed, I'll take over Night Ranger's closure as uninvolved admin. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There you go. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So now someone else gets to bear the brunt of her persecution complex. Thanks Salvio! Night Ranger (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I suspected, the fight has started anew over at meta with mbz1 wikilawyering on Salvio's talk page and Kwork saying the usual stuff about lynchings. You know, you really cannot invent this stuff. It's even more entertaining whilst listening to Singing a Song in the Morning. Night Ranger (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, she's talked everybody's ears off about it on WR for months, and has proven to be un-derailable. Maybe the devs can make you an "ignore" button like we have there. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have something like that—it's called Meta Wiki! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Oh, and she now says she was bullied by ArbCom on a WMF staff page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * People, please, just. stop. paying. attention. to. Mbz1. She has become nothing but a troll, but she can't troll here, so we don't have to worry about it. Nothing we do short of unbanning her, offering a written apology, and burning a certain admin at the stake are going to satisfy her. Eventually, even meta will tire of her shenanigans and she'll be blocked there too. Let them handle it, it's not our problem anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed - this entire matter has been a great example of Streisand effect. I strongly suspect that had the original meta RFC been ignored here, it wouldn't have gone anywhere except give a very small group of people a chance to rant in a place that essentially nobody would see.  Instead, this created an avenue for a much large audience.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy change proposal to make off-enwiki behavior unsanctionable here

 * Beeblebrox, If you think I'm advocating for her, check out Wnt's proposal on VPP and m:User_talk:Mbz1. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested topic ban for on LGBT-related articles
Perhaps we can the topic ban proposal moved to it's own section, instead of being appended on a seperate complaint. Please be aware that this editor is currently topic banned on abortion related articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on LGBT-themed articles, broadly construed, for, and a trout for his WP:IDHT that has gotten things to that point. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - NYY51 is pretty clearly a POV warrior and at some point really soon he's going to need to decide for himself whether to knock it the hell off and to start to build constructively or to be topic-banned off the planet. The choice is pretty clear. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - a topic ban on LGBT-related subjects for NYY51 is pretty clearly indicated here. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - although I also support Santorum and I'm opposed to abortion, I try my best to remove any bias from my opinions, and, if I feel it hard to maintain a NPOV, I refrain from editing. Unfortunately, NYY51 has not been able to do this. Paolo  Napolitano  20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: This editor brought me to ANI because I complained about his horrible AFD nominations.  His motto must be "if its gay, it can't stay," leading to a series of extremely poor and POINTy AfD nominations that are closing as keep/snow keep universally.  See Articles for deletion/Candace Gingrich-JonesArticles for deletion/Gathering Storm (advertisement)Articles for deletion/A Union in WaitArticles for deletion/Metropolitan Community Church of New York (2nd nomination)Articles for deletion/Udaan Trust.  Instead of acknowledging any of this (look at his one word "why?" comment above--like he doesn't know), he recently amended his talk page to make clear "I stand by the content of my edits, AFDs, and points I have made" and that "I intend to continue my purge of LGBT brochure articles."  I am prone to hyperbole, but I'm not joking when I say this editor is dangerous.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The recent series of nominations, which demonstrate a total lack of interest in WP policy or practice, is really the last straw in a history of POV-motivated editing against LGBT subjects. His statement that he believes there was nothing wrong with this behavior and intends to continue it is also troubling, indicating that a topic ban is an appropriate preventative measure. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * supportIf not for his recent statement of intent on his talkpage appearing after much well-meaning advice, I might have been satisfied with giving him a chance to change his behavior before taking this step.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – I'm sorry it's come to this, but the points at WP:PUSH pretty much describe his editing style. I reminded him earlier this week of the advice HJ Mitchell and I gave him a year ago after HJ removed his indef block for socking. But nothing seems to be getting through to him despite numerous attempts by editors offering advice, several blocks, ARBCOM ban, etc. So, I guess, slap him with another ban and maybe he'll eventually get the message. Mojoworker (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support seems like a reasonable step. Continuing the AfD nominations after being taken to ANI seems to be pretty unwise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my earlier comments on WP:ANI. Disclaimer - I just found out (moments ago) that this editor previously vandalized my user page under a different account after perusing NYY51's block log. The fact has not informed my opinion of this matter, which would've been the same regardless. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. His edits are problematic and obviously strongly pov-motivated. His AfD noms are awful, many of them are among the most obvious keeps I've ever seen. Kevin (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should assume good faith - from his point of view he was probably just making it prettier.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Maunus, he seems intent on continuing to cause disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, seems appropriate for this situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Milowent Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose And the use of topic bans to affect editing on any articles is a bad precedent to seek for anyone. Cheers - draconian solutions do not work, and using them for any outside rationale is worse. Collect (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Had the series of edits been constructive, rather than repeatedly disruptive, we'd not be here.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per Milowent, Mojoworker and Roscelese, although I think the problem will not disappear with topic ban.-- В и к и  T   21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is not the way to edit controversial topics. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. User doesn't listen to concerns, won't change behavior, and persists in annoying the community to no end. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - User appears to be editing and AfDing with a distinct POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The editor was blocked for one week for edit warring at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. NYY defended his behavior as "righteous reverting"; a tactic that did not get him unblocked. His stated intent to "purge" LGBT articles from Wikipedia is unwarranted POV pushing and clearly politically motivated. Previously, he has used sockpuppets and edit warring to put forward his beliefs on abortion-related topics. He was almost topic banned during a MedCab hearing about abortion during which time administrator and oversighter User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry said he expected that a proposed one-year abortion topic ban on NYyankees51 would not be effective enough, that it would make this problem editor "move on to the same behaviour on political articles". Recently, NYyankees51 did indeed get a topic ban becaus of his abortion battleground mentality. Previous to that, I opened a discussion about his conflict of interest regarding his working for (and editing from) the right-wing political advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, but nobody else commented. It is obvious that NYyankees51 had but one purpose here: to push his political beliefs as hard as possible. Like The Cavalry, I believe a topic ban is just the start, that NYY is not going to give up until he is indeffed or banned. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think NYyankees51 ever stated he intended to purge Wikipedia of LGBT articles in totality (prove me wrong I guess with a diff), but put it as purging Wikipedia of "LGBT brochures". Although this is pretty sloppy wording and invective, I took this to mean nominating poorly sourced LGBT-related articles for AfD, which he has been doing. This seems like hair-splitting, but we are discussing kicking him off the site, so we should be as clear as possibly while giving him whatever benefit of whatever doubt he has allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, NYY's "purge" statement was against LGBT "brochure articles". I took that term to mean pro-LGBT articles judged by NYY to have little notability. I am still certain that NYY cannot edit neutrally at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Suport In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Wikipedia is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support His talk page statement makes it clear that in this topic he has adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing, contrary to wikipedia editing policies. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - his personal beliefs have, and will continue to affect, his ability to edit such articles. GiantSnowman 10:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Although I fear we'll be back when he discovers what his next political hobbyhorse is. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - arrogant declarations such as aspiring to eliminate all LGBT articles is nothing more than proof of his homophobia. Given what the others said here, they compromise his ability to edit without stepping on others' toes. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - user is incapable of editing neutrally in this topic.   Will Beback    talk    02:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems to be the best route for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on LGBT articles, as well as articles in Project:Politics and Project:Conservatism. It's clear that the disruptive aspects of NYYankees51's edits are all ideologically driven.  Removing the bulk of those articles from his editing will hopefully give him a chance to focus on being productive instead of focusing on ideological conflict areas. aprock (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like that might work, with Raul654's "Culture wars" and politics (broadly interpreted) added in. Probably along with an extension of his 3 month ban from the topic of abortion (broadly construed) which is now about half over. And it likely should be at least 9 months duration, since the elections in November would seem like too much of a temptation. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Narrow-purpose account?
Judging from his contribs, NYyankees51 has showed signs of POV editing on a narrow set of articles on LBGT topics and conservative politics. He has repeatedly reverted material per WP:MISSION, a relatively low-profile essay and in some cases it looks like he treats it as a policy. Some of his problematic edits include , and several others. As the user is showing signs of POV single-purpose editing, the effect of a site ban vs a topic ban should be considered. Paolo Napolitano  21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Being an SPA is not against policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having no productive contributions outside of one narrow category of problematic editing makes him far more likely to be community banned. Raul654 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not my experience unfortunately.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings on this. While I'm doubtful that a topic ban will prompt him to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy in the future - after all, he was topic-banned from abortion and that didn't exactly serve as a wake-up call, he just stepped up his disruption in another topic area - we could see what happens with a topic ban and then community-ban him if his behavior does not improve. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was not aware of the previous ban. In that case, would it not make more sense to ban him from all culture-wars articles, to be broadly interpreted? Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I unblocked him, I suppose it's my prerogative, possibly even my responsibility, to re-block him if he continues to disrupt the project after the unblock. As such, I have blocked him until such time as he can convince me, another uninvolved admin, or the community, that he can edit without causing problems. It's a shame that it's necessary, but I think the displacement rather than cessation of the disruption upon the topic ban proves that it is, and that a second topic ban would only mean continued disruption in a third topic area. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is either your prerogative or responsibility no. It is the communitys prerogative and responsibility - and the community was leaning towards a more lenient remedy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think its reasonable if its not the first topic ban. I don't get the impression its an unreasonable stretch or is beyond the current status quo. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly your prerogative HJ, after all, one of the unblock conditions was that he edit constructively. He also promised to work hard to gain the trust of the community. I don't fault you at all – either for the unblock or for rescinding it now. I have great respect for your judgement and I think you've assumed good faith with him – probably far more than many would have – but I can't shake the feeling that he took advantage of your good will. I'm not happy that this has come to pass. Mostly I'm sorry he didn't take our advice. Ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility and NYyankees51 doesn't need to look far for the reasons that this all happened. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a good block. Implementing a second topic ban would just have pushed the disruption to a third topic area. There are some serious competency issues with him that the community shouldn't have to deal with any longer. Shrigley (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, As Earserhead may remember, an Arbcom member recently said with respect a now one year banned user that if they're banned from one topic, already, it does not make sense to just consider another topic ban, they should go off the project, FWIW. It may figure in to treating like matters, alike. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember that, but I couldn't find the diff. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I support a topic ban, but do wonder about the efficacy of one in this case as this editor has repeatedly been cautioned and yet repeatedly returned to the same behavior in related areas. In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Wikipedia is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints. User:NYyankees51 need not agree with other editor's articles, but he MUST respect existing policy and guidleine. In this he has so-far failed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Some questions to think about re the below proposal, that I have thought about recently (I don't know the user's work and I won't opine): 1) Does the user mistake POV for NPOV regularly in different topic areas. 2) Does the user mistake tendentuos editing/commenting for consensus building in different areas. 3) Does the user not understand copyright or plagerism in several areas. 4) Does the user view this as a battleground in several areas. 5) Does the user demonsrtrate misaprehension of sources or sourceing policy, in several areas 6) Will this avoid some more eventual major disruption, like an Arbcom case. These are ideas, just pick the central needs of working here and ask yourself about it, with refernce to evidence (everyone should,  but not eveyone can work -- at this time in thier lives -- on this project)  Also, for the below return restriction? or time limit? And the user should be allowed to respond by a limited unbanning (if he/she would like).Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Site ban
Per the discussion above, do you think a site ban is a better remedy than a topic ban? Paolo Napolitano  10:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm barely familiar with the background here. From what I could glean from the discussion above, it seems this is an editor who is now getting a 2nd topic ban, in a different area. Perhaps a site ban would be more appropriate, or a much broader topic ban, although I'm not sure such a ban can be drafted. Topic ban from hobbyhorses of US conservatives maybe? Or "culture-wars articles" as Raul suggested above? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On rethinking it, "Culture wars" doesn't go far enough. I can think of other conservative hobbyhorses that wouldn't fall under that aegis (Supply side voodoo economics, just to name one). A ban from all articles having to do with politics (broadly interpreted) might do it. But frankly I now think a site ban would be better. He's obviously not here to contribute productively, so there's no sense in taking the chance that he could find a loophole. Raul654 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A broad topic ban and a site ban may be equal in NYyankees51's view. I don't know if this is still germane to the discussion, but here he stated: "As you can tell, the vast majority of my edits are on political or otherwise controversial articles. I didn't get the impression that HJ Mitchell wanted me to avoid controversial articles, and I apologize that I didn't. I just don't really think I have a whole lot to contribute outside of those topic areas." By the way, back then I told him I thought it was bullshit insincere to say that he didn't have much to contribute outside those topics, but maybe he really was being truthful. Mojoworker (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The user was very active on abortion-related articles where he was POV editing before he was topic-banned. Afterwards, he started editing LBGT articles with the same POV and bias. I fear that another topic ban will lead to him shifting focus of his editing to a third topic; I can list some areas that are easy to suspect that he could get involved in::

As the user is here with a single-purpose POV agenda, I recommend a community-imposed site ban, and I want to hear your opinions. Paolo Napolitano  17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Republican party and politicians
 * US presidential elections
 * Religion


 * Support community ban - It's senseless to issue topic bans when he simply migrates his disruption from one topic to another. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Chase Me Ladies that NYyankees51 cannot be channeled into a useful area of contribution, that he will only switch battlegrounds following a topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - but on the other hand - why not make it clear that if the current (and clearly supported) topic ban above does not have the requisite response, and disruption continues, then any uninvolved admin may indefinitely block without further warning? Last chance saloon. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gosh - youda thunk folks would understand that draconian solutions do not work for the benefit of Wikipedia as a rule. Collect (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the evidence for that? I'm certainly pretty thick skinned and I've got involved in multiple controversial areas - but I certainly prefer editing in a more professional editing environment. Sometimes you have to raise the tempo a little and/or you do because you get a bit upset about something, but this has gone beyond that.
 * There's a hell of a lot of people who have far less confidence than I do who undoubtably would prefer an even less confrontational environment - but they aren't going to comment here about it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - After having been meted two topic bans, you'd think the guy would have learned his lesson and reformed himself, but no! A site or community ban would be in order.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support Oppose [Changing view as agreeing with comment directly below. Seems excessive at this time] - It is my belief that opponents of some subjects can help keep articles neutral...but only if their edits are such. This is an activist editor with an agenda he clearly admits to in bold lettering on his talk page. I see nothing in his immediate history to show that he isn't a SPA and for very destructive reasons. If this is true I would actually support an indeff block entirely (site ban). If he is just active recently with this warrior attitude then a topic ban would have been a good course.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as excessive at this time. I disagree with Richard/Chase Me, for whom I have the utmost respect, in that I think NYY51 does have the potential and the desire to contribute constructively. We haven't yet worked out how he can be a part of this community in a way that is unambiguously beneficial to the project. That is why he is indefinitely blocked, and he will remain so until some way of channelling his edits to non-controversial areas is found. A community ban only makes it more difficult to find a mutually agreeable solution if there is one to be found, and does absolutely nothing if one can't be found because the indefinite block isn't going anywhere. This eagerness among some parts of the community to turn any indefinite block into a community ban is quite concerning—let's save the bans for the truly malicious. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think sock puppetry and vandalism are malicious enough? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was over two years ago. He was blocked for it shortly afterwards and remained blocked for over a year, so I think we can safely say he's served his sentence for that. There have been recent problems, which is why he's blocked again, but I don't think those problems are motivated by malice. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, as long overdue: This editor has consistently engaged in highly disruptive editing with a clear mission that is completely at odds with WP's own, despite a indeffinite block for sock-puppetry, numerous blocks for edit-warring, a topic ban, and now another topic ban. He states himself that he has no interest in editing articles outside of those on which his strong POV makes him incapble of productively editing. I see no reason to extend him yet once more the benefit of a doubt when he has so amply demonstrated that he intends to continue to disrupt the project. He is incapable or unwilling to change his behavior, and I would question the sincerity of any promises on his part. There is simply no place for him on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support:  He never responded or defended some of the worst AfD nominations I've ever seen, where his whole purpose is apparently to delete articles about gay people.  You run off good editors from the project if you don't call a spade a spade when you see one.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I think a site ban is too draconian. I believe that NYyankees51 can make productive edits, and I feel like he wants to be productive to the project.  On the other hand, free reign is too lenient.  I think something more like a 0RR restriction plus a six month topic ban from all articles in Project:Conservatism might make more sense, and give NYyankees51 a chance to prove himself outside of his zone of contention. aprock (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – but I'm not surprised at the number of support !votes. It shows how frustrated the community has become with his behavior. There's a limit to how long good faith can be assumed in an editor who is persistently acting in a way that is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm hopeful this will finally serve as a wake up call for NYY. After reading the details of some of the linked incidents, I think he needs an extremely short leash however. As I mentioned in the LGBT section above, aprock's suggestion might work, along with the LGBT topic ban above, which appears certain to pass, and with Raul654's "Culture wars" and politics (broadly interpreted) added in. Probably along with an extension of his 3 month ban from the topic of abortion (broadly construed) which is now about half over. And it likely should be at least 9 months duration, since the elections in November seem like too much of a temptation. Mojoworker (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The day for a site ban is fast approaching, it would seem. Here's hoping he decides to say "screw it, I'm gonna write about baseball from now on." I'm not expecting that outcome, but it remains theoretically possible... Carrite (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose rather premature.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Compromise proposal: Propose extending the topic bans currently in place into a permanent topic ban on all controversial areas of politics, religion and sexuality, broadly construed. It's clear that the editor does not intend to ever refrain from POV pushing in those areas. Also include a "one strike and you're out" clause. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - if there's no consensus for a site ban, that's probably best. Raul654 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Collateral Damage" of Deletions
People should read an emotional, first person account of the deletion process.

There are no simple answers, but there's an important observation that our deletion policies may adversely affect editor retention. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An attempt to delete someone's content is an implicit message that they are not wanted here. In many cases, we may indeed not want them here on their terms.  In many cases, the editor is long gone and the message is moot.  But in many cases, a newly created article is the pride-and-joy of a brand new editor, however much it may not yet be up to Wikipedia standards.  These are the articles where WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD should be applied the most liberally, because if we instead AfD a keepable article--one that could have been made appropriately encyclopedic through regular editing--we may lose the editor even if we end up keeping the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We tried to change the way that articles are created, and the motivation for that change was to minimize the hurt feelings noted above. See Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles and Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration, both of which had widespread support.  The rationale was simple: if new users had to get their feet wet before creating articles, it would reduce the number of articles we would have to delete, and since deletion causes new users to not want to come back, preventing new users from creating deletable articles would improve editor retention.  The WMF basically vetoed the community on this (despite the widespread support).  See  and the box at the top of Autoconfirmed article creation trial.  Its a shame, really.  This had a very good chance of prevent the sort of heartache the OP noted.  -- Jayron  32  06:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I once created an article that I believe Larry Sanger commented on in a negative way (I think it was him) about the notablity or accuracy or something. One day it was suddenly just gone and I never recieved a notification on a deletion discussion. I was actually upset enough that I almost decided not to come back or even attempt to contribute further. Yes...the sting is hard to overcome, but if you are serious about working here even these such things are not going to stop you. We get over the slap in the face and remember it isn't an insult and it isn't personal....this is an encyclopedia. I have stub articles with a single reference that nobody has ever attempted to expand and yet when AFDd.....were kept. I have always said the biggest problem with Wikipedia losing members isn't the deletion of contribution of newbies...becuase long termers get as upset when their pet articles are suddenly edited by "outsiders". They start calling people names and then leave in a huff blamming an individual editor. I see this happen often and has even happened to me. But ask yourself...do you want everyone to stay here no matter what...or do you want them to stay here within the guidelines and policy. See....I personally don't think people are leaving. They just abandon the registered account and either IP edit or begin new accounts within guidelines. Yes I have seen it happen. The thing to remember is, it isn't about quantity...it's about quality. I actively attempt to get new members to wikipedia all the time but on the flip of that we have editors who post their manifesto of disruption to just get what they percieve as bad editors blocked, pissthem off enough to leave or recieve sanctions. Maybe we should be looking at these particular contributers a little closer as they are taking out editors and seem very proud of it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not 'getting over the sting' that's the problem-- it's unpredictability.  You break the rules, you get deleted, fine.  But if you were spending time trying to do Wikipedia favor and we take that and just delete it outright-- that's a game not many people would play.
 * Maybe those people just need to "stop whining and grow a pair"-- maybe they are weak and thin skinned and have nothing of value to offer us.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great if you can identify those contributors (I can only see one with a clear enough edit pattern). Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC).


 * It should be possible for even "thin-skinned" editors to work at Wikipedia. When someone's work is rejected, and they are confronted with a bureaucracy they do not understand, many people get at least a little hostile. As amadscientist observed, most go away--and the majority of them were probably potentially good editors. Some of the most hardy stay regardless. If my first article had been rejected, what I would have done would have depended on how it was handled: if the discussion was sympathetic, I'd have stayed, but not otherwise. Considering what I do here, I don't think I'm particularly "thin-skinned", but many people are especially so when trying to join a group. The people who have difficulty confronting the way Wikipedia often does things are the normal people. The Wikipedians  who treat everyone else as if they were thick-skinned are the problem here.   DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly its reasons like this I stopped uploading images. I have a lot available to me that are from Government sources but when they started getting deleted for one reason or another I found that it was no longer worth my time to do anymore and moved onto other things. I recently had a similar experience with working on WikiProject United states but thats another matter. So although I never had the expereince of having an article deleted I haev seen this first hand. It doesn't just apply to Article creation it applies to multiple facets of Wikipedia. --Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog
WP:RFPP has quite a backlog at the moment with 24 requests pending. If some admins could swing by there it would be helpful; I'd work on it myself but I'm about to get relatively busy for the next few hours. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

block-evader giving me the runaround

 * (Cross-posted from WT:UKRAIL)

I've been dealing with a guy for the last few days who keeps changing usage statistics and adding commentary about ticket barriers etc on various station articles, particularly those in Scotland. Kilwinning railway station and First ScotRail seem to be favourite haunts, but there are new ones with each block-evading IP. It started with User:JakeNeill1, who was briefly blocked, but has evaded the block through various BSkyB IP addresses (usually starting 90.xxx... and 2.2xx.xxx..). Any assistance dealing with him (or suggestions short of semi-protecting every article on a station with services to/within Scotland or blocking every Scottish BSkyB customer) would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping he'll get bored or run out of IP addresses, but in the meantime, please revert and block on sight or report to AIV (and please let me know so I can keep track). Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific related changes page I can patrol? (E.g. ). Marcus   Qwertyus   22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Railway_stations_served_by_First_ScotRail probably catches most of his targets, though there are a few others. Thanks for the suggestion—much more efficient than waiting for him to a get to a page on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Antiquated spelling
Is there an admin around who is willing to replace the antiquated spelling "e-mail" with "email" on Mediawiki pages? Also, where should I go to get "E-mail this user" in the task menu changed? Bugzilla? It's been bugging me. Marcus  Qwertyus   22:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, do I feel old. I had no idea "e-mail" was antiquated. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press stylebook held out, but has finally retired the old spelling.. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Emailuser sets the text in the sidebar. Goodvac (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is technically easy to do (I could set up an AWB run and do it inside five minutes), but some consensus for such a move would be nice before it is done. Courcelles 23:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have the feeling that "e-mail" is perceived as antiquated in general usage. "E-mail" and "email" seem to be to be used about equally, with "e-mail" perceived as the more formal, more "correct" spelling. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the major email providers are using the newer spelling. Is it more formal? Probably not anymore. I like Mashable's description above of the old spelling as "a relic of a simpler time when Internet technology needed to be explained very carefully." Marcus   Qwertyus  —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
 * E-mail and email are two completely different words, actually. E-mail is short for electronic mail, which is what we're talking about here. Email is a verb which means "to put on armor" (with stress on the second syllable). Given that the intent of clicking on the link is (I assume) to send someone an electronic message and not to help them don a suit of armor, I think it would be better for it to stay at e-mail. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. Are you kidding? Marcus   Qwertyus   23:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in my OED. I initially came across this at WP:Use modern language, and my OED confirmed it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC) That being said, it is very common for people to simply write "email"; depending on your point of view, it's either laziness or efficiency.
 * Hadn't considered that. If we change it to "email", people may think that clicking that link will put armor on their horse. They'll be mighty disappointed when their horse remains unarmored after clicking the link. We may get angry telegrams. 28bytes (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's tele-gram. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear me, you're right. My typing skills do grow poor this close to a week-end. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You crazy kids these days, with "typing." Does no one carve their edits out of solid Helvitica anymore.  Oh, I also think that the e-mail/email change does not require strong consensus, as it's terribly minor. If it's buggin' anyone, change it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Serial copyvioler
Hello, here is an Admin from Commons; just wanted to warn you that this user, who appears to have uploaded copyvio on en.wiki too, has flooded Commons with a lot of Google Street's screenshots (see here). I put a warning on their talk page but I thought it was useful for you to know who you're dealing with. -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 03:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned talk-page
Orphaned talk-page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services--Musamies (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not orphaned at all. AFC exists so non-registered users cam create articles.  As, like mainspace, creation of pages in Wikipedia space is limited to registered users, ALL AFC pages are in Wikipedia talk space, where IP's may create new pages. Courcelles 06:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation; subpages of extant pages are not considered orphaned, or we'd have to delete things such as Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rescue
Having been deleted following Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13, the deletion reviewed at Deletion review/Log/2012 January 27 the template has been re-created, I have taged to for WP:G4 (which was removed with the edit sum Its no longer been added to anything. I don't think you can speedy delete it. No harm in leaving it for historical reasons and to prevent broken links) I then restored it to the Deteted template messages version which has also been reverted. Can a administrator please look into what's going on and protect the page. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical retainment of templates (and many other things) is commonplace. It is clearly not meant to be in use, as it states on the page, but is retained so that old page revisions that would contain it do not have broken links instead. I don't see the problem here. Historical things shouldn't be deleted. Silver  seren C 00:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mtking, not sure you realize, but the rescue template is wrapping inside of a template of it's own that marks it as an old template on any pages it's used on. Go try to use it in the Sandbox and see for yourself.--v/r - TP 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, the ARS should not be allowed to retain it in this fashion like some sort of martyr's rock. If it is to remain as something other than a redlink, then it should be clearly labeled as a deleted template and not still fly the lifesaver imagery. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc, that seems a bit harsh. We don't need to hold over their head our 'victory' in TfD and DRV.  The template is clearly marked and wraped in another template that prevents it from being used.  It only exists in this fashion to prevent the redlink rescue in old revisions of articles.--v/r - TP 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is the "This template is deprecated" text not enough? Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed the "This template is deprecated" text is enough, it is not as if the template contains any information that related to the article it was placed on. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. Due to the (silly) ongoing edit war on the template, I have just protected it for three days. I'm off to sleep now; fellow admins, feel free to unprotect without asking me should a consensus emerge here. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Tdeprecated be used in these cases? → Σ  τ  c. 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: it says that the deprecated template has been replaced by another one, while it was my impression that the TFD said that this one should be removed and not replaced. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Its not being used any longer, nor hurting anything at all. What possible reason would there to be to destroy it? You won. You somehow got enough people to show up to convince the opinion of the closing administrator to prevent it from being placed on any articles in need of Rescue. For historical places that link to it, its best to show what it was, instead of a dead red link.  D r e a m Focus  01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a deletion discussion; you don't need to add a vote to your comment. By the way, is this edit considered simple enough and housekeeping-like enough that it's appropriate while the template is protected?  I immediately self-reverted; the only reason I did it was to make it easy for you to understand what I'm asking about.  Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it much matters either way on the categories. Those categories could only show up if the template was transcluded from a live page with a revisionid older than the template deletion. Since all such transclusions were removed, these categories can never show up on a live version of a page because any new edits will have a higher revisionid. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is an obvious G4 speedy. Kept because article histories contain its usage?  Seriously?  There are literally hundreds of deleted templates that show up as redlinks in article histories.  I'd like to see a very good reason why this one deserves special treatment. Resolute 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There doesn't seem to be any real need to keep it around, other than some kind of shrine. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We generally delete templates because they're unfixable, because they're redundant, because they're unused and won't be used, or because they violate core policies. As this one was deleted because of the way it was frequently used, rather than because of a design problem or because it was never used, deletion isn't as helpful of a solution.  The discussion's goal was to ensure that this template wasn't transcluded or substed in other namespaces; its preservation with the notice of deprecation will go along with the result of the TFD without causing the problems with tons of article histories that would result from deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the prominent arguments in the deletion debate was that this was redundant to the real AfD template. Also, this is now unusued and won't be used.  So tell me again why this shouldn't be speedy deleted? Resolute 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look at the discussions at AFD and DRV, it's clear that the consensus was not for pseudo-deletion or faux-deletion, but for deletion. How is this not a db-repost? Tangentially, I tagged ARS/Tagged and Afdrescue for CSD yesterday (although the former was removed, for some reason). Both of them should go to the same place that ARSnote is now, and where rescue ought to be. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As soon as it is unprotected, I will file another TfD, then. This isn't about lording over ARS...if I wanted to do that I would have joined the recent ANI attacks against their deletion discussions...it is about respecting the consensus of the Wikipedia community.  The consensus was that this thing should be deleted, not left intact with some weird "we won't use it" pledges. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama. Resolute 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Do we keep other old transcluded templates to help make sure previous versions of articles appear correct? If or if not, why is  special such that it should deviate from the norm? In other words, can we de-politicalize this and look at the underlying (at least, as stated) issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Templates are routinely deleted without any consideration as to how they will make old versions of the page look. I happen to think that's a mistake (it is probably technically feasible to have articles display the template as it looked at the time the revision was made, even if the template has been edited since), but common practice is what it is at the moment. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case since the template added nothing of significance to the article, why not just have it produce "white space" then fully protect the template. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  06:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens' question is the relevant one here. I've never seen a deleted template get re-created for the sole purpose of ensuring that old revisions look nice.  It may be that it happens from time to time and I've never come across it, or it may be that it happens rarely or never.  If it does happen from time to time, I highly doubt it would happen on something that doesn't affect the content of an article, like a maintenance template.  I can't imagine it would ruin someone's day to see Template:Rescue on an old revision instead of the life-preserver template.  If this type of template re-creation is truly as uncommon as I think it is, then I see no reason to apply special treatment to this particular template.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> yak 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, who cares if our articles look like crap, as long as the bureaucratic niceties are preserved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's old article revisions. They arn't exactly pretty with or without the template because of that big red bar at the top.  I personally don't care if the template is kept for historical purposes, but that argument is flawed.--v/r - TP 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. ((TFD==Delete) && (DRV==Endorse) == Redlink). Page histories are full of redlinks and other brokeness; relax and breath normally; this is ok. This is a camel's nose to get this all overturned. Alarbus (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid. We don't need to discuss this, because we already did, twice as a matter of fact. The community has already spoken, and it said to delete thos template, and then it said it again. Whoever recreated it needs to be blocked for deliberate disruption per WP:POINT and the template, in accordance with the already clearly expressed will of the community, needs to be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't recreated; it was restored, along with the talk page. Kanguole 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, not quite: it was first recreated (as an empty, and non-functional, Deleted template stub) by the previous deleting admin Ironholds [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Rescue&diff=475483688&oldid=471220437]; then the old content was recreated on top of that by Rich Farmbrough [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Rescue&diff=476345128&oldid=476344705] and the prior history restored. The first step may not have been speedy-worthy but didn't technically do what was intended; the second step should never have been done without authorization from a DRV, and in my view does fall under speedy-repost. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the instructions for the template that after the article survived the AfD the template was to be removed? I ask because if the only argument for restoring the deleted template is that it preferves the look and feel of the article historically at that point it shouldn't be restored in it's full glory.  A simple 1 liner of "This article was tagged with the Rescue template"  that links to the ARS (or it's successor) page explaining about what the rescue template was.  It satisfies the need to indicate that the article was tagged and also minimizes the amount of influence said tag has. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One (of the meany issues) that were discussed at the TfD was the wikiproject "advert" in main space, so any link to the ARS would not be acceptable, I also don't see it as acceptable to keep a template for only history reasons (see my comments below). Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're all for confusing future editors in wondering what this template was intended to do just so you can stick it to ARS? Take your pound of flesh and move on.  The template is consensus deleted, we're just quibbling over the final disposition of a few edge cases.  Unless your permanently volunteering to provide a NPOV explanation of what the template was about every single time an editor asks about what the template was supposed to do. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not true that this treatment is totally unprecedented. See Template:Expand and Template:Deleted template. Not common practice but not totally invented out of whole cloth by the "desperate" ARS. 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * not to mention the fact that it was recreated (albeit just with the "this template was deleted" text) by the admin who deleted it in the first place! 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the community discussion about using this ? as it seams to be the work of just one editor ? I can perhaps see the logic for having while current versions of articles use a deleted template, however when all examples have been removed then the template should just be removed. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We generally use being deleted while removing templates. deleted template was the work of quite a number of people and has never been controversial in and of itself. There was a community discussion about deleted template and there was also a notification left at WT:TFD after it was created. There was also further discussion on AN and probably elsewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the deleting admin, I have no problem keeping it as a deprecated template. Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why User:Ironholds wasn't notified of this discussion; I thought it was required/polite. . <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? There was no consensus in either discussion for it to stay as a deprecated template. And the ARS wonders why they have such a bad reputation for creating such needless drama. Are we seriously going to have to go through another tfd. This should definitely be speedied. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Us vs Them" comments by a small number of editors above are part of the reason we've ended up here in the first place. To clarify a few things which others commented or touched upon: I asked Ironholds to restore rescue's talk page and edit history and add deleted template. He indicated he was swamped with other community issues and with his blessing I asked Rich Farmbrough to handle it. I knew Rich Farmbrough would know how to apply deleted template since he had done some of the initial work on the template (I've made quite a few complex logic code changes to improve it since then). Talk pages of templates are routinely deleted under CSD G8 and the talk page of a template which has a long history and lots of discussion should be left intact for historical purposes. Using deleted template makes this fairly straight forward and easy. Using deleted template also further discourages someone from creating a new template with the same name. This has happened a number of times and that really tends to break old page revisions. The logic code used for deleted template works like this: Old page revisions prior to the template's deletion show the original message box of the rescue template. New transclusions and edits display the red notice and do not display rescue's original message box, and are categorized in the Category:Pages containing deleted templates maintenance category. The template page for rescue itself shows both the red notice and the original message box. rescue does not fall under CSD G4 and I would caution the handful of individuals who are threatening to TfD rescue yet again that doing this is not productive and will further waste the community's time. It does not harm Wikipedia in any way to preserve the talk page and edit history of the template, and while doing so had not historically been routinely done, we didn't have a working solution for doing this until the latest expand discussion in January 2011. With the above out of the way, the handful of individuals ranting about Ironholds, Rich Farmbrough, and ARS need to double check who they are ranting about. If they really want to rant about someone, they can rant about me, since I'm the one who asked Ironholds and Rich Farmbrough to handle this task. ARS didn't have anything to do with it, and while I've occasionally "rescued" some "hopeless" articles at AfD, I'm not a "member" of ARS and I have rarely participated in discussions at WT:ARS. That said, I'm likely to ignore any ranting directed my way because it doesn't serve any constructive purpose and doesn't help improve Wikipedia. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tothwolf asserts that G4 doesn't apply to that template. I think that's a grey area, and it might be worthy of a WT:CSD discussion. But essentially for G4 to apply to a page, the page would have to be:
 * A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy of the page that was deleted.
 * Given a deletion result per consensus during its most recent deletion discussion.
 * A page where the reason for the deletion must still apply.
 * Not "userfied".
 * Not undeleted via DRV.
 * That third criterion above might be the sticky point. If a template is no longer in active use, does the reason for its deletion still apply? With the text stating that it's a deprecated template, it won't be effective as canvassing or a rallying cry or an advertisement for ARS or whatever objection someone would have to it even if someone does try to use it. Does that deprecation effectively remove that criterion from any template? In that case, why don't we just add such text to every template at TfD that should no longer be used rather than deleting them? --  At am a  頭 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, and as I mentioned above, should someone attempt to transclude rescue via a new edit, it will only display the red text and if the page is saved anyway, it will be added to the maintenance category where we can monitor and remove the transclusion. This is far better than having confused editors who didn't know of the TFD getting a red link when they attempt to use the template, etc. I know some editors thought such an approach might work for all templates, but I'm not sure we would really need that. The current design of deleted template works well for message box templates, but might not work well for other templates in it's current form. For message box templates which have previously been heavily used, deleted template seems right now to be the best way to handle them. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Atama, if a template is no longer in active use, it would be deleted at TFD anyway. And Tothwolf, clearly if the template is deprecated it would be better for it to show up as a red link that doesn't work than to allow it to exist in any fashion any more. If it is necessary to keep the template so it can be prevented from use, then simply include the coding that allows it to be tracked but remove the former functionality and formatting.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could simply salt the template so it doesn't get recreated. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ryulong, please go back and re-read what I wrote above. New transclusions of the template do not display any "former functionality of formatting". Only old page revisions accessed via edit history links with a revisionid prior to the template's deletion will display the original template's message box. Any new transclusions display a red notice and are added to a maintenance category. While I think a small number of people have been blowing a lot of things out of proportion, the very idea some have put forth that "ARS is going to continue to use rescue now that its history and talk page have been restored" is simply absurd. The code in deleted template simply doesn't work that way or allow it. &lt;soapbox&gt; I can understand how some editors might not understand how deleted template works, which is why I explained its logic code above, but beyond that, I'm growing tired of the anti-ARS propaganda (both blatant and disguised) that I've been seeing both here and elsewhere. Such propaganda and fear mongering fly in the face of our policies and if it were being done towards any other "group" of editors here on Wikipedia, such as say new page patrollers or FA writers or whatever, it would have been stopped and/or brought before ArbCom long before it got to the point where it is at with the current anti-ARS crowd. In fact, if ARS itself simply didn't exist, those pushing the anti-ARS propaganda would certainly be doing the same thing to some other group. On an individual level, members of ARS appear to be very tolerant and I've noticed that despite the persistent attacks by the anti-ARS camp, while a few ARS members tend to fall into a pattern of being baited and then finally lashing out, the majority of ARS' members simply ignore the anti-ARS rhetoric. I can't say the same for the opposing camp however. At times I've been astonished at the level of intolerance I've seen from the anti-ARS camp. Individual members of ARS apparently genuinely feel that keeping whatever material they are discussing is in the best interests of Wikipedia and helps improve our coverage of a particular subject. While that may or may not be the case depending on the particular discussion, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs and should still be able to feel secure that they won't be persecuted here on Wikipedia for voicing them. So... why am I speaking out if I'm not even a "member" of ARS? As a community, this is our problem, and somebody needs to say it. To the anti-ARS crowd: The majority of the community has been able to co-exist with ARS just fine. The problem is you, not them. Suck it up, work things out, and go write an article or find something else constructive to do. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You tell others to assume good faith while assuming stunningly bad faith of them. You tell your perceived opponents to stop being intolerant, while comparing them to nazis. What is wrong with you? Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My perceived opponents? I think you need to re-read some of what I wrote above because I've made it quite clear that I'm not in either of these camps. I've been sitting back and watching people go at it for weeks and I'm now simply calling it as I see it. If you feel offended by my reference to First they came… above then I apologize. My intent however was to point out the apparent "persecution" of ARS by a small anti-ARS minority within the Wikipedia community who've chosen to turn the TFD of rescue into a cause célèbre and use it as a staging ground to further propagandize and attack their perceived enemies within ARS. Given that, I feel my reference was spot on. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a blindingly obvious G4. The deleted revisions thing is BS many templates that no longer exist appear in deleted revisions. This is slighting the community concencus by bringing back a contraversial template without discussion. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  06:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you in the right place? Please see the top of the page: "Review of a deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review.".  The template was at TfD multiple times and so it seems right and proper that it should have several performances at DRV too.  See also WP:LIGHTBULB.  Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On a related note, if an administrator could restore the documentation subpage and add Historical, this should allow the red notice to properly display directly below the original message box on the template page itself (see Expand for an example). Right now the preloaded documentation message box is being displayed in between the original message box and the red notice and it might be possible for some people to miss seeing the red text on the template page itself. This doesn't have any effect on the logic code used by deleted template so any potential transclusions will display the red notice text correctly anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think.  MBisanz  talk 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The name parameter for Ambox was what was causing the restored documentation page box to display in the wrong location. I'm not sure why just yet, but I've removed that parameter so it displays the red notice text correctly now. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, here as go. Ambox includes the code which would cause this to happen:


 * It also looks like the subst parameter cannot be used without name, so either no has to be passed to Ambox, or the subst: check has to be done externally to Ambox when deleted template is used. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. Consensus at the TfD and DRV was clear, and that was that the template should be deleted. Not quasi-pseudo-half way deleted but retained as some kind of memorial. Deleted. Are we going to start restoring articles because other articles have redlinks in their histories now? How ridiculous can you get? And congratulations to Tothwolf, who with his extensive explanations of the coding feasibility and "BAWWW! I'm, like, totally neutral but the ARS are blameless angels fighting the evil hordes" handwringing, has managed to deflect from the real issue- which is that the template should not have been undeleted at all. The consensus is what it is, and people simply need to accept that. G4 and salt. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From my viewpoint, neither "side" is particularly happy with the current situation. ARS doesn't have their template anymore, and the hardcore anti-ARS camp isn't happy that the template has been wrapped in deleted template in order to prevent new transclusions and allow old page revisions to continue to work. As a member of the larger community, I for one am glad that the talk page which had been speedied under CSD G8 is visible to non-administrators now. Deletion of the talk page resulted in a loss of transparency as to the discussions which had been taking place there prior to the TFD and incoming links to the talk page had been made non-functional. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Things I see above: "Sorry, but no, the ARS should not be allowed to retain it in this fashion like some sort of martyr's rock."  "And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama." "knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid." "And the ARS wonders why they have such a bad reputation for creating such needless drama."  Ummm, Really?.  You guys are creating your own drama.  Who cares about this, really?  You are arguing about the proper treatment of a deleted template for historical purposes.  As some are doing above, figure out the standard rule, discuss it, come to a result.  Meanwhile I'll work on building an encyclopedia.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue
Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

It is a shame that some just refuse to accept the community consensus and edit was to keep a sentimental/historical copy of what was deleted in project space, but it seems an official TfD is the only thing that will work here, as one wikiproject saw fit to edit war to keep speedy tags off and keep the old template itself in. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ARS is sitting around a fire perusing the template history and listening to .--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTICE - It seems the deletion discussion has moved into the backlog. Took me a while to find it so I am leaving the link here for anyone still interested in commenting there.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page archives
Could an administrator please restore the talk page archives and sandbox edit history? I've been able to find 4 talk page archives and another talk page so far, but there may be others as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * /Archive 1
 * /Archive 2
 * /Archive 3
 * /Archive 4
 * Template talk:Rescue/doc
 * Template:Rescue/sandbox
 * Could an administrator like, not do that, and not take any more admin actions related to this until the current TFD is closed? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With your comment at TFD and now here, I certainly don't understand what exactly it is you don't want us to see in the talk page archives. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know or care what is in them so I'll thank you to leave your backhanded accusations at the door. They were deleted as a result of a community decision to delete the template. A decision that was upheld at DRV. None of this should have been restored without a new discussion first that clearly overturned the previous consensus. That's how WP works, as I'm sure you are already aware. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't particularly care what is in the talk page archives, then you shouldn't really be all that concerned if they are restored for transparency reasons, either. The talk page was not deleted per any sort of community discussion so it might be best if you stop attempting to mislead others who may be following this discussion. If the deletion of the template itself was as non-controversial as you and a few others have tried to claim, then there also wouldn't be any reason for a small minority of individuals to try to prevent non-administrators from seeing the talk page archives now would there? --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because speedy deletion is supposed to only be used for non-controversial deletions, and because the G8 criteria for speedy deletions specifically excludes talk page archives : "This excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user pages, user talk pages, talk page archives, [...]" I again ask that an administrator please restore these pages for the purposes of transparency. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I again ask that they not for issues of ignoring a clearly established consensus that we are now being asked to ignore for completely specious reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is on the verge of being seen as disruptive, IMO. The Template is gone; it only exists at the moment because of the extremely poor judgement of Rich Farmbrough, and will likely be deleted for good as no one has put forth an actual argument as to why a prior finding of delete should not be honored.  There is no need to retain discussions abotu a template that does not exist. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the talk page archives will likely provide a useful insight into how the template evolved, how it was perceived, and the problems that led to its removal. I do not see the value in leaving those discussions deleted, lest we reinvent the same issues and errors again. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be terribly opposed to moving the contents of the talkpage and related subpages to some subsection of the ARS project page if you really wish to preserve the conversations. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Tarc's suggestion makes a lot of sense, frankly. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that this is even at TfD again is frankly deplorable. It should have been speedily deleted (which is why I again CSDed it; Milowent reverted me).  What little esteem I had for the ARS is now completely gone; they refuse to respect two consensuses  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's back at AFD. If there is a consensus in that discussion, then whatever that consensus is can we please please please please please please please please please just implement it and put an end to these layers of meta-discussion?  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Though it may not often happen, I agree with Tarc: the simplest place to put the discussions is as a subpage of the ARS WikiProject, with the appropriate indication that they are historical; I'm pleased he acknowledges the legitimacy of the project at least to that extent. From the standpoint of anyone who cares about XfD/deletion/inclusion, from any point of view, this is not a matter of principle, or a matter which will either way greatly impair the efficiency and effectiveness of either deleting or keeping articles.   What does interfere with both deleting deletable articles, and keeping keepable ones ,is spending any more effort on this. We do still need to design what a good template to indicate that there is an especially urgent need & practical possibility of better sourcing or otherwise strengthening an article. A good many unimprovable articles get challenged, and sourcing is not always easy, & so it helps to have something to focus attention on the most likely and important candidates.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How would we deal with existing incoming links and pointers to the original location though? How are editors in the future who wonder "What the heck was this rescue template and why was it deleted?" going to know that the talk page archives can be found in a different location in project space? This could be solved with a soft redirect of course, but that too would end up deleted under CSD G8 due to the use of automated tools and would defeat the stated purpose for maintaining the talk page archives in project space anyway. It seems the most logical and straightforward thing to do is simply leave the archives in their original location and use deleted template. If not for the apparent vendetta some people seem to have for certain ARS members, this would most certainly be a non-issue. Even with expand we never had this much drama, and the TfD for expand was pretty darn contentious. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed
Moved from Related discussion on ANI   Nobody Ent

A proposal: User:The Devil& may not bring up threads at ANI or any other noticeboard regarding the Article Rescue Squad, broadly construed, and may not nominate for deletion any pages that are part of the ARS project or bring them up for Deletion Review. [someone please rephrase this for necessary comprehensiveness.] This includes pages and templates used by the ARS and complaints about ARS members (loosely defined) as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined).
 * Rationale: too many fishing expeditions and divisive, disruptive, and time-wasting threads in various forums. Violating this ban may be punishable by tickle death or a block. Please phrase this better if you can. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny that you would say "complaints about ARS members (loosely defined)" as you would probably be including complaints about yourself in that situation. Also, it would appear to deny me the ability to make any note of the numerous uncivil remarks you and other editors involved with ARS have made about me pretty much from the outset. You are making this out like I am just going after the ARS for no discernible reason.


 * The reality is that I saw an article that should be deleted, nominated it for deletion, and saw the ARS was back to its old tricks just weeks after they got a big wake-up call from the rest of Wikipedia (anyone is free to look at that first ANI discussion and the TfD about the rescue tag). I am not repeatedly bringing up the same issue to try and get a different result. The first ANI thread in this latest instance did not directly name a case and focused instead on the fact that the editor most complained about in the previous discussion created the list almost immediately after the rescue tag got deleted in what would seem to be a blatant case of WP:IDHT. That discussion was closed by you, an involved admin (having commented at listing there before going to vote keep in the AfD I started), within five hours based on the MfD result.


 * I asked another admin how I should proceed given your involvement and he said the close was premature, but suggested that if I have a specific case to mention I should start a new ANI thread about it and so I did. The result was that more editors came in and several expressed serious concerns about the list and the way it was being used by the editors in question. However, several editors insisted the MfD settled the matter and when that ANI discussion got closed within 17 hours, not including the repeated disruptive closings by involved editors, based on "no consensus for action" (not claiming that there were no legitimate issues as some are insisting) I decided to move the discussion to the MfD. An hour after it was re-opened, before I could even leave my delete vote, an admin stepped in and closed the discussion after a single hour based on there not being a delete vote. So, I asked the admin to re-open, but the admin did not wish to reverse the action and suggested I could put it up for review, which I did.


 * This ANI discussion is about someone closing that discussion inappropriately even as more votes were coming in favoring relisting. How exactly could this editor know there would not be more editors who might take an interest and see cause for relisting? Why did this editor not consider the fact that a significant portion of the votes were from members of the project whose page was up for deletion and were not actually providing reasons against relisting? Did this editor intend, as he seems to state, on closing it as having been endorsed either way and just waited until it had a little more input so as to avoid making it look premature? So, you see, it is not about me raising the same issue over and over. Only my call for the closing admin to re-open the MfD and the DRV was trying to restart an old discussion, a discussion that I myself think was initiated prematurely before more people could be drawn to the issue at ANI so that it wouldn't essentially just get ARS members and people who frequent the list voting to keep their beloved page. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Devil's Advocate, "complaints about ARS members (loosely defined)" is an incomplete citation: notice the second part, "as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined)" (that should be amended to "in regard to"). You are free to complain about any one of those people, including me (hell, I'll sign up with the ARS if that makes it easier for you to pigeonhole me), Northamerica1000, Dream Focus, the Colonel, Milowent, S Marshall, Spartaz...(let's paint with a broad brush), but not in their activities as ARS members--that is, related to that list or templates or whatever. And I'm not saying you're going after the ARS for no discernible reason: I think there probably are a couple of reasons, but that's not relevant here. Finally, a deletion review may have been the proper step, formally speaking, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do. You have been told, time and again, that the horse is dead. S Marshall is only the last one of a couple of editors who tried to put it out of its misery. I want to prevent further animal carcass abuse. I got nothing against you, and I have had few interactions with you outside of those ARS discussions. You were trolled, for instance, and I offered what little help I could give you. Others have complained on your talk page about endless discussions and your tenaciously holding on to sticks (well, straws, probably), and that won't make you any more friends. But I'm focused on this one. I hope you have other things to do beside what appears to be a vendetta against the ARS; I can assure you that those things are probably more likely to be rewarding to you as a Wikipedia editor. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, for reasons I detailed almost immediately above this section. Kevin (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support He doesn't seem to be likely to give up, no matter how many people try to reason with him. No sense having the same exact discussion every few days from the same determined editor.   D r e a m Focus  08:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support TDA's editing here is becoming disruptive and a time-sink. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The Devil's Advocate needs to go do something else for a while. 28bytes (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was doing something else before Marshall's closure brought me right back into it. Even if the only the result of my efforts was the MfD going from keep to no consensus I would be satisified, because it would at least not be presented as a consensus in favor of what ARS is doing (something that I think should go without saying). The funny thing is, I was once more dragged into the ARS stuff because I was trying to cool off from another topic area by going on recent change patrol only to step into this shit again while doing that without even trying. Should you want to make this about conduct, I say you stow this talk of banning me from discussing this and let us all have a broader discussion about ARS in general that isn't going to get closed every few hours. I can provide more than enough evidence of disruptive behavior by more than "a few" editors.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then do so. Your constant nebulous hints about "having evidence I could provide" are weakening your position and making it seem more like you have an anti-ARS WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. (And a preemptive caution with regards to WP:CIVIL might not be amiss.) - The Bushranger One ping only 12:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Nobody Ent 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Sadly to be sure. Noting that the ban does not prevent you from !voting on any issues - just that you need to take a break from being Sisyphus yourself, as a minimum. Note: "bring up" should be "initiate",  and change the "ANI or any other noticeboard" to "any page in projectspace" as being clearer and slightlyy more encompassing, and thus removing the stuff about "deletion review" etc. as it is covered as being in "projectspace".
 * User:The Devil& may not initiate anything on any page in projectspace directly or indirectly referring to the Article Rescue Squad.
 * Hoping this is pretty clear. Collect (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, thank you for rephrasing. As I said to Nobody Ent on my talk page (they kindly left me a note about having moved the section here and retitled it), I was tired when I wrote this up but I wanted to get it started. As for Nobody Ent's move, I've seen such topic ban discussions on ANI and thought it best to keep it in the ANI section that spawned it, but I have no problems with it being moved or edited. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, tendentious and disruptive crusading. postdlf (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, support. User needs help to drop the stick and leave the deceased equine in peace.— S Marshall  T/C 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * yes please, and I'm most definitely not aligned with ARS... Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If there's evidence in the future of the type of behavior that TDA believes he's witnessing, then someone else will bring it to wider attention. TDA's recent contributions on this topic are rapidly approaching disruptive, and a topic ban will allow him to keep contributing elsewhere, unlike a full block for disruptive editing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * support — Ched : ?  14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not that I necessarily agree with Advocate's arguments, but this isn't the way to fix the problem. Shutting an editor up with a topic ban is more likely to frustrate that editor and cause him to quit the project than it is to make him see the errors of his ways.  I see no reason why these concerns can't be resolved through normal means, i.e. allow his DRV to last the full 7 days, and when it closes the way we all know it will, then Advocate will have no further place from which to argue.  Forcibly suppressing the good faith complaints of an editor is very "un-wiki", and should only be considered in extreme cases.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> comment 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, all I want is to have a discussion that actually lasts for a reasonable duration and is reviewed fairly by someone who doesn't have some sort of bias on the outcome (whatever the bias might be). So far the only discussion that has made it past a day was the deletion review.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Scotty, I think we are dealing with an extreme situation here. And if The Devil's Advocate is the only one to bring up these issues, then maybe that means it isn't much of an issue. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is extreme enough that we have to tell Advocate the equivalent of "Just shut up already!" Advocate is being reasonable in his communication, he's not being uncivil, and he's not asking for unreasonable things (it's not uncommon for someone to complain about an early snow closure when the votes aren't unanimous).  Unless I'm unaware of the full history of the situation (in which case, please enlighten me), a topic ban to prevent an editor from even expressing his opinions about a protected class of editors seems pretty extreme.  Banning someone from starting ANI threads on a particular topic is one thing, but restricting someone from even mentioning certain editors is overly authoritarian.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> spill the beans 17:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want him to shut up. I am not proposing a topic ban that would disallow him from expressing an opinion. The topic ban is to disallow him to start ANI threads, deletion reviews, etc (think TfD, for instance) about the ARS. "Restricting someone from even mentioning certain editors"--that's not what I said. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic ban includes a restriction preventing Advocate from making "complaints about ARS members (loosely defined) as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined)". I'd say that's pretty close to "restricting someone from even mentioning certain editors".  It's like using a hatchet instead of a scalpel.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confabulate 23:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose pretty much per ScottyWong; I think that there has been quite enough discussion already about the various Arstefacts, but clearly The Devil's Advocate disagrees. It is difficult to know the best way to proceed with a such a dedicated horse-percussionist, but if the substance of his current complaint is that discussion is being stifled, it makes little sense to stifle it further. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Drmies, I am the one starting the ANI discussions, but definitely not the only one who has concerns. The ANI discussion several weeks ago clearly revealed a lot of disapproval towards the Article Rescue Squadron as a whole. CrossMR and Mbisanz are two I can think of most readily who raised objections about the list this time around.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there has always been disagreement with the ARS. Their rescue template is gone now, which I'm sure has appeased a lot of people. (For the record, I don't disagree with the deletion, but I was always more bothered by its injudicious application, which all of a sudden became a topic due to one single editor's activities). But how those threads evolved and were closed reveals a greater impatience with the complaint on the part of the community than it does disagreement with the ARS and how it operates. And here we are again, caught up in yet another discussion. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Further note, look at all the delete votes in the TfD over the rescue tag. Most of those editors I have not seen comment on this recent issue at all.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I believe I commented on a thread involving the ARS list that it looked open to collusion and maybe they were trending in that direction, but my comments were refuted and the broader community didn't care; so I dropped it. I then supported the quick closure of the MFD on that topic at DRV as procedurally proper. I haven't been the one starting these discussions or filling walls of text in them.  MBisanz  talk 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving to oppose, based on the draconian phrasing of the topic ban and TDA's agreeing to use more appropriate DR venues. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Weak support, mostly because, whether he's right or wrong about the ARS, it ought to be clear to TDA that his threads about it are not gaining traction on ANI, and aren't likely to. The Devil's Advocate, if you feel that the ARS or its members are being disruptive, you need to take it to an RfC at this point, rather than continually tilting at windmills here on the admin noticeboards. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't exactly take it to an RfC if I am banned from bringing it up altogether. Honestly, if editors here committed to having an RfC on this general issue of the Article Rescue Squadron I would have no issue accepting a ban from mentioning this at places like ANI for some fixed duration of time so long as there is allowance that I be able to contribute to that RfC discussion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. I think the wording that's up there now is not the wording I saw when I made my initial comment here, or else I wasn't totally awake when I read it. In any case, I'll specify now so I make more sense: I would support TDA being prohibited from opening new AN, ANI, VPP, etc threads about the ARS, to encourage him to use an RfC as the next step in dispute resolution. I very strongly oppose a comprehensive topic ban that prevents him from participating in discussions with or about the ARS, or nominating articles under their protection for deletion and the like. The objective here is to funnel the dispute into proper dispute resolution procedures, not to protect the ARS from criticism. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fluffernutter, my proposal (or Collect's rewording) does not prevent, I hope, DA from participating in discussions. Please check to see if your phrasing, TDA [is] prohibited from opening new AN, ANI, VPP, etc threads about the ARS, agrees with my (poorly written) proposal or Collect's proposition. I think it does. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording "This includes [...] complaints about ARS members (loosely defined) as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined)" is the sticking point in your proposal, Drmies. It would prohibit him from following dispute resolution procedures or, quite frankly, ever criticising ARS members' activities, anywhere, no matter who started the discussion or where it was. Basically, I'm on board with "don't do this here," but I can't support "and also, you may not express a negative opinion about this protected class of people or their club, period." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I want them to not initiate such complaints about the ARS or about editorsinregardtotheirARSactivities, so to speak. My concern is that complaints will be filed about individual members that turn out to be, in a more or less direct way as the case may be, about the ARS as a whole--such as the very existence of a list of articles that are brought to the attention of the ARS. But I will leave this to the community. What about Collect's short and sweet sentence? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect's sentence ("User:The Devil's Advocate may not initiate anything on any page in projectspace directly or indirectly referring to the Article Rescue Squad.") would also prevent TDA from pursuing dispute resolution via places like RfC entirely (and might, in effect, end up banning him from AfD and DRV, since creating anything in those spaces could be considered an indirect reference to the project that patrols them), so I also can't agree with that one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per fluff --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  15:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm going to support this to try to help this area of the project calm down.  MBisanz  talk 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - per sandwich, any chance on allowing him one RfC, on whatever this is? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the relevant pages: first ANI discussion involving the list, second ANI discussion involving the list, and deletion review on the list.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see there seems to be a dispute about canvassing. I see allot of disputes about what is canvassing and what is notice, in allot of areas, so I don't know if you can be blamed for that. Perhaps, an RfC or mediation can help you guys out.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: if for no other reason than that he's not exactly telling the truth about the timing of the DRV closure...it was closed less than 24 hrs. early according to the signature  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not true. I can only assume you misunderstood something. The discussion was placed in February 10, but I had actually posted it on February 11th so that may be the cause of your confusion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion wasn't closed until February 16...  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Devil's Advocate doesn't seem especially annoying and I don't see why he should be singled out when there are other editors with a longer history of such agitation: Snotty, Reyk, Tarc, &c. Warden (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Firstly, I want to say that Warden has shown a lot of maturity by the first part of his oppose and I just want to note that it has increased my respect for him. Secondly, although I strongly respect Drmies, I can't help but feel this is retaliation by the ARS.  I don't mean to assume bad faith here and I know TDA's ANI threads have become a bit tedious, but trying to silence his concerns is inappropriate.  The specific part I disagree with is "complaints about ARS members (loosely defined) as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined)."  I would prefer a tighter definition, not a loose one.--v/r - TP 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I kinda agree with this. I think the best approach would be TDA pursuing an RFC at this point. He wants a broader discussion about the ARS, and he should be afforded the option of pursuing it rather than squelching him altogether. I don't think he really wants to continue piddling away with canvassing accusations around one specific AFD at a time. I do think the repeated ANI listings have become somewhat disruptive, so I support the nomination only insofar as it might prevent that practice from continuing, but I oppose it being so loosely-defined as to prevent TDA from pursuing the most valid avenue for his concerns: an RFC. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to a rewrite. I can live with Fluffernutter's TDA being prohibited from opening new AN, ANI, VPP, etc threads about the ARS. Tparis, I am not a member of the ARS; if I'm retaliating, it's not on their behalf. (I'm actually not sure if they have membership; I don't have their card or user box.) As for Colonel Warden, I began respecting him a lot more a few years ago already, though I make it a matter of principle to always disagree with him even when he's right. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This seems like overkill. There are a lot of users with much more of a history of anti-ARS activism. AniMate 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's just gotta stop! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Start the RFC and have wider community involvement. But silencing an editor on a wiki-political topic through a ban? Wow. It was a silly DRV but that leads to this? Tellingly we don't see the laundry list of links to disruptive actions that we normally would in this instance. I'm a little stunned that this was even proposed. Shadowjams (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably because this was started at AN/I, where the regulars have gotten to be able to set their clocks by the anti-ARS threads this editor has created. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is? That there's no laundry list? You'll have an inaccurate watch if this is how you set it. I saw 2 ANI discussions (linked above), the one from over a month ago, and then the DRV. One of which was closed by Drmies. Is this the low bar for disruptive now? These seem to be separate complaints in each one, each in response to separate actions by different people. All seem reasonable issues to open (although none of them have consensus for the action TDA wants). TDA should probably cool it only because these generate senseless walls of text that don't seem to go anywhere (which is why we should have an RfC, which might be a senseless wall of text that has the potential to go somewhere). But nowhere in any of this is a reason for a topic ban, particularly when the primary supporters seem to be the people that TDA aggravated. Shadowjams (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "TDA should probably cool it only because these generate senseless walls of text that don't seem to go anywhere" - yes, that's pretty much the reason there's a topic ban proposal. If you can persuade him to cool it without a topic ban I'll be happy to switch to "oppose". 28bytes (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a distinction between what he should choose to do for sake of efficiency and what the community might force him to do. Silencing someone for what is the wiki equivalent of political speech sets a dangerous precedent. Undoubtedly someone will declare that this is in fact disruptive, but I don't think an objective outside viewer would see this as disruptive, and especially not rising to the level of a ban. Shadowjams (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair distinction, but at some point I didn't hear that kicks in, and I think we've reached that point. Really, if TDA were to say "OK, I get that this is annoying a lot of people, I'll drop the stick", we could just archive this and move on. 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there was another ANI discussion about the DRV close provided at the tippy-top of this section, which is what sparked this proposal. All the cards have been played here as far as I am concerned, though, and obviously the deck is stacked against me when it comes to this area of the site. Seems an RfC is the next logical step.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment None of this prevents anyone from participating in a discussion - it simply prevents TDA from being the one initiating anything about the "ARS" - which seems the prevailing consensus at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose Did you take this to RfC? or try other forms of dispute resolution? What were the results when you tried mediation? No compelling reason for a ban other than a group that can't take the heat.--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Move to close No action. Looks like DA agreed to drop any stick he may have been holding, at least with respect to running around with it on AN/I and AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment If this can all be resolved without more fuss, I'm fully willing to withdraw my support of a ban. I always prefer to see fewer restrictions, unless they are needed. — Ched :  ?  01:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Devil's Advocate, what do you say? Will you drop this stick? Drmies (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's what I want to know as well. Someone else saying that TDA dropped the stick is no substitue for a direct statement from the user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to his last comment in response to the Shadowjams Oppose above, where DA is responding to 28 bytes, which is about 7 comments above, this one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:HORSE ever applied, but I don't think there is anything else to do at ANI or DRV. My opinion is that all options have been exhausted here and so it is time to move it somewhere more appropriate where disruption is a lot less likely, such as an RfC as has been suggested.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the AN[I] part, oppose the XfD part. I'm tired of this repeated drama over virtually nothing. If more templates need to be deleted etc., there are clear venues for that. AN[I] is not among them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support [Edit: Switched to oppose, below] Based on the reply to Shadowjams and this reply to Drmies above, it still doesn't appear TDA will let this go without the community stepping in. I watched many other editors and administrators attempt to convince TDA to let this go and not make additional posts without evidence of wrongdoing, but it simply hasn't stopped. I myself stated in the discussion TDA initiated regarding ARS and myself: "although if he continues the behaviours he has been exhibiting, is it highly likely the community itself will ultimately put a stop to it" so it isn't like he had no way of knowing what would happen if he continued these same behaviours. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Toth, your comments towards me elsewhere can certainly give people an idea of why I wouldn't really pay your objections much mind. Indeed, anyone can go to your talk page right now to see what you did there in response to a comment I left asking you to stop making accusations of bad faith. You saying that your support for a ban is "reluctant" is belied by your comments elsewhere.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This doesn't really help you. Yes, perhaps I was a little grumpy when I hatted your comments on my talk page earlier in the week. Perhaps I even could have just ignored them instead of hatting them. You immediately turning around and filing another discussion thread while lashing out at me because I hatted them only served to further escalate matters though. In fact, if it would help deescalate things, I suppose I can unhat them. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [Edit: To clarify, TDA took issue with the wikilinks I included while hatting his comments on my talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)]
 * Just so anyone here understands. It was not just that he hatted my comments, but how he hatted them. Last comment here on this personal dispute. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief. I offer an olive branch and you try to bite off my arm? --Tothwolf (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment As some are wanting me to be clear, I don't see anything more that should or could be reasonably brought to ANI or deletion. You can call it "dropping the stick" if you like, though I see it as all legitimate options being exhausted with regards to this area and the MfD. I should also note that, in the ANI discussion that prompted this proposal, I raised more issues about the DRV close than S Marshall not being an admin. As I had no interaction with the user prior to the DRV I had no reason to think he was in such good standing concerning that space that mentioning his non-admin status would spark the reaction it did. Had I known that, I would have focused on those other issues I had with his closure so as not to offend him or others who know him. All the same, I see no good reason to try and re-argue his closure given the level of support given for it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The Devil's Advocate is heading to arbcom sooner or later...disruptive in numerous forums and articles...tedious, time consuming and not here for anything other than general anarchy...folks need to open their eyes...he was on a 30 day topic ban on 9/11 related articles...once the ban was lifted, he resumed his regularly scheduled programming...has two frivilous Wikiquette Assistance requests going on at the same time...been blocked twice in the last 3 months...now disruptive to the ARS...what's next one wonders.--MONGO 07:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was wondering when you would show up MONGO.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The other issue was just settled through a bit of kind and thoughtful discussion. Maybe you should try it MONGO. Feel free to come to my talk page to sort out our dispute amicably.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Colonel Warden has a point, but there is much more to it than that. The more I look at this, the more I get the sense that TDA honestly doesn't realize how he comes across to others. Maybe some of this is overenthusiasm, maybe some of it is just not stopping long enough to consider others' views, I really don't know. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I hope TDA will slow down and consider how his actions might come across to others. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Partial support I support the compromise proposal by TDA below but not the total package listed above. Although I may disagree with the delete nominations, and the number of them may have been excessive TDA seems responsive to what is going on and bans may not be needed. There does seem to be adequate opposition to TDA's proposals to make them more than a waste of time.  In my opinion a deletion review about a close happening too early, should not have been closed early, despite an overwhelming consensus.  So I do have support for a fraction of TDA's issues. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I was not going to comment or !vote in this whatsoever - until I saw the "defence of my actions" below. Now I have zero choice.  The actions are not defendable - especially in the way they claim! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per the "defence". Wow. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Count me among the numbers who wasn't going to vote until I read the defense.  Mc  JEFF  <sup style="color:black;">(talk)  02:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that was a mistake. That is why I crossed it out.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be willing to accept a ban from creating threads at ANI/AN about ARS or nominating ARS project pages for deletion or review if it would not preclude me from initiating an RfC or other forms of dispute resolution. That, I believe, will address any concerns about disruption.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would an admin please close this along those lines?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you struck the comments, it clearly does not mean that you don't believe them. Right about now, this is probably for your own good ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is for my own good to deny me any form of dispute resolution on the basis of a proposal from someone like Drmies? Sorry, but that is not even for Wikipedia's good to let an editor with a vendetta dictate how an opponent is to be dealt with.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Has got to end. The defense suggests the problem has been here before and addressed previously. .  --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why people are reading something I struck out. Those remarks I made were incredibly vague and simplistic and having read them again I realize why people reacted the way they did. Unfortunately, it's a very complicated issue and I don't think anything short of a very long explanation or exhaustive list of diffs will adequately portray the nature of what has taken place. Right now, I probably have more than enough evidence building up to make a compelling case at an RfC. I don't see why I should be denied that on the basis of me going to ANI creating a mess, isn't going to ANI almost always going to create a mess?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, most things in ANI are actually not drama-laden, ill-advised disruption ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's called the drama board for a reason. As to the disruption, I believe people are laying it on me when the disruption mostly originates from the other side. The discussion was never allowed to reach a natural end by the ARS and some of its long-time sympathizers. In pretty much every single discussion about the list at least half of the people commenting fell into that category. That creates the appearance of widespread consensus where in fact none exists.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I was not intending to defend my actions any more, I think there is a specific point worth raising. Going off WP:CCC it is understood that a new discussion can be initiated "if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not properly considered before." When I first raised the list up at ANI, I did not mention the specific AfD that prompted it, mostly because I wanted to avoid the appearance of using ANI as some sort of back-door canvassing (last time I mentioned an AfD at ANI it got hit with delete votes). That ANI discussion and the MfD prompted by it, were closed without that evidence being clearly provided (the ANI discussion itself was never even mentioned at the MfD). As such I had perfectly good reason for opening a new ANI discussion and trying to re-open the MfD so that the question could be re-evaluated on the basis of such evidence.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed: Motion to close
... with no action; let TDA open an RFC if required, this will at least attract wider participation and perhaps be a better opportunity to gauge the opinion of the wider community. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With 17/24 in support of the topic ban (a support ratio of 70.8%), this should be closed, but with the topic ban enacted. Mc  JEFF  <sup style="color:black;">(talk)  05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of leaving this open a little longer. I may yet change my support above, depending on TDA's response. There are a few other editors above who are also on the fence. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I am the subject of this proposal and my comments don't mean too much, it should be noted that several people who supported a ban on creating discussions at ANI about ARS oppose other aspects of the proposal Drmies put up. Also, while not approving of the "stick" description of the situation, I do think there is nothing left to bring up at ANI. Honestly, I am thinking that ANI just may not be the place to bring up such divisive issues at all with its "wild west" tendencies.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A close with "no action" = a position that a clear consensus != a clear consensus, alas. More people have opined than at most topic bans.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're certainly right about the current consensus, this was a perhaps premature attempt. I would like to see this boil lanced for once and for all; I thought this had been done here, here, here, and especially here, (as well as various other TfD and MfD, but it seems not). <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 11:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" does not mean a head count. People need to remember this, especially when talking about a community ban of any nature. The person proposing this wording, it should be noted, has been one of the editors whose conduct was at issue in one of those ANI discussions and has made vexatious and uncivil remarks towards me in several places.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued discussion
After I changed my opinion from support to oppose above, discussion with TDA has continued on my talk page here and on Crossmr's talk page here. Given the current direction of these discussions, I don't think TDA is willing to drop the issue and it would appear that he intends to simply continue this same mess in an RFC. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Several people support an RfC as the next step of dispute resolution. Involved editors have moved that I be denied any means to bring this issue up anywhere ever again, but two editors have changed their votes to opposing the ban on the basis of me suggesting an RfC as opposed to continued activity at ANI.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only way TDA ever drops an issue is via a block or topic ban...as I said above, this editor is here primarily to create drama and cause anarchy.MONGO 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, the topic ban would have to be more broad than what had been proposed above. As proposed it would not prohibit him from continuing via RFC. In fact, is the village pump even considered a noticeboard? If not, then that leaves yet another hole in the proposed topic ban. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "broadly construed" would likely mean an RfC and any other form of dispute resolution would be denied to me. Something that should be understood is that Drmies is responsible for the wording and he has not only been the subject of one of the ANI discussions he is suggesting are disruptive (on top of having closed the previous one despite having been involved in use of the rescue list), but has repeatedly made vexatious and uncivil remarks towards me (in the DRV he literally voted "endorse anything this editor tries to overturn"). I think an uninvolved admin should just toss his proposed wording aside.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about winning. TDA, let it go. You've voiced your concerns in numerous places and if the behaviours of individual ARS members become disruptive, there are more than enough editors who are aware of your concerns to handle it. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I get tired of people saying "let it go" because behind that is an implication that my concern is trivial and opposed by a consensus, but that is not accurate at all as canvassing is a very serious issue and several editors echo my concerns about ARS. Part of the reason I also object to people citing WP:HORSE is because that essay explicitly refers to a debate coming to a "natural end" and that implies again that a clear consensus of uninvolved editors has had sufficient time to review the issue and conclude in favor of one side. That is not what has happened. What has happened is that involved editors have repeatedly been trying to shut down the discussion either by flooding it with votes or repeatedly closing the discussions way too early. The result is all discussions save the DRV were never continually open more than ten hours, and not a single thread made it past a day. Sorry, but I am not going to accept being disallowed from so much as starting an RfC or otherwise taking it to the next step of dispute resolution.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Defense of my actions
I would like this to be my final comment on the proposal above and the focus of any administrative review. I opened just two ANI discussions regarding the list (the first just focused on the list, with the second being to note a specific case where it was being used for canvassing). An MfD was initiated almost immediately during the first discussion and closed within an hour-and-a-half. When the rapid MfD close was repeatedly being cited as reason for why those ANI discussions should not be happening (a close I felt was inappropriate as most of the comments came from ARS members or regular defenders of the ARS) I decided to take the issue there. As the MfD was reclosed before there was even time allowed for me to comment, let alone to notify editors who had participated in the ANI discussions, I went to DRV and asked for it to be relisted. I didn't ask it be overturned mind you, only that it be allowed to remain open for a decent amount of time, rather than just an hour. When an editor closed the DRV as a "snow endorse" I noted to him that most of the endorse votes were from people who were in the ARS or voted keep in the MfD and that there were several strong votes for relisting, but he essentially responded that he was planning to close the discussion that way from the beginning but was just waiting for enough votes to "prove to me" that it could not turn out any other way. So, I brought up his comment at ANI and asked that the DRV be re-opened and allowed to run its course. This is what is being called disruptive and WP:NOTBURO.

It wasn't like I was trying to re-argue the issue in a separate and unrelated avenue after a full airing of discussion because one avenue proved unfavorable. When the ANI discussions kept getting closed either directly or indirectly because of the MfD, I tried to take the issue to the MfD. Given that I was unable to actually take the issue to the MfD because a very rapid reclose by an involved admin prevented me from leaving a comment, I went to DRV to get it re-opened. When an editor who closed it on the basis of WP:SNOW responded to my request that it be re-opened in a way that blatantly indicated a preconceived bias towards endorsing the MfD close I brought that bias up at ANI to try and get the DRV re-opened. All of this was prompted, not because I was somehow "keeping my eye" on the ARS to find ways to "get them" (I had actually pretty much stopped paying attention to them after the TfD), but because I nominated an article for deletion that was subsequently put on the rescue list when the discussion was favoring delete. No heinous agenda, just me, on new page patrol, saying "that doesn't belong here" and being met with a whole lot of ARS canvassing for the second time in a month. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* Sigh. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm going to put down my machine gun soon. Right after I finish expending the 12,350,000,000,998 rounds I have left." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently those 2 rounds were spent shooting themself in each foot with the poorly-considered "defense" above. I expect a whack of !vote changing now ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried every way I knew of to talk TDA out of continuing with this mess. A number of other editors and administrators have also tried. I don't know what else I can possibly say to him. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I said rather plainly before that I was not going back to ANI with this. All I did above was summarize what I have already said so people get the full picture.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: "second time in a month" refers to Articles for deletion/Luxology and Articles for deletion/Modo (software)? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it refers to the Sal's Pizza AfD. It is linked right there in the second ANI discussion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the AfD that prompted it: Articles for deletion/Sal%27s Pizza %28Dallas%29. My first ANI discussion about the list is here. It was a response to the AfD. It was not because of some sort of "vendetta" but simply because of me running into the ARS twice in two separate deletion discussions within a month. The second discussion mentioning the list was the first one where I mentioned the AfD, because with the first discussion I didn't want it to look like I was just trying to get votes. However, when that first discussion got closed I asked admin Salvio about it and he said if I had a specific case I should file a new ANI report about it. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow me an RfC and I will be fine with anything else.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is somewhat like saying "fine, I'll stop tossing bottle rockets at your person if you'll let me fling a tactical nuke at your metropolitan area," but I actually support an RFC on this subject. Since I inexplicably joined ARS a few weeks ago, I think about 90% of the Content Rescue List submissions have been fine, helpful things, but some of them do feel a bit problematic; and I think, either way, it would be to the community's long-term benefit (if, certainly, also its short-term pain) to hash this out formally. FWIW, I didn't think the Sal's Pizza bit was problematic in the slightest, but perhaps I'm speaking with a different set of filters from your own. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is more like, "I'll stop having pedantic arguments about every little issue and if you'll let me discuss the underlying cause." Part of the reason a ban is a problem is because each of these instances was prompted by an article I put at AfD getting tagged by ARS. What am I to do if that happens again? This proposal will essentially mean I won't be able to do anything at all about the issue. Honestly, I don't see why I would want to get involved with AfD if any discussion I start could be hit with canvassed keep votes from ARS without me so much as being able to draw attention to it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please close this?
It's been 11 days since this was opened. It's really unfair to TDA to keep this hanging over his head for this long with no resolution. I'd close it myself but I voted in it. 28bytes (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request
This close is on the near horizon - there is no objection to the fact that it is ready for closing - one user just wants to say - please close this - the comments below are mine - this is a hotly disputed issue and needs a strong close to resolve the dispute -


 * Involved Users are looking for two combined experienced administrators, that have no ascertainable involvement in this sector under discussion and are willing to close the complicated and lengthy RFC discussion on the "santorum" neologism article. - Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism - You  really  can  22:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They should also not have a strong history of taking a particular POV on BLP issues. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP - is an en wikipedia policy not an issue - You  really  can  22:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There might be people who have been, just for example, involved in forming the policy, and would have the policy go further. At any rate, the admin should come to this fresh without strong POVs about how the policy should be applied.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a policy, and one which people can have different views on. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and as with any policy, editors can have a strong POV on how it should be applied. That's all I was saying.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Colleagues, the administrator who chooses to close this will make sure they are uninvolved. You don't need to propose criteria for who can close this. Jehochman Talk 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a side observation on one of the comments above, while BLP is a policy, there can still be “BLP issues” with an article….it’s standard terminology. Dreadstar  ☥   23:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no harm in letting the RfC run the nominal 30 days; although the count seems clear, a new argument was presented only a few days ago. Perhaps, if it is let run, a really convincing argument will be presented on one side or the other.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The harm, though not deadly, is that the talk page is already at 592,000 bytes, about twice the length of The Great Gatsby and not exactly the great American novel. The longer we wait, the more noise the closing administrator will have to sort through. Ongoing discussion is still civil, but is mostly a matter of repeating the same points and soapboxing.  59 editors weighed in during the first 14 days but we've had only 1 new editor per day since then.  If we were making popcorn it's safe to say all but the last few kernels have popped and if we leave it on the stove much longer it's only going to smoke.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So move the RfC to a subpage; it's been done before. The problem (aside from protecting the RfC from archiving while active) is that other discussions  arguments are ongoing; for example, the renaming sections need to be closed and possibly reopened as a discussion to find an acceptable name.  Personally, I find it possible for a neutral admin to find that WP:BLP would be clearly violated, which would override WP:CONSENUS; I think it would be violated, but not clearly so.  A close might not be in favor of the majority.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can take our chances, as even you feel it's not a clear violation. If you feel that way, an admin will be hard pressed to say that the consensus on the proper interpretation of BLP is with the minority.  Nice metaphor Wikidemon ( Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  09:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Arthur was not making that claim as "clearly" as you indicate. The political editors may not be as attuned to BLP as the ones who deal with BLP every week.  This is one case where the background of editors with specific regard to the issues raised should be weighted by any closing admin.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Volunteer I'm willing to volunteer as an uninvolved admin. I previously closed a Santorum RFC on whether or not to use the word 'vulger' in the lead.  I've not participated at the article on the politician or the neologism at all.  My only concern is that I've been involved in a dispute with BeCritical in the past so if s/he feels I can't be impartial then that's fine.--v/r - TP 14:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Volunteer - No past history whatsoever. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can help out too if needed. Closed the recent merge RFC, but otherwise I don't remember any other history. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a comment / request, please don't encourage the involved users on the page to get into opposition research on the suitability and bias of all the potential closers. There's been some attempt to negotiate the closing procedure and specify the choice of admins, and a lot of discussion on that.  Speaking as one of the involved editors myself (though I don't think the issue is terribly important, I do have a strong opinion), I trust the integrity of any admin who feels they are impartial and knowledgeable enough to weigh in.  The fairest result, if not the most predictable, is to take our chances and let the admin corps do what they're elected to do.  Some people asked for two or even three independent admins.  Now we have three volunteers so why not huddle or something amongst your administrator selves, and get to it?  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've followed that discussion (and talk page) for the last little while as an administrator. I would recommend that three uninvolved admins get together and decide on a close. It's going to be a contentious decision either way, so better to do by committee - no-one knows which way any of the three "voted", so you will all be hated equally but only a third as much. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So is somebody going to actually do it?? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Triumvirate
New subsection for the triumvirate of closing admins—,, and —to discuss the close.

For background about a triumvirate panel of closing admins, see the January 2011 discussion at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9, where wrote:

The first use of a triumvirate was at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227, where the admins discussed the close at WP:AN. Their discussion and analyses and the result were then posted to Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26 and Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26. I have contacted TParis, Timotheus Canens, and Xavexgoem to review the discussion at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Cunard (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One preliminary matter: should we do this at a subpage of the talk page, or at AN? I'm more inclined to believe that doing it on a subpage is better than AN. T. Canens (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, looks like we are using a subpage. T. Canens (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Update on the meta-wiki RfC
As you might have imagined, the "univolved" meta-wiki admin who preemptively closed the RfD on the "RfC" initiated there by User:Mbz1 on User:Gwen Gale, was also the one who kept it after "judging consensus" after he allowed the RfD discussion to proceed, pro forma. This is after he decided there is no defamation in the RfC itself. He also refused to pinpoint any previous discussion where RfCs had been kept at RfD, although claiming it's some sort of tradition of meta-wiki. Furthermore he previously stated that the RfD (and not the RfC) was an "abuse of the project" (i.e. of meta-wiki). And this closure by User:Nemo bis is the 2nd "uninvolved" closure of that RfD. The first was performed by another meta-wiki admin User:Micki, who had outright !voted in the RfD. I'm still pondering what to do about the whole situation. One would be to start one of those undeletable RfC/Us on his conduct as an administrator on meta-wiki itself. Another would be to ask stewards or the WMF to desysop him for aiding and abetting harassment, and for disregarding community consensus. Right now, a discussion (itself refactored by one of the "uninvolved" administrators in question) about the closure is taking place on m:Meta_talk:Requests_for_deletion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Just a note but this is probably the wrong place for this. Since the intent is clearly to discuss the conduct of an Admin it should be taken to ANI rather than here. I again notice that no one bothered to info the user on the discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion on this topic was held on WP:AN, so this seemed the proper venue for the followup. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see I'm not the only one to describe the situation in those terms or propose similar courses of action . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but it still seems appropriate to let the affected editor/admin know about the discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They have been notified. In the case of Nemo bis, again. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The simplest effective thing to do may be to stay cool and allow things to sort themselves out without provocation. Insulting other users, or othe wikis, is rarely constructive - certainly not in this case.
 * The original request could have been resolved sensibly without this drama if it had not been presented in an inflammatory way. For similar examples of 'apparent canvassing' by experts in a field who visit a deletion discussion without full context, visit AfD any week of the year.  The response is often  overreaction against whatever position benefited from the alleged canvassing, no matter how valid the assumptions of the inflammatory arguments are. – SJ +  02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, there is no other conclusion to draw other than the administrative function of Meta is completely broken. They lack the structure to conduct reviews of administrative actions, they block users on capricious whim.  Several are completely incapable of reconsidering actions they have taken and just plow through with a "you're from en.wiki so just GTFO" mentality.  From the beginning, this has been less about Mbz1's harassment of an en.wiki admin and more of a territorial pissing match when Meta admins long used to running that place like a feudal estate had no idea what to do when called out.  If there were ever a time for the WMF to intervene at the project level, to delete that atrocious RfC on Gwen Gale and to emergency desysop several admins (Nemo, Micki, probably others), this is it.  Meta is an embarrassment. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users is still open, where a proposal to limit the scope of the RfC process on Meta is currently running at something like 26 to 15 in favor. If successful, that would end RfCs like the one above.  I can understand how the Meta admins could be unhappy about a proposal to quash one of their own procedures as useless, but only for the benefit of one specific person who has friends on en.wiki; limiting the scope overall sounds like a fairer approach. Wnt (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given how admins there judge consensus, it's probably a waste of time at this point. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be careful with generalising too much, AsCIIn2Bme. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. See below. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ASCIIn2Bme - I don't like that tone you set here. There are enough admins on meta who do not involve themselves with that type of politics.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to assume that that is true. (I see that you're an admin there too.) Why was then this discussion closed by two involved admins in a row? What are the meta-wiki safeguards against that happening (again)? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both admins felt they were closing neutrally, not according to their personal opinions, and explained their choices. Both indicated they were open to someone else reverting their decision, which is standard.  Reasonable questions have been raised about the second closing admin's involvedness, so another admin may well review or remove the current closing rationale while that happens.  This can take a couple of days to sort out, for long discussions where many people have already been involved.  (there does not seem to be urgency here, else there are other options for fast resolution.)  The real missing element is a Meta-group that can handle requests touching on user behavior across wikis, including this RfC-RfD-crosswikidebate.  Most Meta admins and editors disapprove of the sort of drama represented by this set of discussions, and treat it by ignoring it.  For the record, this often works better than "insult, block, rinse, repeat".
 * Comments on the Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_committee proposal and help making it better (this likely does not mean "more like en:wp arbcom" :-) would be welcome. – SJ +  02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and I don't know. Also here on en.wikipedia, there are administrators who are totally ignorant about certain parts of the processes that take place in other corners of en.wikipedia.  I am, on meta.wikipedia, totally ignorant of that part of the process.  I do note, that I know that on some wikis processes are harsh (and actually, I am really afraid that en.wikipedia is going to follow suit), and I am willing to entertain the idea that that harshness has already penetrated meta.wikimedia.  The problem is, en.wikipedia does not have any authority over meta, and meta does not have any authority over Wikipedia.  I'll try to have a quick look at the situations there (but I do not promise anything).  Until now, I agree that wikis should as much as possible keep things to themselves, and if editors go to another wiki, then that other wiki has to deal with it.  I don't know the full situation, but I think that if editors here suggest that something on meta needs deletion because it has already been discussed on en.wikipedia, or even shut down meta because things don't need to be discussed there may be in basis correct, but it is out of the authority of en.wikipedia, and there will be undue weight on the discussions in such cases.  Just as en.wikipedia would not accept an influx of de.wikipedia editors who would try to get something deleted here on en.wikipedia because they don't like it on de.wikipedia, I think that meta.wikimedia has similar issues - things on meta don't get deleted because one wiki pounds the discussion and pushes it to one side.  I'll have a look, but as I said, I don't guarantee anything.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but can we please root out, once and for all, that old "Just as en.wikipedia would not accept an influx of de.wikipedia editors..." canard? I've said it before, but apparently it needs repeating: No, en-wp editors going to Meta is not in any way comparable to editors from one content wiki going to another. That's what Meta is all about. Unlike every other project, Meta is the one project that is not supposed to have a local dedicated community of "regulars", but where every experienced editor from every other project automatically has the status of a regular, at any time. That's why it's called Meta. And any of the self-styled "regulars" there that react with this kind of reservation to people coming over to deal with a situation that affects them need their butts kicked, is what. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok, as I advocated both on Meta and in the above topic. However, some of the en.wp editors coming to Meta in good faith, assume that the procedures and policies over there are or should be exactly the same as they are on en.wp, and sometimes they just insist on this and are not prepared to make concessions. This, I must say, does not particularly help to reach consensus. One example of this, but not even the most prominent one, is that some users request that mbz1 were globally blocked - even though it clearly contradicts to the existing practices and the proposed policy, which says that someone can only globally blocked if they are in trouble and have been banned in more than one project, not if they are clearly disruptive on one or even two projects. And changing this policy can be dangerous - for instance, I was once banned on a minor project I had zero edits on. I can give more relevant examples pertaining to the Meta closure request and the deletion request, but I hope I made my point clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's even an essay there about that Enwikipediathink, and there probably are others. However, as Fut.Perf. said a few times in similar discussions over there, some of the rules in en.wiki are based in basic ethics, e.g. not closing a discussion in which you participated as "uninvolved", particularly not claiming "strength of arguments" when the closer's argument was in a 1:2 minority. I suppose this one of the ethical behaviors we take for granted in the West, but perhaps admins whose main experience is in Balkans' Wikipedias just don't see this as an obvious necessity. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the above comment, whilst I am mildly irritated to learn that there is a page on Meta discussing en.wp as if it were part of the Nineteen Eighty-Four universe, I do not think that disparaging users' countries of origin is appropriate. On a more general point, I would like to take the opportunity to defend m: here, because, although I have not had to use it too often, on those occasions that I have gone over there to request something of them, I have felt that my requests were treated courteously and effectually. For instance, I found myself liaising with Meta just a few days ago regarding some clickjacking vandalism over here, and found their actions helpful and prompt; earlier, I had witnessed similarly satisfactory results in the field of fixing holes in the HTTPS switchover.  It Is Me Here   t / c 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Dirk Beetstra's comment above effectively saying that there is a silent majority of meta-wiki regulars who avoid dramaz and do good work is probably accurate. But they are perhaps too silent when it comes to the functioning of their own wiki. I suspect they need a local ArbCom because there doesn't seem to be any mechanism over there for dealing with sysops who would clearly get at least an admonishment in the en.wp system for the kind of behavior we've seen above. (I've also discovered that Nemo blocked User:Alanscottwalker over there during the dispute over the RfD closures, but at least he lifted that block quickly.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so. Meta is low-bureaucracy; the mechanism usually used is friendly personal criticism by another user. Often that is enough to cause a wiki-break or resignation.  That hasn't happened very visibly at present in part because many admins who looked into it sympathize with the kneejerk reaction against hostile drive-by commentors, and are looking for ways to correct bad behavior without encouraging assumptions of bad-faith. – SJ +  02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ASCIIn2Bme, I think that is one of my points there, indeed. I am certainly not disputing that there will be admins there which do not avoid drama, and there will be those that do.  I do not regard meta 'my own wiki', I do not like the insinuation that I should step up there.
 * Setting up an own ArbCom there may be an option, but I am not sure whether that is going to help.


 * @FutPerf. Yes, meta should be a wiki where everyone would be at home.  But that does not mean that if one wiki has a problem with what is happening on meta and where a lot of editors come and rush in wanting something changed or deleted on meta (or even the whole wiki shut down), that that then should happen because the 'consensus' seems that way due to all the editors coming from one wiki.  I know that it is not exactly the same as having a rush of overflow from one content wiki to another content wiki, but the effect on 'consensus' could be the same.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "projects" and they collectively "want" or "have a problem with". It's about individuals and their individual opinions. Some people on Meta have been going on whining about how "en.wp", collectively, is trying to unduly influence Meta. That's BS. The only thing that counts is that each individual editor: you, me, every one of us, has the exact same weight and influence in the debate. I don't care about whether my personal opinion happens to be in line with the opinions of many other people from a large wiki. If that happens to be the case, then that's just that. Good luck, or bad luck, whichever way you want to see it. So what? It's not about giving "en.wp" collectively "more" power than other wikis; it's about giving each individual the same power. And anything other than that is simply outrageously unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure of meta-wiki discussion closed right after being proposed
See Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki. Discussion immediately closed by... meta-wiki admins, of course. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and with that I agree. Meta is more than only RfC's.  Parts of it can be shut down, but other parts certainly need to be maintained somewhere suitable.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion should be allowed to run its course and closed by someone who isn't involved. Dirk I think you make a good point however. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading the proposal beyond its page title shows it to be a reasonably well argued proposition for devolving part of meta-wiki appropriately, using past precedent for guidance. Still, it was closed within the hour. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's pretty shocking. I'm trying to get it re-opened. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, the policy linked from there says "the Board of Trustees has final authority over the member's decision." So it seems that the meta-wiki admins have overstepped their authority in this matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. But I want to give them 48 hours to respond. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per this I've reopened the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The request was not closed down by "meta-wiki admins", it was closed down by an active member of the Language committee: Robin Pepermans (m:User:SPQRobin). Mr. Pepermans' account is not an administrator on Meta (Translation administrator is not the same thing as Administrator). The closing of the proposal was completely in line with the Closing projects policy, which gives Language Committee members authority (subject only to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees) to handle all requests for closing projects. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And then that same user agreed that the thread should be re-opened. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * View from Outside Observer I think you all should formulate a policy as to the relationship with Meta. As of now it's unclear. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * View from inside observer with shared loyalty If you (generic) go in beating sticks and cracking heads, people will defend themselves. Whereas if people could approach this with an open-mind and do some listening whilst looking to achieve a functional solution, rather than looking to do blame and find people culpable, then I am sure that the differences and misunderstandings can be sorted out. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried that approach, and when I asked for help with a technical problem I was personally attacked by an admin. When I asked other admins for help with that situation, they basically told me to shut up and that it is now ok to attack me if somebody doesn't like me or my proposal. Something is very, very, wrong at Meta if opening a policy discussion is considered disruptive and asking for help makes it ok to for an admin troll a user talk page. I suspect they are trying to bait me into calling someone an asshole again so they can be rid of me, and I'm appalled that such behavior is actually being defended by other admins, who are basically telling me I deserve it for being from this project and for heaving a part in an abusive but apparently beloved admin there flaming out and resigning in huff when his abusive actions were pointed out. It's disgusting. I'm hoping that, like last time I had a problem there, an admin who is able to see how awful this is will show up at some point, but it seems the nasty ones who hat en.wp are there more often. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this from a distance and the behaviour of some of the admins on Meta is farcically abusive, though there are also some good sysops there like Peter Symonds. Frankly, I'm not that surprised at the actions of Nemo bis. The guy is primarily active on Italian Wikipedia and received a series of blocks in December 2011 (i.e. only two months ago), culminating in a 15-day block for "uncollaborative editing" and violating WP:POINT. He was RFCUed here . He had his autopatroller rights removed there in December . He's not worried that he's going to have to account for his actions on Meta because - according to him - no admin has been removed there "by force" since 2006 . --Folantin (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he is a former sysop on it.wiki. I'm not sure how he ceased to be a sysop there. On Dec 18 he got a two-day block on it.wiki for running an unauthorized bot. And there have been two RfC/Us on him on it.wiki. The 2nd RfC/U on him was also about the unauthorized bot. Apparently, he kept using it, because he was then blocked for two weeks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure these stuffs are vaguely in topic over there. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for your reply about your inappropriate closure. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you were serious about it. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am serious, and therefore I expect a reply. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically you made everything possible to depict yourself as behaving in a trollish way, would you mind if I plonk you for a while? Btw reason for my closure has been always readable on protection log, so... --Vituzzu (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for your closure is incorrect. That is why I have challenged it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_meta-wiki&diff=3467440&oldid=3467370 Is it?] --Vituzzu (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. My diff is later. People change their minds from time to time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to spend my time on this kind of endless discussions, so feel free to reopen... should I believe you're not mocking me? Well, let's come back to the plonk. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, so what's the problem with re-opening the discussion? And I don't really think you are following our civility policies yourself here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to point me where I was uncivil over there. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Its self-evident from your comments here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely dense, can you quote my own offensive words? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any possibility of this discussion going anywhere useful. If you really want to know ask me on my talk page in a week. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll probably forgot to do it, you can call me both unrancorous (actually I'm not sure this word exists) and fuddled :D
 * Btw it's quite clear I didn't lack of civility, that's enough for me.--Vituzzu (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

better idea to end the feud

 * I've pretty much given up trying to make any real changes there, the admin corps does what we are always accused of, the old "circle the wagons" technique. I'm being told to just accept it and move on when an administrator trolls my talk. I can't work in that environment and am now advocating a different approach for en.wp users, best summarized as WP:IGNOREMETA. They don't want us there and they have no real impact on what we do here, so fuck it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, simply you made a many proposals in the worst moment possible, in a sort of vortex of drama and wikiwar. There's no anti-en.wiki bias over there but you simply have to consider it's a different project from en.wiki, with different habits: most of it.wiki's (my homewiki) habits would seem even ridiculous over there, the same for many en.wiki's customs moved on it.wiki. I really don't like the idea of an ArbCom and I really dislike close ballots, but I gave my help as a scrutineer for ACE2011. Simply because I wanted to help the English Wikipedia. If you want to improve meta, well, the only pre-requisite is the will to understand it. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly given the RFC issue I would expect you to give the Lao Wikipedia more respect.
 * The only reason meta should be interfering with other projects blocking policies is if they aren't dealing with the issue appropriately. That might apply to a project like the Lao Wikipedia - though if they have handled the matter fairly they should be left to it.
 * Certainly all the major language Wikipedias (so French, German, Italian, Dutch, Japanese, Russian and so on) should be allowed to solve their own issues as they should be fully capable of doing it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you ever took a look at the steward policy? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you? Which part of the Stewards policy makes it appropriate to interfere on what is essentially an internal matter for en.wiki? Of note I would make the same point about any other major Wikipedia project - I don't think en.wiki should get special treatment here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vituzzu, I made one proposal. one. I made it at Meta and asked for users there to comment on it. I tried to add a request for translation and couldn't figure it out, so I asked for help. The only response I got to that request was an obvious trolling comment from an administrator, and you and others defended this by basically telling me I deserved it. I don't want to work on a project where trolling is ok if you are in the club, but using a "bad word" gets you a block if you aren't. Not interested, not needed, not relevant to this project. Easier for everyone involved if we ignore this broken disaster of a wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Eraserhead1: So you agree with me, the proposal was definitely useless since steward policy doesn't allow any kind of action from us over there here you can check I didn't stop using delete even if I have all the deletion buttons everywhere.
 * @Beeblebrox: nope it wasn't trolling, it was a, definitely, harsh answer, and I tried to make you accept as it was, simply an harsh answer from one of meta's sysops. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What complete and utter bullshit. It wasn't in any way an response to my request for help figuring out the technical aspects of requesting translation, it was a slam against me, pure and simple. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While it was poorly titled Rd232's proposal was designed to get a serious discussion going about meta, its clear from the fact that the Goings-on page is only translated into one other language apart from English, and that the Language committee page is only in English that there are serious concerns to be addressed - I'm sure if they were asked there would be loads of people who would be keen to help translate stuff. With regards to Beeblebrox, well he's never come across to me as anything other than a no-nonsense user - if the answer was merely a little harsh I'm sure he'd live with it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to me the reaction wasn't proportional to the action. Dealing with the proposal it started from a useless RfC got into a drama, ever, did you ever consider it has been seen has an appendix to this drama? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally didn't think that's the case - but maybe you are right and it has been interpreted poorly. I tell you what, why don't we forget about Rd232's proposal for now and come back with a fresh and better titled proposal for discussion in a few weeks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I also suggest to get in touch with both meta and other wikis. When I was a global sysop I did some mistakes because I had no experience with small wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

More drama and another poor close
. Where is the appropriate place to request action against this admin on Meta? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the general discussion page: Babel. You can also directly ask for admin help, if you have admin action in mind or want to propose deadminship.  Censuring another user for poor judgement is not limited to admins, and is how such situations are usually handled (via Babel or directly on the talk pages of the person in question or an uninvolved editor who can help mediate). – SJ +  02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere. That's part of the meta problem with meta. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So I guess I'll have to take this to Jimbo then and see what he says. It seems beyond a joke that there's literally no recourse.
 * Maybe en.wiki should start co-ordinating with other language projects directly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done so. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit-conflict)Seriously, we're dealing with the closure of a RfD about a RfC userless (because it cannot influence its subject) already closed...well, I think I gave all the possible explanations to anyone who was in good fatih, so, for me, it's time to come back to rc patrol. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The actual point is that its an involved close that has been called out by multiple editors. This is really something that should just get sorted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify, please
I'm very confused. Is en:User:Vituzzu the same person as meta:User:Nemo bis? If so, why different usernames? If not, why is Beeblebrox criticising V for N's actions? Or am I simply misunderstanding B's comments and he's not criticising V for N's actions? Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, two different closes by two different meta admins. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really think you all need to formulate a police vis-vis meta. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's mine again WP:IGNOREMETA. Rest assured that's what I'll be doing from this point forward. We don't need a policy to tell us that they have no real power of this project and that they can manage the few actual useful things they do there such as stopping cross wiki-vandalism without our input. Best to let it lie. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Either meta needs to get their house in order or we need to make that a policy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta cannot be totally ignored unless you want to have the foundation remove all CU and OS bits from EnWiki; they chose to centralize the privacy-related privs there. global user sets is handled through Meta. As for ignoring local Meta policies when living in a different project, that has pretty much always been the case. The issue with the GG RfC blew up way out of proportion to its actual effect, in my opinion, and, personally, I believe that everyone would have been better served by ignoring Mbz1, and putting the page up for RfD, and if that failed, blanking the page (as was done). Lastly, I think almost all of this would have been greatly prevented had people just acted with respect towards one another instead of salvos of demands and refusals and proposals and counter-proposals, and a whole lot of unnecessary emotion and righteous indignation on all sides. Going forward, unquestionably Meta could use some polishing, and EnWiki could realize that 1) there are many customs it takes for granted that are not universal and 2) not everything is a major deal. Gievn enough time, patience, and courtesy, almost everything can be worked out in a non-combative manner. Come to think of it, that applies here as well. In summary, by all means, take part in Meta conversations, but please don't do so while driving a wrecking ball. You know those warnings on medicine, "don't drive while taking"? We should have one that says "Operating a wrecking ball while editing Wikipedia may be hazardous to your sanity." Where is C. Everett Koop when you need him? -- Avi (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll grant that one of the proposals floated over there was indeed a "wreaking ball." I fail to see how that justifies the admins there supporting trolling the user talk page of a user who asked for technical help with a different proposal aimed at preventing further misunderstandings of this nature in the future. When I asked what to do about being trolled by an admin, I was essentially told I deserve it, and then banned users from this project showed up to support that position. It's a mentally ill environment, not just one in need of "polishing." And as an oversighter I don't know what you mean when you say my privacy-related privileges are over there. I got them here, and they only work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical note for Beeble, while ArbCom decides who gets the CU and OS bits, the only place they can be flipped is CentralAuth on Meta. A local crat cannot assign or remove those bits. -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, if Meta currently had remotely competent adminship then the deletion request would have been closed by an uninvolved admin and/or Nemo would either have been de-sysoped or reverted by another administrator to send a clear message. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example of a similar reasoning and may be you will get an idea that smth is wrong with the reasoning itself. I was previously editing Russian Wikipedia, where I was administrator for three years and was twice elected to arbcom. As everywhere, over there we had disruptive users who would eventually be banned by Arbcom or just by an admin (there is no community ban). These users eventually would go to English Wikipedia just to use it for communication between themselves and stalking of Russian wikipedia users they do not like. One example is, who created several Encyclopaedia Dramatica-like sites with the only purpose of stalking users. He keeps links to two of these sites on his user page. He does not speak English and has very little to no contribution to the content, and all of his contribution is either stalking or complaining to Jimmy. In Russian Wikipedia, this activity would be enough to permablock him (and, as a matter of fact, he was permablocked since 2008). However, if here I would bring his case to ANI, I would be very much surprised if any of the admins would react - at best, by speedily closing my request. (The user last edited in 2010, and I quit Russian Wikipedia in May, so that I am not going to check this). How would you react if I subsequently open a page on Russian Wikipedia saying "Ignore English Wikipedia, their admins help disrupting users"? probably saying smth like "these Russians gove crazy again"?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between users talking to each other on talk pages and putting up a ED-like 100KB RfC/U. If someone did that here attacking an admin from ruwiki or some other non-enwp wiki, s/he'd be laughed out the door and the RfC/U deleted with no fuss. And Jimbo is Jimbo. People appeal to him for various reasons, even when he has no power or inclining to do anything about a matter. The conversation you alluded to does not seem out of the ordinary. As far as I know, nobody requested that users banned from enwiki be prevented from communicating on meta. In fact such users have been keeping each others' company over there for quite some time. What's new on meta is the exploitation of a loophole for putting up material there that is substantially similar to stuff previously published by WP:SPAs on ED and MyWikiBiz about the same enwiki admin. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but the meta wiki RfC/U could not even be excluded from search engines while it was up, despite the __NOINDEX__ tag, because it was in meta's mainspace, where the tag has no effect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, desysoping was not called for. Remember, there are many, many, fewer (actually pretty much no) "edit war" areas on Meta. EnWIki has a whole host of areas where there has been long-term, virulent edit warring, such as Macedonia-Greece, Israel-Palestine, Cold fusion, Global Warming, and so on. The potential for administrator abuse is much, much greater. On Meta, there is nothing like that. So you feel an adminstrator made an error in judgment, even a grave one, the first thing you do is point out to that person that they made the error. People are human after all. Note how some stewards addressed the issue; they made it clear to Nemo that they thought what he did was wrong, and that he shouldn't have done it, but no one called for his head. It is not an unreasonable assumption to work under that people will give legitimate and constructive criticism its due thought and weight. Sadly, on EnWiki, there is so much political bickering, and so much history of true bad-faith editing, edit wars, wheel wars (we just had a desysop yesterday) that many of us have not undeserved hair-trigger responses. In a perfect world, we would be able to handle things without the rancor; I fear that is not possible for EnWiki anymore (at least without a sea change in editing philosophy) but it is not the case on Meta. Decisions one believes are mistakes should be pointed out, and allowed to be explained. Remember, just because you and I think something is a mistake does not automatically make it so. We may be the mistaken ones. One should always allow somoene the opportunity to explain their actions; even if the explanation is a mea culpa. So, as I said, you think an admin made a mistake, there are two ways to go about telling him or her. You tell me which of the following two responses you think would better serve to solve the underlying problem of a potentially mistaken close (now ESPECIALLY keep in mind that, if you want to bring the EnWiki love for bureaucracy, there is no codified policy against it, it's just common sense: You tell me, which is more likely to get a reasonable response, even if it isn't an immediate reversion. Which one will more likely lead to discussion that will result in the impartial close taking place? Which one is less likely to cause a defensive "battening down of the hatches" mentality? Lastly, each and every one of us has to ask ourselves, on each and every edit, what is our true intention with this edit? If it isn't to make the project a better resource for all, then don't make the edit. If it is, ask yourself, "am I saying it in a way that will best serve all of us?" Sometimes, a firm word is needed. Level-4 warnings, repeat vandals, someone who persists in POV edits after it being explained multiple times, sure. Of course, firm never means insulting, at least in my opinion. My overall takeaway from these incidents is that there are people on EnWiki and Meta who are really interested in having the gerater Wikimedia experience and projects work better, but we, as a whole, sadly, are sometimes too quick to accuse and could all use (myself at the fore) a healthy does of patience. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) So-and-so, your close was against policy and common sense, revert it now or I will file a request for desysoping and send a letter to the board.
 * 2) So-and-so, I think your close may be seen as problematic, because you were involved in the discussion, and may appear to be biased. I think that common sense alone would say that in cases where the discussion was contentious, and the outcome not clear cut, that someone who can be seen as truly impartial should make the decision. Would you please revert your close for the greater good of all parties to the discussion?
 * Avi, while my comment about writing to the board was overly aggressive Nemo had already been asked by multiple editors in good standing to re-open the discussion. Your "option 2" had already been attempted at the point I made my commentary. So I think that a firm word wasn't totally out of place.
 * Additionally Nemo insisted on reverting my edit without using an appropriate edit summary - something that is certainly at the very least uncivil.
 * With regards to de-sysopping, I think its perfectly legitimate as multiple editors in good standing have politely asked Nemo to reconsider his actions and he has refused to do so. Additionally none of the other admins on meta have taken the step of reverting him themselves to make it clear that they also think his actions are problematic.
 * The whole drama can be ended with no further escalation required if you guys can get your house vaguely in order by allowing a truly uninvolved admin to close the discussion. I really don't see why this is so difficult a goal to achieve. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to other controversies - sure en.wiki has them - but if an admin makes a WP:INVOLVED close of a discussion and multiple editors in good standing complain about it then it actually gets sorted - unlike Meta where everyone just seems to wring their hands and try and pretend that nothing is wrong.
 * While you guys might consider this to be a "minor" incident - it has attracted vast amounts of complaints here and on Nemo's talk page. Therefore its pretty clear that its an issue that actually needs solving, I absolutely will take it to desysoping request and a letter to the board if needed.
 * And actually that its attracted as much attention as it already has (apparently even Jimbo Wales seems to follow WP:IGNOREMETA) means that even if I give up it becomes more and more likely that we do an end run around Meta and deal with the other projects directly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion + teh lulz
. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum
As typical in these cases. Retired doesn't mean retired. Nor does globally locked mean much. m:Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ASCII, I know you're just trying to keep the en community informed, but it's starting to come across as, at best pointing and laughing at Meta, and at worst, continual meddling. I think any interested users from here have, at this point, watchlisted the important pages over there, and there's no real continuing need to drop notices here every time someone says something over there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Request that an uninvolved admin re-close the Mbz1 ban
Per comments, I think we should also avoid the appearance of impropriety in this case. Discussion found at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive231. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Look, mbz1 is never going to recognize the legimacy of anything done here, so why jump thru hoops for her?  Do you think someone else closing it will make her shut up?  Does anyone on the planet think she isn't banned?  I thought that thread was a silly waste of time and electrons, and even I think she's banned.  Indeed, she was basically banned before that discussion.  Almost everyone seems to think ignoring meta is a good plan, but step one of that plan is to... you know... ignore meta. I'm not going to archive this after only one comment, but the best outcome I can think of is that no one else comments on this thread, and it dies a natural death. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply think closure by an uninvolved admin would be the professional way of handling this, if I may recycle a term recently drummed up by ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, so, if it's needed, I'll take over Night Ranger's closure as uninvolved admin. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There you go. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So now someone else gets to bear the brunt of her persecution complex. Thanks Salvio! Night Ranger (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I suspected, the fight has started anew over at meta with mbz1 wikilawyering on Salvio's talk page and Kwork saying the usual stuff about lynchings. You know, you really cannot invent this stuff. It's even more entertaining whilst listening to Singing a Song in the Morning. Night Ranger (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, she's talked everybody's ears off about it on WR for months, and has proven to be un-derailable. Maybe the devs can make you an "ignore" button like we have there. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have something like that—it's called Meta Wiki! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Oh, and she now says she was bullied by ArbCom on a WMF staff page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * People, please, just. stop. paying. attention. to. Mbz1. She has become nothing but a troll, but she can't troll here, so we don't have to worry about it. Nothing we do short of unbanning her, offering a written apology, and burning a certain admin at the stake are going to satisfy her. Eventually, even meta will tire of her shenanigans and she'll be blocked there too. Let them handle it, it's not our problem anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed - this entire matter has been a great example of Streisand effect. I strongly suspect that had the original meta RFC been ignored here, it wouldn't have gone anywhere except give a very small group of people a chance to rant in a place that essentially nobody would see.  Instead, this created an avenue for a much large audience.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy change proposal to make off-enwiki behavior unsanctionable here

 * Beeblebrox, If you think I'm advocating for her, check out Wnt's proposal on VPP and m:User_talk:Mbz1. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested topic ban for on LGBT-related articles
Perhaps we can the topic ban proposal moved to it's own section, instead of being appended on a seperate complaint. Please be aware that this editor is currently topic banned on abortion related articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on LGBT-themed articles, broadly construed, for, and a trout for his WP:IDHT that has gotten things to that point. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - NYY51 is pretty clearly a POV warrior and at some point really soon he's going to need to decide for himself whether to knock it the hell off and to start to build constructively or to be topic-banned off the planet. The choice is pretty clear. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - a topic ban on LGBT-related subjects for NYY51 is pretty clearly indicated here. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - although I also support Santorum and I'm opposed to abortion, I try my best to remove any bias from my opinions, and, if I feel it hard to maintain a NPOV, I refrain from editing. Unfortunately, NYY51 has not been able to do this. Paolo  Napolitano  20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: This editor brought me to ANI because I complained about his horrible AFD nominations.  His motto must be "if its gay, it can't stay," leading to a series of extremely poor and POINTy AfD nominations that are closing as keep/snow keep universally.  See Articles for deletion/Candace Gingrich-JonesArticles for deletion/Gathering Storm (advertisement)Articles for deletion/A Union in WaitArticles for deletion/Metropolitan Community Church of New York (2nd nomination)Articles for deletion/Udaan Trust.  Instead of acknowledging any of this (look at his one word "why?" comment above--like he doesn't know), he recently amended his talk page to make clear "I stand by the content of my edits, AFDs, and points I have made" and that "I intend to continue my purge of LGBT brochure articles."  I am prone to hyperbole, but I'm not joking when I say this editor is dangerous.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The recent series of nominations, which demonstrate a total lack of interest in WP policy or practice, is really the last straw in a history of POV-motivated editing against LGBT subjects. His statement that he believes there was nothing wrong with this behavior and intends to continue it is also troubling, indicating that a topic ban is an appropriate preventative measure. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * supportIf not for his recent statement of intent on his talkpage appearing after much well-meaning advice, I might have been satisfied with giving him a chance to change his behavior before taking this step.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – I'm sorry it's come to this, but the points at WP:PUSH pretty much describe his editing style. I reminded him earlier this week of the advice HJ Mitchell and I gave him a year ago after HJ removed his indef block for socking. But nothing seems to be getting through to him despite numerous attempts by editors offering advice, several blocks, ARBCOM ban, etc. So, I guess, slap him with another ban and maybe he'll eventually get the message. Mojoworker (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support seems like a reasonable step. Continuing the AfD nominations after being taken to ANI seems to be pretty unwise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my earlier comments on WP:ANI. Disclaimer - I just found out (moments ago) that this editor previously vandalized my user page under a different account after perusing NYY51's block log. The fact has not informed my opinion of this matter, which would've been the same regardless. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. His edits are problematic and obviously strongly pov-motivated. His AfD noms are awful, many of them are among the most obvious keeps I've ever seen. Kevin (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should assume good faith - from his point of view he was probably just making it prettier.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Maunus, he seems intent on continuing to cause disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, seems appropriate for this situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Milowent Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose And the use of topic bans to affect editing on any articles is a bad precedent to seek for anyone. Cheers - draconian solutions do not work, and using them for any outside rationale is worse. Collect (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Had the series of edits been constructive, rather than repeatedly disruptive, we'd not be here.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per Milowent, Mojoworker and Roscelese, although I think the problem will not disappear with topic ban.-- В и к и  T   21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is not the way to edit controversial topics. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. User doesn't listen to concerns, won't change behavior, and persists in annoying the community to no end. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - User appears to be editing and AfDing with a distinct POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The editor was blocked for one week for edit warring at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. NYY defended his behavior as "righteous reverting"; a tactic that did not get him unblocked. His stated intent to "purge" LGBT articles from Wikipedia is unwarranted POV pushing and clearly politically motivated. Previously, he has used sockpuppets and edit warring to put forward his beliefs on abortion-related topics. He was almost topic banned during a MedCab hearing about abortion during which time administrator and oversighter User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry said he expected that a proposed one-year abortion topic ban on NYyankees51 would not be effective enough, that it would make this problem editor "move on to the same behaviour on political articles". Recently, NYyankees51 did indeed get a topic ban becaus of his abortion battleground mentality. Previous to that, I opened a discussion about his conflict of interest regarding his working for (and editing from) the right-wing political advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, but nobody else commented. It is obvious that NYyankees51 had but one purpose here: to push his political beliefs as hard as possible. Like The Cavalry, I believe a topic ban is just the start, that NYY is not going to give up until he is indeffed or banned. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think NYyankees51 ever stated he intended to purge Wikipedia of LGBT articles in totality (prove me wrong I guess with a diff), but put it as purging Wikipedia of "LGBT brochures". Although this is pretty sloppy wording and invective, I took this to mean nominating poorly sourced LGBT-related articles for AfD, which he has been doing. This seems like hair-splitting, but we are discussing kicking him off the site, so we should be as clear as possibly while giving him whatever benefit of whatever doubt he has allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, NYY's "purge" statement was against LGBT "brochure articles". I took that term to mean pro-LGBT articles judged by NYY to have little notability. I am still certain that NYY cannot edit neutrally at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Suport In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Wikipedia is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support His talk page statement makes it clear that in this topic he has adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing, contrary to wikipedia editing policies. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - his personal beliefs have, and will continue to affect, his ability to edit such articles. GiantSnowman 10:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Although I fear we'll be back when he discovers what his next political hobbyhorse is. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - arrogant declarations such as aspiring to eliminate all LGBT articles is nothing more than proof of his homophobia. Given what the others said here, they compromise his ability to edit without stepping on others' toes. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - user is incapable of editing neutrally in this topic.   Will Beback    talk    02:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems to be the best route for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on LGBT articles, as well as articles in Project:Politics and Project:Conservatism. It's clear that the disruptive aspects of NYYankees51's edits are all ideologically driven.  Removing the bulk of those articles from his editing will hopefully give him a chance to focus on being productive instead of focusing on ideological conflict areas. aprock (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like that might work, with Raul654's "Culture wars" and politics (broadly interpreted) added in. Probably along with an extension of his 3 month ban from the topic of abortion (broadly construed) which is now about half over. And it likely should be at least 9 months duration, since the elections in November would seem like too much of a temptation. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Narrow-purpose account?
Judging from his contribs, NYyankees51 has showed signs of POV editing on a narrow set of articles on LBGT topics and conservative politics. He has repeatedly reverted material per WP:MISSION, a relatively low-profile essay and in some cases it looks like he treats it as a policy. Some of his problematic edits include , and several others. As the user is showing signs of POV single-purpose editing, the effect of a site ban vs a topic ban should be considered. Paolo Napolitano  21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Being an SPA is not against policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having no productive contributions outside of one narrow category of problematic editing makes him far more likely to be community banned. Raul654 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not my experience unfortunately.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings on this. While I'm doubtful that a topic ban will prompt him to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy in the future - after all, he was topic-banned from abortion and that didn't exactly serve as a wake-up call, he just stepped up his disruption in another topic area - we could see what happens with a topic ban and then community-ban him if his behavior does not improve. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was not aware of the previous ban. In that case, would it not make more sense to ban him from all culture-wars articles, to be broadly interpreted? Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I unblocked him, I suppose it's my prerogative, possibly even my responsibility, to re-block him if he continues to disrupt the project after the unblock. As such, I have blocked him until such time as he can convince me, another uninvolved admin, or the community, that he can edit without causing problems. It's a shame that it's necessary, but I think the displacement rather than cessation of the disruption upon the topic ban proves that it is, and that a second topic ban would only mean continued disruption in a third topic area. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is either your prerogative or responsibility no. It is the communitys prerogative and responsibility - and the community was leaning towards a more lenient remedy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think its reasonable if its not the first topic ban. I don't get the impression its an unreasonable stretch or is beyond the current status quo. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly your prerogative HJ, after all, one of the unblock conditions was that he edit constructively. He also promised to work hard to gain the trust of the community. I don't fault you at all – either for the unblock or for rescinding it now. I have great respect for your judgement and I think you've assumed good faith with him – probably far more than many would have – but I can't shake the feeling that he took advantage of your good will. I'm not happy that this has come to pass. Mostly I'm sorry he didn't take our advice. Ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility and NYyankees51 doesn't need to look far for the reasons that this all happened. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a good block. Implementing a second topic ban would just have pushed the disruption to a third topic area. There are some serious competency issues with him that the community shouldn't have to deal with any longer. Shrigley (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, As Earserhead may remember, an Arbcom member recently said with respect a now one year banned user that if they're banned from one topic, already, it does not make sense to just consider another topic ban, they should go off the project, FWIW. It may figure in to treating like matters, alike. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember that, but I couldn't find the diff. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I support a topic ban, but do wonder about the efficacy of one in this case as this editor has repeatedly been cautioned and yet repeatedly returned to the same behavior in related areas. In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Wikipedia is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints. User:NYyankees51 need not agree with other editor's articles, but he MUST respect existing policy and guidleine. In this he has so-far failed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Some questions to think about re the below proposal, that I have thought about recently (I don't know the user's work and I won't opine): 1) Does the user mistake POV for NPOV regularly in different topic areas. 2) Does the user mistake tendentuos editing/commenting for consensus building in different areas. 3) Does the user not understand copyright or plagerism in several areas. 4) Does the user view this as a battleground in several areas. 5) Does the user demonsrtrate misaprehension of sources or sourceing policy, in several areas 6) Will this avoid some more eventual major disruption, like an Arbcom case. These are ideas, just pick the central needs of working here and ask yourself about it, with refernce to evidence (everyone should,  but not eveyone can work -- at this time in thier lives -- on this project)  Also, for the below return restriction? or time limit? And the user should be allowed to respond by a limited unbanning (if he/she would like).Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Site ban
Per the discussion above, do you think a site ban is a better remedy than a topic ban? Paolo Napolitano  10:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm barely familiar with the background here. From what I could glean from the discussion above, it seems this is an editor who is now getting a 2nd topic ban, in a different area. Perhaps a site ban would be more appropriate, or a much broader topic ban, although I'm not sure such a ban can be drafted. Topic ban from hobbyhorses of US conservatives maybe? Or "culture-wars articles" as Raul suggested above? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On rethinking it, "Culture wars" doesn't go far enough. I can think of other conservative hobbyhorses that wouldn't fall under that aegis (Supply side voodoo economics, just to name one). A ban from all articles having to do with politics (broadly interpreted) might do it. But frankly I now think a site ban would be better. He's obviously not here to contribute productively, so there's no sense in taking the chance that he could find a loophole. Raul654 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A broad topic ban and a site ban may be equal in NYyankees51's view. I don't know if this is still germane to the discussion, but here he stated: "As you can tell, the vast majority of my edits are on political or otherwise controversial articles. I didn't get the impression that HJ Mitchell wanted me to avoid controversial articles, and I apologize that I didn't. I just don't really think I have a whole lot to contribute outside of those topic areas." By the way, back then I told him I thought it was bullshit insincere to say that he didn't have much to contribute outside those topics, but maybe he really was being truthful. Mojoworker (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The user was very active on abortion-related articles where he was POV editing before he was topic-banned. Afterwards, he started editing LBGT articles with the same POV and bias. I fear that another topic ban will lead to him shifting focus of his editing to a third topic; I can list some areas that are easy to suspect that he could get involved in::

As the user is here with a single-purpose POV agenda, I recommend a community-imposed site ban, and I want to hear your opinions. Paolo Napolitano  17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Republican party and politicians
 * US presidential elections
 * Religion


 * Support community ban - It's senseless to issue topic bans when he simply migrates his disruption from one topic to another. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Chase Me Ladies that NYyankees51 cannot be channeled into a useful area of contribution, that he will only switch battlegrounds following a topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - but on the other hand - why not make it clear that if the current (and clearly supported) topic ban above does not have the requisite response, and disruption continues, then any uninvolved admin may indefinitely block without further warning? Last chance saloon. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gosh - youda thunk folks would understand that draconian solutions do not work for the benefit of Wikipedia as a rule. Collect (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the evidence for that? I'm certainly pretty thick skinned and I've got involved in multiple controversial areas - but I certainly prefer editing in a more professional editing environment. Sometimes you have to raise the tempo a little and/or you do because you get a bit upset about something, but this has gone beyond that.
 * There's a hell of a lot of people who have far less confidence than I do who undoubtably would prefer an even less confrontational environment - but they aren't going to comment here about it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - After having been meted two topic bans, you'd think the guy would have learned his lesson and reformed himself, but no! A site or community ban would be in order.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support Oppose [Changing view as agreeing with comment directly below. Seems excessive at this time] - It is my belief that opponents of some subjects can help keep articles neutral...but only if their edits are such. This is an activist editor with an agenda he clearly admits to in bold lettering on his talk page. I see nothing in his immediate history to show that he isn't a SPA and for very destructive reasons. If this is true I would actually support an indeff block entirely (site ban). If he is just active recently with this warrior attitude then a topic ban would have been a good course.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as excessive at this time. I disagree with Richard/Chase Me, for whom I have the utmost respect, in that I think NYY51 does have the potential and the desire to contribute constructively. We haven't yet worked out how he can be a part of this community in a way that is unambiguously beneficial to the project. That is why he is indefinitely blocked, and he will remain so until some way of channelling his edits to non-controversial areas is found. A community ban only makes it more difficult to find a mutually agreeable solution if there is one to be found, and does absolutely nothing if one can't be found because the indefinite block isn't going anywhere. This eagerness among some parts of the community to turn any indefinite block into a community ban is quite concerning—let's save the bans for the truly malicious. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think sock puppetry and vandalism are malicious enough? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was over two years ago. He was blocked for it shortly afterwards and remained blocked for over a year, so I think we can safely say he's served his sentence for that. There have been recent problems, which is why he's blocked again, but I don't think those problems are motivated by malice. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, as long overdue: This editor has consistently engaged in highly disruptive editing with a clear mission that is completely at odds with WP's own, despite a indeffinite block for sock-puppetry, numerous blocks for edit-warring, a topic ban, and now another topic ban. He states himself that he has no interest in editing articles outside of those on which his strong POV makes him incapble of productively editing. I see no reason to extend him yet once more the benefit of a doubt when he has so amply demonstrated that he intends to continue to disrupt the project. He is incapable or unwilling to change his behavior, and I would question the sincerity of any promises on his part. There is simply no place for him on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support:  He never responded or defended some of the worst AfD nominations I've ever seen, where his whole purpose is apparently to delete articles about gay people.  You run off good editors from the project if you don't call a spade a spade when you see one.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I think a site ban is too draconian. I believe that NYyankees51 can make productive edits, and I feel like he wants to be productive to the project.  On the other hand, free reign is too lenient.  I think something more like a 0RR restriction plus a six month topic ban from all articles in Project:Conservatism might make more sense, and give NYyankees51 a chance to prove himself outside of his zone of contention. aprock (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – but I'm not surprised at the number of support !votes. It shows how frustrated the community has become with his behavior. There's a limit to how long good faith can be assumed in an editor who is persistently acting in a way that is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm hopeful this will finally serve as a wake up call for NYY. After reading the details of some of the linked incidents, I think he needs an extremely short leash however. As I mentioned in the LGBT section above, aprock's suggestion might work, along with the LGBT topic ban above, which appears certain to pass, and with Raul654's "Culture wars" and politics (broadly interpreted) added in. Probably along with an extension of his 3 month ban from the topic of abortion (broadly construed) which is now about half over. And it likely should be at least 9 months duration, since the elections in November seem like too much of a temptation. Mojoworker (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The day for a site ban is fast approaching, it would seem. Here's hoping he decides to say "screw it, I'm gonna write about baseball from now on." I'm not expecting that outcome, but it remains theoretically possible... Carrite (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose rather premature.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Compromise proposal: Propose extending the topic bans currently in place into a permanent topic ban on all controversial areas of politics, religion and sexuality, broadly construed. It's clear that the editor does not intend to ever refrain from POV pushing in those areas. Also include a "one strike and you're out" clause. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - if there's no consensus for a site ban, that's probably best. Raul654 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User conduct archive
Most of the entries below the table in Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive (i.e. circa 2006 & before) are without context - no links to discussion or evidence, no mention of outcomes. Should they be removed, and the history be expunged? Disclosure: I'm mentioned there. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "no links to discussion or evidence, no mention of outcomes" What are you talking about?  They link directly to the RFC/U.--v/r - TP 21:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, the second one on the list:"Certified.Gangsta Revert warring"We have to go to the RFC page to learn anything about it, while the things in the table have substantially more information. I have to disagree with Andy; I'd say that it's better to have the barebones stuff than to have nothing at all.  Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Andy said there are no links to discussions or evidence. Even the example you provided has a link directly to the discussion full of evidence.--v/r - TP 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are links to the pages themselves, not specifically to sections or pages of discussions and evidence — you have to go through everything to find what you want. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Collateral Damage" of Deletions
People should read an emotional, first person account of the deletion process.

There are no simple answers, but there's an important observation that our deletion policies may adversely affect editor retention. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An attempt to delete someone's content is an implicit message that they are not wanted here. In many cases, we may indeed not want them here on their terms.  In many cases, the editor is long gone and the message is moot.  But in many cases, a newly created article is the pride-and-joy of a brand new editor, however much it may not yet be up to Wikipedia standards.  These are the articles where WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD should be applied the most liberally, because if we instead AfD a keepable article--one that could have been made appropriately encyclopedic through regular editing--we may lose the editor even if we end up keeping the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We tried to change the way that articles are created, and the motivation for that change was to minimize the hurt feelings noted above. See Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles and Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration, both of which had widespread support.  The rationale was simple: if new users had to get their feet wet before creating articles, it would reduce the number of articles we would have to delete, and since deletion causes new users to not want to come back, preventing new users from creating deletable articles would improve editor retention.  The WMF basically vetoed the community on this (despite the widespread support).  See  and the box at the top of Autoconfirmed article creation trial.  Its a shame, really.  This had a very good chance of prevent the sort of heartache the OP noted.  -- Jayron  32  06:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I once created an article that I believe Larry Sanger commented on in a negative way (I think it was him) about the notablity or accuracy or something. One day it was suddenly just gone and I never recieved a notification on a deletion discussion. I was actually upset enough that I almost decided not to come back or even attempt to contribute further. Yes...the sting is hard to overcome, but if you are serious about working here even these such things are not going to stop you. We get over the slap in the face and remember it isn't an insult and it isn't personal....this is an encyclopedia. I have stub articles with a single reference that nobody has ever attempted to expand and yet when AFDd.....were kept. I have always said the biggest problem with Wikipedia losing members isn't the deletion of contribution of newbies...becuase long termers get as upset when their pet articles are suddenly edited by "outsiders". They start calling people names and then leave in a huff blamming an individual editor. I see this happen often and has even happened to me. But ask yourself...do you want everyone to stay here no matter what...or do you want them to stay here within the guidelines and policy. See....I personally don't think people are leaving. They just abandon the registered account and either IP edit or begin new accounts within guidelines. Yes I have seen it happen. The thing to remember is, it isn't about quantity...it's about quality. I actively attempt to get new members to wikipedia all the time but on the flip of that we have editors who post their manifesto of disruption to just get what they percieve as bad editors blocked, pissthem off enough to leave or recieve sanctions. Maybe we should be looking at these particular contributers a little closer as they are taking out editors and seem very proud of it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not 'getting over the sting' that's the problem-- it's unpredictability.  You break the rules, you get deleted, fine.  But if you were spending time trying to do Wikipedia favor and we take that and just delete it outright-- that's a game not many people would play.
 * Maybe those people just need to "stop whining and grow a pair"-- maybe they are weak and thin skinned and have nothing of value to offer us.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great if you can identify those contributors (I can only see one with a clear enough edit pattern). Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC).


 * It should be possible for even "thin-skinned" editors to work at Wikipedia. When someone's work is rejected, and they are confronted with a bureaucracy they do not understand, many people get at least a little hostile. As amadscientist observed, most go away--and the majority of them were probably potentially good editors. Some of the most hardy stay regardless. If my first article had been rejected, what I would have done would have depended on how it was handled: if the discussion was sympathetic, I'd have stayed, but not otherwise. Considering what I do here, I don't think I'm particularly "thin-skinned", but many people are especially so when trying to join a group. The people who have difficulty confronting the way Wikipedia often does things are the normal people. The Wikipedians  who treat everyone else as if they were thick-skinned are the problem here.   DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly its reasons like this I stopped uploading images. I have a lot available to me that are from Government sources but when they started getting deleted for one reason or another I found that it was no longer worth my time to do anymore and moved onto other things. I recently had a similar experience with working on WikiProject United states but thats another matter. So although I never had the expereince of having an article deleted I haev seen this first hand. It doesn't just apply to Article creation it applies to multiple facets of Wikipedia. --Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New File Upload Wizard: ready for production
As some of you may know, I have been working on a new File Upload Wizard (WP:FUW) designed to overcome some of the problems newcomers evidently have with the old system of guided forms at Upload (currently c.70% of all files uploaded by newcomers get deleted within the first month after upload, mostly for reasons related to copyvio / bad sourcing / bad licensing etc.) This new interface is now in a reasonably stable state. It has been tested on several browsers (including IE9+, FF9+, Chromium) and has had generally positive feedback, including newcomers asked to review it after they ran into problems with the old system.

So, I'd like to be bold and get this thing rolled out to our new editors for wider testing. Question is: what's the best way? Also, obviously, the traditional plain Special:Upload for experienced users will remain in place.
 * 1) conservative version: just add links to Upload and to some of the file-related user talk notifications, pointing to WP:FUW as a new alternative.
 * 2) radical version: temporarily replace Upload with the new system outright. This could most easily be done by changing MediaWiki:Uploadwizard-url to make the "upload" link in the sidebar point to the new page. Obviously, this could very quickly be changed back if there should be any problems.

Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option two, please. Sometime we talk too much. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will the Wizard upload to Commons if the user chooses the "free work" option?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It can't do that automatically, for technical reasons. But it offers two alternative submit buttons, the first of them redirecting to Commons and the second doing a local upload. It also features a nag screen reminding the user of the recommendation to use Commons. Try it out. Also, please feel free to tweak the wording – it's all simple wikitext and can be edited normally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd skip the first button "click here to go to the upload form" - just go to the form already! (And it looks like a great improvement.) Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Thanks :-) That initial link is necessary to get the Javascript loaded though. There doesn't seem to be any other way of getting a script associated with a page, short of moving the script into Common.js (and I didn't have the courage to do that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I spoke to Steven about this, and he had some good suggestions:
 * The best way to test this is just to do it; links are okay but probably too low-volume if you actually want to see whether or not it will be able to handle the average Wikipedia file-uploading traffic.
 * That said, you should timebox your test to a week and then analyze the results. Data is your friend.
 * Be sure to put some kind of banner on top alerting folks to the fact that this is a week-long test, and direct them to an FAQ page where you explain what's different about this system and why you're testing it out. Not everybody reads the VPs, of course, and there will definitely be some confused (possibly aggravated) people who'll want to know what's going on.

All of this might already be obvious to you, but just thought I'd put it out there :) Good luck, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Yeah, I guess the thing with the FAQ might be useful. Actually, right now, it has already been online for about two hours (I was impatient, you know.) So, you also lost the chance of being the first user to make an upload with it. Somebody else earned that bottle of champagne :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you tested it with IE 7 and 8? Both of them are still widely used. IE 9 isn't enough - really all the browsers supported by jQuery should probably be supported. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the older IE versions. Some weird stuff going on in those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's great. Radical improvement. I've made various edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. I hope nobody takes it personally if I point out that I think the new thing is ghastly: ugly, overcomplicated and confusing. When you get three levels nested into a complex form, you fill in all the fields you think you have to fill in and the upload button is still disabled, you sigh, and find the link to the old one which actually works. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

IP range contribs
User:X! used to have a tool that checked all the contributions by IPs within a particular range (it was located here). Is there any tool that does the same thing? The one that's in the Gadgets is OK, but doesn't puts edits in chronological order. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, HelloAnyong made one when X!'s broke. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
 * And I think TParis resurrected all of User:X!'s tools, so you can now find that tool at http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/ – Just replace ~soxred93 with ~tparis in the URL and all the tools should work – at least all of them I've tried have. Mojoworker (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I clicked on your link and then clicked on the menu items and they do not appear to work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the links don't work – you actually need to edit the URL again after you click one of the hyperlinks, but the tools themselves work. I left a note for TParis asking him if he can fix the hyperlinks if it's not too big a task. Mojoworker (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They're fixed now.--v/r - TP 14:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog
WP:RFPP has quite a backlog at the moment with 24 requests pending. If some admins could swing by there it would be helpful; I'd work on it myself but I'm about to get relatively busy for the next few hours. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

block-evader giving me the runaround

 * (Cross-posted from WT:UKRAIL)

I've been dealing with a guy for the last few days who keeps changing usage statistics and adding commentary about ticket barriers etc on various station articles, particularly those in Scotland. Kilwinning railway station and First ScotRail seem to be favourite haunts, but there are new ones with each block-evading IP. It started with User:JakeNeill1, who was briefly blocked, but has evaded the block through various BSkyB IP addresses (usually starting 90.xxx... and 2.2xx.xxx..). Any assistance dealing with him (or suggestions short of semi-protecting every article on a station with services to/within Scotland or blocking every Scottish BSkyB customer) would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping he'll get bored or run out of IP addresses, but in the meantime, please revert and block on sight or report to AIV (and please let me know so I can keep track). Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific related changes page I can patrol? (E.g. ). Marcus   Qwertyus   22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Railway_stations_served_by_First_ScotRail probably catches most of his targets, though there are a few others. Thanks for the suggestion—much more efficient than waiting for him to a get to a page on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Antiquated spelling
Is there an admin around who is willing to replace the antiquated spelling "e-mail" with "email" on Mediawiki pages? Also, where should I go to get "E-mail this user" in the task menu changed? Bugzilla? It's been bugging me. Marcus  Qwertyus   22:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, do I feel old. I had no idea "e-mail" was antiquated. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press stylebook held out, but has finally retired the old spelling.. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Emailuser sets the text in the sidebar. Goodvac (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is technically easy to do (I could set up an AWB run and do it inside five minutes), but some consensus for such a move would be nice before it is done. Courcelles 23:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have the feeling that "e-mail" is perceived as antiquated in general usage. "E-mail" and "email" seem to be to be used about equally, with "e-mail" perceived as the more formal, more "correct" spelling. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the major email providers are using the newer spelling. Is it more formal? Probably not anymore. I like Mashable's description above of the old spelling as "a relic of a simpler time when Internet technology needed to be explained very carefully." Marcus   Qwertyus  —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
 * E-mail and email are two completely different words, actually. E-mail is short for electronic mail, which is what we're talking about here. Email is a verb which means "to put on armor" (with stress on the second syllable). Given that the intent of clicking on the link is (I assume) to send someone an electronic message and not to help them don a suit of armor, I think it would be better for it to stay at e-mail. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. Are you kidding? Marcus   Qwertyus   23:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in my OED. I initially came across this at WP:Use modern language, and my OED confirmed it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC) That being said, it is very common for people to simply write "email"; depending on your point of view, it's either laziness or efficiency.
 * Hadn't considered that. If we change it to "email", people may think that clicking that link will put armor on their horse. They'll be mighty disappointed when their horse remains unarmored after clicking the link. We may get angry telegrams. 28bytes (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's tele-gram. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear me, you're right. My typing skills do grow poor this close to a week-end. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You crazy kids these days, with "typing." Does no one carve their edits out of solid Helvitica anymore.  Oh, I also think that the e-mail/email change does not require strong consensus, as it's terribly minor. If it's buggin' anyone, change it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting an unblock on another user's behalf
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232. I'm trying to get User:Edgeform unblocked, because I feel that the block was made in error, and I think that this was also the consensus of the now-archived discussion here. (Based on User talk:Tryptofish, I believe that Edgeform is, technically, requesting an unblock, even though they didn't do so according to official procedure.) Anyway, I really dislike the thought of an erroneous block, and I request that an administrator review the situation and make an unblock. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From reading the archived discussion and looking at the links, it does appear that Edgeform might have been the victim of a false flag operation. I lean towards unblocking, but let's hear what HelloAnnyong has to say first. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a note at HA's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If Edgeform think they're unrightly blocked, they can simply ask ... not trying to sound bureaucratic, but silence is actually more damning in this case ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that you are doing this carefully, and I don't think at all that you are being bureaucratic. It looks to me like Edgeform now has placed such a request at his talk, so he appears to be watching these discussions and is, in fact, interested in being unblocked. Above, I linked to where he sought my help. I would urge caution about attributing damning silence here. There's a big difference between damning silence and a lack of familiarity with all the rules around here. It's not like people are born knowing these things. (After all, I'm an experienced editor, and I didn't know until you told me that I couldn't put an unblock request template on someone else's talk page.) It looks to me like this is someone who simply doesn't know all the procedures, and I don't want to see the injustice of a bad block compounded by attribution of guilt to inexperience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see what the Checkusers have to say about this one. On the face of this there's no reason (that I cans see) to overturn the previous CU block-- Cailil  talk 21:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 34 and User talk:WilliamH. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was my block, and I did it based on the CU findings - specifically that it was a possible to likely connection. If other admins want to unblock, I suppose that's fine. I do, however, find it curious that Tryptofish has been campaigning for this user for more than two months now... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed that you made that crack about "curious". I thought that you were better than that. Silly me, I just think that we should be trying to do the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look folks, I was the one who opened the SPI in the first place. As time went on, I changed my mind and had serious doubts about it (see the archived AN thread linked above). My only agenda here is getting things right. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Tryptofish here. IP checking doesn't always prove "Two users, one IP = one person".  Only edits made in rapid succession from multiple accounts truly raise a red flag.  But it's possible that two people could share in IP.  It's best to investigate and ask for a second opinion before taking action.  That way, the action taken is justified with a consensus (one of the principle foundations of Wikipedia).  –BuickCenturyDriver 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As Tryptofish asked me to do so, I'm revisiting this. I would ask fellow administrators not to do anything just for the moment. WilliamH (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, both accounts have a strong overlap in articles edited, and similar points of view. Both accounts edit from exactly the same point of geolocation. Both accounts are a stickler for using a) full stops and capital letters in b) comprehensive edit summaries that c) frequently begin with the past participle. I'm not sure how meatpuppetry entered the equation, because my editorial perspective of this is that it's one individual, and the technical perspective suggests that too. Combining both perspectives, my view is that it's the same individual using one account from one IP and the other account at the other. Unless there is other information I am lacking which would shed more light on this, I see this as a quintessential violation of WP:SOCK in using another account to spread scrutiny while editing in a certain subject area, and see no reason for this block to be lifted. WilliamH (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edits to the same articles by both user accounts definitely raise a red flag. If the edits are done in rapid succession, then it's safe to say they belong to a single user.  The smoking gun here is the edits to the same articles.  Thanks for explaining, WilliamH.  –BuickCenturyDriver 13:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on all the above I've declined the unblock request. Feel free to overturn if there's a substantive reason to do so-- Cailil  talk 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could have waited until the discussion was complete. Having an open request is just fine, while discussion is ongoing.  There is no deadline for this sort of thing.  Risker (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see what we have left to discuss. CU evidence came back as "probable", edit comparison shows significant overlap, edit summaries (as discussed by WilliamH) are structurally the same. Therefore both technical CU evidence and behavioural SPI evidence say this is a sock. The unblock request gives me no reason to ignore or overturn that evidence.  But I've got no problem with anyone unblocking, overturning me or ignoring my decline if they have or can see a substantive reason to ignore the SPI & CU evidence (but then again if there isn't one, then perhaps this discussion should be closed)-- Cailil   talk 18:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is very difficult. I recognize that the evidence is such that intelligent people can look at it and reach different conclusions. I especially thank WilliamH for carefully analyzing the evidence, and I acknowledge that this includes evidence that I cannot see. There's a big part of my thinking that says that I should just accept the conclusion reached by several administrators here, and I should move on. But there are things that just don't sit well with me. Please, everyone, understand that I'm not criticizing anyone by persistently raising questions, but I feel that, as intelligent people, we should be able to discuss these things.
 * 1) WilliamH: how do you fit into your analysis the edits by IPs, geolocating to various public computers around San Diego (like the public library), in which the edits consist of just removing a period or the like, and where the edit summaries (now deleted) are of the form "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform"? If a single person is making the edits from the Neurorel account, the Edgeform account, and these "look at me, I'm socking" IP edits, does that make sense? To me, it seems pretty dodgy, and I've offered an alternative explanation at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232. Both there and here, several users have said that that explanation appears more credible.
 * 2) WilliamH: if I understand you correctly, you see both the Neurorel and Edgeform accounts geolocating to the same place, but each one consistently coming from a different IP address. How do you reconcile your analysis of the checkuser data with the analysis by Tiptoety in the earlier round of the SPI, where his conclusion was that the checkuser indicated that they were unrelated? (I've asked Tiptoety that question at his talk, linked above, and he said he didn't know.) How do you reconcile your analysis of the edit summaries with that by EyeSerene in the archived AN discussion?
 * 3) BuickCenturyDriver: you probably didn't literally mean it, but you said that the two accounts' edits "are done in rapid succession". That's not the case. Neither I nor a couple of others who have looked have seen evidence of tag-team editing. Editing in the same areas of interest, yes. Edits from pretty much the same editorial point of view, yes. But edits in a manner that appears coordinated, well, that's in the eye of the beholder.
 * 4) Anyone: OK, let's assume for argument's sake that Neurorel is indeed socking as Edgeform. If so, why leave this with Neurorel unblocked? At this point, the conclusion would be that the single person has (1) socked as Edgeform, (2) disrupted by making the "edit by [name]" edits, and (3) disrupted by asking as Edgeform at Edgeform's talk, and as an IP at my talk, for unblocks, based on lying about supposedly not really socking. I understand the rationale of limiting the sockmaster to a single account, but this no longer seems to me to make sense, if we really think the person is so disruptive.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish just wrt point 2 above (and not putting words in WilliamH's mouth but giving my 2c as I have the same POV as William on the edit summaries) a) I have two Broadband hotspots near where I live operated by two different companies. They generate the same physical location with different IPs - so in effect I can have one IP in my kitchen and anther in my study. b) EyeSerene does not clear Edgeform of socking they just make the point that whereas there are huge similarities there are also subtle differences - "role" accounts try to do this all the time (create separate personas for the particular accounts), and as EyeSerene puts it "I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong)". And wrt point 4 yeah I'd personally see this as grounds for blocking the master account (not sure that that would have consensus though)-- Cailil  talk 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are a couple of points here that are important, and I took them into account when I leant towards unblocking at ANI (having already seen the overlapping editing interest and style):
 * The two accounts could be operated by similar people - for example siblings (think, if you will Ross and Norris McWhirter), or long time colleagues with the same educational background. That's why I suggested that it would be much easier if they declared a relationship.
 * Even if the two were the same person, I could see no abusive socking.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Cailil and Rich Farmbrough, I think that you both make very thoughtful points, and I really cannot contradict any of those points specifically – except that, Cailil, EyeSerene explicitly said that they would favor an unblock. Rich is, I think, correct that there has been no abusive editing (outside of the possible socking itself), in the sense of tag teaming or joining up to agree in content discussions. I think it's interesting how thin a line there is between what would look like "role" accounts (per Cailil), and accounts by two different people with similar interests (per Rich) (per me: perhaps students who have taken a class taught by the BLP subject; they might not even know each other). I cannot imagine how someone who is shady enough to create two "role" accounts would also go around making those "edits by [name], aka" edit summaries. What could possibly motivate that?


 * And let me make a bet here: if someone were to geolocate edits coming from the lab of the BLP page subject, from the home accounts of people who work in that lab, or from the editor who (in good faith, I believe) first contacted me on my talk page to look at what he thought was socking/meatpuppetry at that page, they would all give the same checkuser results as Neurorel and Edgeform.


 * I've been mulling this over, and I keep coming back to those IP edits from someone making low-level vandalism (like deleting an inline cite or a period at the end of a sentence) and making an edit summary like "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform". They went around from one public computer to another; as HelloAnnyong blocked one IP, they moved to another public one. Edgeform got blocked, and they stopped including his name. And once I started posting about them on AN, they went silent. I saw the edit summaries, and I Googled "[name]". I expected to see something like a Facebook page of someone who used to be a student or something in the city where this seems to be coming from, but I couldn't find that. Instead, I got a San Diego-based professional baseball player and a little boy who has autism and whose mother writes a blog about it. Of course, that doesn't rule out someone else with that name, but I doubt either of those two people were making the edits. But it could be what Reyk, above, very aptly described as a "false flag", using the name sarcastically. I also remember that the edit summaries, early on, went something like "edit by non-scientist [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform". The last edit, the one that really tipped me over to skepticism, was either "edit by diletante non-scientist [name], aka Neurorel" or "edit by non-scientist diletante [name], aka Neurorel". Why would someone who is sneaky enough to create role accounts self-describe that way? The obvious answer is that it's someone else, probably a scientist, who wants to present Neurorel in a discrediting way, as someone who supposedly shouldn't be editing these kinds of science articles. I can only conclude that it is someone other than Neurorel or Edgeform, acting in bad faith, a false flag. And I'm sure that person geolocates the same way as the rest. It smells bad to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification — why use [name]? Did you mention it above and I missed it, or are you withholding it for privacy purposes?  Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can see how that could be confusing. The name had been in the edit summaries. The edit summaries have been administratively hidden, because the name was, on the face of it, outing a user's real life identity, in violation of the privacy policy. I know the name, because I saw it before it was deleted (actually, I was the one who reported the edits for administrative attention). Obviously, then, I don't want to repeat the actual name here (even though I argue that it might not really be the user's name). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, Edgeform has only 56 edits since last year. Most of them to only 2 articles: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran & Roger Bingham. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I've unblocked. Clearly this account and Neurorel will be subject to additional scrutiny.  I don't see significant scope for abuse.  Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Needless to say, I share Rich's view and I thank him. However, I feel a responsibility to ask whether the unblock has consensus.  In particular, I am under the impression (based upon a message left by Risker on WillliamH's talk page) that they may still be evaluating the private data offline. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I was siding with anyone, but I hope everyone walks away happy from the outcome. So Tryptofish, you got what you wanted after all.  –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Post-closure comment) Late to this, but I agree with the unblock. My feeling is that an editor deceptive and sophisticated enough to operate role accounts would probably make more of an effort to have them appear different enough not be confused as sockpuppets. There's also the question of "what would be the point?", as there appears to be no evidence of tag teaming by the two accounts. For those who still entertain doubts, as I do myself to a small extent, the unblock can perhaps be looked at in the light of WP:ROPE. As Rich points out, there are a limited set of articles and editors involved here so abuse should be fairly readily apparent if it does occur. EyeSerene talk 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Serial copyvioler
Hello, here is an Admin from Commons; just wanted to warn you that this user, who appears to have uploaded copyvio on en.wiki too, has flooded Commons with a lot of Google Street's screenshots (see here). I put a warning on their talk page but I thought it was useful for you to know who you're dealing with. -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 03:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned talk-page
Orphaned talk-page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services--Musamies (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not orphaned at all. AFC exists so non-registered users cam create articles.  As, like mainspace, creation of pages in Wikipedia space is limited to registered users, ALL AFC pages are in Wikipedia talk space, where IP's may create new pages. Courcelles 06:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation; subpages of extant pages are not considered orphaned, or we'd have to delete things such as Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Closer needed at CfD
Can someone look at this discussion? I believe at this point, all of the regular closers have either commented on the discussion or been mentioned. So if someone fresh to this can take a glance it would be appreciated. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking. Anomie⚔ 01:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot
I've blocked before it removes any more links to File:Project Trains no image.png. This was an obviously bad deletion in which a long-standing heavily-used image had its source information blanked, and was then speedy deletion. I'm astonished that neither the nominator nor the deleting administrator  looked at the page history during this process. Assistance in rolling back the bot's edits would be appreciated. Please let's not have this happen again. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Carnildo restored all of the images. I note that Sfan00 tags with Twinkle; we can't expect the semiautomated tools to check for vandalism.  However, deletion isn't supposed to be purely automatic; does the deleting admin have a good explanation for this?  Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Casey Kearney
Can an admin look at the revision history of this article, since creation it has contained a claim about the alleged perpetrator of the crime, which should in my view be removed from the page history. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The details may or not be necessary (likely not, given the article will probably be deleted), but it's not like that information came out of thin air; it is in some of the references already in the article.  I don't see anything rising to the level of requiring RevDel, I think that would be somewhat overkill.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As users on the AfD wont give the article a chance to proceed to see if further notability is likely by disregard the guidelines when seen fit. Then I have to agree with Northern Lights that this discussion seems like overkill.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Asksqltext — delete or to be updated?
This page not only looks archaic, it also has links that are now dead. Can we delete the beast, or does someone ahve the knowlege to update it? — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, congrats for finding and editing a page that hadn't been edited since 2004! Can't be that many pages of any sort that have gone so long with no changes.  I'd say delete, except (1) not sure what happens if we delete it; is there some sort of default MediaWiki page that would appear in its place?, (2) is there any way to find if its deletion would impact page histories?, and (3) is there anywhere else that we could advertise this?  MFD doesn't get MediaWiki pages very often, so we should probably attempt to let people know about the issue through other means.  I'm going to drop a line at the technical VP; please leave notices anywhere else if you can think of it.  Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, it looks like it has no technical use any more, but it's of some historical interest, like an old talkpage. Why delete?  Put an archive box around the contents if you think it might confuse someone into thinking they can type raw SQL queries at the server through a wiki page.  67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting it would be a bad idea since we don't actually want the default text. Probably the correct text would be something along the lines of "Admins can no longer run queries on the SQL database"©Geni 03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ask SQL feature was killed off ages ago. That page can be safely deleted, or kept. No one will ever see it either way. Reach Out to the Truth 03:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ages ago" being seven years. That message has not been displayed to users for seven years. Reach Out to the Truth 04:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: what's an SQL in the first place? I doubt that archive, historical, or anything else of the sort would be appropriate for any MediaWiki pages, due to technical issues that are inherent for the namespace.  Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SQL, the language used to query a database. That page apparently allowed admins to issue an SQL query directly against the database, which can certainly wreak all sorts of havoc. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the feature or how it worked, but if it was available to all admins as recently as 2004-2005, it can't(?) have been that dangerous per "adminship is no big deal". My guess is that it was for purposes now being handled by the API and by read-only SQL clients now running on toolserver. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have made it a pair then MediaWiki:Sqlislogged. Does that make it a jig or a double facepalm? — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Wrong Forum This belongs at WP:VP/T. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mate, this is the Administrator's noticeboard, where administrators can discuss matters., ie. those that make the tweaks. To note that the file is in fact an archaic part of Wikipedia, now disconnected, and able to be deleted. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice help and possible issue
There's a backlog at WP:RM so I'm asking here.

I would like User:Ryulong/sandbox/TAR to be turned into an editnotice for The Amazing Race 20.

Also, I would like some input as to how to deal with what may result in edit warring on the article, as the Canadian broadcaster who airs the program also has the rights to the Academy Awards, and have decided that they will broadcast the show 2 hours earlier than American broadcasters. Last week when there was only a 20 minute difference, someone was edit warring over a Canadian editor having put the results in. There is only half an hour until this begins, so some quick ideas assistance would be beneficial.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do American editors take precedence here? If US viewers don't want spoilers, maybe they shouldn't read the article. Franamax (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of spoilers. It's that there's been some sort of agreement that edits to the page things should be done until the initial broadcast in the US (the nation of origin for the program), and last week someone edit warred over results that were posted 20 minutes early. I fear what may happen with this 2 hour difference and I want to avoid edit warring on either side. I've already asked a Canadian editor who also works on the page to hold off until the American, and he's agreed. It also makes it difficult to determine if the content can be reliably sourced to the program, because of such a drastic difference in time.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on other discussions, I've reformatted the proposed edit notice to tell American editors to not be pissy about spoilers.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 22:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Does this need an edit notice? Can't there just be an explanation on the article talk page?  It looks like there was just one editor who was repeatedly reverting the content out, without explanation or discussion.  He ignored an edit summary which referred to the show's earlier broadcast in Canada; would an edit notice really have worked any better?  (In any event, he was blocked for a blatant 3RR violation at the time, so presumably he won't do it again this week.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like the edit notice to now cover the whole season now, because I find that someone's going to pay attention to it moreso than these things or a talk page message.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

More eyes at WP:NPOVN
There is a rather complicated discussion occurring at the NPOV noticeboard, Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, involving apparently myself, and possibly others. More eyes on the page would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having read the discussion being pointed to (I have not participated in it yet), I echo this request for Admin eyes. I don't think there is a need for admin action yet... but I could see how it could easily spiral out of control and become really nasty. If we can nip this in the bud, we should. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting name change
Hi, a user has moved the title of Mangalorean Catholic names and surnames to Mangalorean Catholic names without achieving general consensus. Please revert the title to the original one. If he disagrees with it, he can bring it up on the talk page. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me!   23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the redirect. You can move it back if you like. --regentspark (comment) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Joyson Prabhu  Holla at me!   00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, you should have been able to move it back over the redirect yourself. Graham 87 01:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a few good admins for a tough but important job
As many of you no doubt recall, I initiated an RFC last year aimed at resolving the unanswered questions about pending changes. I attempted to play ringmaster all by myself in that process, and it didn't work out too well. The RFC was forced off in an unintended direction by short-term concerns about the tool, and that discussion resulted in the situation we have now, where the tool is "temporarily out of service" but we still don't actually have a policy on whether we are ever going to use it or not. The WMF has indicated they will not dedicate any more resources towards developing the tool until we have in fact made such a decision as a community.

So, here's the point: I've designed a new RFC aimed at finally resolving this situation one way or the other, although the option of keeping things as they are is in there as well. I believe it is ready to go live, but I also believe I shouldn't have anything to do with administrating it once it is underway. The idea has been floating around here for a while that big policy RFCs like this should be administrated and closed by a small group of admins who will work together to keep the discussion on track, to stop disruption of the process, and to close the discussion once a consensus has become clear. I'm looking for volunteers for that task. I've already got the whole thing drawn up in my sandbox, it just needs to be moved into WP space and have a few subpages created for it and it will be all ready for participants to begin commenting and endorsing positions. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no particular position on the issue of PC and am willing to work as part of a team of at least three admins supervising/closing a PC RfC. I would suggest that once a team is in place, they set down some ground rules/principles for participation, before the RfC is sent live. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've actually already outlined at my sandbox draft a process that should avoid the pitfalls of the previous discussions, but of course the coordinating admins would need to review all that and may want to change some of it before going live. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose I'm masochistic enough to do it, as I don't have any real position on PC either. I'll have a look at your sandbox draft tomorrow morning, when my wits are more about me.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI, an RFC on PC was just launched today at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Let's move. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's really unfortunate, I'm endeavoring to convince them to put that on the shelf and let an RFC with an actual plan and forethought involved go forward instead, not that they are mutually exclusive, but it seems silly to have two rfcs at the same time on the same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, the other one has been closed. still looking for one more admin to sign on for this and we can get underway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think i've commented on pending changes before, but I close a lot of RfCs and I don't have a general opinion on this as of right now, and I don't see myself having one anytime soon, so I'm willing to help. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems as if you are purposely excluding non-Admins from the process. Is this intentional ? StuRat (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the same reason that only admins should close contentious AFDs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's probably best that we entrust such a complicated task to users that the community has already vetted, but the actual decision on what to do will be made by the community, these guys will just be there to keep the debate on track and to do the close. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal closed
This case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.
 * 2) TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.
 * 3) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.
 * 4) Will Beback is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.
 * 5) Will Beback is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee.
 * 6) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Ling JIANG again
After http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive232#Users_spamming_using_email_feature_-_possible_IP_tracking_scam_-_see_User_talk:Ling_JIANG I received a WP email from User:Ling JIANG at 1:50 24 February - 24 hours after they had said they'd investigate the procedure, and no sign of activity on Meta or elsewhere. I have therefore blocked to remove email capability, as the will of the community seemed to be that the emails should stop until there was either an OK from the WMF or I suppose community approval. No objection if anyone wants to unblock, of course. But it does seem like the only way to get Ling JIANG to act on the community's wishes. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Good block. I received a second e-mail yesterday, shortly after the editor wrote they were heading to Meta. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good block. It may become necessary to give a little more protection to the naive by changing the footer added when sending via "email this user". In addition to the current disclaimer, there should be a warning about the potential disasters that may occur if the recipient responds to a request to visit some website. Particularly since many people imagine they are in a safe part of the Internet when using Wikipedia (apart from NSFW stuff), they can be vulnerable to social networking or plain malware attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations is being populated again
Suspected copyright violations is being populated again thanks to User:Madman. Have phun! MER-C 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PC
Hello, since this would involve a lot of administrator work if it pass, I think you should know about it. Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Let's_move Petrb (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please not do this this way? Look up four sections, I've got admin volunteers on board to help run a carefully planned and highly structured RFC designed to achieve a clear result. You've got something you slapped together in a few minutes with no controls. I expect mine to ready to go live before the end of the week, could we please wait, and not rush into things? That's what I did right around this time last year, and that's exactly how we wound up in the situation we are in now. If we want a usable result from this, we need to do it right, not just declare "I'm so damn bold" and rush into it. Being bold is a great way to approach article editing. Not such a great way to approach important decisions like this. I would welcome your input on the draft RFC which is currently in my sandbox. Please, please don't do this, and let the other RFC, the one with planning and forethought and painful experience behind it, go forward. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, that one's been closed for the moment. Still need one more willing admin, four sections up from here. C'mon. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
Can someone please move Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (TV series) back to Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show), and Where in Time Is Carmen Sandiego? (TV series) back to Where in Time Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show)? Per WP:NCTV, game shows use (game show) instead of (TV series), and the moves were made against consensus by an indef-blocked sock. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - jc37 00:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Admin requested to rule-on/close RFC
I am hoping that an available administrator might take a moment to rule-on and close the RFC posted at Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012. Thanks! Location (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of Topic Ban
I accepted a Topic Ban according to WP:GS/BI over 6 months ago. I asked for the Topic Ban to be reviewed and received this response. You can follow the broad arguments there. But to summarize, it seems Cailil's actual wording is different than the sanctions laid out at WP:GS/BI and especially TB01. Cailil believes that tagging the articles was in breach of the sanction. I don't - and if I'd known, I wouldn't have tagged the articles. (In fact, I've always tagged articles) Cailil has suggested getting this reviewed here. Any takers? --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to agree with Cailil's assessment; you added some "citation needed" tags following the words "British Isles" in a handful of articles, and the terms of your topic ban were "User:HighKing is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed." It seems clear-cut to me. And I hope you don't think I'm being flippant here, but there are literally three million articles that have no mention of "British Isles" whatsoever, so it seems like a poor choice to go to the handful that do and tag them when you're under a topic ban. 28bytes (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic ban was executed without sufficient attention to detail. The applicable page is General_sanctions/British_Isles_Probation_Log. HighKing tagging of BI articles would be allowable under TB01 and violation under TB02. The ban was logged as TB01 but the talk page statement referenced TB02 using phrasing that was neither TB01 nor TB02. Nobody Ent 03:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, Cailil clarified to me that the ban was TB01, not TB02. --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely in breach of the sanction, and a trout for doing so. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Really need some clarification on the feedback - and a trout back to those to those who didn't provide any explanation:
 * The wording of WP:GS/BI TB01 states User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. Does adding a citation tag breach this?  If so, why?  I have neither added or removed the term "British Isles".  Nor was I Topic Banned from edited articles in general.
 * The formal wording of Cailil's ban (as has been pointed out above) is User:HighKing is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' widely construed. Some editors above seem to prioritize Cailil's formal wording over the terms and conditions set out at WP:GS/BI and especially TB01.  Is that allowed or fair?  If it was Cailil's intention, shouldn't it have been pointed out that the Topic Ban was essentially a different sanction, which isn't TB01 but something different?
 * The review by Cailil is further widening the scope to now include any British or Irish naming debates. I'm involved in other areas, but I've absolutely never caused any disruption or problem whatsoever.  I'm sure any admin with knowledge in those topic areas can confirm.  It seems to be a further widening of the scope beyond the initial sanction.
 * If we can agree that I've kept within TB01, and that *even if* adding a citation tag would have breached the Topic Ban, I didn't do anything else. There's no cause to extend the Topic Ban.  I was not acting the maggot or gaming the system - I added tags all through the Topic Ban without any adverse comments or any form of disruption.  I've held up to my agreed 6 months and extending the Topic Ban serves no purpose.  --HighKing (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagging "British Isles" as dubious is a clear violation of the topic ban as it was presented to you. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm getting frustrated as to why nobody is answering the questions I've posed. Maybe you are hinting at an answer though -  As it was presented to you appears to imply that Cailil's wording supercede's the official TB01 text.  Is that what you mean?  Or does TB01 cover tagging?  Also, is it just the single dubious tag or the other fact tags as well?  --HighKing (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion here. I've had a look at WP:GS/BI and at HighKing's TP. On the sanctions page, he is listed under TB01 but the sanction he was actually placed under by Cailil, as per my reading of the diff from HK's TP, was really TB02. Obviously under TB02, HK has violated his topic ban. But what he did do, would not be a violation of TB01. HighKing, for the sake of simplicity, it would be easiest to assume you're actually under TB02 and that Cailil has mis-entered the sanction on the GS page. Blackmane (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Who came up with this "brilliant" number-and-letter-coded topic ban wording system? It strikes me as completely overkill and pointless for a topic area that has only a small handful of sanctions every year. I agree that the version of the ban that was actually posted on the user's talk page is controlling. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing this guys and re the number system on WP:GS/BI I agree with Tim it's overkill. What happened was BlackKite (after getting community consensus) drafted the page with "TB01" and this got added to and spiralled out of control. A revision simplyfing the WP:GS/BI page would resolve that issue. As regards HighKing's points the formal wording of the ban (italicized and blockquoted and described as the 'formal wording' on HK's talk page) should be clear on this. HK, I do realize you are disappointed but I'm happy to look at this again at the end of May. 28bytes is right - there are millions of topics on the project that need work that have nothing to do with this term. As regards ban wording - in short the wording given on the talk page of the banned user always specifies what the ban is and how it is construed (see any ArbCom case etc) the reason for this is that sometimes a 'default setting' is too harsh or not specific enough to cover the specific behaviours of an individual-- Cailil   talk 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone provide a link to the ArbCom case that's the basis for this? My wiki-search skills don't seem to be adequate to find it. Nobody Ent 19:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's a community sanction -- Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would explain it. I'd concur with trashing the TBxx stuff and just diffing to the actual sanction on the log page, so there's a single statement of the ban. Nobody Ent 20:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well bear with me. The community sanction also uses the phrasing "Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification...".  And judging from comments here, it seems that the WP:GS/BI page is more of an anomaly that the norm, so I'm not sure how previous Arbcom cases are related.  Cailil, can you point me to a previous Arbcom case which shares a similar structure.
 * Seriously - how was any editor, and especially one that isn't familiar with Arbcom and stuff, supposed to know that the "official wording" of the ban would override the phrasing at the official community page? And Cailil, you even preceded the "official wording" with the exact same phrasing found at TB01 - I must not add or remove the phrase.  Why do that?  Very misleading to me, and very unfair to now say that because I was "in breach" of a condition which was reasonably misinterpreted.
 * The original 6 months Topic Ban is also a relatively extremely long ban for the edits in the first place. There was no edit warring involved, and it was a "technical" breach.  Now, I'm not complaining over that and I accepted the Topic Ban of that duration for a number of reasons - all noble and good :-)  Seriously, the entire "British Isles" space had become plagued with socks - and over time, that had affected my own behaviour and reactions so I knew I needed to step back and calm down.  But please take into consideration the two other editors that received sanctions - especially their behaviour and the length of the block.
 * Triton Rocker received a total of 6 TB01 topic bans, with durations of 24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week, 12 hours, and 1 month.
 * LevenBoy received 1 ban for 1 month.
 * So in light of everything - I was observing the wording of TB01, I was not aware that tagging (and possibly any editing of British Isles articles) was not allowed (and I bet neither was most everybody else), the notice of the Topic Ban was misleading as it was preceded with similar wording from TB01, why apply an *extra* 3 months? For a technical breach, a time period of an extra 24 hours would be more in line?  --HighKing (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The more wikilawyering you do, HighKing, the less likely it is that anyone will be willing to give you a break. If you're looking for ways to edit disruptively without violating the letter of your ban, you're displaying the need for it to have been imposed in the first place. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it that trying to make a clear and concise argument gets you accused of wikilawyering? --HighKing (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As already discussed, the ban was not crystal clear and accusations of wikilawyering are not helpful. That said, it's clear there's not a consensus for a lifting right now so I'd encourage HighKing to edit other areas and revisit the issue at the end of May. Nobody Ent 21:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As a practical question, HighKing, what is it that you want to do that the topic ban is preventing you from doing? 28bytes (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that's relevant? But here's the thing - was I really in breach of a Topic Ban so much that an extra *three months* is warranted?  Am I really such a disruptive editor that I need to be kept under a Topic Ban?  And Anthrenus pimpinellae needs fixing (and this time I'll remember to put the reference in the middle of the sentence and not rely on the existing "External Links" - which is what got me Topic Banned in the first place).  --HighKing (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahem HK this aint going to work. The ban that was imposed on you is explicit (as all the other sysops have agreed). Trying to find legalistic loopholes is, as Sarek said is, only digging a hole for yourself. If you were unclear about the ban it has now been clarified - it seems to me there is quite a gap between your assumption of how bans etc work here and how they in fact do. Also you should have realized that the formal wording of your ban was the bit that followed the line in my notification saying "The formal wording of the ban is as follows:" (I'm not being facetious that's wording I used). The topic ban is/was not 6 months, it is of indefinite duration just like the other sanctions applied under this community probation - it will be lifted when you show us it's unnecessary (the 3 months are not "extra"). I've said this multiple times already. And I'm afraid you are confused about TritonRocker and LevenBoy's sanctions - they are both still under indefinite topic bans, but they were blocked for durations of 24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week, and 1 month (TR) and 1 month (LB) - each of these blocks for violations of their bans (as listed at the probation log & their block logs). You have not been blocked under WP:GS/BI - please see BANBLOCKDIFF for the difference between blocks and bans. This was *not* a break as you put it in your last message to me it is a topic ban for disrupting this project. It is not an agreement it is a restriction. You can protest if you wish but I will review this at the end of May - no amount of threat or blandishment will sway me or any other sysop here HK. The only way to get this ban removed is to show us its unnecessary. This thread and these comments show us the reverse-- Cailil  talk 23:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Cailil - it has cleared up a lot of my perceptions of being unfairly treated. And I feel foolish now that the difference between Block and Ban has been pointed out.  My main gripe was that I believed I was being treated differently and unfairly.  I now accept that this isn't the case.  You say I should have realized that the formal wording was the enforceable bit - I didn't, and I don't think it was unreasonable for me to show why I didn't.  I believe I am ready for the Topic Ban to be lifted, but I also accept the consensus of the community, and your decision, to review again at the end of May.  --HighKing (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting three admins for an RM close
There is currently an RM discussion at Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative that is likely going to be a contentious close. Would three admin be willing to volunteer to close this? The move is from Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. Thus far there are 37 respondents and while the RM hasn't run for a full 7 days it doesn't seem as though more discussion will lead to any new ideas. Thanks. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm not fully available right now, if you still need someone let me know.  I don't recall if I closed any of the previous discussions, but if that is a problem, I would not be hurt about not being involved. I would recommend against starting a closing discussion before the full 7 days has elapsed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for an admin to close a requested move
I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin would be willing to close a request to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles -- a murders article and a biography. The moves would be Jeremy Bamber --> White House Farm murders and User:SlimVirgin/Jeremy Bamber --> Jeremy Bamber.

The final part of the discussion was held at Talk:Jeremy Bamber, and I've summed up the whole discussion at Talk:Jeremy Bamber.

Sorry to ask here, but there's a bit of a backlog. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not sure it needs an admin, as I think the first move (Jeremy Bamber to White House Farm murders) could be made by a non-admin, and the second move (from my user space), I can do with a cut and paste. So if any experienced editor would be willing to close this, that would be very helpful. It has been discussed since February 12, and I can't move on with developing the articles until I know whether the biography is going to exist separately. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1/2 done, awaiting SV cut & paste Nobody Ent 22:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, NE. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet issue


Not sure I happened to notice these edits: 1 and 2 about a sockpuppet investigation and I figured I'd err on the side of notifying you guys. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted both edits. Apparantly, CU did confirm that MPFC1969 was a sock of Radiopathy, so Radiopathy's blanking of the userpage was disruptive. And since the block of the sock is still in force, blanking of the user talk page was improper.Singularity42 (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFP
Requests for page protection is heavily backlogged (currently with 20 requests). Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 09:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ backlog overcome. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Weirdness; admin eyes needed
Obviously not a new account. One edit to a RD, then magically finds the VP where s/he makes nebulous complaints about 'censorship' on the ref desks... and segues into this, which is disturbing. Not sure what needs to be done exactly but there's obviously something going on here. → ROUX   ₪  19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked by Reaper Eternal per much quacking. Close this or hat it or whatever. → ROUX   ₪  19:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I think it highly likely that the editor is probably the same as the IP-user that asked this disturbing question on the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that seems pretty likely, given the troll's immediate cries of 'censorship' and 'discrimination.' → ROUX   ₪  19:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IP blocked too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki1.19 upgrade happening at 2300 UTC
Might be an idea to put up a watchlist notice to make sure users are aware. See the maintenance notice on the MediaWiki site. Risker (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah... that's why things look different all of a sudden! SmartSE (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A request for my rollback rights to be restored
I am flagging a request for my rollback rights, which were stripped in 2010 following my first block. I was then blocked again indefinitely, unblocked after a year and requested my rollback rights back just after my block (a foolishly made request that was declined). I then waited a few weeks and requested my rollback rights again here. As an explanation to allegations against me of abuse of rollback, I was acting in good faith. I have also since have been more careful when using the rollback function on twinkle. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As User:PeterSymonds was the one who removed your rollback rights, I would like to hear what he has to say first. I've requested his input. 28bytes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Peter didn't have any objections, so I've restored your rollback rights. Use them wisely! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily
Probably many of you admins have heard of me since I have been around for quite a while and have done a lot of stuff. Although my main responsibilities are a bit out of the way (WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARDS) and, generally, I don't like to spend a lot of time in lengthy discussions, I am pretty experienced at them. My two most recent WP:TFD nominations have ended with closures that were surprising to me based on my experience. In January, Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10 was closed one opinion to delete (plus the nominator) and three opinions to keep as a consensus to delete. I spent several days seeking an explanation at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5 and the long and the short of it was that after a few days of ignoring my queries, he claimed to be happy to explain his decision and felt the proper way to explain such a decision was to delegate the responsibility of explaining it to the nominator. Eventually, the nominator and I agreed that these should be restored with minor modifications based on discussions now located in three places:
 * User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5
 * User_talk:Frietjes
 * User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_66

Today, I found another odd closure decision at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24 when a discussion with four deletes and three keeps was closed as consensus to delete. In my experience at various WP:XFD, even if you count the nominator if 3-5 out of 8 people are on one side of and issue and 3-5 out of 8 are on the other, generally, this is regarded as a no consensus. This particular decision may effect a total of 35 similar templates (most of which are listed at Category:United States mayors templates by state) in the near future. My alternatives are to pursue a WP:DRV. However, since the first step in a DRV is to talk to the discussion-closing editor, I would be back on 's page. He has already expressed a belief that the proper way to explain your decision is to ask the nominator to do so, I feel pursuing that would be fruitless.

I am curious about the closure because there is a possibility that no consensus is no longer considered a discussion resolution. I see my options as follows: Remember that the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter. Number  5  7  14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Accept the decision
 * 2) Pursue a WP:DRV
 * 3) Find a place to discuss
 * 4) whether no consensus is still used in TFD resolutions
 * 5) whether Fastily's understanding that the nominator is responsible for explaining a TFD closure for DRV purposes
 * 6) whether Fastily may be too aggressive in closing TFD discussions I have been involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the arguments for keeping the NY mayors template amounted to "It's useful" (without actually specifying how) and "You didn't nominate all these other templates at the same time". Fastily was perfectly justified in analyzing the quality of the arguments rather than just counting numbers.  (FULL DISCLOSURE: I nominated the NY mayors template for deletion.)  Powers T 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole point of templates is that they're useful. WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, but it's the only valid reason for having templates such as Pp-meta.  Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:USEFUL again, Nyttend. It says that being useful can be a valid reason for keeping (whether article or not), but it has to be explained rather than simply asserted.  Powers T 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, navboxes are pretty much always useful for navigating from article to article within related topics, which these are. It's definitely on those advocating deletion to explain why a specific example of such a common type of template is an aberration from the common pattern.  Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make a simple declaration of "it's useful" in any way a valid argument for keeping. Powers T 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you READ what you're citing? "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more", which CLEARLY encompass navboxes. Just because the exception is poorly written is no reason not to apply common-sense in interpreting it with regard to templates! Circéus (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with what the closer says take it to DRV. I think you are reading way too much into Fastily asking the nominator to comment. To me it looks like he was fed up of you badgering him, so asked someone else who might be able to explain without getting annoyed at you. I could be wrong of course. Also, you don't have to look very hard to find no-consensus closes by fastily (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#Template:Closed_down). Polequant (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is hard to disagree with what a closer says if he won't say anything and hard to take it to DRV when the first step is to talk with the closer when the closer won't say anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well DRV will in fact hear it in cases like this; and it frequently does get the occasion to hear it, because Fastily does not explain his closes at the time he makes them, and often not on his talk p. either. Considering that a reasonable number of his closes have been overturned there, I don't think his continuing this way is constructive behavior for an admin. For everyone who take s the matter to DRv, there are probably ten who are not willing to undergo the further bureaucracy. Since many of these are people who would be making their first contribution here, closing discussions in this way, let alone avoiding discussing them, is has the effect of discouraging new contributors, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage them (Most of his closes are good, of course, but an editor, especially a new editor, deserves an explanation--a good explanation of why something must be deleted will often keep the editor. Some of this should be dealt with by a rule requiring meaningful rational for non-unanimous XfD closings, but changing deletion process in practice seems to require unanimous consent. In the meantime, we can strongly urge Fastily to change his work habits in this respect. Yes, he wouldn't be able to do as many closes, but there are a few hundred other good administrators.  DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I proposed just that a couple of years ago. It was shot down in flames by other admins circling the wagons to defend their own laziness and highhandedness: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 5. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dare I suggest that Requests for Comment/Fastily may be in order? If this is a long term, widespread problem then that would seem the next logical step. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, this is appears to be a personal vendetta of Tony's. Awhile back, he contested one of my TfD closes on my talk page.  I informed him that I would userfy the templates and that I was busy in RL and would provide my reasoning shortly, but he immediately dismissed it as fallacious.  Annoyed by the lack of collegiality and respect I was being shown, I asked a participant in the TfD to comment in the meantime.  Somehow, Tony perceived this as an attack, and literally accused me of canvassing and conspiracy.  At any rate, User:Frietjes was able to work out a compromise, and the templates were moved back to the mainspace.  I had believed the matter to be resolved, and so did not feel it necessary to provide rationale, granted that the concern was moot.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  I will always provide rationale for my closures when they involve contentious and/or complicated matters.  I do not provide rationales when the result of the discussion is, IMO, unambiguous; nonetheless, I have never had any issues with explaining my closes/correcting errors (with and without publicly stated reasons) when requested.  If that approach is so wrong, my god, we'd better start RfCs on some 20 other-odd admins who follow similar procedures. - F ASTILY  (TALK)  07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are in some twisted universe where when I note your consistent efforts to close discussions regarding templates I have created as delete, when normal closing procedure would be to either keep or no consensus close them as my personal vendetta. All I am doing is noting your apparent vendetta to close my TFDs as delete even when to do so is non-sensical. You sound like someone explaining to the police officer that the victim's face was in front of my fist as I innocently moved my arm forward repeatedly at high velocity.  Then, he went on a vendetta of screaming about how I was abusing him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, if you're determined to resort to personal attacks, my job is done here. Cheers,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that a personal attack? I was making an analogy. You have no reason to be running around deleting my templates in contravention of procedures and then claiming I am on a vendetta for pointing out your actions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it, because I hold Fastily in high esteem, but his talk page has been on my watchlist for a couple of years, and Beeblebrox is right. This is a regular issue—whether it's files, articles, or templates, somebody seems to dispute Fastily's deletion of something every few days. Fastily, don't get yourself dragged into a nasty RfC—you need to slow down a little and properly explain your rationale when closing a deletion debate and when people come to your talk page disagreeing with your close. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only deletions, keeps as well of course. I haven't asked for an explanation of his close of Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30, but a TfD with that many comments, and with rather divided and lengthy opinions, could do with an argued close (e.g. indicating why it isn't closed as a no consensus instead of a keep, and what the opinion, if any, was about the other elements in the nomination) instead of a simple "keep". I'm planning to start an RfC on this template anyway, so it won't make a huge difference probably, but I felt that the close of that TfD was rather disappointing, not because of the actual result, but the manner it was presented. Fram (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) @HJ Mitchell, I agree with this sentiment. Just yesterday I had an unclear deletion of an image and Fastily gave an unsatisfactory explanation of the deletion reason and the process followed. I asked for further clarification and I'm still waiting. We can't require everybody to devote time to Wikipedia, but administrators should be held to a higher standard since their actions can't be reversed by us entry-level editors. Great power, great responsibility; if Fastily is not willing to explain his actions in detail then s/he should refrain from closing controversial discussions. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment on any long-term trends, but in this specific case, I think it's clear Tony was being unreasonable in demanding immediate explanations, to the point of checking Fastily's contributions log to see when Fastily had been editing most recently. Can we agree, at least, that if better explanations are required, that they at least be requested in a calm and civil manner?  Powers T 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I say anything uncivil? I was using the contributions log to get an understanding of the likelihood that he was ducking me. He has yet to give any explanation why he considered three keep votes and one delete vote consensus to delete. I continue to await an explanation by anyone who might be able to expalain that one. We may never know since we worked out a compromise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion on Fastily's talk page looked to me like you were badgering Fastily (due, apparently to your own admitted "impatience"). Furthermore, you jumped immediately to the conclusion that Fastily was "ducking" you rather than acknowledging that Fastily might be busy and is volunteering his/her time to this project.  Powers T 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I'm noticing a trend here. But as it is, I've repeatedly seen Fastily's name come up over disputed deletions and other related matters, and it's beginning to give me a sense of deja vu. There comes a point where we have to stop saying "it's every body else" maybe there is a problem with the way this user is going about things and their process should be improved. I've found him a little quick on the trigger when a cursory examination of something might solve the problem. This comes across as a binary mindset that has gotten other editors in conflicts in the past, often over similar issues.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ,, here he seems to jump into a situation he just isn't really informed on and revert a bunch of stuff that doesn't need it,  while old, this is simply to show that it's an on-going and long-term issue for him, etc. I don't have time right now to paw through the AN/I archives for all the times I've seen his name come up over questionable behaviour, or deletions just my opinion based on the interactions I've had with him and the discussions I've seen come up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In my defense, all of these are extremely old, resolved, and irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P  Cheers,  F ASTILY  (TALK)  10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not fair, we won't get our dose of wikidrama now. Diego (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * December 2011 is "extremely" old? You have a rather interesting definition of "extremely". The concerns were not just about closing discussions. This is talking about deletions, so I can't see how this makes anything moot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There may be an issue here that goes beyond closing deletion discussions. I have no particular memory of previously interacting with Fastily, but for what it's worth, I am semi-regularly editing DRV and I remember closing (or commenting in) an uncommonly high number of review requests that concerned an clearly mistaken speedy deletion by Fastily.  Sandstein   07:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it appropriate to ask that Fastily explain his reasoning for the two closes that caused me to initiate this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fastily thankfully deletes a whole lot of things - templates, images, etc. So much so that he has a simple page that describes his reasonings.  Typically, if you approach them, they point you there and if you want more info, simply ask for a follow-up ... usually, unless the question is already answered the first time, Fastily is more-than-willing to give some extra explanation.  By sheer ratio, I would actually bet that the number of just fine deletions to questionable is better than most of us.  Just like the average American has heard of more problems with Plymouth Sunfire automobiles than Jaguar XJC's, it's a matter of quantity for the most part ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in coping with the large number of inquiries about deletion, the boilerplate responses may come off badly with good faith editors who recognise the general concern, but don't understand the specifics as to what was wrong with their article. I understand that this is a wider issue, especially with over-use of warning templates, and I don't necessarily think that Fastly should be specifically highlighted here, but it does seem to cause issues. Otherwise there is no question that Fastly does lots of great work, and the one time I raised a problem it was fixed quickly and without any hassles at all. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the suggestion of an RfC/U on Fastily per the comments here by Beeblebrox and Sandstein above; there have been related problems raised on ANI and with his bot Fbot. In all cases administrative tasks were performed in a mechanized manner without the need to provide careful justification either at the time or later when queried. Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was troubled by this recent (4 days ago) section at ANI. Article is deleted as G11, the editor asks if they can have a copy, Fastily's response is a link to G11 that ignores the clear request for a userfied version (and then another admin cleans up after Fastily at ANI). If Fastily has enough time to delete a hundred articles, but not enough time to adequately communicate with the users he affects, then Fastily doesn't have enough time to delete a hundred articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Fastily, he has done over 170,000 deletions, so this instance and those cited above represent a vanishingly small percentage of his actions and I suspect are in-line on a percentage-basis with all other administrators. He's just doing more work, so more people notice any mistakes.  MBisanz  talk 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the proportion is no higher than others it would explain mistaken deletions; but it also explains, though does not excuse his frequent failure to give adequate reasons or engage in genuine dialog.  It would seem to show that he is doing too many deletions to work accurately or keep track or deal with the people involved. Bu I'm not sure that;s true.  But that the proportion is no higher remains to be shown. As I take an opposite approach than he, while still finding plenty to delete--though my count is only 8% of his--  I have generally refrained from challenging his deletions, in order to facilitate the necessity of working together. Perhaps others have done likewise.  NPP and related activities can not be done accurately fast.  DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is true. I would say he probably is working accurately, but doesn't have time to deal with the people involved. Otherwise, I would agree with you.  MBisanz  talk 17:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a huge problem since we're a community after all. We've seen similar behaviour from other long term users that ends up generating endless drama. Often eventually leading to them getting blocked, banned, etc. As DGG said, above he dismissed the links I provided to earlier AN/I discussion claiming they were all "extremely old" and yet one of them is from December. Good faith doesn't extend to time travel.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is not related to deleted templates but it's along the same lines. It seems Fastily just speedy deleted the article Aunt Bam's Place under G8. G8 states: Examples include talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; and categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates.. Now, this was an ARTICLE, not a talk page, subpage, image page, redirect or anything of the sort. EVEN IF somehow this article qualified for speedy deletion, G8 is obviously the wrong reason. The thing is that IT DID NOT qualify for a speedy deletion. What has been going on is that an anon IP has been going around monkeying around with articles related to Tyler Perry, and has been repeatedly nominating this page for speedy deletion, seemingly for laughs (or who knows, anyway, "disruptively"). Now I'm not THAT familiar with Mr. Perry's ouvre, and maybe I'm missing something, but "Aunt Bam's Place" appears to be an actual play (by one of the highest paid producers in Hollywood). Unless there's some widespread internet wide hoax going on, the article deserved at the very least an AfD. It's obvious that Fastily didn't bother to check details, or even glance at the subject but just saw a "speedy delete" template and then deleted it. And then made up a bs reason - or at least gave a completely wrong reason - for the deletion. Per discussion above, it's obvious that this isn't the first time this kind of thing happen. And unlike with TonyTheTiger I can't be accused of perusing a grudge here. So either Fastily is a bit out of control, or s/he simply doesn't know what the heck he's doing. Either way this is going towards sufficient reasons for removal of admin tools. Before that happens, how about a topic-ban from deletions (including closing AfDs and speedies) is tried? Volunteer Marek  02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a fairly silly deletion; just because something is tagged G8, doesn't mean it is a G8. You have to look at it. I've restored the article and its talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm starting to think that the "170,000 deletions" is actually a symptom of the problem rather than an indication that everything's ok. You do that many deletions, they're gonna be sloppy. It's very much "quantity over quality" and I don't see a point of trying to up one's deletion/edit count this way if it just keeps causing work for others. Volunteer Marek 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen Fastily around doing good work, also (and only recently) a couple of things I'd have questioned. Maybe it's just perceived "pressure of work"?  (I will add, as I often do, that every time I have looked at any deletion process in detail I have seen stuff being deleted that should be kept, this however is not just about deletes.) Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC).


 * I'd buy that for a dollar. Give his attempt above to misdirect/dance around the issue and these kinds of on-going deletion issues, a break might be in order. If he doesn't want to take it himself, then perhaps he should be encouraged to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fastily's commitment above not to close complicated discussions without an explanation solves only one small part of the problem. The major part of the problem is the way his referral to the page of his boilerplate - - and his refusal to discuss further affects newcomers. When they ask someone here a question, they expect an answer. There are frequent and continual complaints that Wikipedia acts mechanically, and some of the things we do at speedy are necessarily mechanical. But when someone goes to the trouble of making a personal request to explain what an admin did, it is outrageous not to be given a personal answer. If an admin is doing too many deletions or other admin actions to respond to every good faith query about them with enough specificity to show they read and understood the article in question and are willing to help the user be more successful here, they are doing too many. to then refer them to DelRev adds to the insult, as a newcomer would see it as one of the most bureaucratic and specialized of all our procedures, a place where speaking in jargon and contention about basic policies is expected and unavoidable, Admins are expected to make themselves accessible. What is needed here is a commitment by Fastily to respond to every good faith question, and not use his page of boilerplate to discourage them. Perhaps it needs an MfD, as user page contrary to policy -- not in what it says, but in the effect it has.  DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Frankly Fastily's tendency to act unilaterally and respond with indigence (or not at all) to the concerns of other community members reminds me a bit too much of Betacommand. If this is the path he wants to go down, I imagine an RFC/U will soon be in order. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's one of the hardest working admins on the project. The percentage of deletion edits inaccurately made is miraculously low. There is nothing wrong with his direction to his subpage it accurately describes the reasoning for the action and points the user to what they can do and MFD on a useful page is a waste of time. If they ask for help he generally gives it Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not excuse, and I'm starting to get some extreme Deja vu here. There has never been a time in wikipedia's history where anyone has provided the exchange sheet where it shows how many good contributions you have to make or how hard you have to work in order to be excused for certain bad behaviour. This is a whole package thing. Making a few deletion mistakes is not a serious issue, it's how we handle it when called on it, and from what I'm seeing it doesn't seem to be good, and we've seen these kinds of problems before. Editors "working for the good of the community" who don't want to take the time to work with the actual community.--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this thread has been open for quite a long time. I notice that some are referencing the remark I made about an RFC/U. I'd like to clarify that point if I might. The accusation is that there is a long term problem, yet here we are going in circles at this noticeboard, which is not really the place for dispute resolution, and certainly not the place for a prolonged discussion of one specific admin's actions. So, a more explicit statement of what I intended to say would be "File an RFC/U or let it go, but don't expect AN to resolve this." I hope that clarifies my position. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been my experience as well that Fastily is short with explanations during a debate, and takes umbrage it being asked to explain himself. The kerfuffle over File:Centpacrr.jpg is an excellent example (see Deletion review/Log/2011 December 3 for a flavor of the discussion). It seems Fastily often thinks users are being rude or some such. That's no excuse for not giving an explanation. If he doesn't have the time maybe he should do fewer deletions. The world isn't going to end. There's another issue open farther down this page (Administrators' noticeboard) where his haste led a horrible mess. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was absolutely ridiculous. I'll give another example of fastily being careless with his deletions. Last month he deleted File:Perfect_World_logo.png because it was orphaned. Of course, it still had it's FUR on it. He deleted it without checking, but the article in question had been vandalized and the infobox damaged. He easily could have taken 2 seconds to click the article in the FUR and check why it had become orphaned (new version?) and noticed that that had happened, it was the last edit when he deleted it. That kind of robotic deletion isn't what we expect from a human editor and if we're just going to delete stuff without even a cursory check (He must have had to go to the article to verify it had in fact been orphaned and that it wasn't tagged in error) why not just run a deletion bot to empty the orphaned image category daily right?--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to propose a solution. That Fastily choose between providing a rationale of a least a full sentence with every close he makes of an xfd and that he agrees to discuss every close he is asked about on his talk page, instead of referring to a list of set phrases, OR that he stop making closes. As Fram said, this has nothing to do with Deletionism--much better a closer who often disagrees with me but is willing to discuss it and change their mind if convinced, than one who usually agrees with me but won't talk when challenged.    Since closing is not actually an admin action--only the deletion that follows a delete closure requires an admin--we can consider it a partial edit ban, which is indisputably within our authority. Enough is enough. This is making Wikipedia look like a stone wall to beginners and outsiders, let alone experienced editors.   DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would modify that, Fastily should be encouraged to edit more carefully, and when someone questions him he should engage them in open discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's send it off to RfC where it can die and no one has to pay any attention to it at all. We're not really going in circles so much as Fastily has walked away from the discussion, which seems to be the crux of the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have no faith in the system, well, there's nothing we can do for you. But it's not going to get fixed by piling on here and dragging the conversation on for weeks. No one has to pay any attention to this at all, either. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr, what would yo propose be done? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we've already seen the issue here. Fastily has come in, made (what I believe) to be false statements above, then basically walked away from the conversation. What would sending this to RfC accomplish? If we can't get him to participate in an AN thread where several users are raising issues, what motivation does he have to further participate in an RfC which has even far less weight? At the very least discussions had here where if a consensus is reached are often seen to be somewhat binding. The next step after a failed RfC would either be some drama inducing AN(/I) threads and/or a trip to arbcom. As I said above I'm getting Deja vu. We have an established, entrenched editor who is having communication issues. We've seen it before, and we'll probably see it in the future. It's a question of how long we want to spin our wheels trying to deal with this. But if Fastily doesn't want to engage the community in discussion then perhaps we need a proposal to curb the troublesome behaviour to be enforced with escalating blocks as necessary.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He replies to all posts on his talk page i thinks he's just fed up with the Witch Hunt thats been let by the few not the masses. The truth is there are very few admins working in that field when he goes on wikibreaks the undone tasks massively mount up the truth is if other admins actually helped out in that field this wouldn't be an issue. He does far more than most and yes a small percentage can be wrong just like anyone else's. This thread has been open for far to long and as said above open a RFC or leave it alone nothing is coming from this thread. Edinburgh   Wanderer  17:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue brought above is not that he doesn't respond, it's the manner in which he responds. Some people think simply pointing to the boiler plate stuff on his page is not very helpful. The problem is in the kind of mistakes that are made, this is what causes me concern. I brought an example that very clearly shouldn't have been deleted. A page had been vandalized. Fastily deleted the image as orphaned. Since the vandalism edit was the last edit to the page before he deleted it gives me a couple scenarios. The first that Fastily deleted the image without visiting the page at all or that he visited the page and was paying so little attention that he didn't note that the very last edit was to remove that image from the infobox. Neither one of those scenarios gives me any confidence in his ability to do the job that he's doing and would make me question every single deletion he did around that time since he was obviously deleting things carelessly.--Crossmr (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, is there not some way that we could learn from our mistakes at all? There does not appear to be any way to avoid a request for comment (barring all complaining stops, but that seems improbable (that's not a value judgement, just an observation)) if there is to be any resolution here.  The current format for RfCs is a bit sub-optimal, you say?  Boldly refactor. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We could avoid it through common sense. If we can see that Fastily doesn't seem to want to participate in this discussion, and there is no way to force him to participate in that one, the only step forward is to take him to a discussion where either he has to participate in, or where his participation is not necessary for the community to come to a solution to deal with the issue. That's either a topic ban/restrictions discussion or a trip to arbcom. As far as refactoring RfC goes, it would be more of a scorched earth approach. RfC has too much culture associated with it. I see far too many editors who seem to be simply passing the buck by kicking something off there. What I hope we could learn from the past is that as a community we need to stop with the giant time sinks some problem users become and say "enough is enough" and deal with them definitively.--Crossmr (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Meta issue
It is said above that "the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter". While that should indeed be the case, I often see TfDs closed (not by Fastily; usually as keep) where a number of people have made keep !votes based on spurious assumptions, ignoring what is actually proposed, and generally tilting at windmills, but such !votes carry the decision by sheer weight of numbers. TfD is broken; whether there is a way to improve it is another matter. I appreciate that a limiting a factor is the available volunteer time vs. the workload. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing
I gave a bit of thought to the concept of soapboxing and the point where it becomes a distracting disruption. Usually, there is some leeway on user's own talkpage, but how far should that leeway go when it is boldly presented at the top of the page? Is a person allowed, for example to say "kill ethnic group x!" or some other clever variation? Let me know what you think,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UP discourages it in userspace, so I would guess that it would apply to user talk pages too. → Σ  τ  c . 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who should one approach when asking that content, which is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, should be removed from a talkpage?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can delete it yourself, if the content is illegal, you can ask an administrator to revision delete it, or you can email Oversight to get it suppressed from view. Or you can ask at Wikiquette assistance if it is bad manners or behaviour.  If the poster is persistent then we can block them.  You can email me if you do not want to draw attention. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I emailed you.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Check your email please.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuing BRD editing of core policy (WP:V)
It is, IMHO, high time for the WP administrative body to exercise due oversight as to the WP propriety of BRD editing to core policy pages, WP:V to be specific. The stability of that core policy page has degraded to the point where sandbox-esque editing has become the rule as opposed to the exception. The attention/consideration of administrators to this issue is, IMHO, sorely needed. Please have a look. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to have a few more eyes here, as well. We have good-faith editors genuinely trying to clarify wording and remove ambiguity, but it's very hard to make (or even attempt) any improvements whatsoever.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and Dispute resolution noticeboard --Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It ain't "BRD", because reverting any of these sandbox changes, no matter how inane, has been labelled "disruptive stonewalling". So BRD has been perverted to B, then D, and then maybe R (if it's not "disruptive"). It's a circus. Doc   talk  21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True, it isn't helpful when someone accuses someone else of "disruptive stonewalling". It also isn't helpful when someone calls good faith edits "inane". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't see me reverting anything in the latest free-for-all, now do you? And you won't - I have pretty much washed my hands of this. Being accused of disruption and sockpuppetry(!) over this colossal mess is just about enough for me. Enjoy. Doc   talk  21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't see me reverting either, nor accusing anyone of disruption, socking, or inanity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. You can continue to not make any accusations and stay in the fray, but I am going to do what so many others have done before, and get the hell out of the quagmire. Many will be happy about this, but none more than me. It's off my watchlist, I really don't care anymore what the policy says. Completely rewrite the entire thing if you want to, as is happening right now (on a WP:CONLIMITED basis). Seeya, WP:V! :) Doc   talk  21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We should just slow down a bit. I think some progress is being made, and the changes haven't affected the core meaning. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. My reason for linking, above, to the mediation is that it might, perhaps, be a solution to the concerns raised here. (The DRN is what led to the mediation.) It's certainly true that additional eyes would be helpful. Beyond that, I'm not sure what administrators can be expected to do. Perhaps there's a case for full protection until after the mediation process is completed. But that would probably be excessive, since there really isn't any edit warring. Rather, there's some edits being made, some better than others, and a bit of name-calling on the talk page between those who object to BRD editing of a core policy page and those who feel obstructed by those objections from making progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been mostly constructive and friendly. (and I'm the one who put up the "Too many edits" title/section.) We need something that is in between a 1,000-man-hour 3 month dead-end process for each proposed change and spontaneous edits with no conversation.   Like get a few folks to agree before doing "B" in BRD   (= semi-bold :-)  ) North8000 (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc. I wish you would consider getting involved in the mediation. I've been substantively gone so long from that page I don't know what is going on but I think if the recent participants got involved in mediation you could wrap this all up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm done. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the events of the last few days have really made me want to have nothing more to do with this. Cheers... Doc   talk  21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah well, you can always join in later . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never again. The community needs to fix the situation with one of their core content policies, but they are going to do it without this particular member of this allegedly powerful minority that has allegedly been part of "controlling" this policy through "stonewalling". Cheers, Alanscottwalker! :> Doc   talk  05:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * hmmm, Yes. You do sound evil and incredibly powerful.  Perhaps it's a badge of honor?  At any rate, happy editing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nickerss
Perhaps a troll, perhaps not, in any case his behaviour so far is not appropriate (asking personal info, etc). Left a message on his talk page but I'm not going to be able to follow up on it, so maybe someone here can keep an eye on him. Best, CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 03:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, at least he has made it clear in this edit that he is WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. → Σ  τ  c . 04:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I put him on my watchlist. Let me know what happens post-your warning and post your notifying him of this report ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012)
Effective 1 March 2012,, , and are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to who is expected to remain in office until 31 March 2012.


 * Support motion: AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Xeno.


 * Not voting: David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork, SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

How long do speedy deletion nominated articles sit before they're deleted?
I put a speedy delete tag on a non-notable organization two days ago and the article is still sitting there with the speedy deletion tag on it. Is this normal? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell since you haven't provided a diff, but if you're referring to The Sherry Theater, then your CSD was converted to a PROD. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was already proposed for deletion before, thus it is ineligible for deletion via that venue. --81.98.49.178 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. In any case, AfD should have been the next step for an editor wishing to pursue deletion, not CSD. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, my error, I somehow read that as a speedy deletion. Never mind.  ;)  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is only my personal policy, but I have in the past declined CSDs that have sat for 24 hours or more. The thought is that, if in that amount of time, no admin feels comfortable either hitting the delete button or officially declining the CSD, then it is likely not a simple case, and not suitable for CSD.  When I do this I make sure to give a decline reason expressing this, and directing the CSD nominator towards AFD where the article can get a more thorough analysis.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer the nominal question, most CSD deletions happen about half an hour after tagging. It depends on the CSD category, though, since some are simpler to figure out than others.  There is more information at meta:Research:The Speed of Speedy Deletions if you're interested in the details.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to do what TexasAndroid does also, for the same reason--unless of course I can figure it out myself quickly.  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Results of PumpkinSky copyvio investigation
I have been informed that of the 729 articles which ps head edited, two were found with a copied paragraph from an outside source, eight had issues affecting a single sentence, and 719 had no problems whatsoever. Further information here. Major kudos for User:Gerda Arendt and the other editors who did this. Please note that I am merely reporting the results at Gerda's request; I did no work myself on this to avoid side issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be precise, Gerda seems to have written:


 * The actual CCI can be seen, pre-blanking,.


 * I think the conclusion "719 had no problems whatsoever" is a bit overstated, though. :) There are 10 articles with checkmarks, which means 10 articles in which the reviewer felt a copyright problem existed. That does leave 719. A number of those don't seem to be "had no problems whatsoever", though. For example, the first article in section "141 through 160", the reviewer wrote, "A bit close to the source, but a tad too short to really be concerning. Reworded anyway, just to be overly cautious". Several in sections 1 through 20 include similar comments, "A bit of close paraphrasing here and there, but not really serious IMO"; "minor copy-vio repaired before DYK". One of the articles marked X copied from another editor without attribution. It seems that there may be lesser issues with plagiarism in other articles than those marked.


 * It does seem that the bulk of his edits were constructive and without copyright or plagiarism issues, but for accuracy we need to make sure neither to minimize nor inflate the existing problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Roughly 1% - and those primarily involving a "single sentence" = "not much to see." Collect (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true that problems are minimal, but 1% is not really an accurate figure, either. The person who ran the CCI program did not filter it to eliminate minor edits and reversions, as is typically done with CCIs. If they had, the list would have stopped at #301, as everything below that would have been excluded. It's still a small percentage, obviously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd have to deduct from that minimal amount, of course, Moonriddengirl, those where the source has taken the only logical way to say something (which does happen, and you do the best you can to make it a bit different anyway or direct quote), and those which no one would look twice at except in the context of a high profile copyright investigation. Probably a wash.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor does a CCI necessarily look at other sourcing issues, which has been an issue on some of Rlevse's past editing. I looked at one article and didn't find copyvio, but did find sourcing issues (I didn't mark it).  Why is this at WP:AN?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

<tt><AN-spam></tt> <tt></AN-spam></tt>
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Great Dismal Swamp maroons
 * Alarbus (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not for any reason specific to this case, has anyone done a similar investigation into 500 random articles or something? Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good heavens; that would be insanely time-consuming. :) I spent over an hour investigating a single article at CCI this weekend. Much better to spend that time when you know there are issues than randomly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then how is it known that the issues with ps's text are greatly beyond the norm?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that this question confuses me tremendously. :) Why does it need to be known that issues with ps's text are greatly beyond the norm? Isn't it sufficient to say, "Oh, there's room for improvement here" and ask him to improve? If we find that somebody has an issue with failure to source information, do we need to run a comparative study to see how many others fail to source information? :) Similarly, the existence of problems in one article doesn't mean that problems are okay in another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl, some (to my mind) regrettable things were said about ps in the last AN discussion. As he is presently indef blocked, the question of counseling him does not arise.  As similar unfortunate things may be said in this discussion, it may be helpful to know by how far, if at all, he has exceeded the norm, in considering the question of his unblock at some point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I have not been closely following this situation; I was friendly with him in his first account and disappointed when he withdrew. Had he remained, we could have worked together on copying & paraphrasing issues. I have some idea of what the source of the problem may be. In the present CCI I (like Sandy) found issues where our article did not line up with information in the sources used. As, I wonder if simply slowing down would help deal with both issues. Taking extra time to compose could work. I've seen a lot of CCIs, and I've seen far more concerning situations resolve nicely. It simply takes effort and willingness to comply. (My impression is that PS is much better than he used to be, from a copyright standpoint.)


 * All that said—because I don't want what I say now to be taken to apply specifically to PS—we don't generally run normative studies when blocking people for failing to conform to policies and guidelines. It seems enough to know that they're failing to conform.


 * In present case, PS's block log suggests he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and I know from some side discussions I've been involved in that there were some serious concerns that there may have been issues with some of his decisions as a bureaucrat based on those. I think that copyright concerns are only part of the situation here. Surely any review would need to be global. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this in an official capacity?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add, Moonriddengirl, that your final paragraph might be open to misinterpretation :) Here is the blocking admin's actual statement:

--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm getting confused again. :) Am I saying what in an official capacity? What official capacity? I didn't block him, as far as I can recall, under any account. :/ The block log says, "2 February 2012 Moni3 (talk | contribs | block) blocked PumpkinSky (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)" What do you mean by this quotation? How does that make my final paragraph open to misinterpretation? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You characterized the reason why ps was blocked; I merely reproduced the actual block for the benefit of all. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by a "global review", I took that to mean that there were issues beyond en.wiki.  Perhaps you just meant that other conduct by ps should be considered.  But what did you mean by "some side discussions I've been involved in that there were some serious concerns that there may have been issues with some of his decisions as a bureaucrat based on those"?  Are we talking about his closing RfAs in which JoJo had voted?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How is what you wrote different from what the official block log says? And, yes, I do mean other conduct on en Wikipedia. And yes, I'm talking about the JoJo situation, where somebody was actually advocating redoing some of his work based on that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that idea was shot down very thoroughly. OK, I think I understand your position.  Thank you for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you should do a similar check to articles edited by a number of random content creators to see if the amount of concerns is statistically significant. Basically the sttistics are meaningless without a control case. I cannot say that that if you look at my last 729 articles very carefully there could not be a similar percentage of "concerns". I think we should be reluctant to create an environment where any editor whose edits aren't perfect is a problem editor. Wikipedia is not designed for perfection but for gradual improvement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto, ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except we're not talking about any editors, we're talking about one on his second CCI. Both of which were cleaned up without him. MLauba (Talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When WP:SCV, WP:CP and WP:CCI are empty, maybe we can take the time for that. Unless, of course, somebody who isn't working there wants to do it, in which case, I wish them much joy. :D It would be interesting to see how widespread issues may be, but not as important to me as dealing with known issues. Gradual improvement, obviously, begins with identifying and repairing issues. Editors are not generally blocked for copyright concerns unless they won't stop creating them. I have long advocated for addressing copyright concerns calmly, with an eye towards improvement, rather than shaming and alienating good faith contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that this not an issue if other editors who are not labelled "problem editors" have similar percentages of "problematic edits": Then Pumpkin Sky would just be a normal editor and we would be wasting energy on making him a scapegoat for a community wide issue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, Maunus, but only to the extent where you say "this not an issue if other editors who are not labelled "problem editors" have similar percentages of "problematic edits." No matter how many people share a problem, it's still a problem. :) But I agree with you that we should not be making him a scapegoat. Even if Pumpkin Sky were the only editor on Wikipedia who ever did this, it wouldn't make him a bad person or a worthless contributor. I'd love to see a cultural shift on Wikipedia away from scapegoating. I think we need to be careful, though, that the solution we arrive at doesn't involve excusing or brushing away the problem. We just need to acknowledge, as a community, that close paraphrasing is a delicate art, that there is room for disagreement on what constitutes proper paraphrase, and that even when some contributors paraphrase too closely, by consensus, we should cooperate cordially on defining and implementing community standards, rather than making it a moral crusade. Beyond that, unfortunately, Pumpkin Sky isn't a normal editor by any standard, and that would probably be one of the core issues. He's extremely high profile, as a result of which this has generated a lot of heat. :/ If he were a normal editor, we'd have probably gone through the first CCI with much less fuss and bother, cleaning up the issues, and maybe he'd have helped out instead of departing and would have been happily editing away with no problems. That would have been ideal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But it would then be a systemic problem requiring a systemic solution (e.g. a "paraphrasing patrol" patrolling random articles) and not a moral problem phrased as requiring a moral solution (e.g. blocks or forced cleanup of own articles). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have systemic solutions: WP:NPP and bot patrol of new articles, recent changes patrol. They aren't perfect, but they're probably the best we're going to get. But why is it a "moral solution" to ask somebody to help clean up an issue they create? It's a matter of expedience. Are blocks a moral solution? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC
 * Blocks and forced cleanups are solutions to moral issues because they make it a question of individual responsibility (culpability) and rehabilitation instead of a matter of routine maintainance of an encyclopedia. (NPP only patrols new pages - not random old pages as far as I know - and I don't know if bots are able to detect close paraphrasing)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we're at a bit of a divide on the issue of cleanup and morality (but maybe that's because I spend so much of my time cleaning up issues I didn't create and for which I'm in nobody's perspective culpable; it's hard for me to see "cleanup" as any kind of shaming punishment. On the other hand, I also don't typically even request CCI subjects to help with cleanup, although some of them do.) But "recent changes patrol" is supposed to keep an eye on new edits, as are reviewers at DKY, GA, etc. And, yes, bots pick up close paraphrasing all the time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

From a statistics/analysis perspective, it is inappropriate to state PS's bad edit ratio as if it has some meaning given the lack of context. From a practicality standpoint, there are more issues to be fixed than wikitime and wikieditors to do so. Wikipedia is just a website so personally I don't see it as a moral issue, just a practical one. Nobody Ent 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think the point here is that we had a dogpile of quite severe vitriol land upon PumpkinSky/Rlevse, and it was way out of proportion to the actual problem.  I agree with Maunus and Nobody Ent that absent a "control" of 800 random articles picked for similar examination and review, we really cannot vilify PS to the degree some folks have; indeed, a style and close paraphrasing problem is not a moral crusade, it's just a style problem, usually fixed with little difficulty, and one reason why we all get to edit everyone else's work without ownership.  I have to note that the CCI on Rlevse and the related Vanished account is going along at about the same percentage, only on well over 1000 articles.  I think that PS/Rlevse didn't stick around because the rage and vitriol that landed on his head was too much; it seems that a witchhunt mentality took hold and the only option he was given was, essentially, "bend over and assume the position."  No one should be expected to accept abject humiliation.  If you put the CCI issue in proper perspective (mostly small problems, all fixed), then all you have left basically are only two other issues, 1: the usual wikidrama spats with other users with some hurt feelings all around, for which everyone should all mutually agree to back away from the horse carcass and let the past be the past.  2: The socking/meatpuppet issue which -- On a 1-10 scale of sockpuppetry, this is a 2 or a 3, so issue a wrist slap and move on: We have two accounts, PS and Rlevse, well separated in time, and some evidence that PS/Rlevse had influence over the editing of two other people (JoJo and Barking Moon). The SPI standard is not consistently applied -- I recall once filing an SPI on a different user and being told, essentially, that there would be no investigation as with about a 6-month gap between the two accounts, it wasn't a sock at all, even if it was the same person. (Said user was later blocked for other reasons).  I recently filed another SPI on a "good cop/bad cop" sock and while the "bad cop" sock was promptly blocked, no action whatsoever was taken against the master sock account, not even a warning or a scolding. I cannot come to any conclusion but that personalities have gotten tangled up in this at a level that is unproductive.  So in short, I think it's time for a referee to blow the whistle, order everyone off the dogpile, and if I may continue the gridiron analogy, issue a ten yard penalty and go on.  PS is a good and productive contributor, but also a human being with feelings, and I think he needs to be unblocked, "sentenced" for his "crimes" to "time served," (Rlevse didn't edit for nearly a year) and issued a genuine clean start.  JMO.  Montanabw (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh goodness, so much unnecessary rhetoric still. I asked earlier, "Why is this at AN", and I don't see an answer. If the point is to get Rlevse unblocked, then go ahead and ask for it already (has he asked for it?). My concerns about copyvio have always been secondary to his sourcing problems and his carrying out a grudge at FAC, and I said in the last discussion that I wouldn't be opposed to unblocking him if he 1) stayed away from DYK (which is where his problems with copyvio started and where he didn't help stem the massive problem there); 2) stayed away from FAC for a trial period; and 3) had some mentors that weren't of his own choosing (he only proposed supporters of a return who didn't acknowledge the issues) and who would indeed watch out for a recurrence of the issues and reblock if they occurred. Again, why is this here?  Has Rlevse asked to be unblocked?  It looks like the only thing that is happening is a replay of false claims made last time 'round. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of general interest. Nobody Ent 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sandy: Your assumption that Pumpkin Sky was "carrying out a grudge" at FAC is just that—an assumption (you do not know what his motive was); the claim that Rlsevse or Pumpkin Sky was engaged in copy vio is turning out to have little basis in fact. There is a long list of stuff that needs to be checked, but the ones that have been checked are for the most part coming up clean. There is no "massive problem" of copy vio by this user. General remarks: My concerns regarding JoJo have been addressed; no one questioned it at the time, and his explanation sounds reasonable. I personally don't know and don't care whether he was editing as Barking Moon or not; if he was socking, so what; he was not blocked or banned at the time. I am in favour of reinstating the user as a normal editor without any restrictions. Montanabw, you make some very valid points. --Dianna (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that Pumpkin Sky was "carrying out a grudge" at FAC is just that—an assumption (you do not know what his motive was) - The fact of the matter is that he engaged in baseless sniping over wholly reasonable actions of mine which not a single other person in the community disagreed with. And if the best defense of his behavior you can muster is that we don't know for sure that he did it out of prior malice, that's a pretty weak defense indeed. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "fact of the matter", Diannaa, is that he himself made a post that led to that characterization of his prior issues with Raul, which I'm not going to bother looking for now, but when it comes to "assumptions", speak feryerself, please, thankyou. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think that PS was primarily/consciously carrying out a grudge at FAC – that does not defend his actions, nor imply that editors who perceived his contributions in this way are WrongTM or unreasonable (IMO). My impression is that PS/RLevse had come to a view that unelected roles on Wikipedia were not acceptable to him, and pushed the point rather much at FAC, despite (or perhaps because of) community consensus to the contrary. How he came to this view is speculation, but all of us are influenced by our interactions; similarly we might all temper our impressions with a regular note-to-self: "but hey, what do I know?" Geometry guy 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it. He said his issues with and beliefs about the FAC  business were "based on my experience with the principals".  To me, that means it was personal: YMMV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I know of RLevse's writing (with apologies for making a general criticism), it is rather likely that "principals" is simply a misspelling here. But hey... Geometry guy 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my ... that puts a whole new spin on it, doesn't it :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, unless there's anything that needs administrator intervention, like Rlevse/PumpkinSky asking to be unblocked again (which I'll probably support with restrictions set by the community, not by Rlevse himself), or a massive deletion of problematic material this isn't the place. Secret account 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Dianna I meant if there was a reason why this thread should be continue in the first place hysterically (bleh wrong word, I meant hypothetically bleh spell check), which neither of my scenarios didn't happen. Also the first time PumpkinSky/Rlevse tried to get unblocked he offered to come back practically on his own terms, which included getting some of his biggest supporters as "mentors". That didn't help his cause, and turned some people off including myself. I'm more than willing to let Rlevse back to the project but it needs to be under consensus from the community. That's how Wikipedia always functioned. Secret account 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Secret: Okay, thanks for clarifying. I am pretty sure it wouldn't matter who was mentoring, as there would be many observers as well. --Dianna (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at his posts from that period I see a person with a lot of anger and a big chip on his shoulder. But this one diff Sandy presents cannot justify the belief that he was carrying out some sort of personal vendetta. I personally do not believe this to be true. @ Secret: There is no "massive deletion of problematic material" that needs to be done, and as far as I know no one has said the user would be setting his own conditions if he returns to editing. I for one said no such thing. @ Raul (and Geometry Guy), last I heard, disagreeing with you or sniping at you or pushing for elections in an annoying way are not blockable or bannable offences. If they were, I would be outa here myself ;> -- Dianna (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that little glimpse of self-awareness :) :), but there's a big difference between you and Rlevse sniping at FAC or Raul, which is called RTV and attempts to evade scrutiny, and shall we mention that as an arb dealing with a former arb, there may well be private issues that only Raul and Rlevse know about. Anyway, re my diff above, G guy's feedback puts it in a whole new light, which I accept as a real possibility.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I also saw the PumpkinSky account as employing a grudge against FAC and asked him point blank at one time to explain why he was going after Raul with such force. In fact, I was sure based on the quality of his communications I saw across multiple pages, that PumpkinSky was no older than 15. I leaned toward 12. Because of the skepticism here, are we going to have to collect diffs to prove that Rlevse was disruptive and exacerbated a tedious, overlong, and melodramatic discussion at FAC for no reasonable purpose? --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This whole idea of "scrutiny" needs to come under scrutiny. Sometimes attempts to avoid scrutiny are actually attempts to avoid being unfairly accused of things that the person did not actually do, or a genuine attempt at a clean start. Some people sock because they get tired of the same old crowd of editors following them around watching their every move and reporting the slightest problem for a big cluster-fuck at ANI (sorry, I am pretty sure we are no longer allowed to swear, but I can't think of any other way to say this). Vendetta: it is not at all a proven fact that vendetta was anyone's motive for calling for elections; it is speculation on the part of people on one side of the FA elections debate that any of us had vengeance as a motive. If you repeat a meme like this enough times there will probably be editors out there that assume it is a proven fact that Pumpkin Sky (or me, or TCO, or any of the others) was motivated by vengeance. People actually do not know what motivates others, and it's a bad idea to speculate on what others are thinking. You don't know. Moni3, he was angry and acting immaturely, for sure. But being twelve or acting twelve is not blockable or bannable. I am sure you found the election debate tedious and pointless but just because the outcome was for the retention of the status quo does not mean there was no point to it. The whole point was to initiate some changes at FA, and there have already been some big changes. Closer attention is being paid to sourcing, for example. But that's a side issue for another day. -- Dianna (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Acting 12 for a 12-year-old is fine by me. Acting 12 for a fully functional adult and an ex-arb is not. Neither is being disruptive and deceptive. I never said the discussion was pointless. I think you and others mischaracterize and misunderstand what I think FAC should be. Part of the problem in being unable to understand my side or yours in a calm discussion was the poor quality of communication blanketing FAC, which Rlevse was directly responsible for, if not in totality. It could have been a much different process and much more could have been accomplished--perhaps outcomes that you favor and I see sense in--had the level of communication been productive and reasonable. Much of it was not. Wasted time, wasted opportunity. --Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. We have WP:CLEANSTART and it is respected. But if one chooses to start anew one has to stay away from old disputes, anything else is disruptive for a collaborative community. SCRUTINY is important. Amalthea  23:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Amalthea, correct. @ Diannaa: cluster-fuck at ANI (sorry, I am pretty sure we are no longer allowed to swear, but I can't think of any other way to say this).  Try Charlie Foxtrot.  Closer attention is being paid to sourcing, for example. Unsure what you're talking about, since the "closer attention being paid to sourcing" came about earlier.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SNAFU has the advantage of plausible denialability -- the f stands for "fouled," right? Nobody Ent —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

In my view, a thread like this should be viewed as an opportunity to reach mutual understanding: not agreement, perhaps, but at least an understanding of what the disagreements are actually about. This thread will have no consequences beyond that anyway: it will be archived automatically in a few days, recalled by those who read it, and possibly diffed for a few choice comments. With that proviso, I have a few remarks. That's all. I thank all editors in advance for reading and thinking about the many issues this discussion raises. Geometry guy 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is not ANI, so no immediate administrator intervention is being requested; however, the topic is of interest to administrators, not least because there is a block in place that at some point in the future may require reconsideration. There are plenty of other reasons for discussing this case, including wider ramifications.
 * There are many reasonable editors here, with reasonable positions. Reasonable opposing positions are not addressed by referring to extreme aspects of opposing positions (for example, no reasonable position involves "vitriol": such concerns should be taken to the user talk page of the editor in question).
 * The idea that PS/RLevse was blocked for close paraphrasing is a gross simplification. His choice to vanish short-circuited such a discussion, which, with hindsight, was regrettable. The socking and influence over other accounts are all contributing factors. How much weight we attach to each element is a matter for discussion, as are the consequences.
 * Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not.
 * All editors should be encouraged to follow best practice (e.g. with regard to close paraphrasing), not merely typical practice.
 * The idea to study typical practice with regard to paraphrasing is flawed, assuming an objectivity that such a study would almost certainly be unable to achieve. I have made related comments on Moonriddengirl's talk page.

Please help my confusion
Throughout this process, I've been quite confused: why has PumpkinSky been blocked because it's a sockpuppet? Rlevse was never blocked, except for "Vanished users do not need to edit" after he retired and his username was moved to Vanished 6551232 — since the original username was not blocked for policy violations, I don't think that we should count this as block evasion. On an unrelated note, am I correct that Moonriddengirl's contributions are all in her capacity as a volunteer, while Mdennis (WMF)'s contributions are all in her capacity as a WMF staffer? Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Normally we don't block people for a poorly executed "clean start" attempt following an RTV (and we certainly don't indef them for it) but he made a few obnoxious remarks at WT:Featured article candidates, where he and Moni3 were on opposite sides of a dispute over FA processes, so here we are. 28bytes (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey I should get credit for things far beyond my control more often. It would help my suffering self-esteem. Normally I would think myself fairly insignificant, but I like how powerful and influential I am in 28 bytes' description much more. Also, someone rub my feet now. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're in control of who you block. I'd hope, anyway. 28bytes (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obligatory response calling attention to your ridiculous premise. Invitation to talk page where complaints and discussion regarding the block never took place. Diff to Elen of the Roads' comment supporting block. Reminder PumpkinSky account unblocked by another user and reblocked by still another. Witty questions about intelligence of people in groups and/or on the Internet, unbreakable cycles of miscommunication. Melodramatic allusions to scapegoats and conspiracies. Escalation. Repeat. --Moni3 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't give such flip answers, Moni, as editing Wikipedia is obviously incredibly important for this user. Normally blocks for sockpuppetry are a week or some such. The policy states "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator." You were aware at the time that the original acct was blocked and unusable, so why the indef block? Why indef, rather than some shorter period? It doesn't matter that no one asked at the time. I am asking you now. -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to hear from Moni3 about the thought processes and reasons involved in her block of PumpkinSky and remind her of the obligation on admins to explain their administrative actions on request. I join Dianaa in formally requesting such an explanation per WP:ADMINACCT, and have dropped a line for Moni3 on her talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Moni3, but for me it is an Inappropriate_use_of_alternative_account - although not strictly or neatly in one of the categories, there is prior history which illuminates the PS accounts' point of view which I feel is unfair and giving the illusion of two unconnected accounts having a particular point of view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, but I'd like to hear from Moni3 with her explanation. I do appreciate your efforts to help during the unblock attempt, though.  I should add that one thing that is being considered is an appeal of the original block to ArbCom, so arbs might want to take care.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As to your second point, yes, that's why the (WMF) is part of the username.  MBisanz  talk 06:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Once or twice I've muffed up which account I've logged into, but I've corrected it immediately. :) This is a community matter; the WMF has nothing to do with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock conditions?
PumpkinSky was acting immaturely and disrupting the FAC talk page prior to getting blocked as an "sock" of Rlevse. I don't think many people will disagree with that comment, including his supporters. But the issue here is that isn't a sockpuppet according to our community consensus on sockpuppetry. Rlevse wasn't evading a ban or vote stacking, or other abusive matters. The only confirmed evidence of "vote stacking" that was provided was the Jojo situation in which is so confusing that the matter just should be dropped in accordance with WP:AGF, and that he no longer holds any tools. From the looks of it, PumpkinSky was a disastrous RTV/Clean Start. A disastrous clean start isn't a reason to block an account. There's a few users I know that are editing under clean starts or decided to just abandon their previous account, and there's probably dozens more doing that or evading bans etc. I myself tried to do an unsuccessful cleanstart after my desysopping so I could make my reputation "disappear" before I noticed that it was hard to follow. A more proper block was a block for disruptive editing, which a number of his comments in FAC and elsewhere were. But looking at Rlevse edits, over 99% of them was a net positive, and Rlevse years of experience will definably be useful in certain areas, including figuring out banned users, Wikipedia policies, some areas of DYK, and so on.

I think an unblock of Rlevse/PumpkinSky will work with these restrictions.


 * 1) Rlevse is limited to one account.
 * 2) Rlevse is topic banned from any discussion related to the talk pages of featured article candidates and similar pages unless the discussion specifically involves him. He is allowed to nominate an article in FAC, or review an article. If he does nominate an article for FAC, Raul654 should avoid closing his FACs as an involved administrator. In addition Rlevse must discuss why he decided to go attack FAC with his PumpkinSky account. The topic ban can be removed through community consensus later on.
 * 3) Interaction ban between Rlevse and both Raul654 and SandyGeorgia (the only other editor I think an interaction ban is appropriate in this case is Will Beback but he just got banned, so no need).
 * 4) Rlevse is recommended to avoid reviewing articles from DYK until the community deems that Rlevse understand our copyright policies.
 * 5) Articles written by Rlevse (with the exception of simple stubs, disambiguation pages, and lists with little or no prose) should be checked by an independent reviewer who are extremely knowledgeable copyvio/plagiarism/fact checking concerns. I recommend it's not by one of the mentors that Rlevse selected like here, nor by someone who had previous issues with Rlevse as they are mostly WP:INVOLVED. I'm thinking someone like User:Laser brain could do the job.
 * 6) No mentoring, as Rlevse been in the project way too long, and had almost every high-trust level job available in this project (bureaucrat, checkuser, ArbCom) that it was a bit shocking that he thought about needing one. Maybe some advise with article writing but that's it.
 * 7) Rlevse must discuss his relationship with User:BarkingMoon. If it's a personal matter that it must be discussed privately with ArbCom, it should be discussed there.
 * 8) Rlevse needs to explain why he decided to leave the project in a "hush" after the Grace Sherwood incident. I spoke to Rlevse though email communication for a few days after the original leaving, so I understand somewhat why he did it and it makes perfect sense. But the community should know as well (plus I don't know the full story).
 * 9) Almost all the copyright concerns coming from Rlevse has been cleaned. Most of the problematic ones were figured out using a quick Google check. The more advanced ones can be search through plagiarism tools like Copyscape (which I think certain trusted Wikipedia users should get access to it for free). So having Rlevse help cleaning it up wasn't needed unless it involves some rarer books, pamphlets, magazines, etc that isn't found on the Internet. The only way we could search for copyvio in that situation is if you have the source with you, so that's hard.

I wrote the restrictions in accordance to community consensus regarding Rlevse in previous AN or talk page posts. That would resolve the main reasons why Rlevse stayed indef blocked in the first place. Honestly if we can't settle a consensus here, and these now weekly posts this case probably have to go to ArbCom given the situation. You could add additional conditions/terms for an unblock if I missed anything.

Regrettably, the situation here with Rlevse has been more of a positive thing for the project because it helped form a huge issue with plagiarizing, fact checking and close paraphrasing which we mostly ignored before this happened. If Rlevse just cleaned up the Grace Sherwood article, maybe a few editors will quickly check his other FAs (many of which were mainly citation and massive copy editing work) and sweep it under the rug. Rlevse simply just shot himself multiple times in the past year and few months with his actions. Personally I think Rlevse learned his lesson and should be given a chance. He's not idiotic to know that if he wants to be unblocked from the project that his edits will be highly scrutinized. We talking about an editor who was an ArbCom member at one point. And if Rlevse rejects the entire proposal, and keeps going though new accounts, ignoring his faults, sadly a site ban is in order. Secret account 06:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Rlevse wasn't evading a ban or vote stacking, or other abusive matters". Sorry, I disagree. He was evading a block or two. And persistently attacking people with whom you've had serious prior disagreements with a new account is probably one of the prime reasons why WP:SCRUTINY was written. (Otherwise I could have just created a new account and posted this comment with that instead as if ASCIIn2Bme had never commented on the Rlevse matter before. I can immediately imagine the question "whose sock are you?" addressed to my new account after that.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The User:BarkingMoon thing is concerning, and it would be really nice to find out what's up with that, but I'd like to see some way back for Rlevse that gets him in good stead and working on the project again. An interaction ban might help leave any old grudges at the door. On the whole, these seem like good restrictions as trust is rebuilt. (With respect to hearing from ArbCom (as per below), I have no great opinion on that either way.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Moonriddengirl, you should read ps's explanation of the BarkingMoon question, and the statements of those who have examined the evidence. If you find them insufficient, you should say so and say why with specificity and diffs.  If you find ps's explanation of the JoJo closings insufficient, as you apparently did above, you should say so and say why, with specificity and diffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Wehwalt, you should be careful about drawing conclusions about where people stand on issues. :) I did not link to the conversation in which I took part before, and won't, because it draws in somebody who doesn't deserve the drama. But I defended allowing his closures to stand. Creating "us" vs. "them" is part of the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is why I'm concerned that personallities have played to great a part in the PumpkinSky discussions. However, in my view, he's been hard done by, and I intend to civilly see that something is done about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somebody hat these over-the-top wishful-restrictions, some of which are just talk. Giving FA-ville a free pass on PumpkinSky's views is unhelpful. Best to simply unblock him. Alarbus (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somebody close this whole unblock discussion. The block was good, there's no consensus to unblock, and apart from Diana's blatant mischaracterizations, Rlevse's apologists here have not made any effort address Rlevse's numerous behavioral issues. Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a bad, obviously WP:INVOLVED indef block, and the only reason I didn't point this out loudly when it happened was in the interest of collegiality and avoiding drama. You don't indef people you're in a dispute with; this is basic admin policy 101. But now that Moni3 and others are trash-talking him further when he's not even here to defend himself, I feel no such restraint from mentioning it. The only thing that would have made it a worse, more WP:Involved block is if you'd done it yourself. And quite a few of his "apologists" have bent over backwards to address the legitimate concerns with his editing, including copyright mentoring (which was thrown back in our faces) as well as explicit restrictions on his editing. Saying his behavioral issues haven't been addressed – by either him or those who want to see him unblocked – is simply untrue. 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * but it is autocrat 101 policy… Alarbus (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus to unblock was running about 50-50 when Psky withdrew his request, it would have been interesting to see where it would have gone if it had been given a couple weeks. People who support an unblock of Rlevse are starting to feel pretty intimidated here; certainly I am.  (If the comment "Oh goodness, so much unnecessary rhetoric still" after my last post wasn't a snipe at me to make me shut up, when what was it?)  I think that Secret's proposal is a solid launching point, and if Rlevse's "apologists" are not going to be allowed to offer support, than his "persecutors" should likewise be asked to step aside and remain silent in favor of neutral third parties.  To that end, Secret's proposal for an interaction ban between him and both Raul and Sandy is highly appropriate, and possibly a couple other people such as ASCIIn2Bme should likewise be ranked into a 'too partisan to be neutral' category. Will Beback has already been dealt with, and I must note that it was Will's attacks and blackmailing via email that upped the drama significantly in the whole situation. Rlevse/PSky's supporters have largely self-identified on the Psky user talk page, have those who wish to see him banned from wikipedia forever been so open?   Montanabw (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. Here we go again.  Personalizing and accusations based on when I happened to weigh in on the discussion. And anyone impartial reading this would think I'd called for a block of Rlevse, or initiated the CCI, or opposed his FACs, or something! I'm also curious why we need to treat a former arb like a child (would that be because, as Moni observed, he acted like one?)  Do we really need to tell a former arb that he is limited to one account?  For that matter, do we really need to tell Raul not to close his FACs?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (after ec with Wehwalt) You got that right. Feel free to provide a diff for context, and to also place it in context of everything else I said. Now, I realize that at AN and ANI admins and some others can say whatever they want without diffs, while some can't say boo anywhere even with diffs, but accusations of "too partisan to be neutral" are not or should not be taken lightly, and if someone is going to shoot that at me, I'd like to see some diffs that include all of my statements in context. Otherwise, Montanabw, please brush up on WP:NPA. By the way, who the heck has advocated that Rlevse should be banned forever? Will no one stop the incessant vague sniping, personalizing, and rhetoric going on here? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Followup cluestick: I have repeatedly said that my problems with Rlevse were more related to his sourcing than copyvio or anything else, and since the issue that he sourced articles to a website written and maintained by himself is a diffable fact that can't be disputed, I'd like to know what about that makes me "too partisan to be neutral"?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please try to tone it down a bit. We're all supposed to be working for the good of Wikipedia, right? It is good that editors care and are passionate, but we're getting an incivility spiral that doesn't progress the discussion towards consensus and generates bad blood that will continue to linger to the detriment of the project. Nobody Ent 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt's statement implying Moonriddengirl (MRG) hasn't read something was snarky and MRG's reply with the paraphrase was snarky too. FA-ville is an unnecessarily derogative term and characterizing Diana's analysis as blatant mischaracterizations and describing other editor's as apologists is too. 28's profanity, while perhaps intended for emphasis escalates the situation. "Here were go again" was a great line in a political debate but not helpful in a Wikipedia discussion. Nobody Ent 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've crossed enough paths here to know you all can present your positions in a non inflammatory way if you choose to do so. Nobody Ent 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I make enough typos without help from you ! "Here were go again" ?  :) :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with 28bytes that Moni3 was involved, and should not have perfomed the block at all. --Dianna (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For my own edification, can you supply links or diffs to interactions that make you feel that Moni3 was WP:INVOLVED? I don't remember thinking that at the time, but maybe I missed something. Discussions of Rlevse/PS have run all over WP and it's difficult to remember what happened and where. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can go diff-hunting if needed, but I don't think there's any serious disagreement that Moni3 and PS were on opposite sides of a heated discussion over FAC leadership last month. Each of them commented dozens of times on the matter at WT:FAC, continued the debate on other editors' talk pages and elsewhere, obviously with strong feelings on both sides. 28bytes (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Laser, there are other diffs I found concerning, but being the legal type, I like to hear from everyone. Please note that I have not called Moni involved, and she generally edits in the evenings US time.  Let's wait for her.  I'm busy with McKinley right now and don't have time for this :).  It may be that this is a misunderstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Laser brain, I don't see much evidence of Moni3 being involved with the exception of being involved in FAC, unless I'm missing something. It was a poor block though. There wasn't any basis for the block as an sockpuppet, as it doesn't qualify per our policy regarding them. With RTV, our guidelines is unclear on whether a block is appropriate to a returning RTV account. A block was more acceptable for disrupting FAC.


 * @Raul654, most of the editors who opposed the grounds for Rlevse coming back was because there wasn't a clear consensus on what sanctions we should apply to him coming back to the project. They generally agreed that Rlevse is welcome to comeback with the proper settings, and under intense scrutiny. And there's clearly not any consensus for a ban. Only a handful of editors supported a site ban, one of whom later became banned himself. Also his self-proposal to comeback under his own conditions drove away some editors who might have supported him returning, including myself. There's is consensus for a Rlevse unblock, just not under the conditions that were set before. A topic ban from FAC, and a interaction ban with you and Sandy will satisfy most of your concerns. Secret account 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Sandy. I agree that it's been a shame that some of the burden in this situation has been placed on you. You didn't have almost nothing to do with him leaving in the first place, and it was mostly you and Raul that bore the criticism of PumpkinSky. It's typical WP:INVOLVED that we try to avoid future drama, nothing to do with you guys personally. Like me and many other users were saying, if Rlevse didn't stormed out instead of settling what most likely would have been a minor slap in the wrist and back to normality for everyone, we clearly wouldn't be adding this conversation. A topic ban would be appropriate if he ever wants to return. Also the restrictions offered are ones that are typically offered to users in order to ease a return to editing from previous issues, either in here or through ArbCom, no matter the experience.


 * Also did anybody even bother to contact Rlevse/PumpskinSky about this proposal? Thanks Secret account 06:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't read PSky's self-proposal to come back as a "under his own conditions" ultimatum of any sort so much as an opening proposal with some ideas (someone would have asked him for his own ideas had he not done so initially, right?). If memory serves, there were some ideas floated that modified his proposal to be stricter and he was viewing them favorably.  The problem there, as here, is that the emotionality heated up so fast that the actual issues were drowned out.  They are, then as now, unchanged:  1) A potential CCI problem (minor and taken care of), 2)  some disputes at FAC that got personalized (snarky, but where's the policy violation or blockable offense?) and a 3)  potential socking problem (an awk RTV return at most).  And yes, an editor with sourcing issues, which are issues of WP:V, most of them since replaced anyway (some via the CCI, I fixed one myself) and not something that rises to an admin level.  So I say Secret's proposal is still quite workable, including the interaction ban with individuals he has specifically named.  Montanabw (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Diana, I'm going to answer you as forthrightly and honestly as I can, something Rlevse refused to do when I asked him to do so at least three times under his PumpkinSky account. What is clear to me doesn't appear to be clear to others, so I guess I'm going to have to point out what I think is obvious, so if it seems as if I'm condescending that is not my intention. Rlevse abandoned his primary account and returned twice under two different usernames. PumpkinSky was used, as you saw I'm sure, to write articles about Montana or whathaveyou. Honestly I have no idea what he did with the majority of his edits. However, what I did see quite clearly was his intervening in a contentious discussion about improving or changing leadership at FAC where he offered no helpful solutions and instead used invective, intoning that Raul and the delegates were dictators. He also deliberately acted stupid; this is not NPA. He asked during the discussions if editor retention on Wikipedia was indeed decreasing, something he already knew the answer to, and something I can only assume he did to appear new, or...stupid, actually. Diana offered that he was "angry and acting immaturely" and I agree with this.

Here's the blindingly obvious part for me: I don't post unless I can answer the question "What does this solve?" It's what I consider a mark of maturity to use restraint when nothing really can be solved by someone's participation, even when one's reputation or image is at stake. Rlevse's invective and disruptive commentary during the FAC discussions, on Raul's talk page, on Casliber's and on my talk page solved absolutely nothing. It hindered understanding, and in fact worked against him and other editors favoring elections at FAC. I think I'm being painted here in a light in which I appear to be aligned solidly with Raul and SandyGeorgia as to this nebulous idea of "status quo" at FAC. First of all, no one defined what the hell that means. Secondly, no one ever asked me to clarify what my thoughts about FAC leadership. I hope I made myself clear that I thought elections a bad idea. I'm certainly not in the minority in that as the RfC proved. However, I wanted someone to make a good case for it, to persuade me how FAC might be different with substantial changes. I have my own issues with FAC, which is evident in the fact that I've written FA-quality articles but decline to get them assessed for anything. I never saw any reasoned, intelligent discussion about that. Instead, I saw unhelpful comments that were completely over the top, manipulative, and ultimately self-defeating. Not only did I ask Rlevse as PumpkinSky to tone down his comments, but I basically told him how to formulate them better so they would be more effective in persuading others. Unfortunately, Rlevse as PumpkinSky was not the sole perpetrator of this morass of miscommunication. I hope I made myself clear at the time that I was against elections at FAC because I see what the notion of self-protection and promotion does to the highest standards in groups. This is my definition of politics. Politics happens when people abandon their ideals and align themselves with others for self-protection and self-promotion. I was concerned that FAC's dedication to the highest standards would be compromised by politics. This discussion itself is evidence that I wasn't wrong.

Now I want to point out what is happening here: Wikipedia has standards about not abusing multiple accounts, not using them to make serious procedural discussions more confusing, and not being deceptive about who you are and your experiences. My action to block an account that broke Wikipedia's rules is under scrutiny, which is both baffling and fascinating. Rlevse has a group of editors dedicated to allowing him to return to editing, a group that appears to prioritize his return over the fact that he broke rules and disrupted processes. While loyalty is admirable in many circumstances, this instead is the abandonment of standards in favor of Rlevse's return. Somehow your angst is being directed at me and I'll just state flat out that you are confused and misdirecting your energies. Before I get accused of being a part of a cabal, as I can expect the inevitable, I want you to reflect on how that definition applies to your participation in this scenario. The cabal accusation is overused and now empty. Once it comes out I stop listening. I'm not making that accusation; however, I am certainly pointing out that scrutinizing me for blocking an alternate account helps nothing and instead is evidence of convoluted priorities that I cannot imagine justifying.

Diana insists Rlevse wants to return, but it is not clear to me what he really wants to return to. The Wikipedia where he edits articles about Montana? But that's the same Wikipedia where Raul and Sandy edit, FAC exists, and so does DYK and other venues where it has been proposed he avoid. It's the same Wikipedia that made rules against abusing multiple accounts. So what does Rlevse want? Actually, I don't know. I have not been made aware he wants to return after he last said he wanted to drop the idea. Nor do I know why he would want to return. Were I a part of a society that rejected me in the fashion that befalls sockmasters, I'd tell you all to go fuck yourselves and be happy as far away from you as possible. So why are we discussing Rlevse's return when he has not made it clear that he wants to come back?

Regarding my being involved, I am as involved as Diana, Alarbus, and Wehwalt, all of whom participated in the FAC discussions. If you consider your judgment in this matter unaffected by your personal involvement, why do you not afford me the same? Also, why was I the editor to make this block? I dislike blocking. Where the hell was everyone else?

Finally, my exchanges with Rlevse as PumpkinSky, and my participation in the FAC discussions, turned from expressing my questions about the wisdom of elections at FAC to focusing on editors using a level of communication befitting the seriousness of the issue. I want to reiterate that here. I do not know what can possibly be accomplished for Rlevse by going after me for blocking the PumpkinSky account. If someone can explain that I would appreciate it. Rlevse thought it a good idea to express his anger and frustration at specific editors and disrupt discussions. Would your energies not be better employed by helping him figure out why he felt it necessary to do that, helping him realize how he can redeem himself in this community and return better for overcoming his issues? There is no shame in admitting mistakes, despite the way discussions on the Internet usually go. In fact, it makes us stronger to look back and admit what we have done foolishly in the past and compare what we have learned afterward. I would admire Rlevse should he take this tack. Furthermore, the tone of communication here is bordering on the invective used at FAC that compelled me to ask Rlevse to tone it down. Regarding "trash talking", 28bytes, I wrote the article for The Dozens. You have misspoken; and you should refer to that article for details. I've responded to Diana's request with what I consider far more respect than what I'm being given. I think it would help this situation and any future Rlevse has here, if everyone involved considers what they post before "save page", particularly asking themselves if what they are posting can solve any particular problem or if it's just making things worse. --Moni3 (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mkay, this is devolving into another 1st vs. 2nd mover advantage and "no consensus to [un]block". Given that the community is as deadlocked on this case as they are on the policy itself, I think this should be moved a full ArbCom case before anyone's bits come in the line of fire. Arbitrators have signed up to resolved cases where the community is bitterly divided and this surely appears to be one of those to me. Let ArbCom decide what sanctions or return restrictions are needed, if any. I think that is a superior alternative to bickering and reciprocal attacks this thread is quickly becoming. I'll be quite busy in real life for the next 24hrs or so, but I'll be able to present evidence later in the weekend if the case is accepted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocking is a tool not a sanction. I see no purpose for an ArbCom case until RLevse/PS re-expresses a wish to return. There would then be many issues that could usefully be discussed (with the participation of RLevse/PS) to achieve mutual understanding; such efforts are prerequisite to a community call for arbitration (RLevse/PS can of course make a direct appeal instead).Geometry guy 00:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Moni3: That's a reasonable, (and reasonably calm) summary. I've reviewed the prior (Feb14) discussion which I did not participate in:


 * I don't think anyone is disputing that PS broke Wikipedia rules. That said, we have a dispute resolution system, not a justice system, so what sanctions are appropriate is always a legitimate topic of conversation.
 * Given your involvement with featured articles and PS's disruption of the FA community, it would have been preferred another editor make the block to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This is not to say the block was unjustified nor that it should be reversed and certainly none of the desysop! nonsense that occurs far too infrequently. Nobody Ent 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that given that they were on opposite sides in the FA debate it would have been better if someone else had performed the block. @Moni3: I would still be interested in hearing more specifically why you chose an indef block rather than a finite block. That question remains unanswered, unless I have missed something? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would it be other than indefinite? That's what is indicated for sock blocks. Nobody Ent 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is you block socks indefinitely. The primary account block is discretionary.  "The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator."--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is the sock, and which is the main account? Whether the length of the applied block was technically correct isn't a useful question to hash through in the context of moving forward and reaching consensus. Nobody Ent 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a better thing to be focusing on right now: whether or not Pumpkin Sky wishes to edit, and if so, under what conditions that will be happening. Thanks for your input. -- Dianna (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What we should hear from ArbCom before any further !voting on unblocking takes place here
We should hear that the BarkingMoon and IP socking concerns have been addressed in a matter satisfactory to the majority of the Committee without breaching Rlevse's privacy, i.e. without on-wiki disclosure. I want to see an ArbCom motion voted along the lines of "After examining on-wiki evidence and having heard an explanation from the account(s) involved, in the opinion of the Committee the concerns about sockpuppetry and/or evasion of scrutiny do not justify a block or other sanction of PumpkinSky." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support request for motion:
 * 1) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose request for motion:

Good faithed sock alternate account
Somebody should tell this editor that using two accounts is not good. No blocks, he is not disruptive, but a friendly warning seems in order:,. Red flag edit. Perhaps he wants to rename his account? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems with the new account so far. As long as one is not trying to evade scrutiny by doing so, I don't see how that is not prohibited. --MuZemike 02:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternate accounts are not socks. Nobody Ent 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The "red flag edit" link is a demonstration that the user already knows the policy and is following it. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects
The log page is cluttered again in a manner bots can't fix.
 * User:DCI's rename generated problems as user was renamed from DCI to two usernames and then back to DCI again generating self redirects.
 * .js and .css pages after username renames should be deleted as they are of no use.
 * Multiple people are "testing" double redirects on en.wikipedia cluttering the log. En.wikipedia shouldn't be the place for bot tests and perhaps these should be migrated to test.wikipedia or some other wiki. Meta also has such a page mind you.

Thanks. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I've fixed all of the broken redirects, deleted the .css and .js pages, edited the fully protected pages and left messages on the 2 user talk pages of the users that were experimenting with redirects. Thanks, The  Helpful  One  13:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest reasons we have userspace is to allow testing. If you look at WP:UP, you'll notice that the only type of redirect prohibited is that of redirecting a user talk page to anything except the user talk page of another account controlled by the same person.  There is no good reason to delete.  Nyttend backup (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed userpages can be used for testing purposes. However Special:DoubleRedirects should not be used for testing purposes. Such pages in peoples userspace can have a performance impact on the entire site as these redundant double redirects show up under Special:DoubleRedirects which has finite slots per iteration. If these people are testing something for the past several months I think we should know what exactly are they testing and why they cannot run these tests on test.wikipedia or some other location. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy permits it right now. If you don't like it, bring it up at WT:UP.  Nyttend backup (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. This thread can be closed as the +40 double redirects have been dealt with. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung will no longer be active!
This is stated clearly in his talk page that from January 25th, Kudpung will not be active in enwiki. He's leaving now? The story looks same like User:Nichalp! I'm confused as to what's happening here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankan001 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He's taking a break. People do it all the time. He may be back, he may not, he put a lot of effort into it while he was here, so it's all good. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AIV backlog
Who's watching WP:AIV?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Deluge
Hello. The article Pinn Panelle was nominated for speedy deletion. However, the talk page has been flooded by editors who are contesting the speedy deletion. I'm not sure that they're not socks, but would it be a better idea to post this as an AfD? dci &#124;  TALK   22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is deleted and salted. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert requested on Template:Cleanup
There is a consensus (Template_talk:Cleanup) to revert this edit on protected template, but we need uninvolved admin Bulwersator (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 00:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Bulwersator (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U deletion
It seems to me that Requests for comment/RHaworth should be deleted seeing as it's been around since 17 Jan and hasn't been filled out or certified. Apologies if this isn't the correct place to leave such a request. Jenks24 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage
Hey guys :). As previously mentioned in a few places, the Foundation has started work on our new patrolling software: New Page Triage. I'm posting updated specifications in a few hours, and I'd really advise everyone who is interested in page patrolling to head over to the talkpage, comment on the suggestions on the page already and the additional ideas the community has come up with.

We've also got an office hours session next Tuesday, the 13th, at 19:00 UTC (that's 12:00 PST, for the west-coast Americans around ;p). If you can make it, it's on IRC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't, drop me a line on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs once we're done :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RPP needs an admin
WP:RPP is not backlogged, but the requests are getting old quickly.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Interaction ban between User:Eagles247 and User:Androzaniamy
Hi Folks. We currently have a situation bordering on harrassment by an administrator, Eagles247. Androzaniamy is a relatively new user, having signed up for Wikipedia on December 29, 2011. She has less than 900 edits to her name and I believe she is being harrassed by Eagles247. Don't get me wrong, Androzaniamy has made mistakes and is suffering from a mild WP:IDHT attitude, but I believe the Eagles's handling of the situation is both unfair and excessive. He has been asked to back off by both myself and another editor, but has refused.

Some diff's highlighting problems Eagles handling of the situation since he first commented on her talk page on 17 January (less than 2 months ago, when she had been editing for about 3 weeks).
 * Eagles has left 4 warnings and reverted her edits wholesale a number of times.
 * Taken the editor to ANI twice - 31 Jan & 3 Feb
 * He has personally deleted (or nominated for deletion) every article she has created. Similarly for redirects. (plus variations)
 * I would also say he has inappropriately used rollback against Androzaniamy, somthing I brought up with him.
 * Androzaniamy has complained about undue scrutiny from Eagles247 in particular twice.

I'm not questioning the deletions, I'm questioning the undue attention Eagles247 is placing on this new user. My involvement comes from WP:ADOPT, as she was trying to adopt other users but it was removed by Eagles. I offered to adopt her, but due to the amount of attention on her page, I believe my comments got lost in the noise. Reading her talk page is very revealing. I formally request an interaction ban between Eagles247 and Androzaniamy for a period no less than 6 months, to allow this new editor to actually learn the ropes without undue pressure. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eagles has made some mistakes in dealing with this user, including two misplaced "edit test" templates. I will, however, say that Androzaniamy is literally and without a doubt the most rude and obnoxious user I have had the displeasure of encountering on WP.  She has treated helpful editors like trash (including WormTT, and I commend him for his objectivity considering how he's been treated).  I really don't blame Eagles at all, even though his warnings were misplaced, as most of the time I wanted to rant on her talk page as well.  Most editors are more forgiving than I am when it comes to rudeness, so please take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I would block her until she agrees to start treating other editors with a greater deal of respect.  Just going through her talk page makes my blood boil a bit.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In my view, the only thing that should be done here is a WP:CIR block on Androzaniamy. T. Canens (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC) And in case it isn't obvious, I oppose the proposed interaction ban as unnecessary given my preferred solution. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * T. Canens, I don't doubt that that might be required in the future, but at the moment I believe that is excessive. I'm not keen on WP:CIR blocks - not least because CIR is an essay. I say this as someone who has applied one in the last week.
 * Noformation is absolutely correct about her attitude and communication. I should point out that I've also asked PamD to step back here, and explained to Androzaniamy that she needs to change.
 * None of this changes the fact that 4 editors (Androzaniamy, PamD, Nat Gertler and myself) have seperately pointed out Eagles247 has overstepped a line here. He's an excellent editor and I empathise with his point of view but now is a time that he needs to walk away, and since he refuses to do so (and I do not believe Androzaniamy has reached the indef block point) - an interaction ban seems like the right choice  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need for a formal interaction ban whatsoever. Perhaps at this point, Eagles needs to step back and let others handle things - they might even be too WP:INVOLVED at this point.  We have had other admins in the past who simply needed to have a couple of colleagues tell them (sometimes not so politely) to back off.  I'm making NO comments on the other editor at this point, as my advice is being given regardless of that ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If he is willing to step back, that would be a much better solution than anything formal. His last responses implied he would not though.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had some interaction with Androzaniamy as well and have been quite frustrated by the way she interacts with others. Unlike Noformation, I decided to descend into that tempest hoping to nudge her along in the right way. I gave her the benefit of the doubt as she is still quite new, but her WP:IDHT attitude is quite an issue. I left one last post on her talk page, which was probably somewhat uncivil but gentle prodding can only do so much. I have since unwatched her page as her interactions with Worm and others has left me in the same state as Noformation. I think a full blown requirement that she accept adoption is needed at some point in the not too distant future. Might I also suggest that someone ask Dream Focus to stop inflaming the situation? Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The question of what should be done about Androzaniamy is a separate issue. No matter if she's good, improvable, or someone who should be gotten rid of, whatever the goal, the methods that Eagles247 has used are not the way to go about it. Having failed to force her off of Wikipedia by the official means (although even then with some dubious methods, using the fact that her pages' nominations for deletions as a reason when it included his nomination that was already clearly failing), he has chosen to use very inappropriate means, haranguing her with charges regardless of their accuracy - such as tagging as a test edit an addition on-topic and referenced information (if slightly misformatted, but Eagles has been here long enough to know what a test edit is and isn't) - with the obvious hope that he can simply annoy her off of Wikipedia. This is not helpful to either of the two editors - Eagles seems to be a generally good editor who has allowed this one person to get under his skin to an unreasonable degree - and more importantly, it is bad for the community as a whole, as good editors (plus me!) have to waste their time dealing with Eagles's inappropriate conduct and as the use of harassment technique makes us all look worse. And even if we agree with Eagles's goals, it clearly has not worked, and allowing something that is both degrading to the community and ineffective to continue serves no benefit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support dysopping of User:Eagles247 - his overall interactions seem un-befitting of the standards we expect from an administrator. - You  really  can  15:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Desysop is not the subject of this thread, thus voting for it is pretty much a non-issue. You can recommend a desysop as part of the discussion, but supporting is supporting an interaction ban ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Desyop is always an option, and is no big deal, it should be looked at in that way more. Hey dude, your raising a few issues, take a back seat with the administration for a while and come back in twelve months with a reconfirmation RFA. The User seems unable to comment over his personal bias from an administrative position of neutrality, this is a general problem with humanity, but users wanting to obtain and hold a perceived position of authority here should have the ability to aim for the higher ground. - You  really  can  15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You would need consensus and ArbCom enforcement to do such a thing or a voluntary recall. Besides, this is not the point of the discussion and therefore would say this !vote carries no weight.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,078,266 ) 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support interaction ban - My comment carries weight, if you reject it - I will move to the support the interaction ban . because of the no thanks comment he made on the 6th to good advice from Nat Geler and the fact that he just still doesn't seem to be getting it, a month voluntary? and then what, a return to the same? You  really  can  01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you seen even a few of Androzaniamy's contributions/messages here? If not, her talk page might be your first stop.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikiquette_assistance/archive115 documents a past action in which Eagles247 approach to resolving an issue seemed, in my opinion, to be overly agressive. The block mentioned at the end of the WQA thread was lifted a short time later another admin. Nobody Ent 15:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that what we have here is an editor with competence and auditory issues, and an admin who's gotten so frustrated at those facts that he's just continuing to beat his head against the wall rather than noticing that the bricks haven't even cracked. I don't think we need an interaction ban so much as we just need Eagles247 step back from the wall and realize that it's clear that Androzaniamy, rightly or wrongly, feels that he is attacking her, not trying to teach her. At that point where that happens, the intent of your actions ceases to matter, and it becomes, pragmatically, "this isn't working, even if it ought to, so why don't we try something else." So, Eagles, I would suggest you step away, take some painkillers for what's bound to be a humdinger of a wall-beating headache, and let other editors and admins handle the issue of Amy - there are plenty of eyes on her to handle any problems that arise. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ^Word. I'm nodding vigorously in agreement to everything Fluffernutter's encapsulated above and the solutions proposed.<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so did I (not often I find myself physically nodding while reading) - however, this only works if Eagles is willing to take that step back, as I mention above.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support interaction ban per Worm/Fluffernutter; additionally hearing the same message from multiple editors often has a greater power/persuasiveness then hearing it just from one. (It makes it harder for the recipient to believe it's a single person who has it "out for them" that's causing issues). Oppose desysop; lacking a much more detailed documented pattern of missteps from Eagles247 we're not anywhere close to that. Nobody Ent 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a formal interaction ban really necessary here? How about just asking the two to completely avoid each other? Everytime one sees the other's name just step away calmly? I'm sure Eagles247 was completely AGF at first, and taking measures to this extreme doesn't help. They need reasoned discussion, not a pile of admins arguing about whether Eagles247 should be desysopped. So I oppose an interaction ban.  Rcsprinter  (state)  16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eagles247 has been asked repeatedly to step back, and has refused to. That technique has failed. (and this is not an issue of both directions - Androzaniamy has not posted to Eagles' talkpage in over a month, and has never to my knowledge followed him to the pages he edits). We should stop pounding our head in that direction. The solution is hardly an egregious one; it's not putting too much of a burden on Eagles - he'd be banned from interacting with one user that he has shown an unwillingness to interact with appropriately, surely a very minor cost for such inappropriate activity from an editor wh, with his experience and admin status, has both the knowledge and responsibility to do better. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support interaction ban. Like Rcsprinter123, I would have preferred a voluntary avoidance, but this comment - which really took me by surprise - makes me feel as though Eagle just flat out refuses to heed the caution. However, I really don't think this will achieve Worm's goal of allowing the editor to "learn the ropes without pressure." If the purpose is to relieve Androzaniamy of pressure, this isn't going to do it.   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   17:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any formal interaction ban. Eagles is one of the best young administrators the project has, and one of the most knowledgeable about project-wide policy who is also associated with WP:CFB and WP:NFL. The suggested desysopping is ridiculous; the suggested interaction ban is within the realm of discussion, but a far better solution would be for Eagles to simply agree to remove the subject editor's talk page from his watch list and agree to let one or more other admins monitor this very problematic editor. I have followed the user talk page discussions regarding this editor over the past month, and I have watched as Eagles' normally unflappable cool has gradually eroded. While I believe that Eagles has become involved, and needs to step back, I also believe that one or more other uninvolved admins need to step forward and bring some nee and objective eyes to this problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I don't really think that this is necessary. Also Eagles247 has promised to stay off their talk page and I trust this user's word.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,077,651 ) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will stay off Androzaniamy's talk page for a period of one month, so long as others are more aware of this user now. Some users here who have interacted with Androzaniamy have flat out taken her talk page off their watchlists due to the insurmountable frustration it causes them, which is really telling of this user's behavior. I will not be taking her off my watchlist, but before my piling on of warnings yesterday, I tried very hard not to comment there or take administrative action with any of her articles. I thank those who have defended my actions and see what I've had to deal with, and I'm ashamed this has gone to this extreme.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose interaction ban. I'm not going to make this long, but this user is going to be a frequent topic of discussion (that's the nicest way to put it).  Sanctioning Eagle247 for "over scrutiny" is not going to solve the user's issue.  They've declined adoption in favor of adopting another user themselves.  I'd prefer to see this user adopted, but I think their threshold for civility would scare even our harshest civility enforcers and would give heart attacks to our frequent civility...pushers.--v/r - TP 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support interaction ban. Not just for a month, but permanently.   D r e a m Focus  00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT the interaction ban.
 * There is enough evidence presented here to dictate that such ban would be best if it was PERMANENT. Rationale: There are few things worse than being new in a community and having someone -- and someone with power within that community -- pressuring you at almost every turn. Besides, it is my view that Eagle247 is behaving overly zealous, as if "taming" this user was his commission from heaven (pardon the crude comparison, but it makes the point). His proposal to JUST stay off JUST her page for JUST one month, is too little too late: damage has already been done to the relationship. And his poor offer is another recent declaration that he does not understand he is not a solo admin of this encyclopedia and that the best judgment would had been if he had --voluntarily and long ago-- disassociated himself from this user or, at worse, if he had just asked an uninvolved admin's help AND leave it at that. But his effort to pursue this user continues to be relentless. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 *  Strong Oppose Eagles is one of the best administrators and most active in the project.The issue here is more of User:Androzaniamy's disruptive editing rather than a personal or content dispute between two users and an interaction ban will not solve it .Please note it is the disruptive editing which it brought the User:Androzaniamy to the notice of admin Eagles and other users ,admins cannot be admonished for following the edits of disruptive users or vandals  particularly when everyone seems to say the user is most likely to continue it and has been blocked recently and warned by multiple users. This would demotivate admins    Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just have to comment here. I'm in the 'oppose interaction ban' bucket, but I think you've misunderstood the point of those in support.  The issue isn't that they feel Eagle24/7 has been at the forefront of addressing this user's disruption and has caused her stress; the issue from the supporters is that Eagle34/7 has gone above the threshold of administrator intervention with a disruptive user and has badgered and stalked his way into the harrassment side.  It's sometimes a fine line and the supporters here feel he has crossed it and that has been detrimental to the development of a newbie and bitey.  Just wanted to clarify.--v/r - TP 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to know does Eagles247 enjoy doing all this or not? It's just that the fact he was always on my tsalkpage and I thought maybe there's a reason other than my mistakes. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Androzaniamy, this question is inappropriate on so many levels, in my opinion. First, the proposal (which I should think you would favor) is for a ban on interactions between you and Eagles247. Posing questions for him (since, of course, only he could speak to his motives) is, well, interacting. Second, you seem to be suggesting that he might be motivated by something other than your mistakes in editing. With a proposed indef block/mentorship for you still on the table, I don't think it's a good time to bring inflammatory questions/comments to the discussion. Just my thoughts.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   20:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, your comment, Androzaniamy, just proved to me that you have no idea what you are doing wrong and no intention to fix it. Further, I dont think you even see fault in your behavior.  I've changed my opinion, you need to leave the project and I think an indefinite block, rather than mentoring, is the way to go.--v/r - TP 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipelli, you are absolutely correct that that was a completely inappropriate comment. My mouse hovered over the "block" button for a few moments before I decided to instead give Androzaniamy a(nother) warning, which I sincerely hope she will heed. If I see any more comments of that nature from her, I will be blocking her account. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed mentorship or block for User:Androzaniamy
While there's some support up above for the idea of Eagles247 needing to back away from this issue, I also see a number of users noting that is floundering around in a disruptive manner. The user has, as far as I can tell, refused offers of mentorship and adoption in favor of continuing to make her own way, which is becoming increasingly problematic. It's reached the point where I think the community needs to force this editor to make a decision: '''Due to her competence and assimilation issues, Androzaniamy must accept adoption by an experienced editor if she wishes to continue editing Wikipedia. If she refuses to do this, or fails to complete an adoption/mentorship program, she will be blocked until such time that she is able to demonstrate that she understands how to edit non-disruptively.'''
 * Support as second choice to indef block (below). The more I consider the situation and the evidence, the more I think mentorship is unlikely to crack this case. Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC) ( edited to change the first-second ordering of my vote A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC) )
 * Support this proposal. I find this resolution quite necessary given the circumstances. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Better option than above.--v/r - TP 21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose in preference of the indefinite block per .--v/r - TP 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Question Can someone speak briefly about precedence for this kind of action and successes? I've had a number of interactions with this editor and my opinion has always been that, if left on her own, there would be an evolutionary process whereby she'd either be blocked via reverts and warnings, or she'd 'get it' on her own and start to contribute in a more productive way... or, honestly, get tired of it and go do something else.... Is the adopter selected (like a public defender for the indigent in the states), do we look for someone to step up and volunteer? Just curious about the nuts and bolts...   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there necessarily is precedent for something like this. I'm offering it now as pretty much the only other option I can think of to just blocking the user for disruption, because I think it's gotten to that point. Any mentor would have to volunteer themselves (Worm that Turned has previously, for example), I imagine, since we can't force an editor to mentor if they don't think they're suited for it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There certainly is precedent for forced mentorship, but the successes might be harder to quantify. Myself, I've mentored a few problematic users who were either unblocked due to my mentoring or avoided blocks due to my mentoring. More than half ended up blocked, 1 by me when I saw no further future for him. The rest didn't cause much more disruption, a few are doing very well. I'm not saying any have become admins, but some you wouldn't realise they had a problematic past. I certainly feel the mentoring I do is worth it.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Precedent similar action: I have had no interaction with this user but have thoroughly read the user's talk page and the various ANI threads (this is at least the third) and to respond to Wikipelli's query, this situation reminds me totally of a previous user, Neptunekh2, who had competence issues, acted in a moody/paranoid fashion to offers of help and just generally didn't get it. This is compounded by Androzaniamy's impetuosity and out-and-out rudeness.
 * This links to the last ANI archive page (discussion #47) concerning this user, resulting in an indef block, and this page shows the number of ANI appearances (each thread involving innumerable discussions and lots and lots of people's time and energy). Despite User:The Blade of the Northern Lights voluntary mentorship, the user continued to act in their own idiosyncratic fashion and, in the end, everybody involved just lost patience with them. I get the feeling that the same pattern would just repeat here.  Captain Screebo Parley! 11:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to each..   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   12:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It would seem that this is quite necessary as this user doesn't seem to know how things work around here.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,077,651 ) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * She's passed the point of no return in my opinion, and taking up a hell of a lot of time of other editors. I know I'm supposed to AGF but right from one of her first edits, the message in this creation, I thought Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap. Hard to tell. Fluffer, if a person is blocked how do they demonstrate they understand how to edit non-disruptively? Would you give her a holiday for a month (say) and tell her that if on her return she comes up with the same old disruption she is outta here indefinitely, no ifs, buts or maybes? That what you mean? Moriori (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This speaks directly to my thinking.. SHE'S not taking up time with other editors.... Other editors are taking up time with her. If those editors (disclaimer: I'm one of them) stop with the back-and-forth, wouldn't WP's processes just run their course? Revert when necessesary, warn when appropriate, block if need be... and life goes on..   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And on, and on, and on and...... The problem won't go away unless it's fixed. BTW, I have notified User:Androzaniamy of this new proposal regarding her. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Oops


 * Oppose. Just block already and be done with her, we have wasted enough time.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * as I mention earlier, I don't think she is at blocking point yet, though she is heading that way. I'd suggest we give it a month, which I thank Eagles for agreeing to. If she has not made noticeable progress by that point, I'll block her myself. That does not preclude her from being block by natural means or taking up mentorship to ensure she makes progress.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am uncertain as to what side I take in this, but it should be noted that she has improved during her time here. She's now doing sourced edits that are reasonably relevant to the material. She has stopped spending her time giving herself barnstars. Some of the objections to her have been overstated, but I would say that we are still at the point where the amount of productive time she costs from other editors more than makes up from what we've gained from her contributions; I'm just uncertain how far we are along the line of getting her to be more of a gain than a drain. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of information on above: She may have stopped awarding herself barnstars, but she retrieved them from the archive 2 days ago. Pam  D  08:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This edit needs to be reviewed by someone other than me. Last mention from me of any of her edits for a month.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've undone the edit - for one thing, the edit Androzaniamy made there misses the point of that section. For another, it's somewhat ironic, very concerning, and highly inappropriate that they'd made that edit to the WP:IDHT section while a block ANI discussion is underway at ANI. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty provocative edit, yes, but not inappropriate in the sense you give because she made it before she was advised of this proposal. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further irony is that all she has been getting is gentle nudges and prods. No one has given her the mighty stick... at least not yet. Blackmane (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True, it was made prior to the block discussion, but it was made after the interaction ban discussion had started. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Edit: Just re-read what I wrote and realize the issue now. Sorry, I've corrected the line above.


 * Oppose All problems are from people being overly aggressive towards her and just blowing things out of propulsion.  D r e a m Focus  00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? All problems are on the mass alone and the center of this problem holds zero responsibility?  Feel free to volunteer to mentor her.--v/r - TP 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have explained things properly and in a civil manner, unlike others I have seen acting rather hostile and condescending on her talk page. If someone makes a mistake, you can explain it to them, not just go on the attack.  Example, she had already said she considered a certain word to be foul language, and didn't want to see it.  Then someone posted that word on her talk page so she erased it but left the rest of the message there.  This was an honest mistake, but some blew it out of proportion, and kept bringing it up, oh how horrible she was for editing someone's post, etc. etc.  Simply saying you can erase an entire message from your talk page, but not just part of it, would've been enough.    D r e a m Focus  01:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue of refactoring comments led to my opening up an ANI discussion about her, and she was warned several times before the incident you describe, in which Androzaniamy tried to further censor "s*x" on her talk page.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that's what it was. She erased that word instead of the entire post.  You shouldn't be posting about that on a young girl's talk page anyway.   D r e a m Focus  17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which policy says that? WP:Younger users, especially girls, should be treated differently than everyone else? The word was absolutely necessary in the context of the comment, which was to explain why something she labeled vandalism was not actually vandalism. Your suggestion that we treat this user differently because of her age and gender is entirely why she is considered disruptive by many in this discussion. FWIW, PamD posted that message to her talk page and had the sensibility to censor it enough to still understand the meaning.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support the proposal. It's way past time.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Salvio. I think mentorship will be a complete waste of time, and we are bending way over backwards to accommodate a user whose very limited positive contribution to encyclopedia building is accompanied by absolutely ridiculous amounts of disruption. T. Canens (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in the hope that she will accept adoption or mentoring, listen to advice on her non-article-space edits, and go on to become an asset to the encyclopedia. She makes positive contributions to articles in and around her specialist area (UK children's tv), creates reasonable redirects (OK, I'm something of a redirect inclusionist), but gets it wrong far too often in other edits. I think she is making progress, though she needs to accept that she has still got a lot to learn. Pam  D  08:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support mentoring, but forced mentoring is often pointless. Whilst I do have time to mentor her in a voluntary capacity (ie, she comes to me if she has a problem and follows my adoption school which will teach her to handle problems on her own) - I don't have time follow her round and make sure every edit is perfect. What's more, we learn from mistakes, but only if we believe they are mistakes - if all the mistakes are pointed out by one editor, especially one who's help wasn't asked for, it can quickly appear provocative. I'd suggest allowing her one month to prove herself, taking on mentoring if she will, and if she isn't blocked within that period and is still bumbling along problematically, block her then.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE mentorship or block for User:Androzaniamy.
 * Like my comment below RE: "Proposed indef block for User:Androzaniamy", under the current circumstances, namely, the Pending Status of the intricately-linked original topic of this noticeboard board matter above, now is not the time and, especially, ***not the place*** to present a petition for this "[either/or] forced-mentorship or blocking" of either of these two users, and especially the newbie. If such petition was approved, it would be tantamount to just the opposite of WP:DBTN: a subcommunity-sactioned consensus to Do-bite-the newbie. The use of subsections (like this one) to a Main Petition, should be avoided as it, almost always, tends to distract attention from the Main Topic under consideration. Yes, Androzaniamy has many points against her, but this is not the time nor the place to deal with them. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * Actually, this is the time and place to deal with it. This isn't about biting a newbie. This is about nipping a potential future issue in the bud. And AN is definitely the place to deal with such issues. I also support the requirement of a mentor for Androzaniamy. This isn't about being mean or unfair, this is about guidance. Mercy11, when you open the edit window, it says in big red letters up the top that this noticeboard is for "issues affecting administrators generally". Worm That Turns, an admin, is bringing up matters affecting Eagles 24/7, also an admin. If not on the Administrators' Noticeboard then what is "the place" to deal with such matters? This discussion concerning Androzaniamy is a subset of the matter concerning an admin and thus this place is exactly the place to discuss it. Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say Blackmane has got it spot on. When discussions are brought to AN, it is very common that the entire circumstances are looked at, and alternative solutions are discussed. I brought this here with the solution I thought necessary, given circumstances (which have since changed) - I personally don't feel an interaction ban is required any more as Eagles has accepted that this has gone further than it should and has voluntarily agreed to step back. Androzaniamy cannot carry on causing issues, I'm personally of the opinion that she may well improve with less "help" around, but mentorship, forced mentorship and blocks are all reasonable alternatives.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to Mercy11's post in section below  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose (if I'm allowed): I get flustered and might do or say things that I would never normally say under pressure and thrive when left to my own devices. My teacher says so too at school. A mentorship might be nice and I have put myslf up for adoption but maybe from someone who doesn't already know me so they won't stereotype me falsely. PLEASE don't block me! Androzaniamy (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, no one on Wikipedia works "to their own devices". Invariably, everyone must discuss with other editors and it is the way you interact with others that is the focus of this proposal. You're learning well by posting questions on your user page and getting feedback from others. But you need to stay calm and not get your hackles up because people are hovering over you. Many newbies who come to Wiki and flounder around like you do often get scrutinised by the veterans here. Once you get used to that you'll begin to understand how to work well with others. This is the reason for a mentor, someone who will guide you through that process. Blackmane (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant just if I need to dicuss something then I will but not having others watching my edits and using my talk page a lot. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is no longer up to you. The decision has been put to the community at large. Although the discussion is still on going, the proposal is you must be adopted or be blocked. Blackmane (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support mentorship or block. I have followed Androzaniamy's progress for some weeks. She is making some progress with her work on Articles, but has huge problems interacting appropriately with other editors and making polite edit summaries. This is where she is falling down. I'm not sure mentorship will work given her inability to interact well but it's worth trying.--Harkey (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note:  She has requested to be adopted by Worm That Turned.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,579,420 ) 18:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indef block for User:Androzaniamy
We have wasted way too much time on this disruptive user, who simply is not getting it. I believe that mentorship will be a complete waste of precious volunteer time, time that could be used to engage in far more productive activity than trying to rehabilitate a disruptive user with minimal contributions to encyclopedia building. Why we are spending so much time trying to retain a user whose negatives far outweigh the positives, when established editors with a long history of positive contributions continue to burn out and leave the project, is entirely beyond me. Androzaniamy should be blocked until such time that she is able to demonstrate that she understands how to edit non-disruptively. Support As second first and only option to the mentoring/indef block proposal above.--v/r - TP 13:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Opinion changed per --v/r - TP 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, as proposer. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as silly. How could she possibly demonstrate she understands how to edit if she can't edit? Nobody Ent 03:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We ask this of vandalism-only accounts all the time. Showing an actual understanding of the problem with her previous behavior would be a good start. T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody Ent, you might want to take a look at 2nd chance, a response not-uncommonly given in response to block appeals. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as a second choice first choice. Androzaniamy has worn on the community's patience a whole lot in a very short period of time, and I think her benefits while unmentored don't outweigh her detriments. I have increasing doubts that mentorship will be useful for this editor, and I hesitate to force the community to go through motions that we're pretty sure won't work anyway. If, however, the user will accept a mentor (and follow their advice) as I proposed above, I prefer that to this as a first step. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) ( edited to change the first-second ordering of my vote 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC) )
 * Support While some, perhaps many, of the issues here could be addressed through mentorship, this user seems to be refusing to acknowledge any sort of problems on their part, a crucial first step to making such an approach feasible. In light of the numerous issues - competence, "I didn't hear that", unwillingness to work with the community - it's not worth attempting to spend time on this user until they demonstrate that it would be time well spent. There's something else about this situation that makes me uneasy, but I can't quite put my finger on it. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose if someone can be found to adopt/mentor her, and if she accepts their guidance. But would support as 2nd choice option if the above fails. Pam  D  08:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd oppose this for now, she's a new user learning the ropes and has made progress since she started. The amount of attention she's had would make it difficult for any user to operate. My thoughts is to give her a little time editing without feeling harrassed, and if she remains confrontational and problematic then block her.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This doesn't seem necessary yet. This user doesn't appear to be purposefully disruptive.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,163,768 ) 10:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: One of her userboxes does say she is seeking adoption by another user. She does appear to be open to it.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,163,952 ) 10:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but she's had 2 offers of adoption on her talk page and hasn't accepted either.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I would first consider mandatory mentorship before indefinite block. Remember blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive.  If this user is open to adoption but refuses offers, then forcing this user to search for a mentor to help her edit better rather than stopping her edits altogether is a better choice.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,192,263 ) 14:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment above. I think that the user has received sufficient attention, offers of guidance, help and mentorship (WTT's offer dates from February 15th) that she would have at least considered being taken under someone's wing if she were not so self-opinionated. I also find it hard to reconcile the user's use of language and discourse and their (apparent) understanding and ability to quote wiki-policy when it suits them, with their claim to be a pre-adolescent. Oh and you can add trouting users for no good reason, rudeness, IDHT, obstinately insisting on wanting to adopt users with only a few weeks experience and so on.  Captain Screebo Parley! 12:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as first choice. As I've said above, enough time has been wasted already; if this proposal does not pass, we'll be back here in a month... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE indef block for User:Androzaniamy.
 * Under the current circumstances, namely the Pending Status of the intricately-linked matter above, now is not the time and, especially, ***not the place*** to present a petition for blocking either of these two users -- and especially the newbie. If such petition was approved, it would go beyond WP:DBTN, becoming tantamount to a subcommunity-sanctioned consensus to Do-bite-the newbie. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Comment It would appear that you have not waded through this user's talk page or looked at their comments, diffs etc. on other people's pages, I would like to suggest that this user's behaviour could be used to write a new WP essay Newbies, don't bite the helping hands that are reaching out to you. If you look at the following examples: issuing a 3RR warning for ONE revert of two test edits; BITING a user and issuing a level 4 vandalism warning for a couple of unremarkable edits; trouting admins and awarding bad faith stalker badges and generally responding to people in a rude and impetuous manner, maybe you would like to revise your opinion about who is biting who? Most people have shown huge amounts of patience in trying to explain diverse aspects of policy, wiki-etiquette etc. to this user.  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will note that biting behavior on her part is explained in some part - albeit only in part - by some of what she's been subjected to, not just Eagles247 behavior discussed elsewhere, bot also some genuine vandalism mixed in with those things she falsely described as vandalism. Not that she was the wisest editor before then, and not that some editors didn't bend over backwards (occasionally, inappropriately so) to treat her nicely. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: not sure about that "genuine vandalism": her userpage said "These are my lovely userboxes. Feel free to add more or copy some.", so adding a userbox as invited is hardly vandalism, though re-adding it multiple times is perhaps user-inspired vandalism. Pam  D  22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even if you accept that a message inviting userboxes is inviting insults, that message was gone before the second edit linked to above, and after A had clearly expressed that she felt the previous addition of that userbox was vandalistic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this in favor of mentorship as above. The block is built into that proposal if mentorship does not yield results or if the editor does not accept mentoring.  Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   18:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This block will stop me from editing articles and yes I have made mistakes on them but not enough for a block. Please consider letting me be and I promise with both my hearts that I will try to be a better behaved person. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now in favour of mentorship, particularly regarding interactions with other editors. I'm not sure she has the maturity to know how rude she is being. She may be just copying others, trying to be "Smart". (There's a lot of it about!!)Harkey (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose indef - support giving WTT a chance to work his magic once again. (he's got a good track record). — Ched : ?  21:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Androzaniamy has already declined Worm's offer of adoption, and has already told him off in giving future advice .  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Yikes, I remember reading about this user at least a month or so ago. We're still here? Flip rejection of mentorship as recently as 5 days ago despite blindingly obvious need for mentorship suggests that that route is not an option; which is a shame, because it'd otherwise be an obvious and viable option. Readily apparent that editor wishes to but is for whatever reason incapable of contributing without disrupting. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Editor was given the option of mentoring, twice and flat-out snidely refused. It appears the only reason they wish so now is to avoid the obviously inevitable block.  Complete inability to edit within the norms and policies of this community.  Support indef, with full extension of WP:OFFER with the standard 6 months working at another Wikimedia project and requisite adoption at time of unblock. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To both of you guys, I would say a forced mentor ship would be the better option because the conditions state that failure to get a mentor will result in a block but if they do get a mentor, the block will be avoided as long as she does what the mentor expects of them. I would offer mentorship myself if I had more experience on Wikipedia.  There is no doubt there are some policies I lack knowledge of but, there is one thing I know and that is WP:BLOCK clearly states that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive.  I would consider this block to be punitive because it is apparent in this situation that an alternate route to fixing this problem is available and that immediately blocking this user, who may mean well by what I am seeing, that clearly doesn't know that what they are doing is disruptive does not go well in my book.  If I were that user, I would be driven away as soon as I were blocked.  Being indefinitely blocked is not a good feeling and believe me I had first hand experience on that one.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,351,764 ) 11:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the second time in two days that you've harped on the merry meme that blocks are not punitive. While I happen to agree that blocks must be preventative, in this case you are basically missing the whole point of the policy. This block would most definitely be preventative: it would prevent this user from actively disrupting Wikipedia any further. Wikipedia does not work on a turn-the-other-cheek basis out of fear that we might end up biting the occasional disruptive newbie; if an editor is disruptive and has been repeatedly afforded the chance of mending his or her ways but, through refusal or sheer inability, has failed to do so, the only option is a block until such a time as he or she shows he or she is able to edit in a constructive and collegial fashion. In the end, we are all here to build an encyclopaedia. If one cannot work to that end, the only choice is to remove him or her from the project until he or she can. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and from the well-known essay on Mentorship: "Involuntary mentorship has a very poor track record and is not recommended". For example, the mentee can feign acceptance and do squat all with the advice and assistance provided.  The best form of mentorship is by doing, and as this editor shows no desire to "do" according to norm, then go elsewhere and learn to get along with others, then come back when you're willing to "do" ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from, but, of there's even the slightest chance that mentoring will get her on the right track even reluctantly, I would rather go for it.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,363,273 ) 12:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cyberpower, Mercy11 and Nat Gertler.-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 22:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per Captain_Screebo,Timotheus Canens and Hersfield the consensus as per this section and preceding section almost all favour indef block or Mentorship if it fails then indef block but the user has declined mentorship twice as Bwilkins and WTT rightly say involuntary mentorship will not work for her.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - actually - according to my quick assessment, it was eight all before your comment. Prefer mentorship, or just letting the natural course of events through the users editing to occur. You  really  can  10:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to close this as no consensus - Its unfair to leave it open longer when its clear that users are split on this. Please find another solution and close this.  You  really  can  22:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Editor has agreed to adoption. There is not sufficient consensus for an block. Opinions vary as to whether adoption is a solution or a waste of time; however further discussion is unlikely to change any editor's mind at this point. Nobody Ent 18:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note:  She has requested to be adopted by Worm That Turned.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,579,504 ) 18:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The threat of an indefinite block changed her mind? No surprise there, more time-wasting to ensue. We'll be back here soon enough.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. It could be because of the threat or she could've finally realized that a mentor is necessary.  Let's see what happens.  I'm willing to see this through and commit to observing this.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,581,506 ) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you checked out any of Androzaniamy's talk page conversations yet? I'm confident they will change your mind.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, otherwise, I wouldn't have participated here. I'm believer of second chances and it's possible she turned over a new leaf and it's possible she is doing it reluctantly.  What matter's to me is that she is taking personal initiative on her own.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,583,559 ) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've already made your opinion of this proposed block, which is why I reverted your attempted close. The editor did not "agree" to adoption, she only "agreed" to avoid a block.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter why they accept a mentor, just that they do. - There is not even any consensus for a block - there is as much consensus that you acted poorly and harassed the user as there is to block anyone - your continued involvement in this reflects badly on you, it would be better if you avoided further commenting and further reverting. You  really  can  19:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only been two days, it's not a SNOW situation, and there's no pressing need for a closure now, much less one by an involved non-administrator (we have a well established process for discussion closure). There's no harm in letting discussion play out.  Swarm   X 19:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We do??? I would sincerely appreciate link to documentation of well established process. (Previous request here and some discussion here) Nobody Ent 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best you remain uninvolved in this discussion.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,586,709 ) 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - as Bwilkins says, they've been given two offers of adoption already, and they were told to pick one weeks ago. Now that a block is being discussed, they're obviously running back to Worm. Although I have the utmost confidence in WTT as a mentor, I think it would be an utter waste of time in this particular instance.  Swarm   X 19:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - it may be a waste of my time, but I'd say it's my time to waste! I fully intend to accept Androzaniamy's request. She can see here that the community is almost at the end of its tether, which hopefully will focus her on improving. I'm more than willing to summarily block an editor if I see no chance of improvement, and I would do so in heartbeat here too.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If my only objection was that I thought mentorship would be ineffective, I'd still oppose a block in favor of mentorship. I have complete faith in you as a mentor, and as a sysop who will block if need be. My objection is based on the fact that I don't believe this user even wants mentorship. The problem is that they had several weeks to voluntarily choose a mentor, and didn't do so. Instead, they run to a mentor after the community began discussing a block. It appears so completely disingenuous, that I don't see the point. So it's not so much that I think you'd be wasting your time with a good faith editor who wants to improve. It's more that mentorship isn't an arbitrary get out of jail free card.  Swarm   X 02:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Block her and get this over with. She has shown that she is unwilling to see the light. While I highly respect WTT as a colleague, I personally think that he is wasting his time here. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some very able and highly intelligent people who function really well in the particular fields that they are attracted to. However, these people find it difficult to function in the socio-linguistic area, particularly in absorbing the different registers. Wikipedia has a confusing number of registers, Article pages (where, say, pop music pages have a different register from history), Article talk pages, User pages, User talk pages,policies,etc. There are various degrees of camaraderie between individuals and groups where editors use different ways of communicating (such as fish slapping).The people I am talking about find humour problematic as it relies on shared social understanding. They become flustered when they have to deal with a lot of people and are particularly likely to react in ways that many would consider to be badly when they feel threatened. Does Wikipedia have a place for these people as editors? They have as much or little to offer in their chosen fields as anyone else. Maybe it would be better to show some understanding, back off, let WTT try mentoring and give him our fullest support.--Harkey (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'd support a temporary block (long enough for the user to rethink their editing style) if it can be shown that the user has received an escalating series of warnings, whether templated or otherwise. It's fine to advise a user against certain behaviour but we can't jump from such advice to a block without ensuring that one of those advices warned of blocking as a possibility.  Claret Ash  04:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Close requested
I've restored this discussion from the archive for closure by an uninvolved admin. Please close the three proposals listed above. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)