Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255

Loomspicker again
I've raised this issue here before, but the user in question oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days while the thread was open. To sum up, User:Loomspicker is a single-purpose account devoted to pretending Islamophobia doesn't exist by scrubbing the word from Wikipedia, and in the service of this crusade, has engaged in a number of prohibited behaviors. In addition to the evidence detailed here, which includes the introduction of factual inaccuracy, blanking sourced material, and adding scare quotes, he has more recently continued to misrepresent sources, remove sourced material , delink pages in an apparent attempt to orphan them so they can be deleted , and otherwise edit in a disruptive and POV manner. Please deal with this even if the user goes inactive in order to avoid scrutiny. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I take this to ANI instead? Either way, I don't want this to be archived without being addressed simply because the user stopped editing right when the thread opened. That's what happened last time, and obviously he simply resumed the disruptive behavior as soon as it seemed like no one was looking anymore. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More of an ANI thing IMO, but since it's here, I'll reply here. (Nowadays apparently you're supposed to use some accursed template to move a thread to ANI, and I can't away with it.) It would be easier to take stock of the situation if you provided a link to where you raised the issue before, Roscelese. If they repeatedly go inactive when they're under scrutiny, and not at other times, then that's significant, but I'd like to see for myself. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC).
 * ...It's already linked in my first post? But here is the link again. link –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, yes, this sort of thing should be over at WP:ANI, since it's an "incident", so to speak, regarding another user. As far as I (non-admin) know, WP:AN is more for general announcements and requests, while WP:ANI deals more with user behavior. Ansh666 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support block or topic ban rom Islam for Loomspicker. I have been going through this editors contributions and he is clearly anti-Muslim, goes around articles related to Muslims and puts derogotary information about them as well as other unsavoury edits. Pass a Method   talk  15:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I share Roscelese's and Pass a Method's concerns, which I also had after seeing this edit which removed five sources. The fact that these same types of edits are occurring across multiple articles is troubling. I'm not sure if a block is required, but a topic ban should definitely be put on the table for discussion.- MrX 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That edit was about what should be included in the article, not necessarily vandalism. Our talk page discussion on the issue clearly shows that. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said it was vandalism, only that it seems to be part of a pattern of erasing the concept of Islamaphobia from Wikipedia by Loomspicker. - MrX 00:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Very weak support based on review of edits over the past few days. Some seem to be done with the agenda of removing any sense of "racism" from Islamophobia pages and to cast Islam in a bad light. But based on the evidence presented by Roscelese, the user does seem to have an agenda and is barely here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?
I propose a topic ban for Loomspicker from all Islam-related articles. Pass a Method  talk  22:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

On HiyoHiyo article
On article HiyoHiyo, I created for the subject's request. Another user is saying negative things about subject of article; they are person involved with the off-wiki harassment. The name is LINDA. LINDA has caused internet controversey before. Their website is here. (Sorry not good English) --Playabeacha (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A little help on a minor matter
I was unable to move File:Hippodrome.jpg to Commons using CommonsHelper (a communications problem with the tool) or CommonsHelper2 (probably my fault), so I moved the image by hand to File:New York Hippodrome.jpg (because there was already a file there by the other name). However, it seems that the file has a talk page with content in it. The content is negligible, and should really be on Talk:New York Hippodrome instead. I could move it, but that would break the copyright - so could an admin with a few minutes time please move the content, merge the histories of File talk:Hippodrome.jpg and Talk:New York Hippodrome and then delete the former, or whatever the proper procedure is? I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

template uw-block
Should we update template uw-block to warn users that "pinging" or otherwise using notifications to flag other editors may result in loss of talk page access? NE Ent 02:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds risky ala WP:Beans. PaleAqua (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And unnecessary. We don't need to provide a specific do and don't list to blocked users - they will do what they do, which will show what it shows, and consequences will or will not be forthcoming, depending on situation and circumstances, which I doubt we could fully explicate even if we wanted to.  What's wrong with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I might be a bit slow on the uptake today. Do you mean blocked users repeatedly "pinging" others in order to pester them with the little red notification box? Reyk  YO!  04:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe NE Ent's comment was sparked by Tumbleman's talk page access being removed by JamesBWatson after Tumbleman repeatedly pinged IRWolfie, with whom he had had disputes which were the root cause of Tumbleman's being blocked. See Tumbleman's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That and what occurred at User talk:Retrolord. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 08:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppose someone violates an interaction ban or topic ban by repeatedly hitting the thanks button on the edits of someone they shouldn't interact with or on a topic they should avoid. That would of course be a violation (with no need to spell it out in the rules) that could end in a block, but can you still thank people for their edits while you are blocked from editing? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's try that out, shall we? Just kidding. IMO it would have to be proven that it's not genuine (aka intended to be disruptive or in violation of the ban) - do interaction/topic bans explicitly include thanking? Ansh666 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can not thank someone for an edit while blocked. I recently raised the question of disabling pings from a curious perspective.—John Cline (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * John, what do you mean about "can not"? Is it technically disabled, or are you making an emphatic "must not"?  Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not technically capable, whether it was disabled by design, or simply a bug that needn't be fixed, I do not know, but the (thank) link does not appear for a blocked user.—John Cline (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mops at the ready
There's a pretty big backlog of requests at requests for unblock, the majority of which are from COI/username blocks. Meet you there?--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's my usual hangout ... but not allowed to with this ID :-)  ES  &#38;L  21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The last time I looked at your performance in that area (12-18 months ago) it was seriously problematical. You were driving such editors underground by banning usernames that openly flagged their COI but didn't breach policy as, "purely promotional", and supporting the blocking and other harassment of COI editors simply for declaring their COI. If that hasn't changed, then I hope you keep well away. If you return to that area with those behaviours intact, I'll be calling for you to be formally banned from dealing with COI editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be the funniest thing I have read in months. Thanks for that.  You'll have to stop letting your irrational dislike for me to stop getting between you and your keyboard  ES  &#38;L  09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike you at all. I admire you. But you were behaving foolishly, along with User:Orangemike and others, in a very difficult area - COI editing - a while back and driving COI editors underground, just about the worst outcome we could have wanted. I'm hoping that's changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your absence is certainly noted.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Too many cooks, not enough bottle-washers. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh oh
Nakon's toolserver account has [http://toolserver.org/~nakon/autoblockfinder.php? expired] - no more rangeblock calculator or autoblock finder. Does anyone know if any of these tools were moved to Labs? I have other rangeblock calculators I can use, but the autoblock finder is particularly concerning.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it's licensed under the GPLv2 so I'll see if I can bring it up on my account.--v/r - TP 00:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to email Nakon and let them know I took a copy of their tool, but feel free to use this. Please don't update any links though.  If Nakon restores their account or asks me to take my copy down, then it'll be pointless.--v/r - TP 00:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the stop gap. Note that the link to Nakon's tool is included in at least one template (i.e the unblock granted template used here). --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bidgee 's edit warring on Telstra article
This user reverts edits without reason, refuses to explain his reasons on TALK page, and deleted attempts to TALK on his user page. Pls review and help. Thanks Jimbob96 (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AN/3RR? ES  &#38;L  11:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone bothers to look and research, there is a single editor who socks by using a number of usernames and IPs (even YuMaNuMa picked up on it) to push though content that isn't supported not just by editors but facts. I'm tired of POV-pushers using socking to get what they want and not the unbiased facts, as far as I'm concerned I've given up on Wikipedia, it is a lost cause and no wonder why it's losing valued contributors. Bidgee (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimbob blocked, and one of his IPs also. Feel free to report additional accounts or IP addresses to me, and I'll happily block them.  Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR claim
I see from their site that they claim a 'staff of 45 Wikipedia editors and admins'. Has there been any sign that they have a WP admin on their books? If true, would the standing of such an admin be affected here? I'm not asking for outing, or unfounded allegations. Just a sort of yes or no, and what if. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC) -- Auric    talk  12:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Of course their standing would be affected by this. Assuming they are being paid for being associated with a company, they have the possibility of doing serious damage. Among other things, they could hypothetically delete revisions unfavorable to them, protect articles in a dispute over content to something favorable, block accounts that are causing problems for them and be the judge of (deletion) discussions where they could pose as a neutral party when they are not. Being an administrator and being associated with Wiki-PR is a no-no. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also dug up this link to past discussions.-- Auric    talk  13:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There has recently been extensive discussion of Wiki-PR at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 144. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened to WP:AGF Moe? This whole thing is a big ABF witch hunt imo.--v/r - TP 16:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good faith is acting with detachment (as one paid for cannot, as they are attached) - good faith is (without other commitment) acting. Pretense is the opposite of acting in good faith, and failing to disclose a financial COI is acting under pretense that one does not have another commitment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with good faith. Good faith is trusting others.  Being paid is not contradictory to improving the encyclopedia.  Ya'all haven't proved Wiki-PR has harmed the encyclopedia.  That makes this a witch hunt because they give you the "wee bee gee bees".  Salem Witch Trials anyone?--v/r - TP 17:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Have you just assumed bad faith? Salem Witch trials? Did you read good faith? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you address my point? Has any evidence been submitted that demonstrates Wiki-PR is a net negative?--v/r - TP 17:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Salem fucking Witch Trials. When is that allegory going to be officially declared "lame"? Soon... Doc   talk  18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although there is no conclusive evidence, the thinking goes that such a team of editors and admins could essentially WP:OWN articles and insert NPOV material unopposed.  Konveyor   Belt  18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought witch trials was your point. But sure. This discussion is one example: it undermines the basis for assuming good faith. Moreover, it casts doubt upon the articles created by people who are not upfront about their paid interest.  In every edit there is one judge of V; NPOV; NOR; and BLP and that is the User who makes it; sure others may come along and and debate it or even revert it -- sometimes. But where the judge has been paid for the edit, there is no basis for faith in the judgment, where the judge is not honest about the other interest they serve. It misleads our readers to present it otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc, if you have another historical reference for trying someone w/o evidence and concluding them guilty and sentencing them, please share it. Konveyor - The thinking may go, but that's why we have a policy WP:AGF.  @ASW - I'm sorry, are you saying the act of defending someone proves their guilt?  No sir, that's a logical fallacy.  Show me evidence.  Or are you accusing me of being one of the 'secret admins'?  If so, prove it or find yourself at ANI.  (Since you can't, because I'm not, you need to rephrase your comment)--v/r - TP 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What? You are accusing you, which would be much more damaging to you than anything I have said. My comment said nothing about defending someone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A reliable assessment of the impact of Wiki-PR presumably requires a list of their accounts. Is there one ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be the easy way, but not the only way. So you're saying we can accuse and try someone because they don't make it easy to convict them?  Do the work or this is all a witch hunt.--v/r - TP 18:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I said "A reliable assessment of the impact of Wiki-PR presumably requires a list of their accounts. Is there one ?"  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Talkin' like a witch hunter. Witch hunters deserve no answers. Doc   talk  18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For a list of (some of) their accounts, see here and here. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, without even having to look at a single edit, and assuming those accounts have been connected to Wiki-PR, there's evidence that one or more Wiki-PR editors have used deception via sockpuppetry and resources have been wasted having to deal with it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The casepage says it's not socking.--v/r - TP 20:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEAT is part of the sock-puppet policy. So is "editing under multiple IP addresses [...] where it is done deceptively." I presented evidence of the latter in the cases that were closed without investigation (search for the word "Pleasanton"). &mdash; rybec   20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A more precise phrasing would therefore be to say "via WP:PUPPET policy violations, primarily WP:MEAT" rather than "via sockpuppetry". So this case is rather like Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying, with financial gain replacing nationalism as a motivating factor. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * TParis: The original question that I answered was whether the standing of an administrator be damaged by being paid by Wiki-PR or not. I still believe it would be. It's not a question of whether the material being put into Wikipedia is acceptable or not, they are paid a lot of money so that it sticks and isn't PROD'ed or AFD'ed. The problem is that editors associated with Wiki-PR are being deceptive by pretending to not have a conflict of interest, which certainly being paid to edit does make you have one. It's doubly so for an administrator though, because you're in a position of power which means you have the nod from the community to go ahead do what you like as long as it seemingly fits within a policy. There's not much to assume good faith on because if you haven't directly declared that you're a paid editor, as an administrator, you're going to cast doubt as to whether your administrative actions were in fairness and all your past actions would be given a second look, which to me tarnishes your reputation as an admin. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  19:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're assuming those editors value the payment more than Wikipedia. I've been paid to write an article before and I had no problem putting Wikipedia first.  It wasn't a ton of money, but that's not the point.  The point is, you have to judge people by their edits and not because of who they work for.  If you can't find anything wrong with the edits (and let me once again repeat that no evidence of misbehavior has been found and a user has now been blocked not because of his edits but because of who he works for) then there is no problem.--v/r - TP 19:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is not an assumption, it is a documented, evidenced problem . Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so where are the bad edits?--v/r - TP 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the article? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the LTA or SPI for Morning277? There's plenty of deleted tripe in there.  There's plenty of obvious PR fluff added to Priceline's subsidiaries, and although it's not the worst stuff in the world, it's still PR fluff.  There's plenty of other horrible Wiki-PR edits easily trackable, but for the most part I've given up tracking them until it's clear what we're going to do regarding them now that the SPI is closed.  By itself, the fact that Wiki-PR that was responsible for the series of events that resulted in the departure or effective departure of multiple long-term highly productive editors is enough to say they're a net negative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, seriously TP, 'no evidence of misbehavior has been found'? Between the LTA and SPI cases and what has happened in private channels, people have spent hundreds of hours compiling evidence of misbehavior by Wiki-PR, and there's been plenty of it. Are you thinking of the cban for Alex's group that passed a few days ago?  They are a different group of people and should not be conflated. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kevin, I am. Which group is that guy then?--v/r - TP 22:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion (and blocked account) from several days ago involved Alex_Konanykhin's WikiExperts.us. They generally only accept high profile clients and make an effort to stay within at least a couple margins of neutrality so that they don't get outed.  The people involved in Wiki-PR create huge numbers of really shitty articles, and don't try to approach anything resembling neutrality on their higher profile clients. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad then. In that case, all of my arguments thus far were meant for WikiExperts.--v/r - TP 22:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question that I am not sure has been answered: it seems highly dubious they have admins on their payroll. That said, I think that we would benefit significantly from having an open conversation about what we are going to do about this clearly identified, clearly problematic issue. I would encourage people to avoid further discussion of unrelated matters (like WikiExperts) in this thread, and if anyone wants to hat my off-topic comments, please feel free to do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please archive my talk page
This is User:Salvidrim!, I'm logged out cause I'm not home. I just created User talk:Salvidrim/Archive8 to archive part of my talk page but some automated anti-vandal filter prevents me from removing the same sections from my main talk page as an IP. Please just remove sections up to and including User talk:Salvidrim! with the summary "manually archiving per request"... thanks. 66.129.141.197 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done: :)  equazcion   →  13:28, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are your archives at a different username (one with no exclamation point (!))? Ah, none of my business. Rgrds. --64.85.214.181 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually only this new one that's at the non-exclamation version, or so it looks. Could just be a mistake. equazcion   →  14:03, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... I was renamed from Salvidrim to Salvidrim! a few months back and my existing archives were moved & renamed but I never updated the links on my talk page's archive box, so the new one was created at my previous username. It's not a problem, since I still control both SULs... I'll just fix it at some point today. Cheers, and thanks Equazcion! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A second opinion please
Hello. I have been recently blocked for 24 hrs period for alleged edit-warring on Boro Primorac article, I have decided not to appeal due it's short period however I believe putting me on some warning list is way to harsh. You can see me reporting Timbouctou (a user who has been blocked and warned several times before for similar transgressions) at WP:AN3. The final result was that I was also blocked and put on a warning list. Now it is my deepest conviction I did not deserve this kind of treatment because: 1. I did not break the 3RR at the moment I reported this incident. I made only three reverts and the situation already diffused. My final edit which I added later along with the valid reference shows and proves I was right the entire time. 2. By the subjective opinion of the moderator who handled this issue I was also, allegedly, edit-warring. But the question remains: is reverting a disruptive (and unsourced) editing of an aggressive user, who BTW followed me to that article just to instigate a conflict, edit-warring? By such logic any action of reverting disruptive editing can be interpreted as edit-warring. And 3. If you look at my history (I am on Wikipedia about 2 years now) I have never ever been in such dispute as this, nor have I ever been even warned for anything similar. And now I am blocked and warned for something someone else did...I accept that perhaps a part of responsibility lies in my corner but surely I shouldn't have been treated the same way as the other person in question - the other user was not even put on a warning list for that same article. So I ask for a second opinion and is this really fair? I feel this was blown out of proportions, the main issue was 3RR violation by the other user. I ask that you review how justified it is for me to be placed on that warning list. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Warning list": what do you mean? This edit?  If so, you've not been placed on a warning list; this is basically something saying "In case you didn't know, these articles are treated differently, so be extra careful to edit within the guidelines, since doing otherwise will quickly result in a block".  Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you are asking a few different questions there. One is "were you really edit warring" and the answer to that is yes. Unless you were undoing blatant vandalism there is never an excuse for edit warring. Nobody is in the right in an edit war, anyone who participates in one is in the wrong. I hope that clears up that point.
 * As to the list, it is a list of many users who have been warned that they are editing in area where there are sanctions in place. It does not confer any special status, you are not under any personal restrictions, it is merely a log stating that you were warned about the general sanctions in this area so that if you violate the terms of those sanctions and are blocked for it you can't turn around and say nobody told you they existed. It's not a mark of shame or anything, just a log for the sake of clarity. If you don't want to be affected by it you can either make sure you abide by the terms of the sanctions or just don't edit in that topic area anymore. It is no more complicated than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah...thank you Nyttend and Beeblebrox for replying. I interpreted that list as some type of warning where I would get some special attention or something. If it's only a notice list then I don't have a problem with it. As for my block, yes, I consider I wasn't edit-warring but reverting obvious disruptive behavior. You can see from my edits that I was reverting to the original consensus version of the article which the user in question was trying to change without discussion or references and IMO followed me there just to instigate conflict. However since the block was already applied and expired I guess that issue is already settled, I don't see how I can remedy that. Anyway thank you both for replying. Shokatz (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, editing the Boro Primorac article is under discretionary sanctions? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 1:50 pm, Today (UTC−7)


 * It falls under ARBMAC, which applies to "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted". Given that the edit war was about whether this footballer is Croatian or Bosnian, the ARBMAC discretionary sanctions apply (although I'm open to a different interpretation). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that Shokatz's claim that "If you look at my history (I am on Wikipedia about 2 years now) I have never ever been in such dispute as this, nor have I ever been even warned for anything similar" is quite simply not true. I've personally warned the user about edit warring here. The user regularly edit wars on Croatian related subjects to try to WP:WIN content disputes, often violating the 3RR in the process. See Talk:2013_enlargement_of_the_European_Union/Archive_1, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798 and, , , , , where the user made 4 reverts in a little over two hours. The user has demonstrated a lack of understanding of WP:3RR, and their usual response is to deny or rationalize having violated the policy citing "vandalism" or "disruption" as excuses, even when (as in this case) there is an obvious bright line 3RR violation (ie "I am convinced I did not break the 3RR, the fourth edit was added after the reported incident and it included a reference which ended the entire charade"). TDL (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When I said I was never warned LIKE THIS I was obviously talking about moderators not about users who were in "content dispute" with me...which BTW I had only 2 of such cases in my entire time at Wikipedia prior to this. And funny you should complain after all this time since I clearly remember you being a participant of that same incident. Erasing official sources without discussion or consensus. The entire issue was settled when it was ME who stepped back and when you accepted to leave those sources as you should have done in the first place. And as far as I remember it was I who started the entire discussion on the talk page although it was you who was removing references from the article. Saying "The user regularly edit wars on Croatian related subjects" is a fallacious and offensive statement. WP:CIVIL anyone? Shokatz (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then your memory is mistaken as I never removed any official sources. In fact, I agreed with you that the source should not be removed.  And the entire incident was actually resolved when you complained to ANI that multiple long-standing, good standing editors were "clone accounts" without any evidence and made WP:Hitler attacks that their edits were "vandalism" even though it was clearly a content dispute, which led to the article being full protected.
 * You have also been warned for edit warring on a Croatian issue here
 * There are plenty of other recent examples where you edit war on Croatian related subjects. Just from the last couple weeks I found:, , ; , , ; , , ; , , ; , ,.
 * Obviously I am interested in Croatia-related subjects. I have never made that a secret and I was always very open with that. Also I am not exactly sure what is your motivation for this entire "show" of yours, although I can guess by the way you are choosing certain edits of mine and making baseless out of context comments. So since I don't really want to spend any more time on you, I will just say this - if you think I am such a disruptive menace for Wikipedia, feel free to report me. It's simple as that. Over and out. Shokatz (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Block appears MORE than valid. They have also been made aware of discretionary sanctions on Balkans articles - which is simply SOP.  No issues with block, or the "adding to the list of warned users"  ES  &#38;L  23:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

RFPP
WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged. Admins get your mop ready, ... and mop it away. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We will have to get you a mop of your own, one of these days -- Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Caught up as of right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Armbrust isn't an admin! Good grief. I hate that overused expression, so much that I won't use it, but this should be rectified?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He keeps getting picked up for edit warring, alas. If he could just keep that block log clear for a year or so, I will nom him myself. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel
I'm here with a simple issue. While attempting to continue a major overhaul and merging of Dungeons & Dragons content I noticed that Folken de Fanel made 36 redirects in the court of 22 minutes from 23:42 on October 4 to 00:04 October 5. Each of these redirects bore the edit summary "restore merge per a previous consensus". Whether or not the previous consensus from 3 years ago is valid, the edit summary is very misleading because Folken de Fanel did not carry out any merger at all. It was just a blank and redirect, resulting in dozens of pages being redirect loops, breaking over a hundred pages of links and removing a large amount of content under a misleading edit summary. I've gone and rollbacked these redirects; not on the grounds of contesting them as "keeps", but on keeping the content up while an actual merging process goes on. I have zero intention of keeping these pages beyond the time needed for merging in. I ask that these pages remain so Folken de Fanel does not promptly re-redirect them out and threaten me with ANI. I am not seeking any action against Folken; I do not have the time or energy to argue. These pages will be likely all gone within the week. Thank you for reading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirecting does not remove content. If these are truly pages that were up for AFD years ago, and the results were merge + redirect, and no one bothered to merge in those three years, FdF is in the right to simply redirect - any editor can still get at the old content and add what is necessary. --M ASEM (t) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They were not AFDed, they were discussed briefly three years ago in that link. Mass breaking content including links and entire groups of pages is not "merging"; Folken de Fanel did not merge the content as his edit summary stated. I've already begun redirecting them again. But I must sleep and more will be taken care of tomorrow. Also, the original mergers were contentious and not redirected out or had additional discussion prior to Folken's re-reverting. If you check that link, you will see I have re-redirected (kept categories) the page out again. This is a brief and temporary solution to not break the rest of the Forgotten Realms content area. Whether or not I can recover the content in four-five additional steps means little when hundreds of readers will miss out unnecessarily. I find this option the best route and not deter, confuse or otherwise hinder readers who seek out the page's content until I can tidy the rest up on a list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better justification for your use of WP:Rollback? I don't see that it was necessary or allowed by the guideline. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: really? Chris has been rapidly taking care of all this in the last couple of weeks.  And you've no problem with someone using a clearly false edit summary?  Oyi. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How is "restore merge per a previous consensus" "clearly false"? I don't see an implication in "restore merge" that FdF is redoing the merges at the list article. Talk:List of Forgotten Realms deities/Archive 1 is a valid wikilink to an archived discussion. The articles I spot-checked are in the discussed list. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: #1 the articles were never merged, just redirected as far as I can tell. I see no evidence of any attempt to merge either years ago or this time.  #2 Even if there was a merge at some point, redirecting isn't "restoring a merge" because, again, there is no merging being done. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC) clarified Hobit (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Redirecting without copying anything is allowed by the last paragraph of WP:Merging. The wording dates back to and . You participated in the 2010 discussion, and you had 3 years to raise the issue with Neelix or edit the articles directly, as . Requiring FdF to investigate and be responsible for Neelix's 3-year-old edits is unreasonable. 2) An edit summary like "revert to redirect per a previous consensus" would be more precise, but I think that describing FdF's "restore merge" as "clearly false" – in the context of your other comments, implying willful deception – is a gross exaggeration. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merging does not require any material to be brought into the main article, if none of that material is new or appropriate, as long as that fact is checked. And as long as it is simply a redirect and not a delete, recreate and redirect, the content before the merge+redirect can be reviewed without admin assistance and brought in if the editor believes the fact was missed. --M ASEM (t) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting assertion, but completely unsupported by WP:MERGE: "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page. Merging creates a redirect from the source page(s) to the destination page, with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page." If no content was copied, then it wasn't a merger, it was a redirection without merging. While a merge includes a redirect as part of the process, what differentiates a merge from a redirect is the copying and pasting. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting bit of wiki-lawyering there. Don't think it's been merged properly? WP:SOFIXIT. It's in the edit history. Which is still there. So, you know, not a deletion. --Calton | Talk 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you can actually merge, though, since all but one I've looked at were entirely sourced to TSR or Wizards of the Coast publications. In other words, nothin' but primary sources. --Calton | Talk 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still not the point. There were 36 edit summaries that claimed he was merging stuff.  No merging actually happened.  He could have said "redirecting" and we'd not be here. But he didn't and we are.  There is a strong difference between merging and redirecting, that's not wiki-lawyering.Hobit (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Redirecting an article to another where the appropriate encyclopedic content - in the eye of the person doing this - is already present, is a merge; the topic that was redirected still has content available about it in WP. It would not be a merge if the person redirected the article to a target article that made zero mention of the topic that was redirected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --M ASEM (t) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that merging something, in the Wikipedia meaning of the word, doesn't actually involve merging anything? While Wikipedia certainly has terms of art that are like that, WP:MERGE says quite the opposite.  So your definition doesn't seem to work for the English meaning of the word "merge" nor the Wikipedia meaning.  Could you explain why you think your definition is correct? Hobit (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP definition, which matches the real world version is "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page." Doesn't say anything about retaining information from every page involved in the process (unless you're wikilawyering the language). The only outcome that I would expect of a merge is that the topic that is merged in is not reduced to a single mention in passing: whether this means the topic has its own section, paragraphs, one or more sentences, or a line in a table, it doesn't matter (a mention in passing would simply require a redirect). If this means that information from one page is duplicative or not appropriate encyclopedic to be inserted into the target page, so be it. --M ASEM  (t) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm wondering if you just stopped reading at that point. WP:MERGE goes on to say "with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page".  So yes, it does say something about retaining information.  As does the English definition (combine or cause to combine to form a single entity, notice the word combine...).  Are you seriously claiming that a redirect is a merge?   Hobit (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If some of the content in the article(s) to be merged already exists in the target article, then yes, some of the content has been put into the target article already. If that then leaves content that is deemed unencyclopedic and is left out, then that's what happens. (Mind you, the language "copy and pasted" is not really correct because more than likely a merge that does add more from a merged article will be edited appropriately to fit the flow of the target article during or after the merge - the attribution path should still be followed when doing so.) --M ASEM (t) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So assuming a redirect target has some information on the topic, any redirect is a merge? That is taking the English language (and Wikipedia terminology) and bending it so far on it's ear it's amazing.  Our policies speak of redirection and merging as different things on a regular basis.  I'm having a hard time coming up with an example where a redirect from an AfD wouldn't also be a merge in your use of the terminology.  I'm starting to feel like you are just yanking my chain. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A redirect (as a close action from an AFD/discussion) w/o a merge means that an editor can go and blindly replace the page contents with the right #REDIRECT, not having to worry about attribution, existing content, or the like. It may be worthwhile to consider anchors in the target article as to help the redirect link land at the right spot, but that's it. A merge w/ redirect means that the editor performing the merge should review the contents of the to-be-merged article(s) and target and carefully determine what, if any, content should be brought over, and if any content is brought in, add in tracking for attribution, before making the target page a redirect.
 * Yes, that means that a merge that doesn't bring over any information before the redirect is going to look from a 60,000 ft level like a straight redirect, but that's where AGF comes into play, that the editor performing the merge made a judgement call that no new information from the page in question was needed in the target page. And that's why merge + redirects are tons better than deletion, because any editor can go back and pull out details they felt were important that the merging editor might have omitted and add them after the merge. (I would argue we would be in a similar place if FdF pulled one sentence and added it to the target articles before redirecting, with claims "he didn't merge enough!"). If FdF did this blindly, without any prior discussion at all, sure, I would question the motives behind it, but here, FdF is doing an action discussed before, with changes that were undone in the interim. --M ASEM  (t) 15:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My last reply on this: If nothing is merged, it ain't a merge. That's pretty obvious in my book.  And as the action discussed before was a merge which never was implemented. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that you were part of the original discussion back in 2010, Hobit, if you had any objection about the amount of content moved, you had all the time to say it, or to move more content yourself. You never did, so I had no reason to assume you were not in agreement. All I did was to restore the 2010 status quo. You obviously have your own view on what a merge should be, but I see nothing here in opposition with WP:MERGE, so this discussion doesn't belong at ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ... none of which deals at all with the fact that Masem has asserted something so utterly ridiculous that it defies common sense. He's asserting that redirecting an article to a target that already contains something relevant and not adding or changing any of that content at the target article constitutes a merge, contra the definition that I quoted, and (as Hobit pointed out) he selectively re-quoted.  Masem's behavior in this matter is clearly worse than yours, Folken, because you could simply say you were going too fast and assuming that the merges had previously been done, while Masem's argument is something that's meritless, has been pointed out as meritless, and yet he maintains that it is the definition is wrong, rather than he. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Common sense would suggest that merging involves taking some portion of one thing and including it in another. But reality is not that clear-cut, especially when more than two articles are involved in the merger. We could imagine a discussion closing with consensus to merge articles A,B,C,D into article X. Now suppose that the merging editor finds that article C just repeats one of the sections of article A, and that article D is nothing but tinfoil hat gibberish sourced to the article creator's personal blog. In that case, after the merge there will be nothing of articles C and D in the merge product but I would say the whole thing still does constitute a merge. Wouldn't you? This D&D situation is the extreme end of that scale, where a lot of articles have gone into the merge discussion and some content from some of the articles has found its way into the merge target, but nothing or very little from each individual article. I agree that this is more like mass redirection than a merge, but calling it a very selective merge is not totally off the wall. (And a very selective merge is exactly what this content needs, not wholesale Ctrl-C Ctrl-V). Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  05:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit) and the last paragraph of Merging explicitly states that it's OK to simply redirect instead of merging if there is no mergeable content. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What it actually says is "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." (Emphasis mine) That is, if there's nothing to merge, than redirect it.  Don't call it a merge, because it's not.  It's not saying that there's such a thing as a merge without content added to the target, it's telling editors to use redirect instead, and be clear in their edit summaries that they are not merging but instead redirecting which is exactly what Folken de Fanel failed to do. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out over and over again, Folken was not claiming to be doing a merge. He was putting things back the way there were after someone else had undone the previously performed merges. That clearly is what "restore merge" means, and no amount of feigned incomprehension or creative misinterpretation will make it mean anything else- particularly when this has been clarified REPEATEDLY in this discussion, by Folken himself and several others. There is no dishonesty from Folken de Fanel here, as much as you obviously wish there was. If you think the original merges (or whatever you want to call them) were inadequate, take it up with User:Neelix who performed them. Otherwise, how can you call restoring an edit disruptive when you wouldn't call the original edit disruptive? And I still maintain that you could, at a stretch, call this a very selective merge anyway. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that's exactly what MERGE says on the tin - combining two or more articles into one. It doesn't say a minimum amount of an article to be merge has to survive, only that we keep attribution history and redirect so that all the prior edits can be traced. There's a distict lack of good faith here in assuming what FdF is doing is purposely harmful. --M ASEM (t) 05:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have started a RfC draft discussion at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Better history links:
 * Folken de Fanel's 36 redirects
 * ChrisGualtieri's 35 rollbacks
 * Spot-checking these articles, I see a pattern where User:Neelix proposes and performs the merger in October 2010, and an IP editor restores in December 2011. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you identify where the merging was done? I didn't notice any merging at all.  I might have missed it, but I don't think Neelix made a single edit involving content. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Neelix did merge the lead of to the lead of the list (, history). The last paragraph of WP:Merging allows for redirecting without copying, but asks that it be clearly identified in the edit summary. I prefer precise edit summaries, as they make WP:Copying within Wikipedia checking easier. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Folken de Fanel has a long history of problematic behavior, which was cataloged at a recent RFC/U. He has been blocked on multiple language Wikipedias for edit warring, including this one.  He is indefinitely banned on fr.wiki, his home language wiki, and remains indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on it.wiki.  He's had plenty of chances to shape up his contributions, but seems more intent on harassing those of us who point out his poor, uncollaborative behavior. If indeed he's making widespread use of misleading edit summaries, then it's probably time to increment the number of Wikipedias in which he's no longer welcome.  No doubt some of the same people who opined in the that RFC/U that he was being persecuted for his views will rush to his defense here, but it really falls to the greater community--how much longer will this conduct be allowed to continue? Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris has been doing a great job with the merges so far, and needs to be allowed to continue. If it helps him to have the articles live as he merges them, then I don't see a problem holding them restored for a brief time. He already merged back a few last night before logging off, and given the sheer amount of cleanup and merging work he has put in over the last week, I don't see why we can't extend a little good faith that he is going to have that taken care of quickly.  If that really is an insurmountable problem for everyone else, then since he is doing merges by going through the categories, then at least do him the favor of keeping the categories when you redirect the pages. BOZ (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Chris merging D&D articles in his own way, but he absolutely needs to master the simple courtesy of communicating with other users rather than making misguided accusations of bad faith or needlessly dragging them at ANI whenever something doesn't go exactly the way he wants.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. I noticed a comment at Articles for deletion/Mask (Forgotten Realms) explaining that a series of merges to List of Forgotten Realms deities, performed per a consensus discussion in 2010, had been restored by a disruptive IP around 2011. Some of these articles ended up at AfD recently, and I agreed with the editor's recommendation of a procedural close to redirect/merge. I went to check the discussion and all the articles that were part of the merge proposal. Indeed, most, if not all of them had been illegitimately restored by an IP, and since there were was already users asking for these articles to be redirected right away so as not to clutter AfD, I went ahead and restored the redirect, ie the merge procedure from 2010. I saw that the 2010 consensus was apparently satisfied with the short content already present beforehand in the target article, so I didn't do more than restoring the redirects that should have stayed as such. What little content was added to the articles between 2011 and now didn't amount to much, and WP:MERGE doesn't prevent only a small part of the article to be moved, so yeah, that's it. I simply returned things to the 2010 status-quo, and the accusation of "false edit summary" is at best laziness, or at worse outright and misguided assumption of bad faith from ChrisGualtieri. This is really a non-issue and a useless cluttering of ANI. ChrisGualtieri can easily access article histories and move whatever content to the target he deems necessary (something he doesn't seem to get), if he considered there were better merge targets or ways to merge, then he could just have informed me, changed the redirect target without mass-reverting me, and just proceeded (as long as he has consensus on his side). ChrisGualtieri seems to have major communication issues per his recent ANI reports, and on top of that this comes only a day after he again misguidedly assumed bad faith against me about another case of redirect, so I would not appreciate if this behavior became a trend. I have also noted that ChrisGualtieri has just created a new article, List of human deities (Dungeons & Dragons), to apparently merge all the articles in question there. I don't necessarily agree with this choice, of which ChrisGualtieri failed to notify me, and I hope this ANI report was not a way to preemptively stifle opposition.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a lot wrong with your post.|Especially since you were notified of it going to this noticeboard. You have harassed me and caused a great amount of stress and all because you are incapable of understanding when people are even on your side. In the span of two weeks, I've done more to fix the Dungeons and Dragons content than you have in your entire editing history! Deletion is a last resort and of the 100+ pages I've merged, you have the audacity to flagrantly twist my words and actions into some sniveling little behavior dispute? Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia; it is not therapy and you should not be here to fight anyone. Folken de Fanel, you are not worth MY time, and you are not worth this communities time when you refuse to understand even the most basic of reasons why I temporarily restored them: To prevent over 400 broken links that go into a redirect loop. If you had bothered to check and carry out a merger instead of creating said redirect loops, I wouldn't have rolled them back and I wouldn't have brought this here. You equate "causing stress" to a personal attack. You have caused a lot of unnecessary stress with your battleground behavior and wasted hours of time responding to your sheepish excuses and disruptive actions. Now I am going to conduct the rest of the mergers now that I have a few spare hours and maybe do some of the 500 other D&D pages that need merging or fixing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Outside of your own, obvious hostile behavior against me, I can't see anything here that belongs in ANI. I have provided all the necessary explanation in my previous comment, that you keep ignoring it and even go further in your groundless accusations speaks volumes about you. That's not the first time you've written frivolous ANI reports, so I wouldn't like you to think ANI is your go-to whenever you don't want to bother communicating. I'm not (yet) seeking sanctions against you because you're otherwise a valuable user, but I'm asking the closer of this thread to firmly remind you that ANI is not your personal alternative to civil discussion. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If one merges a number of articles which are only besourced to primary sources into a list (which is therefore similarly only sourced to primary sources), the list is just as subject to deletion as the original articles ("Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies"). Not that it would get deleted round here, as there are too many people prepared to ignore Wikipedia policy in AfDs, but I hope Chris is hoping to add some real-world notability to that article. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The plain descrption of plot and characters in fiction can and should be preferentially taken from the work itself, it is one of the places where primary sources are appropriate. since the sections of an article or the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements, there is no need for secondary sourcing of undisputed factual content, and the attempt to remove such is one of the reasons why some of us are a little apprehensive about indiscriminate merging. This attitude that we should remove ll mention whatsoever of the actual events and individuals in a fiction is thoroughly unencyclopedic. BK, you closed a very closely related discussion at AN/I --your comment above suggests to me that you are too involved in these questions to have done so.  DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet, at the same time, WP:NOT says we don't burden topics with too much detail taken from primary sources even if it is verifiable. If no secondary source has bothered to do a more detailed discussion or review of the fiction, we should not be going into that great detail ourselves. The articles FdF is merging rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing, and as such, a lot of that content has to be trimmed out in the merge to make the target article appropriate for Wikipedia. --M ASEM (t) 06:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I closed the ANI as it was getting off the point (towards RFC/U territory) and there was no admin action required. As for the above, I don't see how merely stating Wikipedia policy is at all contentious. As Masem says, if "the articles ... rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing" then we shouldn't be creating a bigger article with the same problem.  Since the individual items are non-notable, the one reason for having such a list (navigation) does not apply.  To say "the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements" is flat out wrong - there has no be notability for the main subject of the list, and that means secondary sources. Otherwise we could create lists of, well, pretty much anything non-notable using the same criteria. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * DnD's use of deities (and how it changes between settings and over time) is certainly a subject that has received outside coverage. Now, I don't think the current organization in any way promotes the effective presentation of that coverage, and the merges (by race of fictional adherent? seriously?) don't seem at the moment to be creating any better of a situation. But the topic does pass N, because you could go write Gods in Dungeons & Dragons and that would be a real article on a notable topic. --erachima talk 10:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At which point, due to its length, List of deities in Dungeons & Dragons is a valid WP:SPINOUT (if not worthy of being that topic's main article in its own right). I don't remember the precise bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP but it's always been my understanding (after reading it long ago) that if a list is on a notable topic, the individual items in said list do not necessarily need to pass N themselves (and this is why, my not-yet-caffinated brain continues remembering, merging to a list is often a good idea at AfD). That said, we shouldn't necessarily merge wholesale from fails-N articles to a list, instead using "X is Y, and is recognised in-universe for Z" in a single paragraph at most in the list with the article redirected there. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- I do not see how FdF's edit summaries are deceitful. It's very clear that he is not claiming to actually be merging anything. Rather, he explicitly states that he is returning these pages to their post-merge state and links to the discussion where the merges were proposed. That much is obvious from reading the edit summaries. And if that wasn't clear enough, he's said much the same thing here at this ill-thought-out ANI thread. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Realistically, since we're not even prepared to put any constraints on Claritas' freedom to roam the fiction topic area removing content at will, there's no point even discussing Folken de Fanel. Unlike Claritas, FdF doesn't have a history of bad faith. I do seriously question the community's judgment on this.  I think it's a horrible mistake to let these users blunder about the fiction topic area like loose cannons, and I feel we could save ourselves a lot of future drama and heartache with a few judicious topic bans.  But the community won't stomach it, so move on.— S Marshall  T/C 15:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Primarily because if we topic banned everyone who did anything controversial, nothing would ever get done. --erachima talk 15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I still can't see anything "controversial" or any "blunder" that I would have done in this case. In 2010, a consensus discussion established that a series of articles were to be merged, and several users, including some who have contributed here, approved the move, as well as the amount of content being merged (perfectly in compliance with WP:Merging). In 2011, a disruptive IP reverted the redirects against consensus and without discussion. In 2013, some of these restored articles ended up at AfD, where a member of the D&D project noticed the IP's disruptions and remarked these articles were better restored back to redirects rather than cluttering AfD. Following the said AfD I found all the other articles in question and in perfect accordance with my edit summaries, merely restored them back to their 2010 status, which should never have been changed. If there was anything controversial or any blunder, it lies with the original disruptive IP and the misguided user who overreacted by opening this thread in blatant assumption of bad faith instead of just trying to properly understand the situation, or even to initiate simple communication. End of story.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A three-year-old consensus of three users is your justification for this, right?— S Marshall T/C 18:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, WP:CONSENSUS is one of our major policies. I hope, also per your ambiguous edit summary, that you're not suggesting it could be trumped by WP:INCLUSIONISM ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies are like scripture; somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules you can find support for any position no matter how extreme. I'm sure you'll be able to trot out other policy-based excuses as well. What I'm suggesting is that you're justifying your actions on the basis of a three-year-old consensus of three users.— S Marshall T/C 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And comments at AfD. And support in this very thread. Your point being...?Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point being that there's considerable good faith doubt about your edits in this topic area and you should not continue with them until the consensus is clearer.— S Marshall T/C 19:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And there has been objection to this consensus...where? (Somebody coming along and deciding "oooh boy I can make this article on my favourite fictional deity/Transformer/Pokemon!" doesn't count.) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I don't see those doubts in this discussion. Or at least they failed to garner consensus, which unfortunately forces me to consider them unreasonable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)#
 * Okay, well those of us who aren't The Bushranger or Folken de Fanel can see the doubts in this very thread. You're not "unfortunately forced to consider them unreasonable", FdF.  You apparently choose to consider them unreasonable because it suits your purposes to do so.  As I've said before, there's no chance of this leading to a topic ban of any kind because you've shown no bad faith on en.wiki recently, but there's a wide gulf between the absence of a topic ban and the ringing endorsement of your actions that you're pretending is happening here.— S Marshall  T/C 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent} (Comment self removed - comment was twisted to a personal attack and I rather remove it as withdrawn in apologies to Folken ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC) )
 * Folken de Fanel has not been lying, either here or in his edit summaries, as has been conclusively proven in this discussion. The only poor behaviour I have seen is your misuse of rollback. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Folken restored a bunch of redirects that had been left behind after another editor's merge of those articles, stating so explicitly in his edit summaries, which also link back to the merge discussion. Your position is that not enough of the articles made it into the merge target for it to really be called a merge and therefore Folken's edit summaries are deliberately dishonest. What a load of bullshit. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I split my reply into numbered items:
 * FdF's edit summaries and merging versus redirecting have been thoroughly discussed above. I think that your replies would be better directed to specific comments there.
 * I don't understand your reference to WP:Articles for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Mystra (goddess) was closed as no consensus in 2007. Do you mean that AfD is required to establish a binding decision and that Talk:List of Forgotten Realms deities/Archive 1 is not a valid merger discussion?
 * I agree with FdF calling the IP editors' restorations "disruptive". The users in question are and editor(s) on a dynamic IP (,, , , from Tyr, Talos, and Mystra). No substantial improvements were made during December 2011, and the only added sources through today are source books, an adventure module, and a tie-in novel. A lack of acceptable reliable sources was the original rationale for merging. The   parameters were removed from the cleanup tags, but there may be a reasonable explanation.
 * Tyr (Forgotten Realms): October 2010–December 2011, history;
 * Talos (Forgotten Realms): October 2010–December 2011, history;
 * Mystra (Forgotten Realms): October 2010–December 2011, history;
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Noticeboard behavior by User:ChrisGualtieri
Well, if I'm being called a "dick", a "troll", a "liar" who "spews bad faith and threats to any opposer" and other nice words, all that while consensus in this thread is clearly supportive of my actions, I'm changing my mind and formally asking for sanctions against ChrisGualtieri following his blatant personal attacks (at AN of all places...). It's time for this farce to end.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this as I've said it was off-topic before. This is not AN and the page issues have been rectified. No need for drama between inclusionists and deletionists. Sorry, Folken if this upset you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

...and so User:ChrisGualtieri's quest to become the first user in Wikipedia history banned for sheer hypocrisy continued. Today's evidence that Chris believes different rules apply to himself and everyone else: vs.. Anyway, I would like to second Folken's call for sanctions, and specifically propose the following: Given his serial history of forum shopping and spurious noticeboard complaints, User:ChrisGualtieri shall not be allowed to directly create threads on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or similar noticeboards for a period of 6 months. Instead, Chris is required to take his complaints to another user of his choice, preferably an administrator, who will post them on Chris's behalf if they think there are legitimate grounds for community attention. --erachima talk 08:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Oh, and for another fun one for the hypocrisy log, you apparently consider removing posts from your talk page disruptive when User:Ryulong does it, but a Right when you do it. --erachima talk 15:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have already resolved our differences following my apology at his talk page. Simply put, this was not about getting Folken in trouble, but merely notifying that I had done a bold and questionable rollback under unusual circumstances for a very specific reason. The inclusionism and deletionism sidetrack is bad and off track. I'm reclosing this as the matter is already settled between both of us and this was never a "sanction" issue on Folken and I have removed the other offending post after its re-insertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, and now we can add reverting noticeboard postings about yourself to the list. This is not about your "differences" with Folken anymore, Chris, this is about your serial disruption, forum shopping, and attempted intimidation of other editors via spurious Noticeboard postings, as seen here, here, here, here, and here, as well as several other DRN postings which are also likely WP:FORUMSHOP violations but I'm not counting because they were actually used rather than summarily abandoned.


 * But if the two users in question have indeed resolved their differences for now, then what further purpose is there to continue discussions here. If more people worked things out between them, we'd need the Drama Boards here a lot less.  Let it go. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no, that will not do. Treat this as a new thread if you'd prefer, the discussion's only happening in this particular thread because the hypocrisy involved in the close was enough to spur me to actually document the problem. Chris's abuse of the noticeboards and community discussion pages is longstanding and noted by more than just me. I'm requesting a minimal sanction here in hopes that it can head off the need for broader sanctions later by forcibly breaking Chris's pattern of responding to any discussion that does not immediately yield the result he wants by starting a new discussion elsewhere. --erachima talk 16:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Complex username-block situation - Senseltd and Wikikl
Copied from Usernames for administrator attention at the request of someone trying to address the issue:
 * begin copied text


 * and Senseltd was blocked as a username block and renamed to Wikikl but the block followed to the new name.  I assume the editor was frustrated because he began editing under the name Senseltd again.  This has created a mess that is not the editor's fault.  Separate from this, the editor has been warned about recent edits, but that is not what this is about.  Recommended action:  Rename Wikikl to "Wikikl-usurped" and block the account.  Rename Senseltd to Wikikl and ensure that Wikikl is not blocked (if necessary though, give him a "final warning").  Re-create the account Senseltd and block it. Alternatively, just switch the blocks so Wikikl can edit and Senseltd can't and copy the edit warnings from Senseltd's talk page to Wikikl's talk page to make sure they are seen.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, OK. Maybe you want to take this to WP:AN? It's a little more complicated than what we usually deal with. Daniel Case (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * end copied text
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested the attention of MBisanz, the bureaucrat who renamed Senseltd early last week. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've renamed Wikil to Wikikl-2 and Senseltd to Wikikl. Can someone communicate to him to now use Wikikl?  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the best way might be to create the account "Senseltd" and indef-block it, then leave a note on both the user and user talk page explaining what is going on. If either or both of the existing accounts have email enabled, email might work.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I emailed him when I did it, but I would prefer not to block him (and possibly upset him further), unless there is no other option.  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very diplomatic of you. I hope we can mark this discussion as "resolved" the next time he edits. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Appeal of indefinite block by Dunkmack9
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Dunkmack9 has posted an unblock request on his talk page. Since the block was the result of a community discussion, I am posting here to initiate a discussion as to whether or not the block should be lifted. Here is a link to the blocking discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782. Here is a link to the sockpuppet case page: Sockpuppet investigations/Dunkmack9/Archive. I strongly oppose an unblock at this time, as the unblock request demonstrates that the user, if unblocked, intends to continue pursuing fringe theories regarding Pearl Harbour conspiracy theories and Rudolf Hess (disclosure: I am the person who brought Rudolf Hess to Good Article status). From a content point of view, it's not enough for our purposes for an editor to read a book on a topic and then, in the belief that they have discovered The Truth, relentlessly pursue the insertion of fringe theories from said book into our articles as though they were true. In the case of Hess, the conspiracy theories are mentioned in the article as an important part of the story, but that's it. In addition to his original account, he pursued disruptive sock puppetry to continue pushing fringe theories whilst blocked and lied about whether or not User:Grapestomper9 was him, in the face of some pretty overwhelming behavioural evidence. Please see also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose an unblock at the present time, based on the unblock request and on the previous discussions. --John (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Between the socking and the failure to get why they were blocked in the first place, no reason to unblock at this time.  Mini  apolis  22:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this editor clearly isn't going to abide by our policies and guidelines on fringe theories and is just using the unblock request as an opportunity to rant about the topic and about other editors. Other behaviour since the block   has been less than helpful. I suppose we could have a topic ban from all fringe theories, or all topics relating to the Second World War, but inflicting this kind of behaviour anywhere else wouldn't be fair. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 07:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's good that this editor returned to the original account and abandoned the sockpuppet, but the person behind these accounts is not here to improve the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. Rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs, ones that he and very few others have identified—he is an activist for fringe positions, replacing mainstream consensus with fringe, or at least holding them up as equals. We do not need this kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this user is not here to build an encyclopedia by a long shot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think he's made his intentions perfectly clear at this point. An unblock would result in an almost certain re-block and unnecessary frustrations for other contributors.  Kuru   (talk)  02:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Dunkmack9 has posted some further remarks on his user talk, but has not asked for them to be copied over to this page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He's clearly just digging himself a hole at this point. The talk page remarks in question are lengthy rants about the topic and about other people he's interacted with, and very little is directed towards the reasons for the block at all. About the only points he does make in his defence are that the problems were confined to two articles, which isn't true, and that there were no threats or foul language, which is beside the point, as he wasn't blocked for doing either and you don't have to do either to get yourself blocked. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


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

Help with svg image
File:Information orange.svg is now in use on level 2 warning templates and needs to be brought over from the Commons and fully protected. I'm not sure – is there a special technique for copying and uploading an svg file? -- Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Zad68 has given it full protection. Diannaa, would you please download the image from Commons and attempt to upload it here?  If you can, that will prove that we need to do it; if you can't, that will prove that we don't need to.  I can't directly test it myself — since I'm an admin, I have the ability to override page protection, so I can't see whether non-admins can modify and/or overwrite it.  PS Oops, never mind, Diannaa; I assumed by your request that you weren't an admin yourself.  Would some kindly non-admin please attempt to fulfill my request?  Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to download it - it's an svg file, which is kinda different. As soon as I try to copy the image it converts it to a png image file. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're using Internet Explorer, rightclick the image and select "Save Target As"; this will download the original SVG and put it where you want it. However, since you're an admin, there's no real point, because you're able to override the blacklist just like I am.  I'm asking for a non-admin to test it, so we can see whether we even need to worry about a local upload.  Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this. It will require a new name, right? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  03:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually not. I'm asking you to attempt to upload it at the current name, which is presently protected; whatever happens, please come back and report your results.  If protection prevents you from uploading it, please create the image description page with absolutely nothing except a db-g2 template.  If protection prevents you from doing that, we won't need to do any more protection, because vandals won't be able to hurt the image.  Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The image needs to be uploaded locally (by an admin since the local page is protected) because otherwise a vandal can change the image on wikipedia commons and that change will automatically be reflected on English wikipedia, irrespective of the protection of the en-wiki page. (Note that the commons page is not protected and en-wiki admins have no direct control on that) @NeilN: The image can be uploaded to the local wikipedia page (again, by an admin) under the same name, because "If a file of the same name exists on both Wikipedia and Commons, the Wikipedia file will be displayed." (see WP:FILE). Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Both upload buttons (for en and commons) are greyed out when it's the same name. They are active when I change the file name. Any attempt to edit the description sends me to Commons. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  03:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done it. Abecedare is right about the images. Protection here if the file is not here is useless. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I attempted to replace this file . Error message: "This image name or media file name is protected." -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  03:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was able to upload a copy over it a minute before increased the protection. (I couldn’t do it with the wizard, and I had to brush off a warning.) The second time, a couple of minutes later, it didn’t work: the warning had escalated to the above error. Please delete my upload, somebody, as I don’t think I can any more.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because you uploaded between the time I uploaded locally and protected the page. Don't see a need to delete your upload as it is the same file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * wasn't just restoring the deleted versions an option here, especially as it's the same file in the deleted history that was moved over to Commons? -- curious as to whether there are any technical issues here as I don't work on image deletions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Original wasn't stored under that title, by the looks of it. I don't see any deleted revisions. Restoring the deleted files instead of uploading new ones (if at a different title) would mean any subst: templates would not be protected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, weird as I see six deleted revisions and two file uploads there. Perhaps my staying away from images is a wise decision after all. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Special:Undelete/File:Information orange.svg has six deleted revisions, including two file uploads. Crisco, did you check the page history?  I was momentarily confused until I realised that it existed locally, so there would be a history tab and wouldn't be the "deleted revisions" blue link that appears for Commons-only images.  Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did open the history. I didn't see that last night. (Maybe I was overly tired.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom overstepping their bounds
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute is one of the worst decisions I've seen in some time. It places an indefinite restriction on a user without any previous finding of any sort of pattern of abuse - a single admin action is being used to justify a restriction that will never expire.

This is, simply put, a policy violation on Arbcom's part. BLOCK and the requirement that blocks be preventative are violated when there's no evidence - not even a finding of fact - that there is any pattern of behaviour, or even any evidence that this behaviour will repeat. Arbcom is not given the right to override policy.

I don't think we, as a community, should stand for this, and would like to ask for a community override of a bad, bad Arbcom decision. If Arbcom cannot use their powers appropriately, the community should take them back. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude; they can appeal every six months so it is obviously NOT permanent and CAN be lifted... If the administrator in question does not fall afoul of Wikipedia policy in the meantime! PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 01:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also: this explains why the restriction was put in place. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 01:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's permanent until such time Arbcom - a group not known for ever undoing their decisions - accept an appeal. This is grossly in violation of normal practice, where things have an actual length. Further, their finding of fact is highly questionable in its own right, but even it shows no evidence of a pattern of behaviour outside of the Manning situation, or even outside of then-current policy and practice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it seems obvious that you hold admins to a lower standard of behavior that Arbcom does! PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 01:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, Adam, do you not remember that they unblocked User:Russavia recently?--v/r - TP 01:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM does lift blocks and, furthermore, no one but David Gerard can appeal his block on his behalf. ARBCOM says they will hear appeals after six months time. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't even a block. Gerard is just not allowed to use his administrative tools in a topic area where he is rarely active. He can still edit in that topic area and use his tools elsewhere. Personally, I think Gerard got off easy given that he does have a track record for misuse of the tools.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if true, what previous abuses would the current finding have protected from? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam, I'm afraid its time to step away from the deceased equine. When the only person riding forth to right a perceived wrong is yourself then I'd suggest its time to go find a new hobby horse. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam, (1) Given all that has transpired in this specific situation, I hope that David (and others in comparable situations) would have the common sense to leave usage of admin tools going forward in this area to others who are less involved -- whether or not this restriction is in place, and irrespective of whether he acted suboptimally earlier. (2) sometimes clearly redirecting people who have played a major role in a conflict elsewhere is an important element of resolving the conflict; in my personal opinion Arbcom should probably make more use of specific topic bans or tool restrictions as a remedy -- even in the absence of clear "punishable" misconduct. Sometimes you just need to change the team in a specific area if the interpersonal dynamics just don't work. (3) In this instance, there is actually a finding against David, one which is not absurd even if you (and some others) disagree with it. That's why we have Arbcom! To make the hard judgment calls, ones that some people will disagree with and others agree. For all these reasons, let it be. Martinp (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't like the decisions that ArbCom is handing down? Then change the timbre of the conversations.  The ArbCom Election is coming soon and all it takes is a change in the majority of the committee to change the decisions that are handed down.
 * In no way am I advocating for a TeaParty Arbcom sub-faction. Just making suggestiong for upset users to resolve their complaints. Hasteur (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

iPad (5th generation) move request
The iPad (5th generation) needs to be moved to iPad Air if an administrator has a few spare seconds. Uncontroversial. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--v/r - TP 19:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

IP editor making controversial copy/paste moves
has been making copy/paste moves, which is not only wrong but these moves are also pretty controversial and should've been discussed first. Somebody with the appropriate powers should fix whatever's happened here and make sure there's a good consensus. 149.254.58.13 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored redirect at AdBlock and another editor has reverted at AdBlock (Chrome). But IP 108.235 is correct in saying that AdBlock is not specific to chrome. So AdBlock(chrome) should be a redirect to AdBlock, not the other way around. I request an admin to do the move properly ( due to a history at AdBlock, move is not possible by non-admin).-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Move's done, with a history swap to preserve the redirect's non-trivial page history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The history currently under AdBlock (Chrome) may be non-trivial, but it's not properly attributed or particularly useful. 108.235.225.44 made an exact copy, and there were . Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help figuring out what to do about in-Wikipedia copyvio
If you look at it seems to have been moved/merged to another article here[ and renamed Theodor Gottfried Liesching. Then recently he was given his own article and a large amount of material was restored to this page and it was renamed again.. Now this is clearly copyvio, presumably from our own articles, but there's no way of knowing where it comes from. The editor,  didn't discuss this anywhere and also made other page moves I don't quite get, and I'd like help sorting it out. I think History of Lower Saxony needs reverting to remove the copyvio, and then if anything is replaced (hopefully with a discussion) it needs to be clearly attributed so it isn't copyvio. I'll notify the editor. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, the original page was Württemberg; then it was moved to Theodor Gottfried Liesching which in its turn was moved to History of Lower Saxony. Thus, Theodor Gottfried Liesching was effectively "deleted" and Talk:Württemberg ended up in Talk:History of Lower Saxony. There is indeed copyvio from our own articles (particularly, Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg, House of Welf). (Note that -Ilhador-, Jack Bufalo Head, and Izraías are apparently the same editor—already blocked many times before for copyright violations and sockpuppeting; I'm about to open an SPI and then maybe organize a ban.) I created a new article for T.G. Liesching in order to avoid copyvio but I would like to request to restore the old one . If I'm not mistaken no article about the History of Lower Saxony existed before -Ilhador-'s meddling; so if it's a copyvio from our own articles it should be turned into a redirect to Lower Saxony. The difficult task, though, is to avoid eliminating any page histories. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * G11 deletion is normally appropriate in egregious cases of internal copyvio, but this is complex enough that we really shouldn't start off with any G11s. Let's figure out the page history and then make any necessary deletions, which I suspect will require more extensive use of G6 for history merging than G11.  I'll be happy to try to help when I have time later.  Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've spent a bit of time looking over the articles, and I'm quite confused. There's no way I'm going to do anything without input from others, lest I accidentally make things worse.  Let me propose the following actions (NB — "history" is page history; "History" is the article about Lower Saxony):


 * Delete History of Lower Saxony, Theodor Gottfried Liesching, and Württemberg under G6
 * Restore the Liesching edits from History, move them to Liesching, and restore the deleted Liesching edits
 * Restore the Württemberg edits from History, move them to Württemberg, and restore the deleted Württemberg edits
 * Restore History
 * This would resolve the history splitting for Liesching and Württemberg, if I'm understanding rightly. After that, we need to deal with the stuff that's been merged into History.
 * Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Duchy
 * I don't see anything in History that derives from Welf. Unless I'm missing something, we can ignore Welf.
 * Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Electorate
 * At this point, we're left with a rump: the first 1½ sentences of subsection 6.1 and perhaps subsection 6.2. It was added by a disruptive sock, and it might be copied from somewhere else.  Let's delete it with G5 and a dash of IAR.  Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is further complication since Württemberg and Baden (effectively "deleted" by -Ilhador- ) were eventually rewritten from scratch by User:Fadesga. Also note that History of Lower Saxony could also redirect to History of Saxony. Give me one more day to check if the suggested solution can work. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To sum it up the problematic moves are the following:, , , . Regarding History of Lower Saxony and Theodor Gottfried Liesching I agree with Nyttend. But we must retain the articles User:Fadesga created. 'Baden' and 'Württemberg' are historically ambiguous names; they may refer either to a series of historical polities or to their respective historical regions. Especially in the case of 'Württemberg' none of the historical polities could be described as a primary topic in either English or German usage. That is why the German Wikipedia has a dab page for 'Baden' and a geography-related article about Württemberg and that is why the English one should have them, too (see Baden and Württemberg). So I propose that there should exist two different articles: Kingdom of Württemberg and Württemberg as they stand now. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And now that Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador- is settled with 3 socks blocked (thanks Omnipaedista for doing the legwork on this) I'm available for any necessary article deletions. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid PR by Single purpose promotional accounts
Because of the current high profile discussions about Wikipedia and paid editing, I am becoming increasingly sensitive as I patrol new pages to fully formed articles with a substantially promotional tone, yet concealed as well referenced articles, but created as the only contribution of a new editor, one who only edits in this area, or even this article. I'm sure you don't need examples, but they are easy to find.

Because of the fully formed nature of the articles, created with a skill that takes almost every ordinary editor a while to learn, I smell sockpuppetry. Because they are SPAs I see no easy way for the ordinary editor to reach a conclusion. I suspect that an experienced sock hunter and the checkuser tool is required to sniff them out. However, I see no way of reporting what I might term a suspicious editor.

I hope to catalyse a discussion, here or elsewhere, that will create a place for we ordinary editors to place suspicious editors for investigation. Some will be innocent. Good. Others will lead to a PR organisation, perhaps the same PR organisation. The outcome of WIkipedia's discussions about paid editing will be relevant to this class of editor.

Such an investigation platform ought to make it easier for our hard working SPI clerks and others to form an educated view about the extent of the problem. Fiddle  Faddle  14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be worthwhile to identify traits of such editors, but I wonder per WP:Beans if we ought to be doing so in the open. I'm a big fan of conducting as much business as possible in the open, but some things appear to be legitimate exceptions. (It occurs to me that WP:Beans isn't quite the right metaphor I need a beans inverse or !Beans or something like that.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation statement can help how you approach this, particularly the parts about "required disclosure" and the part about violations of terms of use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, Sue Gardner has less than a newbie's understanding of the English Wikipedia. She knows how to run a non-profit, not how to edit Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Disrespecting Sue Gardner is irrelevant and gratuitous, it is the Foundation she is speaking for and the Pedia runs because of them; they have tons of experience here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? That must be why they don't hire community liasons.--v/r - TP 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a tool that can identify near-orphan articles predominantly edited by an SPA account? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, creating multiple throw-away accounts is a common sock-puppeteer and PR editing tactics. A trow-away account is not just an SPA, but an SPA active for a short period of time to make a very limited set of edits (a lot of such accounts are actually legit). The most efficient approach would be an automatic global check of all throw-away accounts to see which of them originated from the same IP address - under a supervision by Checkuser. Some of detected accounts would have to be blocked as sockpuppet accounts; contributions by others would have to be posted somewhere and checked. Unfortunately, such method contradicts the currently accepted philosophy of user-checking (as a privacy violation; I personally do not think so). With advent of numerous PR people around here, this will be necessary, I believe.My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See and . Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks to everyone and especially Dennis Brown who helped to fix this problem. I am afraid we will see more of this in the future.My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that, with precision, is the reason we need to discuss what is required, followed by how to implement it. There are private pages that things get handled on. Some of the filters, for example, are on pages that I can;t read because I don;t have the permissions. So things can be done in a non beansy manner if we wish. But we need to wish it.  Fiddle   Faddle  12:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Action History
hi. Saran, Iran:history→Saran, East Azerbaijan .--E THP (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything problematic with the page history. Could you explain what's needed?  Are you saying that the pages need to be merged?  Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are multiple Sarans in Iran, so a disambig page is required. What's the issue? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I created this article(8 April 2011), But later renamed not transferred History.E THP (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different page; it wasn't a cut/paste move or anything else that needs repair. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * History must be moved.I created first article.E THP (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's only necessary to preserve attribution histories; Carlos didn't take anything you wrote when he created the second page, so no histmerge is necessary. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Two userpages with same picture and text
User:Valeriypavlov and User:Valeriy Pavlov, please check. Thanks--Musamies (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * has deleted both under WP:CSD (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ~ Crazytales (talk) (edits) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same userpages created again and also user talk page added same spam.--Musamies (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've re-deleted both of them and blocked both users as spam/advertising-only accounts. Graham 87 05:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Motion regarding Manning naming dispute
By motion of the committee, finding of fact 22, regarding Baseball Bugs, has been replaced by the following:


 * During the course of the dispute, frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct,  ; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions    ; and needlessly personalised the dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Corbet's Couloir
This and this should redirect here. Anyone know why they're blacklisted? Brycehughes (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first one has a Hex C2 92 before the s (CorbetÂ’s Couloir) and the second has a Hex C2 92 after the s (Corbet'sÂ’ Couloir) . Searching for either one brings you to a search result that links to Corbet's Couloir. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strange... I wonder how I ended up with a Hex C2 92. Anyway, thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is actually worth looking into for me, because I would like to get a better understanding of how the blacklist regex works, but it does not require administrator intervention, so I am going to pursue it elsewhere.
 * Before I do that, I have one final question that someone here might be able to answer (or should I ask at the help desk?); When I tried to open an edit window on the two links Brycehughes lists above using the usual "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name... Start the X article" link, I got a Permission error ("The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists") When an administrator tries to open an edit window does he/she get a more specific error message? If not, is there an easy way to find out which blacklist and which regex is being triggered? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I get no error message whatsoever. Creating either one of those would be as easy as creating Couloir1, which presumably isn't on a blacklist.  Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirm that Couloir1 is not on the blacklist and that I could create it if I wanted to.
 * Also, the above tells me that if I want to create a page and the blacklist stops me, I can ask any administrator to create it for me. It would be nice if the admin got a message saying that he was creating something that the blacklist does not allow ordinary editors to create rather than silently allowing it but that's not something that should be dealt with here. I think we are done here, and this can be closed as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I solidly agree. I can't remember the specific page, but I know at least once I created something that was blacklisted, and if I remember rightly, I ended up realising that I shouldn't have created the blacklisted page in the first place.  Besides telling us admins that we should be careful about creating pages with blacklisted titles, it would help us by giving us a clearer sense of what's impossible for non-admins to create — at least for me, the more I'm accustomed to admin userrights, the harder it is to remember how many things I can do that others can't.  Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's been a request since 2008 (13780). Something that's possible already is to provide more information to editors who are unable to create blacklisted titles, either by adding the default message to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit, which would display title and blacklist entry for any blocked title, or create custom messages for those likely to be mistakes (similar to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-nbsp, but for control codes, soft hyphens and byte order marks). Peter&#160;James (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I skied this run twice, but not very gracefully. First time spun around backwards and left my skis sticking in the snow, and had to climb 100m back up to get them.  Second time crossed skis on the landing, but recovered and skied away.  Wyoming, and Jackson are just amazing. Jehochman Talk 04:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation
Based on a community discussion, MRM pages were put on article probation in October 2011. There is no expiration date. Based on a subsequent discussion, a WP:1RR restriction was imposed, which is set to expire on October 20, 2013.

I propose that we extend the 1RR restriction for another year. At the same time, I propose a modification of the wording. The general probation impacts all MRM-related pages. However, the 1RR restriction, as worded, literally applies only to the Men's rights movement article. I propose that the 1RR restriction can be applied to any MRM-related page. It has already been applied in that fashion, at least by me. Some of the entries in the sanction log aren't clear in that regard, so I'm not sure if other admins have also done so.

Although no sanctions have been logged since August 2013, the previous sanctions have been effective in minimizing the disruption to the MRM pages. In particular, a 1RR restriction, which is a bright line, is helpful. There are still editors out there, who, in my view, have an agenda, and I suspect more will pop up, even if we are vigilant, but potentially a greater number if we are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I support this motion because it is clear that POV activism by SPA editors is a constant feature of the topic. Raising the floodgates will overwhelm the article and related topics. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the truly horrible state of the Men's rights article (see my rant on the talk page), I'm unclear how things could get much worse. "By their fruits you shall know them" is a pretty good motto.  And the fruits of this 1RR restriction are pretty nasty.  Maybe not as bad as if the restriction were removed, but certainly not a poster child for 1RR working in this area.  I'll defer to those that generally oversee this area on the 1RR continuation/expansion, but wow, that article is a mess of generalizations. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the renewal and expansion. The restriction has very clearly forced things to be discussed on talk pages, and limited general disruption to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support renewal and expansion. Although I haven't been active in the men's rights arena much lately for real life reasons, I have still been keeping half an eye on it, and the 1rr restriction has helped some of the silliness.  The article isn't great, and until a greater body of comprehensive secondary literature about the movement emerges would be hard to make great, even without the silliness - and the silliness makes it harder.  1rr hasn't been a panacea, but has helped restrain some of the biggest problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Bbb23's proposal fully. Article remains on my watch and I see this as a positive for the community to renew this probation as suggested.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, unfortunately, because removing it would make it worse. Hobit, which rant? I'd be interested to hear if you have any suggestions for improving the "policing" of the article; I wish I had some. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's under the NPOV tag section. I think the real issue is that those unhappy with the article have at least a few good points--the article is poorly written and seems to paint with too broad a brush.  After having lots of things explained to me, I think the problems are fixable but it's a lot of work and I'm a horrible writer and I should be working... We'll see. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support based on the history of conflict over this topic. I don't think a 1RR restriction puts an undo hardship upon Editors who work on these articles. Restriction can be revisited in a year. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Reviewing the article and talk page history of Men's rights movement suggests to me that the value of the 1RR restriction on that specific article is still rather high and it should therefore be kept. Looking through the sanctions logs also leads me to support explicitly expanding the restriction to other MRM-related pages as well. In both the specific and the general cases, there still seems to be an issue with editors attempting to insert (and re-insert) advocacy without the support of good sources. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines work fine for the other 4,353,716 articles, so I don't see why this one needs special treatment. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That could well be that you simply do not know about the conflict and disputes involved with the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoever the IP is, they're not new to Wikipedia, given this reference to Malleus, which, in turn, links this comment. On a more substantive note, the IP is, of course, wrong. There are many articles and topic areas at Wikipedia that are subject to restrictions and sanctions--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even less correct is the notion that Wikipedia policies and guidelines work. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a former Wikipedian whose experience with Wikipedia was significantly diminished by Bbb23's tactics on this article, I'd like to point out something revealing in Bbb23's request.  Bbb23 wrote that it is "useful in dealing with accounts that are agenda-driven".  This implies that one's status of being "agenda-driven" (in Bbb23's opinion) is more important than whether or not one is correctly applying Wikipedia policy.  The fact of the matter is that once Bbb23 has decided that you are "agenda-driven", he or she will dismiss your arguments as "weak" without actually discussing their merits, even after repeated requests to go address a certain point.  Furthermore, Bbb23 has a history of deciding that users on one side (mine) of a given argument are "agenda-driven", while not noticing any agenda-driven actions on the other side.  The upshot is that it appears to be impossible to get Bbb23 to even discuss the issue on its merits, let alone concede that the other person has a point.  Eventually, another admin comes along and says Bbb23 is right, also without discussing the merits.  Checkmate, and whether or not one is correct is irrelevant.  This is all documented in detail, with diffs, in the archived discussion here.  That said, I recognize that the community has made its choice.98.222.60.232 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Closure. Can an uninvolved administrator please determine the appropriate closure?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I'm wondering why this discussion isn't being closed, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to a new editor, (lovely user name, isn't it?) who made this series of edits to Men's rights movement. Notice the repeated sourcing to this website. We have an article about Farrell. Notice also Maleliberation's user page, which says "Link to our Images directory" (first person plural pronoun), but it gets better when you follow the link: "Made 10 (useful we hope) contributions. We must wait 4 days until Oct 29 or 30 before we're allowed to upload our images" & "yeah, some on both sides are gonna distrust us...we'll try to fight for ending the abuse and shame and oppression and defaming and restrictive roles and unfair treatment of men.....and of our "sisters", women, too". And the promise that the user(s) will upload images from maleliberation.org. And one wonders why we need this topic under probation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Two of the many edits pointed at Warren Farrell's web page(no personal affiliation) One included a critical piece of information missing form "relation to feminism" section, namely the fact that some advocates of Men's Rights were leaders in 1970s feminist movement. The issue is not whether one views this as tainting that subset of MRA nor whether one views it as exonerating (to feminists) that part of MRA. The issue is that it was factually missing from the "relation to feminism" section that it's not just about antagonism/tension/critique but also have overlap. Second, there's nothing sinister about being deliberately open and transparent on one's user page. Third, part of wikipedia is to allow people to upload images and put them into the public domain and allow (not force) others to use such images. It's widespread and part of what's beautiful about wikipedia, whether photographs or in this case, symbolic gif graphics. So in case that was not clear, we plan to put some images into the public domain on that directory in the user page, that's all that part of the note meant. I am first person singular but have allies to help me built my/our .org (off wikipedia) website mentioned, but this user account is for me. With those clarifications, is there any concern you can share with me about the edits, in light of your "[no wonder] this topic [is] under probation" comment? Or does this address your concerns? Maleliberation (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. You will notice to make it easier for folks to undo any part they had concerns with I separated (out of an abundance of good faith) into separate smaller edits a few times, things that could have been put into one edit, making it easier for each separate piece to be modified or undone. I'm also not sure if your comment about our user name being "lovely" is to be taken at face value or in irony. (At the moment I'm not sure if you have or had, strong pro-MRA or strong feminist or strong anti-MRA or strong administrator-worried-about-flamewars, or other concerns. Ah, how lovely to be innocent, if only briefly, before tasting from the fruit of the tree and joining the rest of you ;-) Feel free to reply here or on my user page as is appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleliberation (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 October 2013


 * The above post by Bbb23 is an excellent example of why Bbb23 should not have the power to sanction users in this area. A user name of "Maleliberation" is immediately labeled (by Bbb23) as "lovely."  Doubtless, Bbb23 will be quick to enforce any perceived violations by Maleliberation.  But wait a minute.  While picking a user name of "Maleliberation" does suggest a pro-MRM bias, doesn't labeling that name as "lovely" suggest an anti-MRM bias?  Is one of these biases somehow better than the other?  And who has more power over the article, and the community -- a biased user, or a biased admin?  Lastly, since we all have our biases, Wikipedia policy is supposed to judge the strength of arguments, rather than the biases of people who make them.  But that's not what Bbb23 appears to be doing above.98.222.60.232 (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello User:William Jockusch. Frankly, it would be much more transparent if you logged into your account rather than editing as an IP. You have been sanctioned by Bbb23 before, no?  Do you really think that pointing out the actions of  Maleliberation - who is promoting their view per their website at www.maleliberation.org - is not the job of an adminstrator (and actually any editor interested in neutral point of view?) Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I've been trying to ignore drama, but it has been impossible to miss the stream of editors eager to right the great wrongs that have been perpetrated against men. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I'm involved as an editor, but I'd agree that 1RR has really helped with this article, and that it should be continued.Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed formalised community ban for Wiki-PR
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! class="navbox-title" style="text-align:center; background-color:#f2dfce;" | Wiki-PR is community banned with the original suggested text. The alternate proposals didn't get a lot of support compared to the original one. I'll list the ban at Wikipedia:List of banned users, and at User talk:Morning277. Please drop a note and any other page that needs to be alerted about this. Fram (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;" | The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

'''Please note, this is *not* related to WikiExperts, the other recently discussed PR firm. Please look at the LTA before considering !opposing.'''

Wiki-PR are already de-facto community banned where discovered through the Morning277 SPI case. I would like to formalize this ban to make it clear that we do not as a community condone the mass sockpuppetry, meatpupppetry, block evasion, subversion of neutrality, spamming, and other consensus damaging practices that Wiki-PR has engaged in. Please note that this proposed formal ban is *not* intrinsically related to paid editing, and should not be taken as an attempt to ban other forms of paid editing. I have included a clause suggesting that any appeal require Wiki-PR to divulge a complete list of articles they have edited for financial gain; I have done this not because I object to paid editing, but because they’ve proven themselves unable or unwilling to edit these articles in accordance with WP:NPOV in the past and because saying ‘disclose all articles you have broken WP:NPOV on’ isn’t feasible.

There is a lot of evidence of disruption from the organization behind Morning277, as evidenced in the SPI and LTA cases. The SPI can be found here and the LTA can be found here. Disruption has included but not been restricted to falsification of sources, sock/meatpupppetry to disrupt consensus, and large-scale spamming and block evasion. I can provide any number of diffs beyond the SPI/LTA as requested to demonstrate specific violations of policy.

I propose the following text be applied to Wiki-PR: “Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards.

This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that Wiki-PR.com as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past sock and meatpuppet accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked if any uninvolved administrator honestly believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wiki-PR.”

I realize that a cban against Wiki-PR is only going to be partially enforceable since many of their accounts are hard or impossible to detect, but I believe it is worthwhile because a strong statement from the community against this organization is likely to lower their ability to successfully subvert our content in the future. I honestly believe that many of Wiki-PR’s past clients were unaware that Wiki-PR’s business practices are as shady as they are, and would be less likely to use their services in the future if the organization was community banned - thus, even with limited enforceability, passing a cban is in our interests. I'm fine with someone else tightening my proposed wording up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Procedural support, as I agree with Kevin's rationale above, although it is also going to be damn near impossible to find everything that they have done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. Kevin Gorman is right. Those customers deserve to know what they are getting into. And who knows, maybe they will turn out to have someone like Edward Snowden on staff who leaks out a list of every edit they have ever paid for. Stranger things have happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. Doc  talk  05:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Kevin Gorman for the most part, but I also feel it isn't the point to ferret everyone out, but discourage mass violations of our policies.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - prudent and necessary.—John Cline (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it possible to clarify the evidence for a relationship between Wiki-PR and Morning277? Or are we able to proceed irrespective of that relationship? I ask, because I've always felt that Morning277 was independent of Wiki-PR, and nothing in Wiki-PR's official materials make this connection. - Bilby (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the particular account Morning277, but most of the accounts under that SPI are definitely Wiki-PR. This user in particular is a pretty obvious connection. There's a lot of other evidence of many of the morning277 SPI accounts being Wiki-PR connected, including a couple contractors who admitted as much.  I also have some lines of evidence I can't post on wiki, per WP:OUTING. Several confirmed Wiki-PR clients, such as Emad Rahim (who was named in the VICE article,) had their articles created by socks blocked as Morning277. I can't say that Morning277 is Wiki-PR explicitly off the top of my head, but can say that 98% of socks blocked as Morning277 were. (Edit: apparently Morning277 *is* cbanned per a previous ANI discussion that I missed.  I would still like to explicitly extend that to Wiki-PR.com as an organization.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick look shows the following at Long-term abuse/Morning277:


 * "Comprehensive edits analysis
 * This is a group of hired writers who collaborate without ever using talk pages to communicate with each other. As of September 2013, 323 accounts have been confirmed, with another 84 suspected.


 * Off-wiki investigation by the media and others has identified Wiki-PR as the company behind this sock-farm."--Mark Miller (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read those investigations, but they seem to be using our SPI as the source. So if our SPI is conflating Wiki-PR and Morning277, then they would be doing the same thing. From the beginning, Morning277 ran his own business, and mostly seemed to use the freelancer sites to get clients. So either he joined Wiki-PR, but not as anyone listed as working or running it, or we've been mixing the two. I think any case for blocking Wiki-PR - which I'm not opposed to - needs to be independent of Morning277. - Bilby (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's likely that we've mixed some non-WikiPR editors in to the Morning277 investigation, but I think the behavior of Wiki-PR on its own is a prima facie case for a cban. The account I linked earlier (bioengineer+attorney - think about who else shares those professions) has an obvious connection to Wiki-PR and participated in CU confirmed manipulation of an AfD. Emad Rahim was created by a sock blocked as Morning277 who was confirmed to work for Morning277 - several other blocked accounts have confirmed links to Wiki-PR.  I think the demonstrated disruption by accounts that certainly are Wiki-PR, combined with their public statements, make a fine case for a ban, even if we were to disregard most Morning277 socks.  It's also worth noting that there is a lot of interplay between contractors and that Wiki-PR has been documented to hire off some of the freelance sites, which I suspect is likely the origin of any confused interplay in the SPI. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the actual problem is that we mixed Wiki-PR, Morning277, and completely different paid editors into the one SPI. :) And that we've used that as the basis for making broader claims, which were then fed into the media accounts. I'm happy to proceed with this, but in the discussions we need to avoid assuming that the scale of the SPI is accurate in regard to any one group, and that Morning277 does not equal Wiki-PR - we need to look at them as separate.
 * My biggest problem is that the SPI is such a mess, I don't know how many of those cases are Morning277, how many are Wiki-PR, how many are different sock farms, nor how many are individual paid editors being caught up in the mess. On the plus side, I'm also certain that Wiki-PR have been hiring subcontractors on the freelance sites, (as has WikiExperts, but that's a different case). So many of those accounts are likely to be Wiki-PR ones. Hopefully knowing that is enough. - Bilby (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Off wiki investigation" sounds a lot like outing. Do we really want to encourage our editors to investigate other editor's real life activities in an attempt to connect them with WikiPR.  This sounds like a very poor idea. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Off Wiki sounds like outing? Really. Because you know we all have "off wiki" lives. Just saying the phrase does not evoke the wrath of the gods. I don't know what that means but frankly...I have had to send "off Wiki" e-mails to admin over issues that needed to be addressed and it had some connection to a master sock puppet and I did my own "off wiki" investigation to know who the person was. oddly enough the editor had already disclosed their real name long ago and the trail was just there. Since then there have been more than a few socks either confirmed or suspected. I do nothing on Wiki with any personal information and neither should anyone else. But, as I say, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a mad scientist to figure out some socks and the thought of mass socks would probably be a reasoning for an editor that was involved to at least look into the matters, but not disclose them. Remember, our policy states that even if an editor makes a public on Wiki disclosure, they may simply remove the information and ask editors to respect their privacy and no longer refer to them publicly as that real life person. There are real people that we write about and they exist off Wiki. all of our subjects are "off wiki". The ethical reasoning and practice is not to disclose someone personal information. It does not have anything to do with knowing it and looking for it. Being a major contributor to Wikipedia comes with a set of ethical codes, some written and some merely discussed, but the fact is, some editors know more about situations, editors and issues on and off Wikipedia by the mere fact that they were involved in a discussion, dispute with someone who then makes comments off Wikipedia about the on wiki situation. This is very common and one of the reasons I hear expressed for some editor's disdain for social media and Wikipedia mixing. I happened to be running through the history of an BLP one night and began to see some edit summaries stand out I can't even begin to say anything about, but suffice it to say, Wikipedians can sometimes find things that are not always obvious. It's what we do. We research. We write and we discuss. Outing is discussing any editor's personal information and is harassment. See WP:OUTING, but under WP:EMAILPOST it also, clearly states we don't really have a consensus about some issues but we do have some Arb Com statements and we shouldn't be posting e-mails but can send them to directly to Arb Com. I would see the precedence as covering sending such e-mails to an admin and not just the committee itself, but perhaps we should clarify that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Just today, in the Wall Street Journal, Wiki-PR claimed that "There is a rather silent majority on Wikipedia that supports paid editing." and that what they do is entirely within our policies and is a benefit to the encyclopedia, according to them. I do not believe that editing with hundreds of accounts with an undisclosed financial conflict of interest is a benefit to the encyclopedia. This kind of mass secret paid editing undermines the ability of readers to trust Wikipedia's neutrality, and does not jive with COI guidelines. Their public statements strongly suggest we need to send a message as a community that this kind of work is not okay. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   08:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - paid editing goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. GiantSnowman 08:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, but without the appeal clause. I don't think that disclosure and promises in this case would be credible given their extreme dishonesty and blatantly unethical behaviour. (I also oppose paid advocacy in general, but prohibiting that is impractical.) MER-C 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. The activities described above undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. -SFK2 (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per not here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support If we ban this group, it might get a message through. If not, we ban the next one that comes to light too. Peridon (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support paid editing is the antithesis of our mission and will invariably undermine NPOV.--MONGO 11:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Why then MONGO can't we support a policy to ban paid editing or at least require disclosure?  Have you seen the two policy proposals?  It looks like neither one of them will generate a consensus.  I initiated one of them. It seems like editors will jump to ban a paid editor they don't like, but are happy to ignore paid editing by popular editors, or by themselves.  It's a case of ban the other guy but don't ban me.  Very strange. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for banning paid editing. Is the rest of retort directed at me or the general audience?--MONGO 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support They're breaking so many rules on an almost daily basis. Ged  UK  11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I've looked at a random sample of their articles and they were all (6 out of 6) puffery of non-notables. Leave the door open for them to return with declared COIs and a commitment to abide by our content policies. We cannot oblige them to disclose past employee accounts or past articles edited as that may be obliging them to break a confidence - though going as far as they can in that direction would be an awesome gesture of good faith. (Struck while waiting for more info' 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)) Restored as best option (with my bolded exception) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This thread is merely symbolic. The proposed ban is unnecessary because the user in question is already banned, the activity is already precluded by policy.  This is just a bunch of editors having a wikidrama for their own amusement. It is filling the noticeboard with unnecessary text and distracting attention from encyclopedia writing.  It will lead to false accusations that newbie editors are associated with WikiPR, and unjustifiable blocks of those editors.  Please consider WP:BITE and WP:AGF.  Many people come to Wikipedia and start writing puff pieces.  If we are kind to these people and explain the proper use of Wikipedia, they can turn into productive contributors.   Jehochman Talk 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A newbie who writes a puff piece will no doubt change their ways when they are informed about how we operate; a PR company will not. The two are completely different. GiantSnowman 12:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And what magic crystal ball do you have that will allow you to distinguish between the two cases? Jehochman Talk 12:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE and WP:AGF, which you have already cited. Do you really think this ban on paid advocacy will mean anyone who isn't 100% neutral is immediately and automatically assumed to be operating for cash and banned? Get a grip! GiantSnowman 12:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This ban will be misused to summarily block editors as "Sock of WikiPR" when in fact they are just an unrelated newbie writing a Wikipedia article about their own non-notable company. It happens all the time. Each editor needs to be judged on the own behavior.  We already have a policy to indefinitely block promotion-only accounts when they cause multiple incidents of disruption and have ignored warnings to stop.  This ban adds nothing to our toolkit for controlling disruption, but provides an excuse for abuse of tools. Jehochman Talk 12:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would we immediately assume that somebody trying to promote a company is from WikiPR or any other similar company? Those kind of editors have been here long before WikiPR, and they will be here long after. GiantSnowman 12:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, my question about the crystal ball. How will you know a spammer is associated with WikiPR?  The answer is that you can't. This ban is merely symbolic.  It has no practical benefit.   It is a violation of WP:DENY. Please, would you all stop giving these run of the mill spammers lots of free publicity by talking about them endlessly? Jehochman Talk 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got answers but I've not sharing them per WP:BEANS, feel free to e-mail me - that has the added bonus of you being able to see that I am, in actual fact, an "identifiable living person." If you are so concerned about giving them "free publicity" why are you making a big song-and-dance about defending them? If you are truly that concerned then stop whipping up so much drama over this (and related) ban. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We will know when they trip up and out themselves, or when one of their employees blows the whistle. They will then look sleazy and bring their profession into disrepute. They know this. If they have any brains, (never mind ethics) they will do the enlightened self-interested thing, and conform to our norms. ---Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good answer. In that case, can we please clarify that any ban does not authorize outing or off-wiki research?  If an editors comes here and says "I work for WikiPR", we can block them. If somebody notices a series of throw away accounts trying to repeat the edits of Morning277 or its socks, sure we can block those accounts. We need to be clear about how the ban can be enforced.  Arbitration rulings often specify precise procedures for enforcement. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No account should be blocked unless they are confirmed - either via SPI or self-confessed - to work for one of these companies. That much should be obvious. GiantSnowman 13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to summarise the existing outing, privacy and other relevant policies somewhere in this thread I won't object, but I see no need for that. Did you notice my comment about them not being required (or able probably) to disclose the accounts of their employees and articles of their clients? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support ban of and any technically related accounts.  Oppose outing the real life identity or employment of any editor, even banned editors. Oppose guilt by association.  Outing does not have an exemption that allows outing of banned editors. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the ban proposal as written is misguided. If an investor gave a loan to WikiPR, but they have no say over the policy or management of the company, are we banning them?  There should not be guilt by association. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This ban is a complete waste of time as we cannot identify who is working for whom and who is claiming to in order to bait us into a PR disaster. Just edit the edits not the editor. They are either inside our rules or they are not, and that is something we can detect. Britmax (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiPR will want to advertise their service. They can either do that while under a community ban, which will say a lot about their ethics to their clients and the profession, or they can advertise their service as a company that respects Wikipedia's norms. Don't underestimate the importance of reputation - the PR industry doesn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly....this isn't about a company that will edit the website for hire by those that don't understand wikimarkup.--MONGO 13:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What about my question about how the ban is written? Should we ban people who might be affiliated with WikiPR but have not personally done anything wrong nor directed anything wrong to be done? Jehochman Talk 14:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have been in touch with Morning277 and believe he is unrelated to Wiki-PR. He has written about his paid Wikipedia work in the past (on a business website, well before this story broke) and has his own business, whose name is known to me. In today's Wall Street Journal piece, Jordan French of Wiki-PR declined to comment on whether Morning277 was one of their accounts. Basically, the sockpuppet investigation appears to have conflated at least two (probably more) distinct cases. Andreas JN 466 13:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What evidence do we have to tie Morning277 to WikiPR? Aside from the echo chamber press, do we actually have evidence on wiki or from our Checkusers, to connect WikiPR to this activity? Jehochman Talk 14:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I gather from comments further up that that is acknowledged either on the WP:LTA page or the WP:SPI page. What are the implications for WikiPR's culpability? In the WSJ article they admit to being a bit flexible with WP:NOTABILITY. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You ought to look a little deeper. The LTA report cites the press.  I want to make sure this isn't a circular reference that resolves to null.  Somebody here should be able to provide a concise synopsis of the evidence with diffs or links. I've looked and didn't see it. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, as I say, they admit that they’ve made bad calls on notability. I would like to hear from someone involved in the SPI. What can we know for sure about the quality of WikiPR editing? Can they isolate a list of contributions that are definitely the work of this company? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tying Morning277 to Wiki-PR: in The Daily Dot article, Simon Owens wrote that he emailed companies from the Morning277 investigation list, and
 * "'Of the few dozen companies I emailed for this article, four got back to me. All requested I keep their names out, and all told the same story: They hired a company called Wiki-PR to make pages for them.'"
 * JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. We do not conduct or condone off-wiki sleuthing, but we are also not obligated to disregard reliably sourced info from public sources.  Since a reporter has done the sleuthing, we are allowed to take note that Wiki-PR is most likely behind these accounts. I suggest we enact the ban text below.  Jehochman Talk 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So, John, to be clear, we're confident, certain even, that everything on the Morning277 investigation listlist (?) is controlled by (sock or meat) one person or company – WikiPR – and that list isn't a conflation of more than one farm, each controlled by a different person or company. Is that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppetry investigation was closed without Checkusers checking a large number of accounts. It is possible that there's been some conflation, but I think there's enough evidence of wrongdoing to pin this on Wiki-PR.  That done, Wiki-PR could help a lot by coming forward and disclosing things so we can clean up the mess, and sort out the different sock farms. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree there. There is certainly evidence that Wiki-PR was responsible for at least employing some of the listed accounts. And it is also clear that some of the listed accounts were used by or hired by Morning277. However, it isn't clear that there is overlap between the two. If you randomly try to contact clients from that list, and if it is the case that the two groups have been conflated, then the clients you contact could be from either camp. Accordingly, the Daily Dot could have contacted clients employed by Wiki-PR who were not connected to Morning277.
 * In short, we don't know that Wiki-PR and Morning277 are connected. But we do know that both have engaged editors to edit articles on WP, and between them this covers a very large number of accounts. Morning277 is community banned, so the question is whether or not Wiki-PR should be community banned as well. We don't need to assume that they are the same to determine which way to go. - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * no, we are certainly not confident that everything on the Morning277 list is controlled by one company. There are others out there like Legalmorning and there may well have been some conflation. This is not a situation where you will get certainty. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody point to some work by cast iron confirmed WikiPR editors please, if there are any cast-iron confirmed WikiPR editors? I'd like to see some examples of the kind of problematical editing we're banning these people for. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See, for example here where someone I will not name to spare his blushes tells how he paid Wiki-PR $1,500 to help him in "developing my brand as a thought leader in higher education and entrepreneurship"; his article was decisively deleted at AfD as non-notable, he complained and was told "You're in the queue for reuploading" and "It wasn't rejected. It was approved and went live.. Your page was vandalized." However, when reposted it was deleted again. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing those Daily Dot examples tell us about WikiPR's editing is that it includes creating articles on non-notable topics, something the owner has acknowledged in the WSJ article, and something I expect they will commit to avoiding in the future. Are there any problematical diffs you can identify as coming from WikiPR editors, John? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at this user - who is definitively connected to Wiki-PR - he was involved in an AfD where Wiki-PR participated with multiple accounts in an attempt to disrupt consensus. I'll be back by with more diffs later, but honestly just woke up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kevin. Articles for deletion/CyberSafe is pretty damning. Can you point me to the evidence definitively linking that editor to WikiPR please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in an SPI where we a handful of accounts that belonged to different paid editors were mixed in, it's really hard to post on-wiki evidence that definitively links any given account with a particular off-wiki individual without violating outing. I'll drop you an email in the immediate future, and can dig up more diffs afterwards if needed of other bad behavior (yesterday ended up really busy.) But bioengineer+attorney is most certainly a Wiki-PR acocunt.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is not individual bad diffs (though the LTA mentions some whitewashing of clients' articles) but the systematic insertion, for money, with an undeclared COI, of tidy-looking articles, with references that look OK until checked, on non-notable subjects. Having been caught, Jordan French may "admit that we’ve made bad calls on “notability”"; he doesn't say he won't do that any more, but even if he did, why should we believe him when his paid editors do not disclose their interest? To see why it's a problem, look at this AfD I referred to above - DGG "tried to fix it, but I gave up, as there was not enough underlying notability". Why should DGG have to spend his freely-given time trying, and failing, to clean up an article someone else has been paid $1,500 to write? JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * support I think a formal ban is important as it will likely reduce the number of companies working with them and thus reduce the amount of trouble that show up on our doorstep. And certainly support requiring them to come clean about past issues before unbanning them. Hobit (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Advertising has no place in an encyclopedia.  Mini  apolis  21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Largely symbolic, unfortunately, but it does help send a message to potential clients that no, we do not find this behaviour acceptable, and no, Wiki-PR does not have the support of any so-called "silent majority".  Caveat emptor. Resolute 22:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - malicious sockpuppetry is unacceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - one of the unpaid majority. Shenme (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support - while paid editing is acceptable, paid sockpuppetry, meatpuuppetry, and promotion is unacceptable. I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: As per Resolute. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is not entirely symbolic even at this point, a clear statement by the community is required. This is also overwhelmingly supported (I count 24 to 0) so it might as well be closed at the earliest reasonable date.  The proposals below look like mere distractions. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative ban text
Assuming suitable evidence can be found to tie Morning277 to Wiki-PR, better ban text would be:


 * Anyone who would edit the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR or its affiliates, broadly construed, is banned. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR has, as an organization, has repeatedly violated Wikipedia site standards.


 * This ban may be appealed by emailing any Wikipedia administrator who will then post the appeal at the administrators noticeboard. The Wikipedia community has decided that the conditions for unbanning are that Wiki-PR must (a) provide a list of articles created or edited by Wiki-PR staff so those articles can be inspected for policy violations, and (c) pledge to only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and to adhere to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. Individual accounts  may be blocked under this ban if there is on-wiki or Checkuser evidence connecting them to Wiki-PR or previously identified Wiki-PR accounts.  This ban does not authorize outing of any editor, nor does it authorize off-wiki research into editor identities. Off-wiki research to identify bogus sources habitually used by Wiki-PR is allowed.

The initially proposed text has a number of problems. I think this text is better. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've corrected a typo - hope you don't mind. Peridon (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Jehochman Talk 14:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've taken out the company name because it's not yet clear who Morning277 is working for. We are looking into that. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And now put the name back in because of this:  http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ Jehochman Talk 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support if I'm allowed to support both versions... So long as something gets done. BTW that article is interesting, but I longed for an edit button. I hate seeing things like 'flaunted' for 'flouted'... Peridon (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - similar to Peridon, will just be happy to get rid of these guys who have no care for our ethos. GiantSnowman 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, and request the WMF to do everything they can to publicise the ban so that news of it reaches potential clients. Two additional points:
 * Potential customers should realise that not only may their paid-for article be deleted, but they may find themselves effectively blacklisted. Add something like: "'Articles created by Wiki-PR editors may be speedily deleted under WP:CSD and may not be re-created without an independent review process'."
 * Otherwise (as has been happening) they simply create more socks and throw the articles in again. That would need a "Wiki-PR article appeals board" of experienced and undoubtedly independent users - requiring AfC would be no good because they could simply create more socks to approve their articles.
 * Why rule out off-wiki investigation and outing? This case is so serious, and the spammer has so many advantages, that we should not commit ourselves to fight with one hand tied behind our backs.
 * JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a battleground here, we are trying to be civil but strict, not trying to combat them.  Konveyor   Belt  16:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLE refers to internal discussions. When Wikipedia's neutrality is under threat from large-scale spamming by an organization which never declares its interest but conceals its operations by constantly starting new accounts, we certainly are trying to combat them, and it is no exaggeration to call it a battle. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose I think a condition of unbanning them should be for them to identify who they've hired so we can more easily clean find and clean up issues as they exist. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a list of editors. If they would give us a list of articles they worked on, that would allow us to check all of them, delete the non-notables, and review any remaining.  Once the articles are fixed, we then insist that any future editing be done transparently and in compliance with our policies. Jehochman Talk 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were a single editor with a couple hundred found socks, we'd certainly require them to identify all old socks. I don't see why a company should have a lower bar than an individual.  In any case, it is needed to identify and clean up any bad edits that didn't get noticed and/or fixed.  Hobit (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first point is too wobbly; 'you must work with us to help unfuck what you fucked' has too much wiggle room for them compared to requiring them to disclose every article they've touched. I also oppose the idea of forbidding off-wiki investigation.  Simon (author of the DD piece) and Martin (author of the VICE piece) were both able to confirm Wiki-PR clients as Wiki-PR clients by simply emailing them and asking.  If we get an OTRS ticket from the 100% confirmed subject of an article asking why their article was deleted after they had paid Wiki-PR so much money, that would not be acceptable evidence to block the account that created the article under this wording.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If somebody spontaneously publishes an article or tells us that Wiki-PR created an article for them, we can take note and respond accordingly. What we don't want is our volunteer editor community looking for enemies.  That's not what we do.  It is caustic to the community when editors to suspect and investigate one another.  During many incidents over the years we've learned this lesson. I like the suggestion that we require a list of articles they worked on.  We have every right to demand that information. Jehochman Talk 00:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As currently worded, it also wouldn't let us use conclusive behavioral evidence as a justification for a block. As an example of what this could look like: it's been established in media coverage of this that clients of Wiki-PR who failed on notability guidelines were often referred to 'Scarsdale Media' - a company run by someone related to the founder of Wiki-PR - to buffer up their notability with faux news stories.  In the past, the use of these sites as cites was a valuable tool in identifying Wiki-PR sockpuppets; if someone used vatalyst.com and a bunch of citizen journalism sites misrepresented as being their parent sites (i.e., cnn ireports listed as cnn,) they could be reasonably assumed to be a sock/meat of Wiki-PR.  But, with no off-wiki investigation, someone wouldn't be able to point out the fact that vatalyst wasn't a legitimate news site and was run by a family member of one of Wiki-PR's founders, facts highly suggestive that anyone who wrote articles based off of vatalyst sources while otherwise fitting the behavioral pattern of Wiki-PR was in fact a Wiki-PR employee.  I understand your concern about a witchhunt to some degree, but there's no reason to cripple our ability to get rid of people who constantly break our rules (while making a hell of a lot of money in the process.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support either version; the line is no longer bright.  Mini  apolis  21:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with caveat—We need to be practical. Like illicit drug use, if you legislate against it you just drive it underground, where it's totally unregulated. I bang on about de.WP's approach, which I see as being more practical: let them take out a company username; monitor them; ensure they're good citizens or break their nose, so to speak. The belatedness of our discovery of this mass abuse is proof that we are hopeless at ferreting out the miscreants. Tony   (talk)  06:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prefer the first proposal's wording. - Bilby (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to Anthonyhcole's request for evidence of "cast-iron confirmed WikiPR editors": Sinclaip wrote in her unblock request" "I work for oDesk.com and was hired by a person called Darius Fisher who is the co-founder of Investment Underground. He asked me to post the Exosite information to my sandbox (the information looked legitimate). I had no idea that I would be blocked."

The Wiki-PR Web site lists a Darius Fisher as "Co-Founder, Chief Operations Officer" (archived at  and ).

I posted a request (which was not honoured) to have investmentunderground.com blacklisted. In the request I listed numerous mentions of the site in User:Sublimeharmony/sandbox11.

Mattwalker78, another editor who was blocked in the Morning277 SPI, wrote "4/28: add the following information to Southwest Energy's page in a neutral and encylopedic way. Darius will bill for an additional $500 for this update."

For those who find the above unconvincing, consider that the Wall Street Journal article quotes Wiki-PR's CEO as writing "we do pay hundreds of other editors for their work"; on the company's site is a claim that it employs a "staff of 45 Wikipedia editors and admins", archived at. The company has not disclosed any of the accounts used by it or its subcontractors. Even if it were unconnected to the activity found in the "Morning277" SPI, the company's own description of its services demonstrates that it disregards WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:POV.

Part of DeltaQuad's explanation for shutting down the SPI was that there are multiple people working for this company, and there was no mandate for the use of checkuser information ("We do not have the power given by the community to 1) CU meatpuppets") . The alternative ban text, if approved, would seem to give such a mandate, and I support it for that reason. I'd like to propose just that addition to Kevin Gorman's proposal: see below.' &mdash; rybec   09:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that this should influence your vote, but I wouldn't expect any change in the SPI/CU decision - that is independent of a banning decision here. - Bilby (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That Sinclaip quote seals it for me. Meatpuppetry by any definition of the term and clearly at the direction of WikiPR. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC) (Moved support back to original proposal.)


 * Oppose this wording; completely banning any off-wiki investigation is too limiting. See example I gave above. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the conditions outlined for appeal in first version are better. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MVBW. The first version is overwhelmingly supported in any case. There is no reason to try to distract anybody from that. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative ban text version 2
Base on feedback above:


 * Anyone who would edit the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR or its affiliates, broadly construed, is banned. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR has, as an organization, has repeatedly violated Wikipedia site standards.


 * This ban may be appealed by emailing any Wikipedia administrator who will then post the appeal at the administrators noticeboard. The Wikipedia community has decided that the conditions for unbanning are that Wiki-PR must (a) provide a list of articles created or edited by Wiki-PR staff so those articles can be inspected for policy violations, (b) pledge to only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts, and (c) promise to follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Individual accounts  may be blocked under this ban if there is on-wiki, behavioral, or Checkuser evidence connecting them to Wiki-PR or previously identified Wiki-PR accounts.  This ban does not authorize outing of any editor, nor does it authorize off-wiki research into editor identities. However, off-wiki research may be conducted to identify bogus or obscure sources habitually used by Wiki-PR staff.

Please comment. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Whatever relates to privacy was already defined in existing policies. No need to mention anything about it here. This version provides an exemption from the policy that protects violator, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I pretty much feel how MVBW does. You've written in the one exception I pointed out in the earlier section, but I can think of plenty of other reasonable exceptions. We have a policy against outing - a strong one, at that - that should be sufficient to guard against violations of privacy.  If a trail of public off-wiki research leads to the firm conclusion that someone works for Wiki-PR then that trail can be sent off-wiki to an administrator or arbcom as is outlined in WP:OUTING, just as would be the case in any normal sock or meatpuppetry investigation.  We don't need to give these people special protection on the basis that their rule violations are more egregious than most peoples' are. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MVBW. The first version is overwhelmingly supported anyway - why distract attention from it?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment
I am not quite sure why this hasn't been brought up before, but User:Jehochman who has been extremely active in this case and been the proposer of several policy changes seems to be having a rather obvious WP:COI problem themselves regarding this subject.

On their user page they have a link disclosing that their professional specialties are: "website development, website security, online marketing, search engine optimization (SEO), search marketing (SEM), and pay-per-click (PPC) advertising". When asked about whether this profession does not pose a problem regarding conflict of interest in this current case on their talk page they replied (my bold) that:


 * "For the record, I do not do any paid editing, because it's not time-income effective for me. If a client asks me about Wikipedia I may advise them how to work with the community to get things done within policy, e.g. post suggestions to talk pages, announce themselves and answer any question.  Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation.   My feeling is that if Wikipedia gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)"

Whether they themselves perform the paid editing or that they advise clients to other paid editing services is not really important. It seems to be an obvious COI-problem either way. And attempts at hiding probes into this problem as the edit summaries reveals just makes it more obvious that everything is not as it should be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like the removal of Hobit's comment. There is overwhelming support for banning WikiPR, and I see little need for alternate text. Doc   talk  08:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I remove dull comments from my talk page. Don't like my talk page rules?  Don't post there. For years I've been subject to harassment in the form of, "Jehochman has a COI because he works in marketing."  It's annoying (and dull) when people keep beating that dead horse. Thanks Saddhiyama for joining in the chorus of the ignorant.  Thanks. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I also don't like you guys trying to out editors as being COI. Saying you disagree with his proposals and then trying to prove he has a COI is in obvious bad faith.  Konveyor   Belt  17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Asking about COI is a reasonable thing.  I'll do it on a corporate article and I'll do it on a bio if I think someone is editing in a way that indicates they have a COI.  I felt that two editors stood out as editing in a way that indicated a potential COI so I researched both.  One I found what appeared to be a real conflict, one I did not.  I didn't out anyone, I only used what they'd posted on Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My plan was to bring this to WP:COIN after all the current discussions about paid editing blew over. It seemed to have the potential to generate a lot of heat and very little light in this current discussion but that it was worth addressing for future discussions. I do have serious problems with someone who potentially has a COI on the matter taking such a large role in the discussion without clearly disclosing that conflict.  As far as his talk page goes, he is welcome to remove comments from there--it's his talk page. Though I didn't like him claiming I was ABF by asking the question. I felt I asked it in a reasonable way and that I was expressing reasonable concerns.  Hobit (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another variation
I'd like to propose what Kevin Gorman requested, but with the following tacked on: "Even though Wiki-PR employs more than one person, the community nonetheless endorses the use of Checkuser information in enforcing this ban." &mdash; rybec   02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose this addition, but would ask that an uninvolved admin find consensus in this thread and close soon. The sooner the better, really. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * }

Pashtun diaspora / people
Could someone take a look at Pashtun diaspora and Pashtun people? There seems to be a heated battle going on. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal by Martinvl
ẦI wish to appeal this ban on a number of items. In order to speed things up, I plan to first contest a number of "show-stopper" procedural items - items which if upheld will save everybody having to wade through reams of text.
 * When Wee Curry Monster wrote that I had resumed edit-warring, he was not in full possession of the facts.
 * My version of the vote-stacking issue might well have got lost in a WP:Wall of text.
 * As an adjunct to my version of the vote-stacking episode, I made it clear that I did not intend to rebut the allegations against me until the vote-stacking issue had been cleared up. The closing editor has made no reference to this request and I have not yet rebutted the accusations made against me.

Wee Curry Monster misunderstood my activity on the page Template:Systems of measurement
Firstly, the claim by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) that I was continue to edit-war was ill-founded. Although he gave a number of references, he was unaware that I was in the process of preparing an this ANI request for an investigation into User:EzEdit.

EzEdit appears to be running an account for the sole purpose of discrediting then article Imperial and US customary measurement systems of which I was the principal editor. If it transpires that EzEdit is running an account for this sole purpose, then the actions on which WCM commented were totally justified making WCM's claim ill-founded. This should be sufficient for the block to be raised forthwith.

I notice that this SPA request has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. I request that this SPA be reopened and investigated as part and parcel of my appeal. It is highly possible and that User:EzEdit is a sock-puppet of the banned editor User:DeFacto - he is quackling like DeFacto but has possibly fooled WP:CheckUser by changing his editing habits and in particular using different sock-puppet accounts for each type of attack (cw a One-time pad. For the record, User:R.stickler used this technique - more details on request). If this is the case, then the trigger for this ban become null and void.

Wee Curry Monster factually misrepresented facts In his last posting
WCM's account of what happened in the last few hours is factually wrong.
 * He stated that I was blocked for week. The actual period was 48 hours.
 * He stated that I was edit-warring. The reality is that a new user EzEdit started edit-warring. In exasperation with EzEdit, I set the page back to its last stable version - the version that existed when EzEdit first opened his Wikipedia account. Since WCM had never been involved with that page, he was unable to asses the true situation.
 * His statement about natural justice showed his ignorance about legal matters. This is discussed in more detail in the section.

Vote stacking issue
I twice outlined my reasons for vote-stacking: here and here. In both of these I laid out exactly why I was making accusations of vote-stacking. My case might well have been hidden by a WP:Wall of text, in which case the administrator might well have missed it - the first of these two posting is hidden under green banner with the text "Moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)". The first of these requests were lying around for a week without action.

In both postings, I requested that if the closing administrator did not see fit to close the ANI on grounds of vote stacking, that I be in formed so that I could prepare a rebuttal of my case. I request that the closing admin revisit the vote-stacking issue taking note that WCM selectively notified certain editors and as a result the whole case was prejudiced from the very beginning. Will the closing admin please also note that it was WCM who made this request which should also be viewed in the light of WCM's vote stacking.

Right of Reply
As explained earlier, I have not yet exercised my right to reply. I knew that to reply to an accusation where the vote-stacking issue had yet to be resolved would merely cause the ANI to expand out of all proportion, so I decided to wait until the evidence was in place and then, when requested to do so by the closing admin, reply.

May I draw to attention that Wikipedia has very strict rule about WP:BLP. Editors are also living people and like non-Wikipedians, are entitled to demand that facts about them are accurately reported. Normally if a Wikipedia discussion is getting out of control, an editor can walk away unscathed. However, if the discussion is about the editor concerned, then I submit the editor has an unfettered right, just as any other living person, to ensure that his rights are not infringed.

When I tried to exercise that right here, User:Beyond My Ken suppressed that right. When I protested, User:Beyond My Ken was assisted by two other administrators to supress those rights further and to impose a 48 hour ban on me, (not a week as alleged by WCM). Beyond my Ken subsequently posted this statement which showed his complete ignorance of the situation - Wikipedia is subject to the law of the State of Florida and as such, I have many rights. I do not know all of them, but everybody, including Beyond My Ken, must surely be aware of the right redress in cases of libel. These rights are very closely tied in with the concept of natural justice.

I ask therefore that the ban is lifted and that I have the right to reply without interruption from any other party. This is exactly what happens in a court of law - the accuser lays his case and then the defendant answer the case, thereby avoiding the problems of Ochlocracy.

Misrepresentation of fact by other editors
In this section I will rebut the evidence placed by other editors. This will involve considerable preparation work by me and considerable work by whoever reads is, so rather than waste a lot time, it is probably best to initially examine the first parts of the appeal. If those are grounds for the appeal to be upheld, then a lot of work will be saved all round.

Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This appeal is a very good example of why, in my !vote supporting a topic ban, I commented that an indef block would probably be more appropriate. Martinvl's behavior – tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT, lack of understanding of the nature of the project and extreme Wikilawyering – is a strong indication that he is not a good match for this project.  At this time I will not call for an indef block, but I do strongly oppose his appeal; however, if Martinvl does not turn his behavior around and start editing productively in areas outside of his topic ban, then I do think an indef block will be called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it is pertinent here, I will repeat my statement that Martinvl refers to above as "completely ignorant." It is, of course, precisely correct, just as his protestation about the laws of Florida is totally irrelevant: "Your misunderstanding is that you have no rights here, nor does anyone else who edits Wikipedia. This is a private website, operating under rules promulgated by the WMF and further developed by the community of editors. You have no 'right' to edit here', no 'right' to have 'justice' done, no 'right' to due process. What you have is an obligation to follow community-determined mores of behavior. Period. If you don't understand that, you will never be happy here, and if you don't observe that obligation, the community can, and will, turn you out without batting an eyelash, and you will have no 'right' of protest - although the community will almost certainly allow you to appeal any ban, even though it is not obliged to do so. Does that make the situation any clearer to you?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to point out that Martinvl has, in the very short time it has been in effect, already broken his topic ban. He asked the admin who applied the ban if the ban could be relaxed so that he could report another editor's behavior in the topic ban area, but did not wait for a response and went ahead and posted on AN/I a few minutes later.  (The answer, which came a few minutes after that, was "no".) This behavior seems typical of Martinvl's sense of entitlement and unwillingness to "play by the rules". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim to refuse to address the substance because there was some other process issue, makes this appeal seem unworthy of much consideration. Sorry, you did not address the substance when you had a chance to, but that was your decision (and may, in part, have led to the TB because it was seen as stonewalling by not addressing the substance). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Action is needed to prevent any further legal threats combined with misguided wikilawyering. Here is the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=578744506&oldid=578742200 diff] of Martinvl adding the following text in the OP above: "Wikipedia is subject to the law of the State of Florida and as such, I have many rights. I do not know all of them, but everybody, including Beyond My Ken, must surely be aware of the right redress in cases of libel." That is a friendly reminder to BMK that they are subject to legal redress for comments made at Wikipedia, and that is as misguided as it gets. The entire tone of the OP shows that an extended break from Wikipedia is necessary to prevent further time wasting. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I have no concerns. Truth is an absolute defense for a claim of libel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are not concerned, but I am (and you would be too if you seriously thought about the consequences of being involved in a lengthy and highly disruptive legal process, regardless of personal confidence in the outcome). WP:NLT is not switched off if the threatened editor is not concerned, and the reason for that is the chilling effect upon other editors who may have been contemplating commenting in relation to the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that my lack of concern had any bearing on whether Martinvl's comment was a legal threat or not, as we define it. In fact, now that the statement has been pointed out to me, I do think it fulfills the requirements of WP:NLT, and is yet another reason why an indef block may be required. (And, yes indeed, I've given his comment every bit of thought it deserved.)  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While that's clearly unhelpful wikilawyering and Martinvl should strike the comment, I don't think that it was intended as a legal threat. My reading of the discussion at ANI which led to the ban is that Martinvl has the mistaken belief that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process runs through a formal legal process. He also tried to have the ANI thread closed due to what he claimed were procedural problems, and it's concerning that he's doubled down on this failed argument by opening this thread dispute the lack of support he received for this position and the attempts by myself and several others to point out that the crux of the issue is his conduct and that the procedural matters he raised are irrelevant at best. As this appears to be classic WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT conduct, I agree that an indefinite duration block appears to be in order until Martinvl provides commitments to abide by the topic ban and avoid disruptive conduct such as this. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the earlier history, I agree with Johnuniq that the edit referred to above is an invocation of external legal systems to intimidate, and thus a violation of the spirit of WP:NLT. It is true that everyone does have some rights here: however, among the most important of them is  the right to be free from attempts at intimidation. I agree that a substantial block of Martinvl is justified to maintain an open editing environment.  DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No rights here, privately owned website. I guess if someone steals your stuff from off-wiki (copyvio) you have the right to send WMF a take-down notice, but that's about it. NE Ent 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No,, the CC-BY-SA licence on contributions here is irrevocable. You might be able to get something taken down, but it would be done as a courtesy or out of pragmatism, rather than through the exercise of a right. A third party’s violation of the conditions is not WP’s problem.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you issued WMF with a DMCA takedown for an image you uploaded, they would be obliged to takedown the image with an OFFICE action to comply with the DMCA, it would not be handled as a mere courtesy deletion. IIRC that has happened on Commons, even though that's not really the task of the DMCA. If the takedown is contested, then legal action may well follow (and a block necessary to ensure legal processes occur elsewhere).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If WMF gets a legit takedown, they remove the content; see example [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sport_in_Australia&diff=570877713&oldid=570727378] NE Ent 02:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Question I am trying to understand the voluminous earlier history. Am I correct that there is no substantive issue of content involved: that the dispute is over how the group of articles on the subject should be arranged and linked in the template? If so, this discussing is an example of what has become a frequent  misuse of   WP AN and WP:ANI, wasting everyone's time over the unimportant--some uninvolved editor should decide one way or another and the issue settled. If our procedure does not provide for this, it should be evoked by IAR.    DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response The ANI thread didn't begin with any mention of that template and hardly anyone touched on it. It is arguable that Martinvl was not wise to risk appearing to edit-war over the template rather than engage with the ANI discussion, as that did prompt a request for the discussion to be closed. NebY (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had past run-ins with this editor, but I would have to agree with Nick-D - if he shows no intention to abide by his topic ban, an indefinite block is in order. --Rschen7754 01:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: The Florida stuff is a historical artifact from when servers where located there -- WMF now recommends simply "US law" per this wt:edit warring discussion. NE Ent 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If this ban is to be sustainable, then all three of the issues that I have outlined need to be addressed. So far, nobody has dealt with the vote-stacking issue. User:Wee Curry Monster's actions "ticked all the boxes" in respect of vote-stacking. In so doing, he introduced a systematic bias into this discussion. The introduction of systematic bias is sufficient to get the whole discussion declared null and void, and possibly for the proposer himself to be banned. Martinvl (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't how Wikipedia processes work at all. We don't have formal legal-syle processes or apply formal legal-sytle tests as you are arguing here. There was a discussion of your conduct and how to respond to it (to which you had ample opportunity to respond), and the consensus was to apply a topic ban. The judgement of the admin who closed the discussion was sound and in line with policy. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Martinvl appears to be unwilling to acknowledge that multiple admins and long-term editors have dismissed his "vote-stacking" allegations as unfounded. Those interested can peruse the topic ban discussion above, and the discussions on Martinvl's talkg page (now deleted) to find them, but the most obvious one came in the closing by TParis. In short, Martinvl, the vote stacking case is done, caput, finished.  You did not prevail. You were on the losing side. No one thought it was a problem.  Get over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose any modification of the topic ban of this editor who is doggedly determined to push a POV regarding measurement systems. Nobody stacked my vote; I am 100% independent. The editor has utterly failed to reflect on their own problematic behavior, and instead, as I see it, persists in wallowing in the swamp called "Wikilawyering".  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  06:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Matinvl, if you wish to demonstrate to the community that your topic ban should be removed, then you will need to justify that in terms of your own conduct. To do that, demonstrate either that your conduct in the initial dispute was not problematic in the first (by focusing on your own actions), or that you realise your conduct was (and is) problematic and you will not do so again.
 * Realistically you need to reflect on your own actions, including the wikilawyering, and understand why your conduct is wrong. If can change your approach, and demonstrate that you have improved and are able to act in a collaborative manner (which will need time), then the ban will not be needed and will likely be removed.
 * Your quasi-legal approach, along with the failure to listen to the views of others (how many have told you to stop it?), has ZERO chance of getting the ban removed. As others have noted, you are heading towards an indefinite block.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Review requested
I have semi protected Amon Goeth for a week and indef blocked, whose sole activity so far has been to remove material from the Goeth article. Seems pretty staightforward but I am posting here for review as I have done extensive editing on the article. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to the block. The semi-protection now appears to be unwarranted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I have taken off the protection as suggested. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2)
There are 11 pages whose edits by everybody require reviews. I really thought that level-two PC is no longer active. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 7 pages and one redirect, actually. The testing pages are allowed. The result of PC2012/RfC 1 was that there is no consensus for use of PC2 on the English Wikipedia other than on those test pages. Was there a more recent RfC? If not, these should all be converted to full or semi protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus to prohibit use of PC2, it's just not part of the standard protection policy. Peter&#160;James (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that you are mistaken. Besides the above-mentioned RfC. Protection policy is an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow, and Protection policy clearly states "Pending changes level 2 protection ... No consensus for use on the English Wikipedia per WP:PC2012/RfC 1". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus to prohibit it's use either. There's Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3 but that proposal is "only to end the trial". If you're contesting the use of PC2 on these pages, Consensus may be a reason to remove it if after discussion there's still no consensus on these specific protections, and local consensus can be used if there's no wider consensus. Peter&#160;James (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "No consensus for use" does, in fact, equal "do not use". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that the Conventional PCI article was protected as a Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which is policy. Mojoworker (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Permissions request
This being my public account, could you kindly apply all the rights and privileges of my regular account? Thank you. IneuwPublic (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your Ineuw account does not have any special privileges other than being "autoconfirmed", which your public account will achieve automatically 4 days after creation, once you have made 10 edits. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, post this at WP:RFPERM (confirmed) using the appropriate template, and then follow it up with a confirmation post from your original account, and someone there will confirm it. That is, after all, why that board exists  ES  &#38;L  18:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP vio article moves
This is an incident. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Slavic neopaganism edit war
Ip 195.150.224.80 keeps entirely deleting the properly sourced section "etymology" of the Slavic neopaganism article. See this diff for example.--87.14.78.174 (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected&#32;for a period of 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Permissions request
This being my public account, could you kindly apply all the rights and privileges of my regular account? Thank you. IneuwPublic (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your Ineuw account does not have any special privileges other than being "autoconfirmed", which your public account will achieve automatically 4 days after creation, once you have made 10 edits. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, post this at WP:RFPERM (confirmed) using the appropriate template, and then follow it up with a confirmation post from your original account, and someone there will confirm it. That is, after all, why that board exists  ES  &#38;L  18:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Headaches with regards to Lynx (spacecraft)
I am making a request for some informal mediation to take place among the participants of the Linx (spacecraft) article and to review the behavior of User:Skyring. I think this needs to have a few additional eyeballs to witness the discussion and for perhaps policy to be explained to some of the participants as appropriate. Yes, I'm willing to be educated if I'm going over the top here too.

I would appreciate any assistance from anybody involved in this matter. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My observation, before I bailed out of that discussion for my own sanity's sake, is that Skyring/Pete (he signs using the latter name) is engaged in disruption involving a complete misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH, with refusal to listen and/or Wikilayering using weasel-words when contradicted. A quick glance at the shenanigans since then indicates no apparent change in behavior. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the article relies too much on primary sources and obvious press releases. We should drop those and use the numerous good secondary sources available, such as those from the industry press and Smithsonian Air and Space. That's in accord with WP:PRIMARY. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, WP:PRIMARY does not exclude the use of primary sources from a Wikipedia article, and there is no need to perform a wholesale purge of those primary sources simply for the sake of using secondary sources alone. Besides, there are numerous secondary sources that are cited in this article, so I presume "too much reliance" is that any primary sources are used at all?  --Robert Horning (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with that article is not so much any one edit, but rather massive disruption to the process of building the encyclopedia by one particular editor, who repeatedly makes Bold edits (fine, as far as any one edit goes), and then refuses to enter into Discussions in good faith after his edit is reverted and a WP:BRD discussion started–because he continues to reinsert his edits (and/or citation deletions) into the encyclopedia while the discussion is ongoing (borderline edit warring, but usually stops short of the 4th edit in 24 hours (3RR); seems to be totally unable to hear the comments of multiple editors who challenge his non-consensus edits. That is the frequent reoccuring and general problem.  When the disruptions initially started a few weeks ago, he also went WP:FORUMSHOPPING, plus opened up an AfD, on which a half dozen uninvolved editors did not side with his position.  In fact, I don't believe any one of some ten or so editors who have dialogued with him have backed a single one of his positions.  In short, disruptive behavior since his earliest edits on that article a couple of weeks ago.  See the Talk page for more than enough background to assess what is going on there in that article; but he has also run off a couple of editors by arguing and not listening on other pages as well.  Sadly, there is still a lot of work to do yet on that article just to clean up his previous deletions of citations. N2e (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggested earlier, on an edit summary, that this could be moved to AN/I, given that it mainly relates to complaints about my editing behaviour. On closer examination, this could be something of concern to admins in general, namely the use of primary sources in certain articles to provide high-value links to commercial organisations. In the case of Lynx (spacecraft), there are 32 links in the article, 13 of which lead to the manufacturer (XCOR) or their Caribbean ticketing agent (SXC). There were several more, before I began trimming them down, resulting in howls of outrage and dismay from the article's regular editors. Other similar articles display similar characteristics, such as: There are undoubtedly more. This pattern of heavy reliance on primary sources seems to be rare in Wikipedia articles, at least for those with non-trivial link counts. --Pete (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dream Chaser (57 links, 19 leading to SNC websites or YouTube channels),
 * Falcon (rocket family) (60 links, 18 leading to manufacturer SpaceX).
 * Falcon 9 v1.1 (50 links, 15 leading to SpaceX)
 * Falcon 9 (89 links, 21 leading to SpaceX)
 * So, now you're alleging WP:COI and suggesting this be taken to the kangaroo court...have fun when the WP:BOOMERANG hits. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Update MTN Irancell Logo
Dear administrators. Would you please help me to update and overwrite MTN Irancell Logo? Current logo in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irancell.gif New MTN Irancell logo: http://irancell.ir/Portal/Picture/ShowPicture.aspx?ID=0f0b542f-e0e1-4877-b6f7-6a6fcb15fe28 Thanks in advice --Hamid 2fun (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Any help? --Hamid 2fun (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting this request in the middle of the board, as opposed to the bottom where it belongs won't help - however, I have left you some image-related help on your talkpage. ES  &#38;L  13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Admin. I did not post my request in the middle of the board. Please take a look at the dates. Thanks for your consideration but i did not get my answer. --Hamid 2fun (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Dear Drmies, Thanks for your answer. I have uploaded the correct logo in wikicommons (while it seems that it is not the right place for non-free logos) and updated the article's source by myself. But now i am trying to find out how i can replace the correct logo with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irancell.gif. Because it has been uploaded in the right place with a real copyright information. I may not need to replace the files. Instead, I need to know how to upload a non-free copyrighted logo. --Hamid 2fun (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem. What you identify as "current" logo, File:Irancell.gif, is no longer the current logo; the current logo is File:Irancell Logo.gif, which appears to be exactly the same as the image you link to. I'm trying to verify whether that logo agrees with the company website, which is mindbogglingly slow--OK, I'm giving up on that, I hope their cell phone connections are better than their internet accessibility. The picture you linked is from the company site, so I consider that legitimate. The earlier image is up for deletion since it's no longer in use; in other words, there is no problem here. (Except that MTN Irancell reads like it was posted by the company.) Drmies (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Block Appeal by User:Colton Cosmic
It has been six months since my block was discussed here. At that time it wasn't lifted but I'll try again. I hope for a previously uninvolved administrator to volunteer to discuss my case with me at my talkpage (you will have to unblock me there). I was blocked more than a year ago on the basis of sockpuppetry, but I've always said I didn't do it. Like my very first edit says, I had privacy concerns with my original account so I switched to this, never going back. What Timotheus Canens says, though it took him a long time to explain it, is that I "stirred up trouble" with my new account and therefore it became a sock. I feel that it is wrong to characterize my contributions as troublemaking. Even in the short time before I was blocked I improved several articles, and authored one: Rain City Superhero Movement. It is accurate I was uncivil to Nomoskedacity (spelling?) I called him or her a "provocateur" and questioned his or her value to the project. But the context is I was aggravated because I viewed Nomo. as persistently bullying Youreallycan. Anyhow, if you are willing, let's discuss this at my page. The last thing I'd ask is don't accept allegations against me as true without letting me answer them. This is C o l t o n  C o s m i c.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.195.211 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, you just went through an extensive unblock discussion at Jimbo's talkpage ES  &#38;L  09:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's something I'd have brought up at my talkpage to any administrator considering my appeal. This is C o l t o n  C o s m i c.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.195.211 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss the point: as per WP:OFFER, you'll need to wait at least 6 months after your most recent appeal, which was to Jimbo. Seriously Colton, I have given you sage advice again and again - this one simply shows you have no desire to act according to the rules.  You have no rights to edit here.  Whether or not you feel the ban was just, it's been upheld by the community and by Jimbo.  You now have to follow the processes to the letter.  Stop shooting yourself in the foot by trying to circumvent things - it just proves the community and Jimbo right  ES  &#38;L  09:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Editing as an IP while indef blocked is, by definition, block evasion. No appeal of the block should be considered, and the IP should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Policy (WP:EVADE) expressly makes such actions discretionary. You would be correct to say my IP "may" be blocked. To explain it from my view though, I've no alternative. My talkpage is blocked to me, so I can't appeal there. This is C o l t o n  C o s m i c.


 * They've tried arbcom, they've tried Jimbo, now they're trying to find a WP:OTHERPARENT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a few dozen editors who regularly state that admins are idiots. I suppose Colton's trying to prove that point and actually find one of those idiots ES  &#38;L  09:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude by not replying anymore to ES&L (aka Bwilkins) and Demiurge1000, but I'm beware "wall of text" that turns everybody else off. I'll squeeze though in that I'm not calling any administrator an idiot. This is C o l t o n  C o s m i c.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.195.211 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for block evasion. GiantSnowman 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * also blocked for block evasion. BencherliteTalk 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding new userright
Please see this RfC regarding a admin-granted userright "reviewer permission" for AfC. I'll tread on the edge of the canvassing rules by saying that this proposed userright does not seem to be able to be implemented in a way that it will effect any real technical permissions or restrictions, and leave it at that. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You should have stopped after the link to the discussion. GiantSnowman 12:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably. I really debated.  I'll strike it out, not that that really helps anything.  If anyone thinks it's a serious problem, please archive this entire section and place a more neutral link.  Gigs (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RE User:Medeis
For some reason a user I have never known (User:Medeis) reacted hysterically to an edit I made a day or two ago regarding the discrepancies in reports of the actual cause of actress Marcia Wallace's death.


 * This editor publicly accused and threatened me, without even attempting to contact me, of and about:
 * 1) Violating 3RR (untrue and bizarre)
 * 2) Committing WP:BLP (when the subject is deceased!!!)
 * 3) Expressing opinions on the talk page (WTF?!!!)


 * First, he/she claims that I committed "edit fraud" because the reflink backing up the comments made by her son which I entered into the article, was not present (i.e. the reflink following the comment did not confirm that the comments made by the son were actually made). Even if this were true (and it is not), the editor should have assumed and had no reason not to assume good faith, and contacted me on my talk page. The reflink (reflink #10) has been present over the last 24-48 hours since the notice of Wallace's death.


 * Then in his re-editing (since reversed as I readded the reflink more clearly since he was too lazy to find it), he made an inflammatory edit summary comment, to wit: "unsupported BLP violation removed, editor has expressed OR on talk and been made aware of 3RR and BLP violation". This is insane. What BLP violation? Even if I knew what that was it cannot apply as Wallace, the subject of the article is deceased. It seems that the gist of this nonsense apparently is that he/she did not see the reflink which clearly quoted Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, even though it was at the end of the same paragraph (again, reflink #10), which he/she could not be bothered to look at or for.


 * This is the text in question:"On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death; however, Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace 'passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing'."


 * Reflink # 10 is reflink # 3 here due to truncated text:


 * "editor has expressed OR on talk [page]" -- I did express what I clearly stated was my own opinion regarding the discrepancy between her son's comments that his mother was cancer-free and a claim by Wallace's friend that she had died from complications of breast cancer (with which she had been diagnosed in 1985 but long considered cured given the length of time). Is there a rule that one cannot posit or express opinions on article talk pages??


 * This outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault by User:Medeis merits a block, in my humble opinion, particularly given his history of being blocked for abusive conduct. Quis separabit?  21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Medeis notified of this ANI action. Quis separabit?  21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR is not applicable to talk pages; the first sentence of the policy page reads Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. You made three sets of edits in a 24-hour span before Medeis' edit, so even without looking at the diffs, I knew that you'd not violated 3RR.  Meanwhile, the sequence of edits I find rather confusing, and a non-3RR edit war really demands a clear and non-confusing history. Even the strictest and most absurd application of BLP permits what you've added, and removing it violates WP:NPOV — there's a dispute over the cause of death, so our article mustn't mention exactly one of them. You're to be commended, RMS, for ensuring that the article retains the ambiguity over the cause of death.  At the same time, this really isn't something block-worthy; I'd suggest that we close this now, only implementing any sanctions if it continue. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. I just want to say that Medeis (I don't know if this is a he or she) accused accused me of 3RR and BLP, claims he/she has been "civil" with me when my first knowledge of his existence came when I checked my watchlist and saw this edit summary accusing me of this, that and the other, because Medeis was too lazy to look for the reflink at the end of a sentence/paragraph. I know NOR is not applicable to talk pages, apparently Medeis doesn't. Sorry, I am just really mad about being blindsided over nonsense by someone who didn't even have the decency to contact my talk page. Thanks for listening. Quis separabit?  21:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Response by Medeis
This is getting a bit absurd, given this was cut and pasted from AN3, where it was closed. I'll just ask admins to look at the language used by Rms125a above ("outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault "), compared to the complete lack of diffs to support it, and paste my comments here from AN3:


 * Actually, there's no strict violation of 3RR here by anyone, but the editor who needs addressing is User:Rms125a@hotmail.com.


 * He has repeatedly added uncited material to the article claiming Wallace died of pneumonia, diff; claiming repeatedly that her son said she was cancer-free until his last edit, after being challanged; arguing his own personal OR and BLP violating opinion "my personal opinion is that her son may be in denial" on talk, diff; and attributing quotes to the Mirror without any such reference, diff, diff. Of course, the claim of pneumonia and that the son had said she was cancer free nay have been true, but unsupported they were subject to removal, especially given the article's Recent Death listing.


 * Then, when my communication with him has been nothing but civil, he insults me and people with disabilities on my talk page: "you are evidently a slow learner/special student" diff and files this incredibly hostilely worded AN3, with no 3RR violation on my part.


 * Please admonish or block Rms125a.

Or better yet, just close this summarily. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets work on her article to expand it and not get bogged down in her death. That is indeed part of being sensitive to the subject and family per BLP policy isn't it?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mark, and also that this be closed out. I am not going to keep repeating the same things over and over. I never claimed she died from pneumonia and went out of my way to point out the discrepancy re cause of death, and added external reflinks, which if I mishandled somehow I regret but it was not intentional. And NOR doesn't apply to talk page discussions, which Medeis should know. Medeis' behaviour here is both inexplicable and execrable, but I am moving on. Quis separabit?  22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Jumu'ah should be corrected to Jum'ah
The title of the article Jumu'ah is an inaccurate transliteration of the Arabic word جُمْعَة jumʿah. The short "u" does not exist in this word. Thank you.--Akhooha (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll need to start a requested move discussion on the article talkpage ES  &#38;L  00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've just done so. --Akhooha (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Range block of Colton Cosmic
He continues to disrupt, the last few IPs have been:



Is a range block feasible? GiantSnowman 12:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The allocation is a /10, that's around 4 million addresses, so probably not going to be range blocked. --GraemeL (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As CC keeps edit warring on this page using a variety of IPs, I've semiprotected it for 12 hours. 28bytes (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * His disruption is not limited to this page; see also Jehochman's talk page, amongst others. GiantSnowman 12:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the four /16 ranges above. They are very busy, and any rangeblocks would cause too much collateral damage. I'll also note that since they are mobile ranges, single IP blocks are almost completely ineffective - he hopped over at least three ranges in just the past hour. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got the time to edit filter 564 this morning. Any competent filter editor (King of Hearts, perhaps?) that wants to try adjusting it to block his latest antics should feel free. Otherwise, I'll try in about twelve hours.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The filter was fundamentally flawed in the way it was attacking the problem, so I rewrote it. This, at a minimum, works against recent edits and should be a little more resilient. However it should be noted that unless tripping the filter results in a very quick block, EVERY filter will eventually fail to catch something. I'm going to add this filter to the list of automatically reported filter hits if it's not there already. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've optimized your filter, see notes. m.o.p  03:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Undid that one, m.o.p. Look through the filter history and you will see he has access to wider ranges than that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake, didn't see those. Since that range can't quite be filtered for, I'd suggest incorporating the other line - checking edit deltas takes a bit more time. m.o.p  03:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What I wrote should be very heavily optimized; everything it uses except for the last check is already computed. I don't want to talk more about it than that because it's a hidden filter, but we can discuss it over email or whatever. I note that removing the check you're referring to would actually be disastrous to the filter's performance; it should be there, even though functionally it would produce the same result without it. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Marcia Wallace
User:Medeis is now vandalizing the Marcia Wallace article which was the cause of the AN just yesterday (see ). He has now determined by fiat that the comments of Wallace's son regarding aspects of her death, which helped cause yesterday's AN discussion, in which Nyttend ruled against Medeis on every point, are "unimportant". I reverted his vandalism but he will undoubtedly respond by restoring the edits, hence trying to initiate an edit war. Please hand him the lengthy block he deserves. Quis separabit? 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently every single edit to this article is going to be met with screaming. (Note that once again we don't get a diff form Rms125a of the edit at question, while Rms125a finds it necessary to revert two entirely unrelated edits of mine wholesale.)


 * There's no vandalism. The AN which was "caused" was Rms125a' sole doing.  There's no such "ruling" allegedly by Nyttend--the complaint was simply closed. I do happen to think a comment on the beliefs of Wallace's son that contradict all published reports are out of place in the article as undue weight.  But that's BRD, not vandalism.  Can someone please tell Rms125a to stop this nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is this place....it may only be in my imagination....but I feel my memory serves me well enough to say...take it to DR/N as this is clearly a content dispute. And..as I said on my talk page Quis separabit, please stop accusing editors of vandalism unless it clearly falls within that scope. This does not. Also...this is not an issue about an admin or even anything I feel admin should intervene in at this time. Eventually they will....but I don't think you'll like that outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark: you can call me Robert. You stated on this very page (above):"'Lets work on her article to expand it and not get bogged down in her death. That is indeed part of being sensitive to the subject and family per BLP policy isn't it?'"
 * So can you tell me how I am supposed to deal with the other editor mentioned on this page who removed by fiat the comments of Wallace's son (part of the subject's family you made mention of, no) when there remains a discrepancy. Her son says she was cancer free; the friend says she died of complications of that disease. Maybe this article should be 1RR until the editors can agree on how to proceed. Yours, Quis separabit?  00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Her son is not a doctor or a medical expert is he? It may be worth a mention but is not the clear reason to her passing and your continuing in this manner is VERY insensitive to that family. Seriously. Please stop. As I said, this is just a content dispute. Take it to DR/N please.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal by Dolovis
Following the advice given to me here, I am requesting that the topic ban imposed upon me on January 5, 2012 be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and a review of my edit history will demonstrate that a topic ban is not required. This topic ban is preventing me from legitimately contesting controversial moves per WP:BRD such as this one, or from even taking part in move discussions such as this one. I thank you for your consideration. Dolovis (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff for the topic ban is here, if I understand rightly. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The requirement of any request to reduce a topic ban is to, in the request, prove:
 * The editor has been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project, without similar problems
 * The editor shows how they will behave in a future, assuring the community the the problems that led to the ban will not recur
 * This request meets neither of these ES  &#38;L  22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could explain to us what led to your topic ban, and what steps you will take to avoid the behaviours that resulted in it? Resolute 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending answers to ES&L's questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Response to Resolute's questions:
 * I was topic banned as a result of  this ANI. At that time I thought was editing in accordance with instructions found at WP:REDCAT. I was adding Template:R from diacritics to redirects (a common practice as can be seen with redirect edits at Igor Bacek, Milan Balis, David Arvay, Tomas Bokros, Miroslav Bobocky, Emil Bucic, Tomas Bukovinsky, Tomas Bucic, David Buc, David Skokan, ect.)  however, because adding a second edit to a redirect prevented non-admin edits from moving articles without going through WP:RM, it was characterized as “gaming the system” and I was blocked and also topic banned from editing  diacritics.


 * Response to ES&L questions:
 * I was blocked from editing for six months in April 2012, but I did not return to editing until a full year later in April 2013. In the past six months that I have returned to being an active contributor to Wikipedia, I have stayed away from the issue of diacritics, and have demonstrated that I have been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project (mostly within the ice hockey project) without similar problems.


 * In the future I will not directly move any articles which contain diacritics in their title, but will only follow the written policy and procedures as outlined at WP:RM/CM. Dolovis (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will preface this with the statement that Dolovis and I severely disagree with each other on several points (and diacritics is one of them), and are on less than friendly terms... I do think your answer above is a tad simplistic, as you were banned from moving pages, then once that was lifted, banned from diacritics for resuming similar actions.  However, I presume that you will not be gaming the system in this same fashion in the future, so I see little threat there.  Likewise, I will vouch that your editing under the Dolovis account has not repeated such behaviours since you returned.  The six-month block, however, was for sockpuppetry and involved using sock accounts to continue your anti-diacritics push. You are not banned from using alternate accounts, but I do trust that you are not actively using any undeclared socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future? Resolute 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to Resolute: Given the amount of interaction we have on Wikipedia, and the large number of edits we have made on common subjects, you probably are better aware of my editing style than anyone else on this project, and I appreciate you vouching for my editing behaviour. If you are looking for a declaration, I will give one: I am not using any socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future. Do I have your support to lift the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I expect that lifting this ban will result in our opposing each other in various diacritic-related RMs. As much as I personally would rather not deal with that, I can't use our difference of opinion to keep you on the outside. So yes, in this case I am willing to support your request for another chance. Resolute 17:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced Topic bans do not come out of a single incident.  They only come to AN/ANI when everything else has been tried first.  When multiple members of the community tried to guide Dolovis, they refused - continuing down their path of "editing in accordance with instructions" - even though advised time and time again that they needed to stop.  The ANI was a culmination of many, many attempts to get Dolovis to stop, including (if I recall) more than one trip to an admin noticeboard.  This outright refusal to follow guidance was a key to the topic ban, and I do not see those behaviour addressed above, in fact, it's suggested that the topic ban was due to a one-of incident, which is patently false  ES  &#38;L  08:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What would it take to convince you? The topic ban was for an indefinite period, not permanent. Please advise me what more I need to demonstrate for you to support lifting the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Honesty, perhaps. You state that the topic ban came out of a single situation, which is patently false.  You were told again and again to stop, but you refused.  You therefore FORCED the community to topic ban you.  In other words, you have proven that you do not have the ability to actually LISTEN to policy and advice, and require enforcement action to be taken - which is an absolute waste of time and energy that should have been directed towards useful article work.  If someone tells you that you're acting out of policy again in the future, what will be your reaction?  What steps will you take?  Do you even yet understand what was wrong that led to the topic ban in the first place?  There are so many unanswered questions here, and the silence is deafening.  "I'm a good editor, who cannot do a task" was basically your original request - sadly, you could not do that task because you were not being a "good editor".  You're asking the community for a favour, and completely refusing to give the community the warm fuzzies that might actually permit them to grant you a favour - you seem to wholly misunderstand how much of a timesink you have been in the past  ES  &#38;L  11:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My topic ban appeal request is sincere and honest. Topic bans are supposed to be used to prevent disruption, and not as a form of punishment. I am disappointed that you are relying upon semantics to suggest that I have somehow been less than honest to discredit my request. Of course their was some history prior to the topic ban being imposed; I have not stated anywhere that there wasn't. But I have made my request with all sincerity asking for a repeal of the ban based on my constructive edit history over the past seven months. Dolovis (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Question (from a non-admin) Hi Dolovis, you're making valuable contributions and it's good to see you back, but when you give the diff for wanting to be released from this topic ban as relating to a move by User:Djsasso of a French-Canadian BLP which you had created as "Jeremy Blain" and which DJSasso moved to Jérémie Blain (for reference ["Jérémie Blain is" Hockey] gets 4 280 plain ASCII html Google hits, and another 339 with the full WP:FRMOS accents, ["Jeremy Blain is" Hockey] gets only 8 results relating to a wrong Jeremy Blain, a software trainer whose company has trained some hockey players.) the question it prompts isn't "great, there should be an RM", but why did you create a French-Canadian known as Jérémie in full sentence sources (using "...is" to weed out crude player listings) as "Jeremy" as if he was an Anglo-Canadian in the first place? I'm not suggesting you created it purely so another hockey editor following the agreed WP:HOCKEY guidelines would move it and then you could complain here, but why didn't after the move you check first to see whether the other hockey editor's edit summary was correct, because it looks like it was. Sorry, but I think this is relevant since you cited this diff as a reason for lifting the ban. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I created the article based on English-language sources. All English-language news sources that I found use the non-diacritics version of his name. You should also be aware that this topic ban prevents me from creating article title using diacritics, so even if the Blain article is the exception to the Wiki-policy Naming conventions (use English), I would be prevented from titling it with diacritics. But the broader issue is that this topic ban bars me from even raising the issue of a controversial move, which per WP:BRD would otherwise be my right. I believe that I have demonstrated through my edits and conduct over that past seven months that I deserve the opportunity to edit without the stigma of a topic ban. Dolovis (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dolovis, BLP articles on en.wp except your stub creations are spelled using the living person's French, Finnish, Czech name. The original conflict with other hockey editors reached a peak with you creating a hundred Czech Hockey League stubs WP:POINTEDLY in 52-character abcABC fonts (reminiscent of 7-bit ASCII) which you then redirect-edited locking them preventing editors following normal BLP practice. And you're saying that the terms of your ban prevents you from creating BLPs at living French, Finnish, Czech peoples' names? Can you please link to where an admin told you that the terms of your ban restrict you to doing exactly what caused the fight in the first place?
 * There was nothing POINTY about my creation of article stubs for notable European hockey players, and you trying to paint my good faith editing as something else is disappointing. My topic ban warns me in bold font that the topic ban is to be “broadly construed”, which is why I would not want to create articles using diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As for "Jeremy Blain," you're not listening. The 3 database sources in your article Elite Prospects.com Jérémie Blain, hockeydb.com Jeremie Blain, nhl.com Jeremie Blain all have the French name. Instead of 48,500 Google hits for "Jeremie Blain" Hockey you chose to use as a source a photo uploaded to a blog by a Chicago Wolves fan with "Jeremy Blain" - among the 1% of Google hits with "Jeremy" - the problem isn't the sources, the problem appears to be something else. But the point is that after User:Djsasso moved according to English sources, leaving a clear edit summary to check English sources, you didn't check sources before citing the diff (you again didn't check or aren't recognising English sources in the above reply to this question) and you ask for a lifting of your topic ban so you can object to a move done following 1% of blogs and no full sentence sources. This doesn't look as though you are willing to follow the guidelines at WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice and the consensus established there. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer, but the link to topic ban text is broken, presumably there is a link before [this?
 * I am genuinely sorry to see that the answer is "no." That no admin told you that following WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice was a breach of your topic ban. Therefore it is your own interpretation that the topic ban obliges you to conflict with WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice. Goodwill would have assumed you e.g. simply missed the ö in the Eliteprospects.com Dennis Nordström source, in creation of Dennis Nordstrom, without ö, but now you say you deliberately left the ö off because you believe the topic ban required you to continue to do what you were doing before you were topic banned? This doesn't make any sense. How could you think the topic ban required you to start creating a new set of diacritic-less stubs after the hassle with the previous stubs. The consensus at WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice is, it seems, in part at least a response to the Czech stubs. And you took "broadly construed" to mean do the exact opposite of what WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice says? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This user has repeatedly found any means possible to try and game the system. His choice of example of article that he would like to be able to edit is a perfect example. Almost all the sources on the article and the vast majority on google as In ictu oculi mentions have his spelling one way. And Dolovis purposefully created the article without. His modus operandi while being blocked has been to rapidly go through as many player databases as possible to create articles for players that have diacticis in their name but to create them without the diacritics in them as an attempt to force the non-diacritic version to be the default fall back position in a case of no-consensus. That being said almost every move discussion has ended with them being moved to diacritics. He uses almost any method possible to push his agenda including the above mentioned situations of double editing redirects to prevent moves, sock puppeting, etc. He has been an very large time waster for a large number of editors. He has shown he is unable to edit constructively in the topic area and as such has to have the community force him to stop. The wiki will not be improved by allowing him back into this topic area. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no agenda other than trying to build a better Wikipedia. To suggest otherwise is patently false. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

ANRFC thread open for over one month
ANRFC has been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You might consider posting this at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure; there's quite a queue for admin action right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is about ANRFC, I believe. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks Pink. I guess I should have had coffee before replying; my bad. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Good morning Diannaa, thank you for your reply. While I appreciate the suggestion, posting twice in the same forum will put me in the exact same position as we were in before. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko socking
At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146, Kumioko (User:KumiokoCleanStart) is editing as a variable IP (, and as himself, but repeatedly pretends to be two different editors and uses that as an argument that he is right (" That editor is accused of being disgruntled and angry and then the user responds to several comments essentially confirming what I started the discussion about."). While he is not fooling any experienced editors, it is still a violation of WP:SOCK. He was blocked early in 2013 for socking and unblocked on the condition that "has agreed to edit solely from User:KumiokoCleanStart and not any other accounts or IPs. User:Kumioko remains globallylocked." I have no idea if that condition remains or has been lifted afterwards, but it doesn't really matter, since the socking he did in that discussion is never allowed. I'm not neutral or uninvolved wrt Kumioko, so I can't take any action here, but I don't believe this kind of disruption should be tolerated. Fram (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah I see Fram is up to his old tricks again. Just to clarify a few things:
 * Point one, I am disgruntled and angry. That parts true. I'm also a a Leo, I eat meat and I know how to use a shovel, that still doesn't mean I am socking.
 * I have told Resolute several times over the last few days. I have used that IP a couple times in the past. That doesn't mean I am socking, I'm not trying to mislead anyone.
 * That discussion and the vast majority of edits by that IP (as well as 138.162.8.58, 138.162.8.59 and the rest of the Navy) aren't me regardless of what Fram or that piece of shit checkuser program say. Those "experienced" editors he is referring too are mostly abusive admins that have wanted me gone for some time know because I have been vocal and critical of admin abuses and various other things that need to be changed for the better in this project. Since the project would rather keep abusive admins than to fix the system or get rid of them, frankly you deserve what you get at this point. But you can't say I didn't try to make things better.
 * What Fram and the checkusers don't tell you and generally don't want known is that the crappy checkuser application is wrong as much or more than its right and its extremely hard to use and interpret, particularly with high volume editors. It will show you I edited from this account, a couple Ip's (several of which are proxy servers used by a large number of people), that I use Windows, XP, 7 and 8 and Internet explorer 7 and Mozilla Firefox. Probably some other useless associations too.
 * The end state of this AN discussion is irrelevant because other than responding to notifications and talk page comments I have only made 3 edits in a month and a half. So it really doesn't matter to me if you block me or not. Because your going to be hurting the project, not me. But that hasn't mattered here in a long time and that's a large part of the reason why I left.
 * As a point of fact though, the block will do nothing to "protect Wikipedia from harm" because nothing has been harmed. So this block would be purely punitive and petty initiated by an Admin who has tried to get me (and most of the other highly active editors I might add) banned from the project for years.
 * Fram has done more harm to the project than I ever could in his quest to ban all the high volume editors. Because the more edits you do, the more likely you are too piss someone off and give them a reason and excuse to block you.
 * I would also add that unless you intend to range block the entire navy (138.156 and 138.162) and the entire verizon fios network, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me from editing if I want too.
 * Additionally, just to clarify some things. The Kumioko account is globally locked because I made that happen, not because I was guilty of some widespread abuse. That comment is typical of Fram's ability and tendency to exhaggarate the truth to justify his own Point of view.
 * So in the end, do whatever you all want. Because I have tried and failed to make this place better. Their are widespread problems and the community either doesn't see it, doesn't care or doesn't agree. So I have gone from being highly devoted and productive editor in the project project who believes in the intention of the goals of it, to being inferred and insinuated as being just another Vandal, sockmaster, POV warrior etc. This is mostly done to discredit me so the admins can continue abusing editors with impunity and protecting their POV edits, but who cares right. At least I'll be gone and you won't have to hear about all the problems; 10, 000+ edits won't get done a month; WikiProject United States and about 100 other US related projects will finally be allowed to die with no one supporting them; etc. So go ahead and feel free to block this account indef, make the site so that IP's can't edit and an account is required; go ahead and do all the other stupid things that will be the demise of this site. RANT OVER because no one is going to read this OR CARE!Kumioko (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Kumioko, look - in general, I (and I expect others) support your attempts to improve this project. However, in order to get those benefits, we have to far-too-regularly put up with WP:DIVA, WP:POINT and other ridiculous bovine excrement.  That part of things is tiring.  So, don't be surprised that when you PERSONALLY have a history of pointiness and other bullshit, that some people AUTOMAGICALLY ASSUME that you're simply continuing the same damned pattern.  Whether it's you or not, because of your history, it sticks to you.  The best idea would have been to not create the pattern of ridonculous behaviour in the first place, n'est-ce pas?  ES  &#38;L  11:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I seriously doubt that anyone, including you support my anything. That is not the feeling I have gotten....repeatedly and in no uncertain terms. Also, to which "pattern of ridonculous behaviour" are you referring. Me trying repeatedly to get the WMF to pull their head out of their nether regions and fix Visual editor; my constant attempts to instigate reform to the RFA process; my frequent comments about how the editing environment is toxic in WP because abusive admins aren't held to court; etc.? Or are you referring more specifically to my tendency to once a year get driven to the point where is say F' it I quite because I get tired of the insults, blaming, told how I can't be trusted; how WikiProject United States is so massive and unmanageable (which by the way is far far smaller than WikiProject Biography with about 2 million articles in it)? If the latter is the case, excuse me that I can only take so much before I get fed up. You all are right though. Generally in the past I have come back, but this time, I am really done. After I post this I am going to remove my email address so the notifications will stop being sent to me. That way I'll quite being blamed for Divaish activity because I replied. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "I have used that IP a couple times in the past." and "the vast majority of edits by that IP [...] aren't me". Looking at, the edits from 16 October are clearly Kumioko, the edits from 17 October are clearly Kumioko, but the edits from 18 to 24 October aren't you? The edits from are even clearer: the edits from 18 October, made between 18:20 and 18:25 are clearly by you, but the next ones, starting 16 minutes later, are not by you? (Note that here one IP adds to the comment of the other, so we can at least be sure that the two IPs are the same editor here, before that gets denied as well). The IP claims "I do not think I sound anything like Kumioko. They are very angry, I am indifferent.", but I guess that it is better to let uninvolved editors make that call. Fram (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I find Kimioko's attempt at faking split personalities to be rather sad and childish, but I don't view it as disruptive, per se. He's not double !voting on anything and he certainly is not misleading anyone.  I would suggest he simply stick with one or the other however, because all he does with these little games is undermine his own credibility. Resolute 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kumioko has retired. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Several times, IIRC. This retiring statement is a bit over the top. Ansh666 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but if people would quite pinging me with notifications I would quite responding. I guess I could remove my email address from the site so I won't get notified, but if you all don't want me coming back, quite calling. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * People get notifications for diffs? That needs to be fixed... Ansh666 20:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a setting in your preferences ... you can choose to be e-mailed if someone posts on your talkpage, or (IIRC) when they reply in threads you mark accordingly. ES  &#38;L  09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, but I thought that was for direct links only. I don't see any of those here, only diffs, which use the external link syntax. Ansh666 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside whatever's going on with Kumioko, I'm bothered to see that Fram is in any way involving himself with Jimbo's talk page, from which he is banned. Seeing as this is the only way Jimbo still exercises his right to unilaterally sanction editors, and seeing as Fram is, as far as I know, the only sitting admin to which he has done this, it seems to me that Fram should spend more time thinking about his own conduct than that of others. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has banned me because I unearthed some examples of very problematic editing by him, e.g. his attempted outing of Edward Snowden, coupled with an appeal to other editors to help him in this. He wants to use his user talk page as an alternate forum for all editors, but one where the normal rules for such fora don't apply, and where he can unilaterally ban editors who are too critical of his actions. Either he should use his user talk page for his own edits, like other people use their talk pages, or he should make it an open forum, where the normal user talk pages rules don't apply. But he wants, whenever it suits him, to have the best of both worlds, a little fiefdom where he can control and steer policy discussions. He has found one willing admin to do his dirty work for him. That doesn't mean that I can't watch his talk page or note people acting problematically there (he has never complained when I reverted vandalism or removed socks from the page). I see no reason to reflect on my conduct because some person can't handle criticism of his actions and misuses his position in such blatant ways. Fram (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrators are expected to treat others with collegiality, especially their fellow administrators. It is inappropriate for you to pursue a personal vendetta against Jimbo, and the fact that you cannot see this disturbs me. This is not because he's the project founder; if anything, it's in spite of it—it would probably be more inappropriate for you to behave like this toward any other admin. I encourage you to re-read your comment and consider some of the things you're saying.
 * First of all, anyone can banish others from their talk pages, within reason. This is a longstanding practice, and the exceptions to it are few and far between.
 * Secondly, tons of people run their talk pages as alternative fora of sorts. User talk:Drmies comes to mind. A user is allowed to control what he wants on his talk page. If that seems like "the best of both worlds" to you... Well, you're welcome to try to turn your talk page into the same. You'll find there's nothing in policy preventing it.
 * Thirdly, you're repeating inaccurate and insulting allegations here, on matters that have already been settled as well as they ever be. I see that you have similar material on your userpage. Once again, if this were about anyone other than Jimbo, it would be removed immediately.
 * For someone so eager to hold the Big Bad Founder accountable, you are alarmingly unaccepting of criticism. Why not open yourself up to recall, if you're so much against abuse of authority? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that I called Fram on it - even clearly stated that if I saw them violate Jimbo's request to stay off his talkpage that I would block them for disruption and harassment myself. Of course, when I'm on leave from my admin account for a few months, I cannot jump into the fray like that, and Fram has increased their visitations to that page, rather than decrease  ES  &#38;L  09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I have increased my visits. I do believe that you were not aware of my actions there (e.g. asking me to do vandalism reversions there and so on, when I had been doing that on and off for years), and are now more closely following them, which creates a perception bias. Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which insinuations are "inaccurate and insulting"? When someone states that he wants to know whether named person has edited here, has found a username which he has used on other sites, and then states, after having been warned of the potential outing issue: "I looked for a couple of variant spellings and found nothing, so I asked to see if others could find anything." (bolding mine), then there is no other possibility under our policies than to consider this a violation of our WP:OUTING policy, and a request foo others to join him in this research. That Jimbo Wales then declares elsewher that ""I am not, ocntrary to the false headline, engaged in any search." (bolding again mine) is him contradicting himself in a very blatant way. So please, tell, me which "insulting and inaccurate allegations" have I repeated here? Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As numerous users said at the time, it seems pretty clear to me that Jimbo was just asking if Snowden was a known Wikipedia editor, not asking for people to try to find whatever secret accounts he may have used. Your insistence to call this months-old incident outing, and to bring it up inprovoked, is what I find insulting and inaccurate. This as good a case of WP:DROPTHESTICK as there ever was; get over it, take the rant off your userpage, ignore everything involving Jimbo, and get back to trying to improve the 'pedia. And, I ask you once again: Why are you not open to recall? Do you hold Jimbo to a higher standard than you hold yourself? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Boomerangs for evrybody involved for being overly diva-ish and violating your respective bans.  Konveyor   Belt  18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussing something that another editor did on some page doesn't violate a dubious ban on posting to that page. Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean he's not permitted to do it, and have it enforced - you know that ES  &#38;L  09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He can do it. That you want to enforce it is entirely your choice though, and the way you implemented the ban was a textbook example of admins acting on personal preferences and dislikes instead of following policies. You were and are severely biased, and shouldn't involve yourself in this in an administrative capacity. Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, what? I didn't implement Jimbo's ban; he did ... I'm not acting on my "personal preferences and dislikes", and how would blocking you - as per Jimbo's prerogative to ask you to stop editing his talkpage - be "involving myself" improperly.  Your logic is somehow escaping not only me, but the gravitational pull of Earth  ES  &#38;L  10:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The short discussion that lead to you claiming that you would block me if I edited his talk page again (and that I wasn't allowed to edit your talk page again either), clearly showed your prejudgment and lack of impartiality. Acting upon a blocking threat you made in a clearly partial and prejudiced manner would be a block while being involved, not a neutral block by an uninvolved admin. It's the reason I brought Kumioko's clear socking here, instead of acting upon it myself. Admin 101 for most admins. Fram (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Shake your head Fram ... I'm not "involved" simply because you claim I'm involved.  My reminding you that Jimbo had specifically advised you to never post on his talkpage again, and a warning that I would block you if you did was purely an administrative capacity.  It had no relevance to our discussion - other than the fact that I had your attention, and that when you replied to it, you were therefore acknowledging that you had READ the warning.  I have no interest in Jimbo's page, and have no interest in you.  Any block that you get due to continually harassing Jimbo on his talkpage against his wishes would not fall under any unusual reading of WP:INVOLVED.  That is Admin101, Fram.  You're an admin - you're here to set an example, and uphold the rules.  Continually posting on Jimbo's page when he said "stop" is setting the worst precedent to other editors.  ES  &#38;L  11:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh, it's not the blocking that would make you involved, I never claimed that. Your prejudice and personal comments about an editor make you involved, and if you would then block them, no matter if the block was otherwise valid or not, would make it an involved admin action. If you make comments like "Just when one thinks that someone is improving as a person AND as an editor - WHAM! - they fuck it up badly", which is a clear personal attack and indicates a prejudice about how someone is "as a person" (going past "discuss the edits, not the editor" to making claims about the person), then you are not the admin that should afterwards block that person. As for the rest of your remarks: we have one person here with the "founder" flag. If he doesn't care about leading by example (or does care, but in reality is leading by bad example, time and again), then people should call him out on it. He regularly tries to stifle critics from his page (you know, the one with the open door policy), perhaps I'm the only admin among those, I haven't checked that. But for some people, it is apparently more important to uphold to the letter a user talk page policy which is hardly applicable in his case anyway, so that he is not disturbed when he makes incorrect claims, violates policy, misuses his admin tools, ... Some people have very strange priorities. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're funny, and I like that. The warning was given, and you read it.  You then tried to provoke a fight in order to make me involved in order to invalidate the warning.  I closed it without responding to your baiting.  Nice try.  You should do standup.  ES  &#38;L  12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Baiting? You made claims about my edits, I asked for evidence, and you refused to give any "Out of respect for you". I haven't done any baiting there or elsewhere. Asking for evidence is not "trying to provoke a fight", and providing evidence for allegations made is something all editors (and especially admins, "you're here to set an example") should do upon request. Instead, you closed it with an unwarranted personal attack. While you may have the tools and inclination to block me, you don't have the necessary position to do so under our admin policies anymore. Fram (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep living under that bizarre belief, and good luck trying to continually justify your inexplicable actions. Cheers  ES  &#38;L  13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At least I try to justify my actions and statements. If you had started out doing the same here], I might have had a more favourable opinion of your edits and considered your block threat. But threats based on malinformed or biased opinions? No thanks. [[User:Fram|Fram (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you two please stop your bickering? I know these are 'teh dramah boardz', but jeez... GiantSnowman 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll shut up now. Fram (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:EW
In the article Iran–Iraq War a user is using false claims to remove WP:RS. Despite warnings to first discuss it first on the talk page, he continues with the push pov. I'm trying to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO of the page, but again he refuses and uses argumentum ad nauseam in the talk page to try to get out of that. I'm tired of this. Coltsfan (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm using reliable sources in both article and talkpage (Talk:Iran–Iraq War), while you're just forcing irrelevant third-rated publications, reverting and accusing ("pov pusher", "vandalism"). --HistorNE (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So, the wrong version will stay up? Reliable sources were removed and that's fine? Important changes were made without any consensus but hey, no problem? Since no consensus was necessary to remove the informations, then one does not need a consensus to put them back, right? I'm sorry, I'm just trying to find some consistency in this train of thought. As far as I'm concerned "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way". Coltsfan (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC) How nice you find this situation humorous. The guy removes reliable sources because he considers them "charlatan" and he gives no explanation whatsoever for it and it's fine, right? So I can go to any article, remove any source I want, change any information without consulting any other users and I'm the wrong one in this situation? And worse, the article continues on the wrong version? And I don't say "wrong" because I think so, I'm saying wrong version because it should had stayed in the version prior to the WP:EW and a consensus should have been studied, but none of that happened. But rules... why bother making rules worth a damn, right? And that, my good sir, is sarcasm. And btw, I'm out. Since you don't care (you should because, as a administrator, the rules should mean something to you), why should I waste my time on this?! Bye. Coltsfan (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this is fun. Two edit warriors walk into a bar, and call each other out. There is no punchline, only an explanation: this is the wrong bar. You should be at WP:ANEW--both of you. (I note that HistorNE has already been blocked once for edit warring, only two months ago.) Y'all are lucky didn't see this, cause he has little patience for edit warriors. In addition, HistorNE seems to think that referring to an edit as "retarded" is acceptable: it is now (see edit summary in diff above). Coltsfan seems to have missed the HUGE orange bar above this very edit screen I'm looking at that says "notify the other editor". I've warned both users for edit warring, with a beautiful template. They should maybe consider WP:DR or some other kind of mediation. The next one to revert gets a free block. Yeah, it sucks--I know the WRONG VERSION is currently up, but what can you do. Hash it out on the talk page. In addition to blocks for edit warring, full protection of the article is an option as well. Hash it out on the talk page, preferably with a third party, or seek dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is appreciated. If I had reverted the other one would have been here to claim that "charlatan sources were reinserted". WRONGVERSION may be listed as humorous, but it's serious as well: admins are not supposed to jump in and make content decisions. Find the proper venue, please, at any of the places linked above. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Will an admin kindly evaluate consensus and close this?
A topic ban discussion involving was archived before an admin would properly close it. Could someone please tear themselves away from the Eric Corbett admin pissing war and dramapalooza, or elsewise, and please close it? Thank you - MrX 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from moves
Is the following statement correct?
 * Every talk page in this category which does not have a page history or any other special issues, can be speedy deleted?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Eric Corbett
<div class="boilerplate discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; overflow:auto; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * This thread has burned itself to the ground 3 times over at this point: Actions in the near future: A RfC/U will be presented to discuss the interactions into and out from Eric Corbett. Everybody goes back to editing and improving the encyclopedia. Collapsing for the good of the community. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Eric Corbett's actions over the past 24 hours have shown that he has returned to his less productive persona. I find this a shame, but every single edit he has made since returning from his 3 hour block has violated any number of civility based policies. I have therefore taken the step to indefinitely block him. As discussion on his talk page is unlikely to be productive over the next 24 hours, I've taken the unusual step of protecting the page for that period, so that calm discussion can happen here. I should also point out that no ban discussion should happen without re-opening his talk page, to allow Eric to participate, though I think participation in the next 24 hours would be unhelpful. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the page. If you don't like his particular and/or peculiar way of arguing, just don't read his page. Eric tends to cool off when he's done being hot, and this shouldn't interfere with the discussion here. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Calm discussion here. Right. We know what will happen. Those wanting to ban until the end of time (and beyond) will muster their most strident arguments, as will his defenders along with those who just don't like those who want to ban. If this is supposed to be the high ground it looks more like a cesspit from the edge. Intothatdarkness 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is no different than any other issue on wiki (or the real world really). You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like. (Alternatively, Gotham has the Batman it deserves...) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Show trials are show trials. Intothatdarkness 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How does one excuse Eric's behaviour?
 * I don't want to see Eric blocked or banned (yes Eric, really). However given the choice between him editing and not abusing others, using editing to abuse anyone and anything that moves, or just blocking and having done with him, I see one choice that it's beyond anyone other than him to choose and two where one is very much the lesser of two evils.
 * We have a rule: you don't use these terms to other editors. It's a simple enough rule. If you can't work within it, you don't have the maturity to be part of such a community. Eric gives no indication of being able to. It's beyond me why he can't or won't, but that's his problem and it should no longer be ours. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, poking a hornets nest with a stick always helps. It seems you've made up your mind that you're going to push for a ban, which is hugely regrettable. I'd prefer if you were to strike that and see where things stand tomorrow once things calm down. I find it quite astonishing actually that you block his ability to respond then discuss the idea of a ban. That's really not very nice. Nick (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps a request for arbitration would be a better way to handle an appeal of the block than a noticeboard discussion here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Nick, I'd personally oppose a ban, but was trying to stop the conversation before it started. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's curious that at least two admins let the poking and provocation just above the final blocks slide, as one example:"Not to mention 'cunt' [8]. Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)" For a very long time, Mally's (Eric's) point about civility was the double standard in the way it is applied.  That trend has only become worse over time, with other editors increasingly being able to get away with more, and their admin friends defend their even worse, wholly unprovoked attacks, while blocking Eric after he was poked at with not even a warning to the poker.  (No diffs supplied on the even worse transgressions allowed by other editors since anyone paying attention knows which personal attacks I'm referring to, from an editor with a long history of same, but dragging worse examples into this will only derail this conversation.  I do like Arsten's idea of an arbcase: I've got some relevant diffs to supply.)  Fram or Worm, why did you not protect Eric's talk as soon as the poking started?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Worm, I think protecting Eric's talk page was a fabulously good idea, and was something I've been on the verge of doing myself for the past 12 hours. I think raising the stakes with an indefinite block was a bad idea. The blocks should be doled out after the calm discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the opinion indefinite =/= infinite. I'm hoping that some calm discussion would agree what we expect from Eric should he return, and then he can be unblocked, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Seems a lot shorter than 3 months to me. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 16:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to support Worm's actions here and to echo indefinite != infinite. I see an indef (which Eric could resolve tonight if he wished to) as much preferable overall to 3 months. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandy, that was indeed one of the reasons I protected the page. 6 minutes after that very post, as soon as I was aware of what was going on and had read the history. I'm currently in the process of writing a up a statement regarding my indef, then I was going to deal with other comments on that page. I'm getting to it, but you'll have to give me a short while. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Worm, appreciated. It would be helpful if admins who stood by and didn't protect talk explained why they let Gaijin42's post slide, and whether they do not find it to be equally attacking, even if no fing is used.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * After seeing this comment I went to user talk:Eric Corbett to see if EC had ever been warned for incivility and if so to block the account, if not to give a warning. I support the block, but I suspect that as Intothatdarkness says this will get messy. SG as to a warning this user has had lots of warnings so why do you think that another would be appropriate? SG please supply a diff for Gaijin42's post. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS, you don't seem to be paying attention. Not only is the diff there ... even if it weren't, it's not that hard to find.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SG where is the "there ..." that your are referring to and what is the diff? It would help me and probably others (and those that read this record when it is archived) if you would be explicit when making such statements. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could someone else please help PBS find the now two diffs posted on this page? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have posted two diffs on this page. Which diff are you referring? -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with SandyGeorgia here. If we're going to be sanctioning someone for reacting when poked, can we not address the poking as well? The hot-headed comments that get EC in trouble don't form in a vacuum. I seem to recall a massive ArbCom case not too long ago that said as much. 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And most of this started with the usual seasonal editing surrounding a page Eric and Parrot of Doom have put a great deal of work into. It happens every year, and usually generates some sort of drama. Intothatdarkness 16:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The biggest poke of all came from that exemplary admin role model, Fram. No wonder Eric was so incensed. There would be something wrong with him if he wasn't. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I poke him? Please compare his reaction before and after the block (the only action I took here). I don't see any difference, so my "poke", the block, didn't make any difference to him being "incensed". Fram (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. Indefing someone who is being poked and prodded on his own talk page is completely unnecessary. Frankly, a f**k off is hardly something to block someone over in the first place - it means pretty much the same thing as 'buzz off' or 'go away' and someone has to be fairly thin skinned to be offended by it. Sort of like putting someone in jail for jaywalking. Am very disappointed in worm (who is, generally, a reasonable sort of chap). --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not a fan of the current level of profanity et al allowed, accepted, tolerated here on Wikipedia, but I do understand the point of the double standard, the fact that other posters can say even worse things with or without fing c's and still get away with it, and the issue of poking. I don't defend Mally's (Eric's) language; I do understand the broader points.  I hope.  And Worm has said he is still composing a post of his reasoning. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RP I do not agree that this comment is the equivalent of 'buzz off', particularly as there is no other comment on that page which are directed toward EC that could conceivably deserve such reply. -- PBS (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree Sandy. And, I can't really understand why someone who as handy with the English language as Eric obviously is, has to resort to profanity to make his displeasure known. But, we live in a world where profanity is accepted and I don't see how we can effectively ban it from Wikipedia. Profanity is actually less offensive than, for example, what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric Corbett's page. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric's page was arguably worse than a simple profanity, since it was just like a diagnosis (a psychiatric one) about his entire personality, not just a "one off" profanity. Does Gaijin42 have the expertise to make such a diagnosis? Even if he has, did he carry out a medical examination for which he should have got informed consent, in order to reach it? If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then it was a direct and profound personal attack.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:ddstretch Not sure where you are going with this. Melodramatic and passive aggressive are not psychiatric diagnoses. Nor did I attribute such to his personality, but to the specific statements he was making. I did not acuse him of being bipolar, or schizophrenic, or any such. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This farce has happened too many times. Someone pokes Eric. Things escalate, until Eric crosses some line. Eric gets blocked. Parties who did the poking get nothing. (AFAICT) I haven't read all of the diffs, but it sure fits a pattern. I wish I thought Arbcom involvement would help.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm putting this together to explain my reasoning. Overall, I consider myself a supporter of Eric, I do believe he's one of our better editors from a content perspective. However, I do believe he has stepped over the line a number of times. He has been blocked for long periods and has had many of those blocks overturned as unfair. Some, however, were fair. A three hour block yesterday for his actions on the Guy Fawkes especially was a reasonable block, indeed it was softer than many other users would get. Eric vented on his talk page and was needled targeted through the block. He left Wikipedia for the night and returned this afternoon. Not one of the edits he made was remotely productive. From returning to the article for more direct insults (which he knew goes does poorly with the community) to anti administrator tirades, every single edit made was unacceptable. I removed his talk page access as he was being provoked, though the provocation was not an excuse for his behaviour. There would be no sensible discussion there. I've only removed it for 24 hours, at which point I hope that he will have calmed down and be able to discuss the matter rationally. If he feels he can do that sooner, he is welcome to email me (or any other administrator), who may remove the page protection. Please do be aware that people will be provoking him should that protection be removed, which is why I didn't remove talk page access for just him, but for everyone. If an admin removes it, I hope they'll be watching his page. What do I think should happen next? A discussion at AN about what we expect Eric to do. It might be some sort of civility parole, it might be to stay away from certain hot spot articles. It might even be that he should be able to act like that with complete impunity, but it should be decided. If Eric agrees with whatever the community decides on, the indefinite block should be lifted. Should anyone want to take this to the arbitration committee, I will of course recuse. Should anyone believe my actions as an administrator were grossly unacceptable, my recall procedure is at my userpage. I've got to drive home now, but will be available for further comment soon. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One problem with your reasoning is that history shows your approach won't work. What will work, perhaps, is dealing with the double standard and the pokers.  Mally (Eric) does not return "calmed down" when the pokers get away with it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia I fail to see how pointing out a recent example of Eric's NPA failure (with diff) constitutes a issue on my part. For the record, I have no grudge against Eric, in fact recently putting a happy ferret/weasel video on his talk page and holding a friendly coorespondance off-wiki with him about ferret hammocks. @PBS my diff is which includes a link to the diff by Eric  where he called (either me or an anon IP) a cunt. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't; I'm not here to talk to you. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia. I think you should apologize to Gaijin for your impolite remark to him. When you post at this forum you talk to all of us. Gaijin is a user of good standing in the community and has of course full rights to participate in the discussion – not least when it is an issue that he has been directly involved in – and to expect to be treated with the same respect as all other users. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am talking to people who understand that Gaijin's poke was an attack and that the double standard is still alive and well, even after a full arbcase. Neither you nor Gaijin seem to understand that, and those who don't understand, won't no matter how much I type.  So, I'm not here to try to convince you either. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia You’re basically saying that you don’t want any conversation with people of another opinion than yourselves and don’t seem to respect them much. My view is that Wikipedia is a community where we all have a say, and were we are expected to discuss and work together in order to gain consensus. I haven’t been involved in or followed much the dispute leading to Corbett’s last block, but noticed he called the blocking administrator for “impotent arse hole“. Since double standard has been mentioned: I doubt there are many users here who will say so to an admin who has reprimanded them for incivility and get away with it. A minimum requirement for unblocking Corbett should be that he gives a sincere apology for this comment. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again. You doubt that someone else would get away with same? Whether you aren't paying attention, or you are just unaware, you are wrong.  They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please give an example with diffs of "They often do same or worse". -- PBS (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS, are you able to read what is on this page? You are three for three.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I have no one reading this to me, so you can take this reply as an answer to you first question. I do not understand what you mean by "You are three for three". What is the evidence best evidence you have that "They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it."? a few diffs would help because I have not seen worse than this on Wikipedia.  -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd like to say that I completely agree with everything that SandyGeorgia has written here. The double-standards that seem to be operating need to have firm action to end them. DDStretch   (talk)  16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Especially since they're not limited to Eric. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the poking was inexcusable, but so was the reaction - all parties involved here should know better by now. Is Eric's long-term history of incivility and personal attacks embarrasing (for both him and the Project) and disruptive? Yes. Should he be indef blocked for this latest shameful episode? No. GiantSnowman 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to my post as the poke, not that it had no impact on Eric's actions resulting in a ban, as he was banned for actions he had already taken before my post. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He was not banned (focus please). Once again:"Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)" Emphasis mine.  It would have been nicer to just say what that message really says, which is something along the lines of, "fuck you, asshole, you got what you deserved because we all know you are passive aggressive and did this on purpose".  You don't seem to see a problem with your poking, which has long been precisely one of Eric's points.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Slip of the tongue, I meant blocked. Eric calls me a cunt. I post something about it on his talk page, and I'm the one who instigated it. Your logic is flawless. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't: "If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one". Semantics are important. Did I miss a diff where he actually called you a cunt? And how is "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche" NOT a personal attack? It's so tiresome to see all this focusing on one word, not even used in direct address. Why would you go to someone's talk page to piss on them? What did you expect to come out of it, except for momentary relief? Drmies (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's basically equivalent to the old "But he started it!" (a classic of the genre). That shit didn't fly when I was 5 years old and trying to pin stuff on my younger brother; it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fly now. If your comment had been "Eric, I was actually really offended by your comment, can you please retract it?" or something equally milquetoast civil, that'd be a different story. But it wasn't, and it isn't: it's the same old story, it's the same old game. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/cx3) I think it's the manner in which you posted it, almost certainly knowing about previous "Eric incidents", and yet you still went ahead and did it inhe way you did. I think that a more correct way would have been to either say nothing, or be completely neutral in your response. I don't think you were: it was a "counter attack" and you probably knew that Eric would react again.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No wonder Eric gets frustrated. Gaejin, focus!  I never said you "instigated" anything.  Ditto per Writ Keeper.  I asked why admins let your provocation and poking slide (and I see that Worm has now addressed it with you and you still decline to see the problem).  You can end this faster by admitting you poked, and that was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.  Gee, I am so sorry Eric called you a name, you believe that Eric called you a name, and that rampant name calling is allowed and tolerated on Wikipedia (depending on which admins one has for friends), but you are missing the other point.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strike, correct, better. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I suppose congratulations are in order to Spartaz, Fram and Worm for upholding the standards we have come to expect from our admin tradition (though disappointing to see you there Worm). This is what we get when hundreds of lose cannon admins are allowed to operate with no centralised control and not even a mission statement. The real problem here is our unreformed admin system, which cannot operate skilfully the way it is put together at the moment. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @ GiantSnowman Yes, the poking was inexcusable obviously, it was excusable, as it happened, and no actions have been taken. Or does "inexcusable" measn something different to you?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ah yes, because rashly blocking everybody involved, as opposed to dsicussing next steps, is a sensible move. GiantSnowman 17:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, GiantSnowman. You know what's at stake here: perception of unequal treatment. The way to solve that is of course not to block every poker--but blocking the bear is even worse if the pokers don't even get a slap on the wrist. What am I supposed to do, as an admin, give Gaijin a templated warning? Block him for that foolish remark? No, because I don't want to be that kind of administrator, and I don't think the other admins who are opposing this ridiculous block are either. I wish the others involved could take their fingers off the block button; the only thing they're achieving is continuing the perception that single-word based civility policies ("fuck", "cunt") are in effect and other kinds of incivility is overlooked. Or maybe it's not a perception; maybe Eric is right. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On what basis would you block Gaijin42? Preventative, not punitive etc. Like I said, we need to decrease the drama, and issuing more & more blocks is not the way to do that. As for "unequal treatment" - well, I've already said that the indef block should not stand. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm does not decrease the heat, that's the problem. I wouldn't block Gaijin on any basis, but a civility cop who has more at their disposal than a simple checklist could. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What sarcasm? We seem to be agreeing that Gaijin42 does not need a block - so why are we arguing? GiantSnowman 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit to being disappointed in you Worm. The whole situation became uncivil because of Anselm citing civility policy in an uncivil way. Few people appreciate sanctimony and it is not uncommon for someone to get a little tasty when faced with sanctimony. We need to look at the actual cause, rather than the series of incidents that occurred afterwards. This comment is what prompted all of this and it is far from blockworthy. Anselm's sanctimonious cries of incivility over that comment got Eric to say he doesn't give a fuck what Anselm thinks, leading to Anselm's templated warning about "personal attacks", and Eric's testy removal of said warning. Everything from that point is a product of snotty-nosed sanctimony on his talk page regarding the block. As far as I am concerned, Eric has been indefinitely blocked for calling a discussion "bone-headed" and suggesting people find something else to do and such a block is invalid on its face.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct, and that's saved me some typing. Frankly, nothing is going to change here until (a) some admins stop throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti (that's not a particular dig at WTT, though it is one at Fram), and (b) those who instigate such actions through ill-advised poking the bear receive the same sanctions as those they provoke. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? Fram (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * TDA would you consider blocking EC over this comment (Notice it was not in response to a comment addressed to PoD not to EC). If yes then for how long? If no then what would you consider blocking someone under incivility? -- PBS (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, let's see ... how about the last time you blocked Eric Corbett after he'd been poked to death by Doc9871 (who got away scott free)? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (If you don't remember, that was the one that led to two admins handing in their bits and one going on Wikibreak before being undone early - looks like your mission to rid Wikipedia of Eric has gone slightly better for you this time - so far). Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a one month block, not an indefinite one. Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? Fram (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm - I didn't mean to put "indefinite" in there (fairly clearly, as I was talking about your 3-month block). Apologies if that made it unclear.  The rest of my comment, however, stands. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Much has been made of the so-called poking. Note that the comments by Eric Corbett which directly caused the block were some 12 hours after the last post to his talk page, and were posted, according to himself, "after some serious consideration". None of the posts since his previous reply on his talk page can be considered poking either (so it's not as if he got a yellow "new messages" box, read those, and posted "incensed" about them, to borrow another editor's description. As far as one can determine, Eric Corbett posted his personal attacks calmly and deliberately, not in the heat of the moment.

Was Gaijins comment after the block ill-considered? Perhaps, or at least badly expressed. But it hardly raises to the level of the attacks by Eric Corbett. Fram (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have different opinions. I think the remark by Gaijins by far more uncivil than Eric's comments.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the part "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage" is the one that you consider to be (most) problematic? It seems to me to be commenting on edits, on style, not on the person. Erics comment was directly about the editor though. One is slightly incivil and ill-considered, the other is a personal attack. Gaijin should have left out that part, but I don't believe that the rest of his comment was a problem, and nothing in it was even remotely blockable. Fram (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't just the words, but the timing. If I told you that a mutual acquaintance borrowed $20 from me and never paid it back, that remark would be, well, unremarkable. But if said to the widow while she knelt before his casket... the same words would be perceived differently.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break
I was initially unhappy by Worm's action, but I'm coming around to the notion that they may have been prophylactic. Unfortunately, strong words continue to be thrown around (and I can't exclude myself), when it might be ideal to pull together a summarized sequence of events. I've often seen EC say things that make me cringe. I've yet to see such a incident unprovoked.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272 and comment? I have no dog in this fight, but I am trying to put together some actual data on the provoked/unprovoked question. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I fully cop to making a single nonconstructive statement as part of my WP:NPA response. I would however argue that my statement was perfectly accurate. As the OP to this thread pointed out Eric made a series of 20 or so consecutive edits that he obviously knew were in violation of policy, at a time when he knew the all seeing eye was on him. He made his posts either with the intent to flaunt his immunity as obviously as possible, or to get blocked. Could/Should I have posted differently? Yes. FWIW I in fact have apologized to Eric for poking him via email (which he explicitly declined to accept). The greatest reason I am sorry for my action is because I inadvertently provided a convenient October_surprise to allow everyone to talk about something other than Eric's actions. His actions were ridiculous, and obviously require a block, but I do not advocate for that block to be indef, nor do I advocate for a ban, as I think if he can cool off he is a very valued member of the community. User:Drmies, thank you for your post on my talk page and here as well. I respect your opinion greatly, and accept your admonishment. I have quibble with your interpretation of the semantics in Eric's post, but I think going into it would only further derail this discussion, so I again (publicly this time) apologize for my poke and consider myself duly chastised. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ?? You use the word "accurate" as if it were a rebuttal to incivility. I daresay that everyone on every one of Eric's comments, even those I would agree are uncivil, are "accurate".-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sure that everyone will accept that your public chastisement and apology is equal to Eric's block! I do not think so.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to post my thoughts, but don't take them as is however. I kind of knew this would happen. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has a policy of saying bad words such as the f word, and I haven't actually read the policy, but at least basic teachings from my grandmother tells me we should never say these things to complete strangers in public places (which I would apply to here) and more importantly, be nice. I do admit that Eric is definitely being provoked, and I do not know if I did as well, so I'm sorry if I did, but I do see that he has been getting posts that are designed to provoke him. By that, I mean some are trying to get a rise and trying to get him in trouble(no I did not deliberately try to do this, at least not purposely...) It's kind of hard to explain, but I do support the block... indef is kind of extreme however, but he needs to cease and desist this profanity, it isn't in the sites interest, and I don't think it's good moral to keep this up. Sooner or later, it's time to stop this. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Next step?
I have a great deal of respect for User:Worm That Turned as an administrator, but I don't think the indef block was the correct approach here. I understand that, in theory, "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but I don't think anyone realistically expects Eric to negotiate unblock conditions, so we're essentially left with the choice of banishing a productive but prickly editor, or not. I think we ought to come to a consensus here which it will be, and my thought is that we reduce the block to 24 hours and be done with it. That won't make the people who think he should be banned happy, and it won't make the people who think he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place happy, but I think it's a reasonable compromise that recognizes it's not really OK to call people cunts and idiots and arseholes – whether provoked or not – but also takes into account the reality that sometimes our valuable contributors say and do things they shouldn't and it's not in the best interests of the encyclopedia to kick them off the site forever for it. 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support GiantSnowman 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the will of the community, I certainly won't stand in it's way. However, we've been here before and if we don't work something out, we are likely to come back here, as we know. However, Eric needed to be blocked for the comments, and 24 hours is a lot closer to the right length than 3 months. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 18:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt we'll be back here the next time someone lands a unilateral 3-month (or whatever) civility block without gaining consensus for it first. I cannot see any reason for civility blocks to be more that a preventative 24 hours (especially, as in this case, whilst Eric's RFC/U link is still red.) Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason for that is because everybody knows any attempt at an RFC/U would become an absolute circus, given Malleus/Eric's very well-known position on WP:CIVIL and the group of editors for whom he walks on water and for whom any attempts to enforce anything against him are made by rogue admins with horns, spaded tails and tridents. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Circular reasoning that, though; if an RFC/U is not possible now, it's precisely because various admins kept insisting in landing ridiculously punitive blocks on him when their first stop should have been AN or ANI. I bet that half of those, if they'd been short blocks, would have ended up standing when they were inevitably taken to the drama board. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at EC's block log short blocks have not been a deterrent from incivility the longest block to date seems to have been a month shorted to about three weeks. So I think that the block should defiantly bee more than a month (two or three) with the proviso that next time there is a breach it will be doubled. -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – as a compromise with the dark forces --Epipelagic (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * weak support Support longer. 3 hours didn't work. A previous 1mo didn't work. with that knowledge in hand, 24 hours seems unlikely to work. to be an effective measure against recidivism (and copycats), there has to be an actual credible threat of a real penalty. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support Agree entirely with Gaijin42. --GraemeL (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support original proposal by 28bytes —  Ched  ZILLA  18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) (aka Ched)
 * Support, but. Despite having occasionally crossed swords with Eric on the various drama boards I have the utmost respect for him as an editor - my interactions with him as an editor have, indeed, been calm, constructed, and greatly appreciated. What's needed, though, is that he recognise that, whether he agrees with it or not, and whether he likes it or not, WP:CIVIL is in fact one of the Five Pillars. Yes, he gets poked a lot, because some people think it's fun to poke the bear. But his well-voiced opinion of WP:CIVIL needs to, at least, be filed in the "agree to disagree" folder.- The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support 28bytes' proposal. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh. Not really sure what this accomplishes – there really is no way this works; as mentioned above, we know Eric's position on WP civility, we know a block will not accomplish anything, and we'll be back here again soon anyway, so this seems to me like a punitive block, as it will not prevent a future incident. That said, short of an indefinite block, which is also not a good idea, nothing will truly stop the behavior. I am at a loss. A topic ban from the user talk namespace also seems unfeasible, so at this point, I would support unblocking until this eventually ends up before those who make the big bucks.  Go  Phightins  !  19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with regret - would prefer unblock. The above discussion provides an unusually clear illustration of varying standards on incivility. Whether we like it or not, there are usage communities in which the use of "curse words" is acceptable, and usage communities in which it's a bright line never to be crossed; and there are also usage communities in which attaching a psychiatric label to someone as a form of disagreement is acceptable behavior and others in which it is insupportably rude. We are unfortunately stuck with these differences, and civility is an important grease in a huge, international project where there will be a lot of disagreements. But I for one consider we do not do nearly enough to discourage snideness, or even direct verbal attack, and in this instance I'm with those who consider Eric was less rude than others were to him. Also, note that his rudeness was confined to talk pages, almost entirely his own, so I have less understanding for the reasoning given by either blocking admin, that all his edits since being unblocked were non-constructive. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Immediate unblock I cannot believe (a) that Gaijin42 remained unblocked despite their behaviour and (b) is getting to decided, in part, what happens to Eric. To be allowed to bait a user into a block should not be permitted, to allow that same user to discuss the unblock is fully worse. If it wasn't too bloody late and the block had drifted from preventative to punitive, I'd block Gaijin42 now. I will, as an alternative, make it absolutely crystal clear they will be blocked the next time they pull a stunt like they did today, make no mistake. Nick (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, would support immediate unblock also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose 24 hour block, support indefinite block until there is promise of change. I post this as an involved user (I posted about Eric's incivility at WP:ANI yesterday) though I suspect many people are involved in some way. Eric has been blocked multiple times in the past for similar incivility, and it has had no effect on his behavior. The solution then isn't to say "It's not working", give up on blocks and let him say what he likes. The "solution", such as it is, is to have an indefinite block until we receive a promise of change. As someone said above, indefinite is not the same as infinite. But if Eric, or anyone else, is allowed to interact with editors the way he has been doing, then Wikipedia will be a toxic place to work. StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support proposal by 28bytes. There must be some sort of compromise between those who want him infinity blocked and those who want him immediately unblocked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Why kick this can down the road when we know with 100% certainty that we'll be back here to waste time discussing it in a few weeks when it happens again. Something needs to be decided once and for all, or else Eric will invariably tell someone to fuck off again, and generate another predictable gigabyte of useless discussion and warring about the inevitable short-duration block he receives for it.  This is the  twenty-third time  he's been blocked for incivility since his Malleus account was first blocked in May 2008 (no comment on how many of those were "correct" blocks, as that would be impossible for all of us to agree upon).  I say we stop wasting time and draw a line in the sand.  Either we agree to allow Eric to have special privileges to say whatever he wants with immunity, or we come up with a set of civility guidelines that he must agree to as a condition of being unblocked.  No one is asking him to grovel to an administrator as a condition of being unblocked.  We're just saying, "look, don't call people names, don't insult people's intelligence, and if you get angry with someone don't use profane words to express your frustration."  While such conditions are arguably a bit stricter than what most other editors have to deal with, I think it is reasonable to impose slightly more well-defined boundaries on an editor who has been blocked 23 times for the same thing.  If he can't edit under those conditions, then he shouldn't edit at all.  I don't think that's asking too much.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#227722;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#442244;">| yak _  20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I can't believe people are willing to waste time on this any more. No contributor is worth this.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that people are allowed to blatantly bait users and get away scot-free. No baiter is worth it.  Sports guy  17  00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support immediate unblock per . Support action against those who baited him. --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Scottywong and Kww. Eric - follow the basics of WP:CIVIL as the rest of us are all required to, or else go away. We can and will survive without you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * STRONG oppose - WP:CIVIL is not optional! If you cannot follow it then you deserve to be indeffed. Any admin that does not indef for such gross violations of this core pillar are undermining it and the encyclopedia. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Further: If the block is reduced without a guarantee that the incivility MUST stop or the next block WILL be a guaranteed indef with no reduction or release until it is guaranteed that this incivility will stop then I WILL escalate to ArbCom as the community CLEARLY cannot enforce WP:CIVIL in this case. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Unblock I'm very disappointed in the number of seemingly sensible editors who condone the use of profanity directed at other editors and I'm frankly astonished that anyone can think its ok to compare anyone to a cunt as part of a what should be a collegiate discussion but long blocks don't work and are over strict for the behavior anyway. I'd have supported a short block but this is excessive and time served is enough. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Support 24hr block - We've lost far too many great editors this year, Eric may be uncivil at times but yet he's a great editor here, & IMO doesn't deserve an indef over it, Those poking him should be sanctioned!....


 * - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While action should be considered/taken against anyone who is found to have provoked Eric, there can be no doubt that he has a long history of deeply problematic behaviour and exhibited it yet again. It does not benefit the project to enable his behaviour by circling the wagons in his defence every time his mouth gets him in trouble.  For that reason, I would oppose any arbitrary time limit on a block.  The ball is in his court, and when he is prepared to behave within community expectations, then he should be unblocked.  Be that five minutes from now or five months.  And this can be considered concurrently to any discussion on anyone else found to be acting similarly poorly in this situation. Resolute 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per .-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -I've heard worse language and personal attacks and bullying taking place on here and by admins at that. The sooner we accept that Eric occasionally snaps and calls somebody a cunt or an asshole and don't batter an eyelid the better. Banning him isn't going to improve wikipedia, we're an encyclopedia not a school of manners. It does get tiring seeing the repeated process and drama which ensues but if you stopped reacting to him then it wouldn't happen. Why can't we just shrug and say "whatever, so what" anytime he calls somebody something? We can't afford to throw away anybody who edits wikipedia productively, uncivil or not. Unless he makes serious threats to kill somebody or delivers disgusting racial taunts at somebody banning somebody indefinitely over something like this is more preaching than sense over what is best for the website. No, it isn't acceptable to call anybody anything, but it happens, and you react like this to it. Why an admin can't just silently delete it and move on beats me.  It becomes an excuse for more wiki drama everytime this happens. It needs to stop.♦  Dr. Blofeld  22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is just the latest in a seemingly endless parade of incidents demonstrating that a permanent ban of this individual is long overdue. How many more years are we going to have to put up with this nonsense? —  Scott  •  talk  23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Eric is supporting our First Pillar - how many others are? e.g, Fram, how is this user-friendly and welcoming to new users? Do you think you could have at least done a smidgen of source-hunting?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Is there a templated warning for tag bombing? I did a smidgen on one of the articles; I'll look at some of the other ones as well. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcoming to new users? One article that Drmies sourced after my tagging (and which otherwise would have remained unsourced) was from January 2009, the other one that would have remained unsourced otherwise was from June 2006. Perhaps focus on the issue at hand instead of trying to derail a discussion with completely irrelevant nonsense? E.g. noting that you are not supposed to pick and choose between the pillars, and that working on the first pillar doesn't mean that you can ignore the fourth one: Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Fram (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is that this has blown out of all proportion - the issue at hand is that we are here to write an encyclopedia - the issue at hand is civility and atmosphere. I reckon tag-bombing loads of articles does more to dampen new editors' enthusiasm due to the fact that maybe two orders of magnitude more people are affected, than by some profanities directed in the heat of an argument. About 98% most of Eric's editing time is spent building or reviewing content - how much of yours is Fram? (i.e. so don't go pick and choose pillars, to quote..umm..you)'' I can cope with the occasional blow up as long as passers by don't blow it out of all proportion - I watch the content of this place closely and see what gets improved and by whom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're asking for statistics, Malleus Fatuorum had 61.14% of his edits in article space, while Fram has 62.94%. Eric is now on 72%; you're on 50%, I'm on 86%. I'm sure these numbers don't mean anything, but I thought I'd point them out. StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for that one - I could go on to look at qualitative analysis of edits but I think that is getting off track. sigh..I must do less drama boards and more content one day... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) But Eric Corbett's mainspace edits are of higher quality than mine. Statistics are meaningless, and not really important anyway. It is because of his mainspace edits that he is still around after all this years, a non-productive or minimally productive editor would have been banned years ago. But that doesn't mean that his article work necessarily grants him infinite protection or some extra-special status. Fram (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea of percentages, but by far most of my time here is spent reviewing content, yes. I couldn't find old hoaxes or delete other undetected problematic pages otherwise. And in the course of this, I tag pages for some major problems as well, like being totally unsourced. If you feel that new pages shouldn't be tagged as unsourced, then feel free to propose a policy in that regard. If you want Wikipedia to become a pure meritocracy, then propose that as well. But use another venue than this totally unrelated discussion for it. Fram (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No I don't want it to be a meritocracy and hate the non-level playing-field nature of it. I have no problems tagging articles sometimes but for it to be all someone does? Just even a few times in 500 mainspace edits it'd be nice to see some sign of collaborative editing...just a few..that'd be nice. The point is as I made above - which do I wonder is worse for new editors/onlookers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support -- This user is clearly here to build an encyclopedia and actually follow the purpose of the website. The reason we end up here is because users are willing to get in fights with him and deviate him from being productive. It makes me sad that people can bait all they want and will be given at most a reminder while the user who was baited and snapped gets the beating. Most of the time, the users EC calls an asshole are generally assholes who were looking for trouble. Unblock him, stop the fighting, and lets go make some GA's with Eric, eh? ;)  Sports guy  17  00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per Scottywong, Kww, Andy Dingley, Resolute, PantherLeapord, et al.  Fram's 3 month block is the correct block.  The reason blocks don't persuade Eric is that they don't get longer and longer like they're supposed to, so he doesn't take them seriously.  Just enforce policy.  --96.231.113.61 (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Immediate Unblock given that the people who were goading him have not been similarly blocked yet. NOT Blocking the goaders, or NOT taking action against the admins who reach for ridiculously long blocks as their first response to Eric will certainly strengthen the perceived lack of even-handedness here.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This editor resolutely refuses to accept one of the 5 pillars, and has consistently behaved in a way that drives other editors away from Wikipedia. Slaps on the wrist have had no effect. A long-term block is the only solution. -- 101.119.14.248 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's block Eric time, when the IPs come out of the woodwork, having forgotten their old log-in information of course, and lo, there appear the unverified claims of editors being driven away and blah blah. I call bullshit. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been editing Wikipedia for many, many years as an IP editor, precisely because of people like Eric. Without a stable talk page, I can only be bullied in public, and not by personal attacks on my talk page. That makes Wikipedia a little more bearable. There are plenty of studies on the exodus of editors from Wikipedia, and the reasons for that exodus. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And might I remind you to observe WP:AGF, regarding that snide "forgotten their old log-in information" comment. I'd support a block on you as well. -- 101.119.15.6 (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, it's just on this particular occasion you felt it necessary to edit from a mobile phone, yeah? I call bullshit too. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the IP's proposal to block Drmies. How dare he raise suspicions about a suspicious IP that has come out of nowhere? GiantSnowman 11:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're genuinely suspicious, there's always WP:SPI, but what I'm seeing here is breaches of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and a strong slice of "foreigners go away, this is our Wikipedia." Yes, this is how I always edit. And it's not a mobile phone, it's a tablet. -- 101.119.15.225 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's OK for Mr. Congeniality's posse to close ranks around him when he acts up, but it's not OK for IP editors to say they prefer that policy be (finally) enforced. Go figure!  (Down with IP-phobia!)  --96.231.113.61 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Scottywong. Someone who cannot accept the Pillars...no matter how productive they are, can they be part of the community? Cheers, LindsayHello 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. But I would prefer an immediate unblock. And I do think that admin Spartaz should lose his tools and be de-sysop'd. (Why? For behavior unbecoming of admin. What behavior? Look at Malleus's Talk page - Spartaz went back-and-forth with sarcastic exchange w/ Malleus, after his block. It is understandable that Malleus might be perturbed from being blocked on the basis he was, but even then, it seemed to me Malleus was cool and asking logical Qs of the blocker [afterall, Malleus is desensitized any more to BS blocks like this]. But Spartaz was all-too-willing to play ping-pong w/ Malleus sarcastically, when if he were acting in becoming-admin behavior, he simply would have stated his case as dryly as possible, accepted any flashback gracefully, then exited the discussion. Instead he hung around to prove one-upmanship "superiority". Unbecoming. Baiting. He s/b de-sysopped.) I'm very happy that this discussion seems to be indicative of a systemic turning of a curve finally ... Very very smart & experienced editors (SandyGeorge, Devil's Advocate, Epipelagic, Black Kite, 28bytes, and DDstretch [I haven't read the latter before but he is very smart]) are all concurring that this is a bunch of nonsense (and it makes me feel proud to be on WP as a result - there are many intelligent editors here!). Intelligence is finally winning over. That said, all the calls for "But but but! Malleus violated the PILLAR. Can't tolerate that!" is BS lynching stuff, since the "pillar" is ill-defined, and doesn't attempt to identify poking or baiting, or dishonesty, or other forms of incivility that are perverse, that humans have honed for all of history since language was invented (and likely even before). What I'd really like to see is a wall of text from Malleus, where he would feel free to speak his mind in detail about what is unhealthy and wrong with the current system and how it should be re-fashioned for the betterment of the encyclopedia aims and everyone involved. But I can understand his disinclination to do that because his solutions would call for restructuring & change ... and as he has pointed out and I think others will concur, "Nothing ever changes around here." (So basically, why waste his breath?) So I'm glad for the editors named to step in and stop anything stupid from happening, like a lynch. To all editors who say "Off with his head!" I have a personal message for you in word-efficient Malleus style: Go fuck yourselves. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOJUSTICE. It matters not who provokes who or even who said what.  It doesn't even matter, really, what Eric said.  What matters is whether or not the project is disrupted and who is central to it all.  It doesn't matter if that person is the cause of it, or if a herd of others are responsible for it.  It only matters whether disruption exists.--v/r - TP 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That kind of attitude is one of the many things wrong with Wikipedia. Just because this site is not about justice does not mean it is about lynch mobs. At least, that does not mean it is supposed to be about lynch mobs.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * *shrug* It is what it is.  There is crap on both sides of the aisle.  Pick the smallest pile.--v/r - TP 14:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment What a surprise, people are claiming that someone who's chronically incivil should be allowed to get away from it "because he's a valuable contributor" (read: he has a whole bunch of people who are willing to scream and whine on noticeboards about him). This sort of thing has gone on for years and years with so many different people. Why not just MFD WP:CIVIL already? It's clearly not being applied evenly. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - as really, incivility is a rampant problem throughout the site that exists because of passion, rarely malice. Indefinitely blocking for incivility only serves to limit the amount of emotion people can bring to their work, which will have a chilling effect on contributors. Many of the worst offenders in terms of incivility are very productive editors in every other sense of the word. Blocks should be given in context, and yes, part of that context is the value of a contributor to the project in other ways and what lies behind that value: ie, why they edit here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unblock now that 24 hours are up: Note to any uninvolved admin: this section has a pretty clear consensus, if you read it through. There's no current consensus (yet) on what to do going forward, but there's clear consensus to either unblock immediately, or unblock after 24 hours (which by now are the same thing). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose we might as well try and reach a permanent resolution now because otherwise we're just going to wind up back here again. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding how anyone found a consensus to unblock in the above. A small numeric majority by a group that provides no policy based reasoning for exactly why enabling Eric's chronic abuse is a good idea.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You want him banned; I get it. Perhaps someday you will get your wish, but for now I think it is time to drop the stick and move on. There are several open threads remaining here to work out how to deal with this on a long-term basis, but it's not going to do anyone any good to re-open and re-litigate this one. The close was a good one, and frankly I think a consensus-based decision on whether and when Eric should be blocked or unblocked is a refreshing change of pace from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Kww&page=User%3AMalleus+Fatuorum drama-causing unilateral blocking and unblocking] we've seen in the past. Consensus doesn't always go our way, but there was clearly consensus here to go ahead with the proposed compromise, imperfect though it may be. 28bytes (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd prefer it if he would just behave himself. But no, carving one small subsection out of a large rambling discussion and declaring a clear consensus to unblock is an outrageously poor unblock, 28bytes. There's no consensus to unblock Eric if you take the whole discussion here into account, and the only way to read a consensus into this small subsection is by nose counting.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative / complimentary next steps
As I stated to Nick above, I certainly don't support a permanent ban of Eric, but I would like to see some solution as this situation is untenable. I believe at a very minimum Eric needs to be aware that escalating his disputes in the manner that he does is not acceptable. I accept that people do provoke him, but at the same time, he needs to find a better way to deal with such people. Any suggestions that Eric might be able to follow would be appreciated. However, to improve things for the future, I suggest we come up with the following restriction on Eric, alongside the reduction in block length. My theory is that this will stop the disproportional blocks, yet it will send a clear signal to Eric that this state of affairs cannot continue. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated WP:Civility, then he should be blocked for a period of up to 24 hours. This time period does not escalate, 24 hours is the maximum period allowed under this restriction.
 * Support as proposer <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support the baiting provision mentioned by a number of editor - as long as the restriction is displayed clearly at the top of Eric's talk page & on his edit notice. That way the "baiter" could not claim to be unaware. If it happens off Eric's talk page, we'd need some way to make sure they were warned. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 07:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per my proposal below. (Basically the same idea, though the wording on yours is definitely more refined.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support And I agree with many of Adwilley's thoughts below. It might also be worth considering one-way interaction bans if there are persistent incivility against specific users who are bothered by his comments. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  Support  - would prefer the indefinite ban to remain until there is promise of change, but if there is no consensus for that, this is the next best option. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn support in favour of Scotty Wong's proposal below. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see where you're going with this, but as illustrated by the conversation above, different administrators have very different views on what constitutes "incivility"; that combined with the baiting issue will increase the unevenness of applications of civility policy, not decrease it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Admins should not have their hands tied behind their back to deal with a problem such as this one. 24 hours is not a significant penalty, and it's not likely that would serve as a sufficient deterrent.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#222222;">| spout _  20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, provided that it include a provision that if he's poked into it, the poker gets the same treatment. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that is implied. I don't see any indication in this proposal that baiting and badgering would be dealt with any differently. In my own proposal below, the intent was that these rules would apply specifically to Eric, and that any poking or hounding would be dealt with in the normal manner so that the punishment fits the crime (which would likely be a stern warning on a first offense or a 24 hour block for repeat offenders). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I might support if there were provisions to deal with provocation and poking, but unlike The Bushranger above I have no hope of that being developed. Until baiting is dealt with, this is just another way to get rid of a contributor you don't like. Intothatdarkness 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if The Bushranger provision is passed, otherwise it's a baiters charter. Nick (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Little 24-hour holidays won't encourage a change in Eric's behaviour, making the exercise a waste of time. Bushranger's comment also requires consideration. Resolute 22:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I would support 24 hours being the MINIMUM with standard escalating blocks. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question What about unblocking? A past problem has been blocks applied, then swiftly reverted by other admins. Will these 24 hour blocks (an idea which I support in principle) be sticky against such reversals? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have a restriction put in place, I expect the blocks to stick, yes. The reason they don't is because there is no agreement on what should be done, and because Eric is a valuable contributor people want him to stay about. With the 24 hour idea, things should calm down in that period and they should (hopefully) stick. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I appreciate that Worm is trying to find a workable solution, but as long as many other editors are allowed to continue direct and blatant personal attacks, which are condoned at ANI, it is wrong to target one editor for same. I would understand this attempt if the same standards were applied to all editors who lodge real and direct personal attacks; that is not the situation we have on Wikipedia today.  I abhor the environment that has taken hold here, but it is not right to single out one editor while others routinely do worse.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia who does worse than this? diffs please. -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, As I said above a month block reduced to about three weekm does not seem to have been enough to stop this behaviour, so this block for this comment among others should be at least twice long, and if that is not deterrent enough then the blocks should get longer and longer with each uncivil comment that is made by the editor after a block. This argument that he was provoked is not enough of a defence for edits such as this where the response was not to a comment made to him but one to another editor. -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This will not work unless it is firmly and indivisibly tied to similar suggested actions to be taken against people who goad Eric, and those admins who sometimes seem as if they are "champing at the bit" to impose a block on him.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Plan for the future
This is something I've been thinking about for several months as a possible solution for the future. It is based on the following assumptions: That said, here is my plan: When Eric Corbet makes an uncivil comment or personal attack that crosses the line, he will be blocked for 24 hours and his talk page will be protected during that time. No unblock requests, no offerings of sympathy or gloating from friends and enemies respectively, no surprise 3-month blocks, and most importantly, no drama, because we will have decided upon this course of action beforehand. This would apply to Eric only (perhaps as a test case or a personalized sanction, if you wish to think of it that way).
 * Eric does a lot toward improving the Encyclopedia (which should ultimately be the aim and goal of us all)
 * Eric has a tendency to lash out at other editors with unkind words and personal attacks.
 * There is not consensus as to how our Civility policy should be enforced, and Eric has become the a focal point of the debate, making him somewhat of a special case.
 * We have lost editors (including administrators) in the drama resulting from long blocks of Eric's account.
 * We arguably lose editors who encounter Eric's incivility and decide Wikipedia's not the place for them.
 * With the current state of affairs, we are unlikely to achieve a consensus on whether Eric's presence here is a net-positive or net-negative.
 * We are unlikely to reach a consensus to indefinitely block Eric (arguably one of the few long-term solutions available).
 * We are unlikely to reach a consensus to not block Eric.
 * Eric is unlikely to change his ways, even when faced with exponentially longer blocks.
 * The cycle itself (our response) is doing far more damage to Wikipedia than Eric's incivility, and something needs to change. We need a plan for the future.

This plan would be a compromise between users who argue that Civility is a Pillar and should be strictly enforced and users who say that bad words aren't the only kind of incivility and Improving the Encyclopedia takes precedence. The block would be long enough to satisfy the hurt parties who report Eric and to give Eric a chance to cool off, yet short enough to allow Eric to continue contributing to the encyclopedia if he wishes to do so. Whatever your thoughts are on this situation, please try to understand the views of the opposing party. The way I see it, the only way we're going to solve this is with a compromise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Nick (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of your bullet points. However, the assumption underlying the proposal appears to be that Eric occasionally crosses a line without being provoked. I haven't seen that happen, so a plan that includes a sanctions for Eric without even mentioning other parties is a non-starter for me, at least.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fatal flaw that I see with this is, of course: who gets to decide whether a comment crosses the line? What, in fact, is this line? Where is it drawn? I mean, to take a cynical perspective, this would give carte blanche to any of Eric's "enemies" (well, the ones that happen to be admins) to block him without question or recourse. I don't see this working unless we more clearly define what is and what isn't acceptable, and who is and who is not (if anyone) allowed to apply sanctions under this scheme, and since such details would never realistically be able to gain consensus, I don't see how this could be workable. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that we came up with such similar proposals Adjwilley! I certainly support yours also... and am surprised I didn't get an edit conflict. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 19:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, I didn't even see yours until just now. How funny! Looks like basically the same proposal, the differences being that mine has protection of the talk page and yours is more concise and worded better. (I know, I have a problem with conciseness.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There should be blocks of increasing duration until we are left with an indefinite block - just as we would with any other editor.GiantSnowman 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fine ideal to hold, but it ignores the reality that there is not a consensus to indef Eric, and there is not likely to be such a consensus. At some point we need to accept that the situation is not ideal, and holding steadfastly to one ideal might not be the best solution. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On the "provocation" issue, there is one constant - Eric. I've seen him in conflict with a significant number of editors. He needs to work out a way to stop rising to the provocation. I agree that it takes two to tango, but the assumption that Eric is always provoked is as flawed as the suggestion that he's never provoked. Today, for example, Eric crossed the line without having edited for 12 hours. It was not an escalating battle, he came straight back from the short block and crossed the line - multiple times. I can also provide other examples (general late at night) where Eric has acted without provocation. I'll provide them tomorrow morning if no one else does. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 20:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he does more harm then good. Staying blocked is I think the only long term solution. Incivility is unacceptable, even if provoked. I'd suggest a year block, maybe that will keep him calm. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to ask, Who are you and why are you involved in this? Last week you had under 100 edits. Today you have 171. You have only interacted with Eric once, on his talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am more active I guess. Also, I hadn't made an account until recently. I'm not new. Also, just look at the below comments he made, -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=579295073579294209
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=579294209 Personal attack

Is this really acceptible? And that's only two, you should clearly see more. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)  579294209
 * The second of those appears to be missing its last digit, so it points to the wrong page. But Dark Mistress, please see my "support" comment above. It's really not reasonable to use "profanity" (or any other term for it) as an absolute criterion for incivility. In the big wide world, it simply isn't true that people invalidate their arguments by throwing in a word your grandmother - or my mother - wouldn't like. I value civility. I believe this project has a problem with incivility. But I think you're being a bit myopic here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not understand but fixed it I think -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about yours, but I know that my grandmother has said things that would make your eyes widen--both with and without profanity. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As Writ Keeper said above, "who gets to decide whether a comment crosses the line?". That is the crux. At the moment we have hundreds of loose cannon admins acting independently with no central fire director. Individual admin have much too much freedom to punish content builders on their personal whims and in pursuit of their personal vendettas (we see that clearly happening in this thread). There can never be an equable and decent disciplinary system on Wikipedia until this absurdity is resolved. A small central group of editors needs to be appointed to deal with the disciplinary matters, making group decisions and operating in accordance to some sort of constitution which gives them direction. The real power trip enjoyed by many admins is their power to block and humiliate established content builders. So many unsuitable admins now have their grip on this lever that it has become impossible to prise it away from them. Jimbo has backed away from his stated intention to intervene. The WWF lacks the competence to intervene. The only hope left is mass rebellion. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer to the question "who gets to decide where a comment crosses the line" is that the admins have to interpret WP:Civility as it is currently written. I know it's not ideal, but it's what we've got. The proposal above is damage control. This ties down any loose cannon admins who would interpret the policy as "Must Block Infinity". Mass rebellion isn't the answer. We have to accept reality and deal with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say mass rebellion is the answer, but it looks like it may be the only way this delinquent admin system can be reformed. Individual admins interpreting WP:Civility in their own idiosyncratic ways, and then individually acting on their interpretations is ridiculous. You can call it "reality", but its just a self serving manner of operating made up by admins. It doesn't work, it does huge damage to Wikipedia, it is insulting and demeaning to the content builders, and it can be changed. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interpretation is the norm, yes. The difference here is that this restriction would enable an admin to place an irreversible block based on their personal interpretation, since this restriction is explicitly designed to reduce or remove avenues of appeal or discussion (i.e. drama). That's going quite a bit too far in my opinion; nobody should have that kind of power here over something so subjective. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that undermines the entire polices that governs Wikipedia? If that's the case, then that is... kind of not good. I don't see what's the problem here? If there is something I'm missing, tell me, but I will say this. Eric gets pocked at. Eric then throws out bad comments, profanity and then some admin decides to block him. Then an ANI dispute is filed, moved to here, and a whole great time waster this is. I fail to understand this, but that's bascially what's happening. If we have a polcicy prohibiting this, and we block users who vialte the polcies, I fail to understand why Eric is treated the same. I would hope this whole disscuasiuon would come to an end, but it will probably not. I will say this, however. Why didn't Eric choose to stay calm, and ignore it. I don't know who started this whole thing, but I just want an end to this nonsense. I don't have anything more to say really... but I may post more if I can think of something. -- Pretty les♀,  Dark Mistress,   talk,  20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a valid point of view. An equally valid point of view is that in the end we are all here to build an encyclopedia, which is something that Eric does very well. I'm not arguing that either camp is right (in fact, I believe they are both right). I'm just saying that to put an end to the time-wasting drama we need a more permanent solution, which is what I proposed above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dark Mistress - I just wonder how on earth you could consider this non-inflammatory? It is very hard to see this as anything othert than baiting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I want to chime in and say that I regard this comment as being made in good faith. It is still possible that this won't end well for Eric, and part of that at least is his use of "profanity". I can see how if Eric decided to stop using swear words, the opinions here might change somewhat. Anyway, I'm sure Dark Mistress realises now that her comment didn't help the situation, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was done in good faith. We should certainly try to stamp out baiting, but this isn't it. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really? You really think that anyone would respond positively to that? As much as I can stretch my imagination I can't see it, and I can't imagine anyone with any empathy seeing it either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you make even a semblance of following civility guidelines, you wouldn't respond with the outright hostility that Eric did here. You make the assumption that Eric somehow has to respond to this. But he doesn't. He chose to react to, quite frankly, an innocuous comment on his behaviour with an attack. That was a choice he made, and apologetics for his abysmal behaviour helps nothing. VanIsaacWS Vex<sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">contribs 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would only be innocuous so someone who was unable to interpret it as anything else but literally - which would exclude almost all editors here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Geometrically increasing block lengths
Here's a proposal that I believe would actually serve as a more effective deterrent, and which would actually do something to reduce the likelihood that we'll all meet here again to talk about the same thing:
 * Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated WP:Civility, then he should be blocked for a period of 1 day. The next time he is blocked for incivility, the block duration will double to 2 days. Next time, 4 days.  Then 8 days, 16, 32, doubling each time.  The ninth time he is blocked, the block will last for a little over 8 months (256) days.  The tenth block would be for a bit less than a year and a half (512 days).  The duration of any civility blocks must follow this pattern, administrators will not have license to block for other durations if the block is for incivility.  If there is a consensus that a block was applied incorrectly (civility policy was not violated), then Eric will be unblocked and the duration of the next block will not increase (i.e. it will be based on the duration of the last "correct" incivility block).  If Eric violates the civility policy while he is blocked, then talk page access will be removed for the remaining duration of the block.
 * Support <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#774477;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#447744;">| verbalize _ 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Actually, I think this would work better than the 24-hour proposal. StAnselm (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The crux of the matter is that admins (involved and not) disagree about violations of WP:Civility. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, surely something needs to be done about that as a matter of urgency. It is, after all, one of the five pillars. Any ideas? StAnselm (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about ignoring it? That's what they do at every newspaper I've ever worked at.  People throw tantrums and cuss in the city room all the time.  As long as they produce, nobody cares.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The provision in this proposal that allows for blocks to be overturned by consensus should adequately deal with situations where an admin applies a block for an incident which doesn't actually violate the civility policy. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#227722;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#442244;">| talk _ 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * DrJoeE, in the City Room your colleagues were paid. We aren't, and although I can put up with a lot, we have lost good editors because of the behavior of others. Not everyone likes having to put up with tantrums, etc. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A fair point, although most journalists will tell you that they don't get paid enough...period -- let alone enough to put up with that kind of nonsense. But one learns rather quickly in the news biz that if you walk away, it's never an issue. And yes, I understand that Eric is as guilty as anyone of NOT walking away; I don't hold him blameless, but it's not solely his fault, by any stretch.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How ridiculous – Just a mean game where blocking admins like yourselves can have fun permanently disposing of Wikipedia's best copy editor. You know very well that Wikipedia exerts no controls and enforces no standards for blocking admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's that meant to mean? Is that a threat or warning? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact you think it could be "a threat or warning" is in and of itself very dissapointing. What it is is a request that people not automatically assume that anything admin-/enforcement-related with regards to Eric is the cabal decreeing off with his head. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I think no one should use the f word. I support this. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another myopic solution that avoids the question of baiting. Intothatdarkness 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to address the question of baiting. If someone is being uncivil (which generally includes baiting), then they're at risk of being blocked.  If someone baits you, the appropriate response is to notify an admin or start an ANI thread.  The inappropriate response is to take the bait, and respond to it with a bunch of profanity and vitriol, which means you are also violating the civility policy.  It would be ridiculous to make the policy such that you can be as uncivil as you like as long as it's in retaliation to someone else's uncivil comments.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| gab _  21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the most common admin advice in such situations? "Walk away.  Go fishing.  Find something else to edit."  Why are admins so reluctant to take their own advice?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Too easily gamed. It's far easier to run cover for a baiter or "civil" POV pusher. Especially if that baiter happens to be an admin. Intothatdarkness 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose It occurs to me that if all the time and energy being spent (and already spent over the years) discussing Eric's use of F words and C words had been used instead on improving the encyclopedia - which is ostensibly why we are here in the first place - the encyclopedia would be much better for it. Just sayin'.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the problem that this proposal is trying to solve. The last thing we need to do is unblock and just wait for this situation to happen again, and waste another man-year of time discussing it.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| gab _  21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per DoctorJoeE. This is a farce, made worse by knee-jerk blocking and the easily offended.  This was justified language IMO, used towards those who came looking for an argument, thus provoking the situation. Eric didn't go looking for this, they came looking for him, and they were told that they were not wanted. --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   21:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kinda support - I disagree with the 1 day, 2 day, 4 day etc. doubling - we should go for 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months etc. GiantSnowman 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment What do you mean by "uninvolved"? "Involved" should certainly include any administrator who has previously placed a later overturned block on Eric/Malleus. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Oppose. There are too many people who like to wind people up on this project who then go whining to mummy when they quite correctly get told to fuck off, coupled with too many people in love with their block button who are happy to oblige them. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Um -- are we in junior high here? The idea that such a system would improve the project seems a tad farfetched, indeed.   Collect (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Collect - What we in primary school now??... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as an absurd notion. It is a cute suggestion, but an absurd one nonetheless.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose- per Black Kite. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per BK, and telling someone to fuck off is not a blockable offence, what if Eric had said bugger off, or get lost, or any alternative therein, simple fact of the matter is some people will be offended regardless of how you tell them to fuck off. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If he had used any of those other terms, they wouldn't have involved profanity. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the simple reason that it's complicated to the point I have a hard time taking it seriously. If we're going to decide to apply an escalating series of blocks as would be done for any "non-vested" editor, then we should...apply an escalating series of blocks as would be done for any "non-vested" editor. Throwing math at the problem is nonsensical. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose- per Black Kite. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I've filed a request for arbitration on this subject. The request is Arbitration/Requests/Case. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That alone was wanting. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There really is no hope for Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be something seriously wrong with the arbitration request. It's all about "baiting", but there's no mention of what it consisted of. I am named in the report - am I being accused of baiting? StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The attitude of some who seem to knowingly bait or goad Eric is that they seem to be able to get away with it. It is possible that some therefore think themselves immune. I suggest a short, sharp lesson from now on will clearly act as a preventative to further goad-induced drama, as it is clearly disruptive. Admins and editors should be treated equally. There was an AN discussion back in July where I made a similar point, also about Eric. This: points to a comment made on my talk page (now archived) from someone who I did not name, but who clearly thought my comments  about baiting were directed at him or her (with a slightly inappropriate joke, I admit, I withdraw, and I apologize for, even though it drew some insight out in one case). However, I do think such people are often engaged in deplorable behaviour. I think it illustrates why something should probably be done to address the issue.   DDStretch    (talk)  03:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I ought to inform the editor whose message I provided a link to. That editor has now been informed:
 * Thanks for informing me. I have stated many times that I have no interest in seeing Eric blocked, and that I did not "bait" him but spoke in an "honest" manner that he is quite big enough to handle. I don't know why that diff is being brought up, as I am not here to bait this user. Whatever "deplorable behavior" you think I engage in... whatever. Doc   talk  05:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem was that I did not name you in the original AN discussion, but you clearly thought that I meant you, when in fact, I didn't. Then, you made statements along the line that evcen if it was baiting, then nothing much could be done, because you went on to say: "I should point out that WP:BAIT is an essay, not policy. The most one could twist "baiting" to lead to a halfway legitimate (let alone an immediate) block is through WP:HARASS, which I most certainly was not doing." which I think is the problem. Baiting should be treated as straightforward disruption, with no special cases made for it, I consider. However, I want to clearly now state that I am very relieved to accept your statement that you do not wish to see Eric blocked, and that you did not knowingly provoke him, but there are sometimes when it is better to keep silent than speak the truth, because the manner in which the truth is stated can be misinterpreted even accidentally. I withdraw and apologize for any implication that 'your behaviour there was deplorable. For others, it is not so. DDStretch   (talk)  05:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Other editors certainly accused me of baiting the guy, acting as if I then "ran to Mummy" afterwards (which I certainly did not). No hard feelings, and sorry for any misunderstandings. I really don't give a rat's arse what Eric does regarding the civility policy, or what the community does regarding him. I can envision how it's probably going to play out, but others can deal with it. Cheers Doc   talk  06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple
Just insist on getting consensus for any block of Eric before blocking. I've always with one exception operated on the principle that I only block when I honestly believe there would be consensus for the block, if it was discussed first.

There are downsides (the biggest of which is that decisions on ANI tend to be wrong about 51% of the time), but they aren't as big as the downsides of the other proposals. Biggest upsides: It's simple. And it gets rid of cowboy blockers and cowboy unblockers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to single out Eric here. Proposal: If you want to block any established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. We can fight over whether "established" means Grand laborious tutnum or whatever, but that Eric is established is clear enough--and that goes for plenty other editors as well. If admins are qualified to block as a judgment call, they should be able to form that particular judgment. Why that didn't occur to Fram is beyond me. I don't want to be a cowboy unblocker. Floq, why don't you do the honors? Drmies (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already been dragged to ArbCom in an Eric-related issue, although it was a long time ago, I consider myself "involved" wrt Eric. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whose side were you on? We need a list or, better yet, categories, of who is in whose camp. Just for clarity's sake. It will make mutual vilification much easier. Jon Stewart did a nice bit (last night?) on how CNN likes to make difficult issues acceptable by asking whether something is a good thing or a bad thing, and that's the kind of mindset I find among admins who gladly do civility blocks. As for the "established" bit, I'm still pissed (yeah) that I didn't get a warning before I got my civility block. Somewhere in these threads is someone saying something like "well, why didn't a friendly admin go over to pour oil on the water"--talking is ALWAYS better than blocking, and anyone who's been here for a while (that includes most everyone on this very page) deserves that courtesy. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought of proposing something similar to Drmies's idea of requiring consensus to block any established editor, but then I thought, "Oh, it'll just get shot down because we'd be creating class divisions." Still a good idea, IMO. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have "class divisions"; there doesn't seem to be any problem interpreting who is a "regular" in WP:DTTR and Eric is not unique: leeway is given to plenty of other established editors, who have free license to actually and really (unlike Eric) lodge direct personal attacks, even following on arbcases.  This proposal has some merit in general, but only if it doesn't single out Eric ... but then, it's really just common sense (what kind of admin is blocking when he knows there will be no consensus? ... oops, silly rhetorical question).   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into a whole paradigm shift discussion about doing this for all established editors (although I think it's a good idea, I have no illusions about how many zillions of kilobytes of arguing would ensue). I don't have the energy for VPP and/or WT:BLOCK or wherever this type of discussion would take place. I'm just proposing an easy, simple, reasonable compromise for one case that we've found to be particularly thorny. If it works, then yeah, we should consider doing it for everybody. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DTTR is a rather disturbing conception in and of itself, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Sandy: I know there are already class divisions, but people would oppose actually formalizing it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I only just noticed that Floq was only proposing this for Eric: I was more talking about Drmies's idea of all established editors, not Eric specifically. I've modified my post above to reflect this; additions are in italics. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This proposal will cause established editors to be able to freely flout the rules as long as they make the occasional positive contribution. It will not matter how many times they abuse, insult, degrade and libel regardless of if they were provoked or not they will still be able to edit unhindered. Do we REALLY want that to happen? PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 00:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No it won't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Will too! Well, maybe not, but it's, as the editor who closed the ANI thread indicated, "boring." Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes, as Graham Chapman explained in The Argument Sketch.  NE Ent 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear God you can be tiresome. You want me to spend time constructing a rational argument in response to a silly comment which was based on nothing but FUD? I'd rather just point out that the comment makes no sense, and those who respect my opinion can listen to me, and those who don't, won't. I'm not trying to convince PantherLeapord of anything, I have no illusions in that regard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose too much in the direction of making him unblockable -- every discussion -- including the three month one a prior arbcom, has been a whole lot of churn and no consensus when all is said and done. NE Ent 01:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - that is giving Eric a privilege that no-one else has here. StAnselm (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The problem with blocking Eric is the admins that reflexively unblock him. If people would just leave him blocked until there's some reason to believe that he will actually behave in the future, this problem would resolve itself.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not just those editors who you say "reflexively unblock Eric"; it is also those who reflexively block him as well, including the goaders and pokers who seems to be drawn to his talk page like wasps to honey. Of course this does not apply to everyone. What is missing in all of this is careful and well-considered judgment all round, including that done by some of my fellow admins. It is something that the method of appointing admins seems to have failed at checking thoroughly in all cases, and which we, as admins, need to be reminded of (and may be even checked) periodically. This, though opening a can of worms (with no implications about their turning ability intended), is part of the bigger picture which really needs to be considered before a good, well rounded, critically and carefully considered change in policy that applies to everyone, can be developed. So, I sadly guess it never will be.  DDStretch    (talk)  03:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, not just for Eric, but for all established editors. It's always struck me as crazy that the debates on this board are invariably about whether a block was justified, about whether or not it should be removed. The debate should take place before the block is made not after. It should be about whether to impose it, not about whether to remove it. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It'd be a popularity contest. We could film it and put it on Fox and it could be a competitor to America's Got Talent.  We could even have viewers call ina and !vote.  The sarcasm starts at "We" --v/r - TP 13:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have as much confidence in your fellow administrators as I do. But doing it this way should at least remove the worst of the excesses. They would be obliged to make their case before hitting the block button. It might be an idea for someone to change the title of the section to something more descriptive, in the vain hope that it might actually get some traction . 80.174.78.40 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When it comes to Eric, I have little faith in anyone, including myself, to make any kind of rational, fair, and acceptable decision. And that counts for both sides of the issue.  It's a unique set of circumstances that Wikipedians, Eric among them, have allowed to develop into an intractable situation.  A moving force and immovable object.  It won't get solved without a serious quake.  Perhaps the WMF should ensure that none of the servers are in California, we don't want to cause the next big one.--v/r - TP 14:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that this suggestion has arisen inside of this wall of text relating to another Eric case. Getting consensus before blocking an established user has long seemed to me to be an obvious, efficacious method of ridding this board of a ton of its drama while simultaneously protecting editors from unwarranted blocks. Hopefully someone will revisit it when the present kerfuffle has died down. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And it would protect editors from a lot of warranted blocks. I think I've got enough friends around here where I could almost guarantee to avoid a civility block.--v/r - TP 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That, coming from an admin, on the admin board, in the midst of a discussion about how we might possibly improve the risible performance of our admin corps pretty much sums up where Wikipedia is in 2013. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Eric's teflon coating is finally wearing off, and I see no reason to apply a new coat. Resolute 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nope, no special treatment. GiantSnowman 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for all established editors. We're seeing more evidence here of the varying standards concerning civility. The "passive agressive" and flyby "it won't end well" comments are rated by some as not rude at all, and someone has stated that "bugger off" is not profanity as "fuck off" is ... I am not up on the current broadcast codes in different jurisdictions, but how is a reference to buggery any less sexual than a reference to sexual intercourse in general? And others have already stated that they find the former two to be unacceptably rude. Level playing field - and courtesy toward fellow editors, which is the point of WP:CIVIL. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for all editors, oppose for just Eric I'm not keen on making Eric untouchable, but this is a sensible way of doing things. Indeed, I have long advocated that any editor with over (say) 1000 edits may only be blocked by bureaucrats. Admittedly, we'd need a few more crats, and the block should only be done under certain circumstances and it would need a few back end changes. Unfortunately, when I mentioned something like that elsewhere I was basically laughed out of the place. Anyway, this is a solution for the general case, but it needs more thought and discussion and certainly a wider audience than a handfull of people grumbling at AN. It is not a solution to deal with Eric (or rather it is, but not one I would accept) <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Drmies' proposal - this should be policy already. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support refining Drmies' proposal, oppose for just Eric. (specifically: "Proposal: If you want to block any established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. We can fight over whether "established" means".)  This won't address the past abuses that contributed to the present situation, but recognition of the cowboy admin problem and uneven application of policy by grudge-bearing admins is long overdue; may the refining of the Drmies' proposal help avoid more of same for other targeted editors.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support generalized version The generalized version is obviously better (though there are definitional issues). I'd even support the specific version if it means less drama :) --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Enough special treatment; equal justice under law instead. Treat someone like a prima donna and he just becomes a bigger prima donna.  --96.231.113.61 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume this was clear from comments above, but I didn't bold anything up there. I obviously support the more generalized case as well. And curse you, Drmies, for stealing my thunder. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pragmatic decisions based on projected impacts don't seem to be adequately taking into effect all contributions we're losing from people who are driven off by this sort of behavior. We full well know that Eric isn't deterred in the slightest by short blocks. Against the current (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 96 above. Treat him like he's special and he'll think he's above the law.  Konveyor   Belt  01:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose no special treatment. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

General civility sanctions
It is proposed

Eric Corbett and those interacting with him are placed under general sanctions. Any uninvolved admin (say one who has not blocked him before) may impose sanctions including topic bans and/or blocks not to exceed 36 hours in duration for failure to interact in a collegial manner, broadly construed. Any editor who has been notified of these sanctions by any editor and who engages in any uncollegial behavior, broadly construed, may also be sanctioned. This may include, but is not limited to: No sanctions may be overturned except by clear consensus at Administrators' noticeboard.
 * general perjorative characterizations of Eric's personality
 * references to his prior blocks / block log

These sanctions shall not apply to dispute resolution boards, specifically Administrators' noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and shall not apply to Eric's talk page, with the exception Eric may be banned from using Wikipedia notifications to refer to specific editors. NE Ent 01:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Did you just propose that I be sanctioned just for posting on Eric's page? I have some very strong language for that which I will not share with you. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We now have a full blown witch hunt.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How's that? Mark, with all due respect, I think you are misreading NE Ent's proposal. He specifically stated that these proposed sanctions would not apply to Eric's talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that now, but think this is still a witch hunt. I get you point Auto, but I don't think this is at all appropriate for Wikipedia. If Eric is such a disruption and we fear for the sake of the project, ban him and make it permanent. Don't tell us that if we interact with him we are at fault. Really? This is wrong on so many levels...--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Would not be effective until after passage, if consensus is achieved. NE Ent 02:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's better because.......?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL Oppose - So, just mentioning one of the dozens of times that Eric has been blocked in the past will get you a topic ban or block? This proposal is nonsensical.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#444477;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#222244;">| converse _  02:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, if general civility sanctions (in some form) are a good idea, shouldn't they apply to all editor interactions? Why would they be limited to interactions with one specific editor? isaacl (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - again; I would not have a problem if it was the MINIMUM length. Setting a maximum length tells them "hey; you can just do whatever the fuck you want, we don't give a shit!". PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sanctions for incivility should apply to everybody; that's the point of NPA. It's time we started using it. There are two things that we should not have to tolerate: one is the deliberate and repeated use of blatant rudeness to other editors, and the other is repeated discussions like this. Obviously, there will be for anyone an occasional outbreak, but we might rationally ignore it once a year per editor, but more than that means the person is either unable or unwilling to engage in acceptable human interactions. In either case, we should be free of them. What WP needs is good editors who can work with relative harmony on a common project, and both factors are necessary.  Anyone who operates on a basis of you provoked me so I can insult you is not engaged here at a civilized level. The practical advantage of using language as a test--even specific single words--is that they are unequivocal. Once we have dealt with this, we can deal with more subtle problems. I am perfectly aware that mine will not be a popular view here, because too many of the regular participants in these discussions apparently would rather fight than work. The people who wish to insult each other and then fight about it can agree to do so,  but not where it interferes with others, or with the public perceptions of the project.    DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, part of me wants this to happen just to see the kind of zany shenanigans that would inevitably result from it.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL Oppose indeed. (Might have to add that to my standard poll options.) —  Scott  •  talk  10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL Oppose. I get that the point of this is to protect Eric.  But honestly, the best way to protect Eric is to stop enabling his behaviour. Resolute 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL nope would ban any editor who gets within 50 feet of him. Kind of like a restraining orer, only those who are the victims will be prosecuted as well.  Konveyor   Belt  02:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for data/evidence
(Uninvolved observer) I have been following this, and I have noticed that several comments deal with the difference between reactive incivility (responding to baiting) and unprovoked incivility What I would like to see posted here in response to this request is:


 * A sample (more is better) of incivil statements by Eric Corbett, These should have diffs so other editors can evaluate whether they are actually incivil.
 * An explanation of how the sample was chosen (X latest posts, posts in month X, chosen at random with dice rolls...) so other editors can evaluate whether the sample was cherry-picked.
 * A count of how many were provoked vs unprovoked, with diffs of any baiting

Other editors can then post their own sample/analysis or criticize the current analysis.

I am not taking either side with this request. I just want to see evidence that other editors can evaluate backing up any provoked/unprovoked claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do it. Sample: last 100 posts (most recent first) StAnselm (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Why don't you just fuck off? Provocation: Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy.
 * 2) You have rather nicely proved my point you impotent sanctimonious arse hole. Provocation: you haev now been blocked for 3 months for the continued personal attacks (calling someone an "impotent arse hole", not in the heat of the moment but after your block has expired and "after some serious consideration"
 * 3) But as I've said several times before, I'll decide when it's time to leave, not the impotent sanctimonious arse holes like Spartaz.
 * 4) If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one.
 * 5) My idea is that I don't give a fuck what you think. Provocation: I have a feeling it won't end well if you don't stop the profanity Eric Corbett.
 * 6) (Edit summary: what a fucking joker)
 * 7) Piss poor block from a piss poor administrator, of which there is no shortage.
 * 8) (Edit summary: fuck off troll) Provocation: template message for personal attacks
 * 9) Like PoD, I really don't give a fuck what you think. Provocation: Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it.
 * 10) Were you born a hypocritical clown or did you have to undergo rigorous training?
 * 11) Indeed. An anonymous hypocrite with only 11 edits to his name citing the five pillars is rather revealing I think. Provocation (directed at User:Parrot of Doom): You are free to despise me, but might I suggest that if you choose not to follow WP:CIVIL, which is one of the five pillars, then the project is better off without you.
 * 12) Why don't these people go write something themselves instead of trying to make life a misery for everyone else?
 * 13) I think it's very clear that you do. Either that or you're an idiot. Provocation: Somebody my own size?? I don't do bullying


 * I suggest the following evidence, although it has not yet provoked a reaction. However, the wording used is far from neutral, potentially could stir things up (which we aren't supposed to do), and is not suitable (especially so, coming from an administrator).  DDStretch    (talk)  10:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC) :


 * 1) 2013-10-30T07:28:15 SB Johnny (talk | contribs | block) removed protection from "User talk:Eric Corbett" (If you don't want to read Eric's trash-mouth rants, take it off your watchlist) (hist | change)


 * See this link:


 * I would have thought this should have been more like "If you have found the content of Eric Corbett's talk page unpleasant in the past, take it off your watchlist!" That is sufficiently neutral and what I would expect from my fellow administrators. It is not a complaint about SB Johnny, but I think it illustrates the problem of a lack of careful neutral language from registered users of wikipedia, be they administrators or not.

OK, taking all of the above at face value and just counting, I get:
 * 100 recent posts sampled. (Were these all talk page posts or were article edits counted?)
 * 87 civil/other.
 * 7 provoked incivility.
 * 6 unprovoked incivility.
 * 1 provocation that was ignored. (Are there any others from the same time period that we have missed?)

I personally don't count "I have a feeling it won't end well if you don't stop the profanity Eric Corbett", "Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it" or Template:uw-npa3 as provocations, so I would change the above to: I would be interested in the results if anyone else has done a count. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 100 recent posts sampled.
 * 87 civil/other.
 * 9 unprovoked incivility.
 * 4 provoked incivility.
 * 1 provocation that was ignored.


 * So blocking someone for a clear personal attack, and explaining that block on the user talk page, is now "provoking incivility", somehting which in some of the proposals here should be blockable as well? If by "provoking incivility" you simply mean "doing something that may cause the other editor to be pissed off at you", then fine, I totally understand that most people don't react positively to a block; but if by "provoking incivility", people mean "blockable or really problematic baiting", then no, I don't think that my action / comment should be included in that group. Taking administrative actions like blocking or deleting will almost invariably anger someone, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done or that it should be considered an offense. Fram (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempt 2 @ civility restriction
Above, I suggested a similar restriction, and the largest issue was with the fact that this allows the agitator to get away with it, almost encouraging baiting. This restriction should be posted at the top of Eric's page and in his edit notice, so that it's clear to any new users. The reasoning behind the 24 hour maximum is simple - this is primarily a cooling down period. The community cannot agree on a well defined civility policy, so we should not be blocking for significant period because of it. Escalating the blocks will lead, eventually, to a block of a year or more for a simple angry comment. This solution basically stops the escalation from happening and allows cooler heads to prevail after 24 hours. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated WP:Civility, then he should be blocked for a period of up to 24 hours. This time period does not escalate, 24 hours is the maximum period allowed under this restriction. Editors who provoke Eric Corbett at his talk page should also be subject to at least an equivalent block for the period.
 * Oppose - Again; I would support it if the time given was a MINIMUM time and not a maximum. We have to deal with this and prevent it from happening again and as such escalating blocks are still needed here. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 09:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the blocks need to escalate. A 24 hour block each and every time is not a deterrent. Imagine if Eric is going away for the weekend, or knows he will otherwise be unable anyway to edit for a period of 24 hours or more. Well then, the temptation to call a bunch of people "fucking cunts" would be too great. GiantSnowman 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the blocks should escalate if we had a well defined civility policy which the community agreed on. As it is, it is just uninvolved admins making a choice, and there is no way that a single administrator should be making a block of significant length on a long term editor when the community cannot even agree on what constitutes uncivil. What's more, the idea that he would game the restriction and plan his outbursts appears to be an assumption of bad faith and I would like to see some evidence that he might behave in that manner. Like I said, this is meant as an actual solution here, and both sides might need to find some middle ground that we can agree on. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we even have any uninvolved admins left with Eric? GiantSnowman 10:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have ~600 active admins. Eric's got ~30 blocks. My maths says yes. What's more, if the admins who are turning a blind eye were given a clear mandate from the community, I believe they would be more willing to act. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You know full well that one does not have to block an editor to be considered 'involved'. GiantSnowman 10:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do and also that a block should be considered an administrative action and does not make one involved. I was, of course, using the number to demonstrate the scale. I think you would struggle to name 50 admins who are involved with Eric, but I would not struggle to name 50 from the list of active admins who have never interacted with Eric. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer... <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment (for now) I think it correct that blocks also need to escalate to the people who bait Eric at least, because they knowingly do it. However, whether they need to escalate in the same way and to the same extent, or less or more when Eric reacts to the provocation is another issue. They do the provocation, and so one might argue, they are not only causing disruption, but they are making another editor also suffer. One could argue that their blocks should increase at a greater rate than Eric's (if he is to be blocked at all).  DDStretch    (talk)  10:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're making a false assumption there DDStretch - from what I've seen, the "people who bait Eric" are different each time. If someone can point out the same person regularly baiting Eric, they are welcome to come to me and I will happily deal with it (assuming I'm not involved with them). That will come in the form of a warning, then escalating blocks. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but build it in then, as a prevention for those tempted to return and do a bit more poking, or even for those who have seen poking and think it's worth a short block to play the game and get Eric blocked again (and I think many might be in this situation). I really think one can look at it this way. The pokers often know what they are doing. They will be gaming the system to get Eric into trouble in the knowledge that it will by this policy. If there is escalation just for Eric, it will certainly be easily gamed. I think that is worse than Eric responding to the poking. This is also not a breaking of the assumption of good faith (if anyone thinks it is), because it seems to be justified because I suggest that they all know that they are poking an easy target, any returners that may exist especially. So, it is a useful preventative.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the words "at least" to specifically tackle that. I hope that if this passes, the closer will note the possibility that the "pokers" block can be escalated. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for considering what I wrote. I have struck my Oppose view as a result. I will think about it some more and see if I can move to a Support.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as worth trying (of I course I like my proposal better), because it's better than the status quo. Eric is a strong willed individual who seems to be to be mercurial in his stance towards Wikipedia so I think we need to forget about "deterrence" and "changing his behavior." A solution that provides a relatively low drama low haggle response to his sporadic acting like a jerk is what is needed, something between content creators can do anything Scylla and ban Eric forever! Charybdis. NE Ent 10:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is pointless. ArbCom has his back, and will desysop any admin who tries to block. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7 that's got to be just about the strangest comment I've seen, given that he is currently blocked by me, and I'm on that committee. I see no reason why the committee would desysop someone for carrying out a community sanction. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm currently de-sysopped for blocking him. Vacate that ruling, and I'll believe you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you were desysoped for personal attack after blocking and wheel warring; many admins have blocked Eric and few have been desysoped. NE Ent 13:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ArbCom ruled that calling someone an f ing c was acceptable behaviour, and was not a personal attack, so you cannot say that it is now. All I did was allude to his having an untouchable status. ArbCom called that a personal attack. ArbCom also ruled that one of its own members was justly blocked for the same thing. And ArbCom said I had wheel warred in contravention to the facts. It was a purely political decision. Worm will wind up being blocked and de-sysopped for the same reason. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm doing this from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong. Arbcom did claim that Hawkeye wheel-warred by blocking not too long after an unblock, and that he made a personal attack by comparing Eric to a koala. I never thought the case was that black-and-white, I thought NYB (who opposed the desysop) had it right, at least on my quick reading of the evidence. Eric was throwing around the c-bomb after the unblock and Hawkeye said that that's what he was blocking for, he wasn't re-blocking for the first offense, and I thought Arbcom completely misunderstood the koala metaphor: koalas look cuddly and everyone loves them, and then they pee on you when you try to hug them. It was inoffensive by comparison with most of the things said about Eric then, and now. I'm not arguing that admins should block someone for the c-word, that's a subject of current debate ... but that's the point, if we can't come to a decision whether that's the way to go or not, then I don't think an admin should be desysoped for doing it once, with no other evidence of bad faith or carelessness. I know that not everyone saw the case the same way, but I was disappointed, and I hope you'll do an RfA again at some point, Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose again. You've addressed half the problem with your original proposal, but pointlessly short cooldown blocks will not achieve any change in Eric's own behaviour. This serves no purpose. Resolute 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It serves a valuable purpose in that it actually reduces the controversy by giving us a procedure to follow. Few want Eric gone, few believe his comments are completely acceptable, this solution gives us something to do when he makes a problematic comment, so that he can come back later and carry on with a cooler head. I certainly don't see that as pointless. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We keep coming back here because Eric refuses to reform his behaviour. We will continue to come back here until either Eric reforms his behaviour, or Eric is banned.  If we don't want the latter result, we need the former.  This proposal fails to achieve that goal. In terms of reducing controversy here, we would still be in the same boat we are now:  "did he get baited? Does that forgive him? Should those that baited him be blocked?"  I like that your ideas are better than the other "Eric is a fluffy bunny who needs protection from evildoers" proposals that others are making here, but the simple truth is, the controversy starts and ends with Eric's own inability to deal with criticism or challenge. Resolute 16:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the sustained effort by Worm, but any sort of civility restriction-- no matter how worded-- isn't the best way to go here, because uneven application of WP:CIVIL (indeed, of many policies by block happy admins) is already the long-standing problem. How can we solve a long-standing problem by enacting something specific to one editor that will engage more of the same uneven application of the same policy? Some editors are blocked while others (with friendly admins on board) get away with worse. Regardless if one thinks this instance was provoked, warranted, egregious, trivial, the last straw, more of same, or whatever, the past arb case saw evidence of the long-standing uneven application in Eric's case. I believe the way to go is to attempt some version of what is proposed above under "Simple", to address the core problem-- that is, something that will encourage if not force admins to get consensus before blocking any established editor for anything other than outright (this should be common sense, but we do have block-happy and grudge-bearing admins who make blocks that no one in their right mind can believe will gain consensus), and to discourage the same admin from re-blocking in a previously controversial case (eg Fram in this case). That wording should not be about Eric; it should address uneven application of policy that is commonplace, whereby blocks, unblocks or no blocks depend on who the editor is and what admin friends some editors have. Solve the underlying problem; stop the cowboy admins. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see this proposal isn't going to get off the ground, so I'll leave it here. However, I don't believe a proposal like simple above should be something we're looking at. I can't believe it will gain traction across the community and even if it did, it would take a long time to get through. Hard cases make bad law, and so jumping in with what sounds like a good solution here is likely cause big problems elsewhere. So many different factors to look at. In the mean time, we have no solution for Eric, who is a specific and unique case. This suggestion would reduce the actual problems that are caused by Eric (by removing him for a short period), whilst at the same time not removing him all together. It would mean the end of the insane 3 month blocks for an angry comment. The end of the pages and pages of text arguing over what we should do. It's a solution. The fact that both sides are criticising it makes me think it's possibly the closest we could get to a viable one. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I respect your efforts (and apologize if I seem to be putting up roadblocks), but I just don't believe that any sort of civility restriction will accomplish what you believe it will ("not remove him all together") and in fact, may accomplish the opposite (that is, assure that we lose Eric, whose talents we sorely need, now more than ever considering the decline in writing competence evident throughout Wikipedia). Why would someone who has been a long-standing target of unfair blocks have any motivation or desire to continue to contribute to a project that would codify and further that very same uneven application of policy against him in particular, while not addressing the global problem?  Seriously, Eric is not stupid, nor is he needy.  Because it is likely that you have never been on the receiving end of an unjust block delivered by a grudge-bearing admin, and may not really understand how demeaning this proposal might be, I suggest re-reading Bish's post on the arbcase-- or even asking her to elaborate.  I don't believe anyone has ever motivated someone to change their behavior by rewarding the cowboy admins who got away with it and codifying the abuse that furthered the problem to begin with.  You motivate someone to change behavior and continue contributing by recognizing, addressing and attempting to solve the problems that led to the problem.   If we can't do that, then perhaps it's time to get on with a discussion about unblocking Eric.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Sandy, I see where you're coming from, certainly don't feel you're putting up roadblocks. Indeed, I too appreciate the genuine points you've put forward to help work towards a solution. With a few exceptions, I think there's been some genuinely helpful comments in this AN thread, better than the general noise that happens on an Eric thread. I am unable to empathise with someone unjustly blocked, as I haven't been. At the same time, I also find it hard to empathise with a person who flies off the handle when provoked. I've been provoked many times on the encyclopedia, and when I am, I walk away and respond when I've calmed down. I believe that I've remained civil throughout - I can count the number of times I've posted in anger on one hand and even then I defy anyone to spot them in my contributions. Eric doesn't have that self control, he's unwilling to walk away from bullies, so I'm suggesting we codify that stepping away. Force it to happen. Is it the best solution? No, the best solution is for Eric to do it on his own. There are genuine risks that it might fail or Eric might not accept it and leave us for good. Sometimes, such risks are necessary. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Much though I hate the idea of blocking people merely for mouthing off, worm's suggestion is worth thinking about if it is applied across the board. I.e., anyone who ever uses the f word (or the c word or the WP:List of banned words) is automatically subject to a 24 hour non-escalating block. The cost of mouthing off is well defined and we don't fall into the trap of ending up indeffing otherwise prolific content editors (who, often, seem to be the ones resorting to profanity in the first place). We have to find a balance here between what is useful (content) and what is just plain rude (profanity) without killing off our star editors and this seems like a good practical and commonsense approach. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if we didn't have f'ing c's going round in here, but those are not the biggest problem or necessarily what most discourages productive editors.  Your proposal would subject anyone who uses an f or c to an automatic block, while we have other editors enabled at ANI, with a history, to engage in far worse insults, as long as they avoid the F or C.  We see far more damaging (to a collaborative environment) posts routinely from editors who get away with it because they didn't use F or C.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you, and we've seen some wonderful block worthy examples in this latest Eric brouhaha. But, look at it like this. Some admins, like Spartaz, find a f you offensive enough for a block (clearly, he wouldn't have blocked for a 'buzz off' which means exactly the same thing). Others, like Fram, believe that these blocks should be escalating ones. Both Fram as well as Spartaz are willing to act on their beliefs and there is little that admins (I, for example) who think these blocks are not worth placing, let alone escalating, can do about it because of the way we're structured. (To state things simply - the unblock bar is much higher than the block bar.) Escalating blocks, in particular, are really bad because people who use profanity cannot really help themselves - they're just going to keep doing it - and if we're going to escalate the blocks we might as well tell them to leave. If, on the other hand, an Eric Corbett knows that the rule is profanity = short block of clearly defined duration, we might just avoid all this drama that is inevitable when people have diametrically opposite views on the same thing. Not a pure solution by any means, and not one that I like, but it might just be a practical one.--regentspark (comment) 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I think we should do something, and this is the best proposal currently on the table. StAnselm (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Five Pillars

 * Just a thought for those waving around WP:5P above - if we consistently dropped long blocks on every editor who repeatedly has a problem with some part of this, we'd have practically no-one left. Just remember, those pillars also include WP:NPOV (there go dozens of editors on every contentious political or social topic), WP:AGF (ditto), WP:BITE (hello certain admins!), WP:NOT (farewell trivia article editors), and WP:NFCC (that one would remove quite a few editors, including admins and at least one ex-ArbCom member).  Just sayin'. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do, on the other hand, have a fairly regimented system of edit-war blocks - days, then weeks, then months. In your opinion, does that system work? And if it does, can it be used in other areas of Wikipedia? Or is it because edit-warring is much more black and white? Anyway, I imagine lots of fly-by users do get banned for WP:NPOV and WP:NOT violations. It would be interesting to see some statistics. StAnselm (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about when editors "have a problem" with some particular policy, it's when they continue to behave as if there is no such policy or if it doesn't apply to them. These are the rules. No-one is required to like them, but all are required to live by them. If an editor can't, then they should go away. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Civility Restriction as DS
Basic civility paroles don't work. All they do is paint a target on a users back for anyone to provoke then block then unblock then ANI then indef then blah blah blah. What needs to happen is a system be put in place for uninvolved admins review an incident, come to a consensus, issue a solution and have it respected. That forum exists and it is Arbitration Enforcement.

If someone is upset with Eric, they file an AE request with diffs. The admins there will investigate, review for possible mitigating circumstances (like baiting), allow Eric the opportunity to defend himself BEFORE the banhammer is swung and the resulting consensus remedies are not easily reversed in a dramafest. In my mind this is the best way to fairly deal with his incivility and deal with possible baiting/frivolous requests.

Normally a sanction like that needs an Arb case. As an Arb, WTT could theoretically get that ball rolling. Eric may even cooperate to get it done since that would likely reduce driveby blockings of him as people who go to AE with unclean hands get boomeranged in a hurry there. The exact wording of the sanction can be debated and voted on by Arbs as a motion or something.

It's either that or come to no consensus here (again) and wait for the next blowup to have no consensus (again). 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that forum exists, and it is RFC (there has never been one). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've said on the potential case that Arbcom was the wrong place and I stick by that - I'm therefore not willing to push for a case. It's plausible that the committee will agree with your suggestion, but it seems just as likely that they will come down hard and ban him. I've recused and have no inside information on this matter, I make that statement out of personal opinion. Each arbitrator would have to make up their own mind and I have not discussed it with any. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Sandy RFC's are nonbinding and can not produce an enforcable remedy.
 * @WTT I'm not requesting a case or asking you to do so. What I am saying is to ask ARBCOM to extend Discretionary Sanctions on a particular user (Eric) for civility.  You are recused, yes, but you still have the right to propose a motion, even if you can't vote on it.  Or do you?  I'm not exactly sure.  Either way, it should be possible to get Arbcom to concider this possibility without needing to open a full case.  Doubly so if Eric agreed to it, but just to be clear... I'm not saying he will or that I speak for him.  204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RFCs may be non-binding but they are a great place to start. GiantSnowman 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that as an outright rejection of an RFC, so sorry for that. It just seemed like people were looking for a binding solution.  If anyone thinks it would work, they should file one.  Absolutely.  Though that does pose an interesting question.  If an RFC came to a consensus to use Discretionary Sanctions, would Arbcom honor that?  And not just in this, admittedly novel, sense.  If it was for a topic, like some geographical dispute, would that be possible? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Redaction—A small step?
Since any kind of decision re blocking this kind of behaviour (and especially with respect to this editor) seems impossible, perhaps the worst aspects of it could be mitigated by administrators being more proactive in redacting the really egregious personal attacks and profanity on article talk pages. This is where that kind of behaviour harms the public image of the project and is particularly harmful to new (or prospective) editors who come across it, even when it is not directed at them. I'm talking about pages like Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. There is no reason why anyone visiting that page should have to read discussions like "I really don't give a fuck what you think", "Who the shuddering fuck cares about a stupid link..." "If you don't want to be called a cunt [...] then don't act like one" (not all of which were made by the editor in question, incidentally). That sort of thing on User talk pages is probably less egregious, less visible, and more easily avoided. On article talk pages, it presents a terrible "public face" of Wikipedia and leaving them there sends the worst possible message: ''This is how we discuss things here, if you don't it like go away, or rather... FUCK OFF!'' Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On that particular page, the profanity was being used quite deliberately by Eric and others to enforce WP:OWN and keep other editors away from the page and/or from Wikipedia as a whole. One question to consider is whether Wikipedia really welcomes new editors. As you point out, that kind of language on article talk pages says "no." -- 101.119.15.153 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just some thoughts about user talk pages
User talk pages are strange things. It's in some ways a private space (more or less belonging to the user whose talk page it is), but also public, in the sense that anyone can read it (or even watch-list it).

On facebook, for example, if someone was giving you grief on your page, you could just delete their post or even ban them from posting (or de-friend them, or whatever it takes).

On a web forum, you can choose to ignore a "private message" from someone who is giving you grief, or you can tell them to go fly a kite. If the person didn't like being told to go fly a kite complained to a moderator about it, the moderator would probably advise them to just stop PMing the guy, or perhaps even tell them that going to fly a kite would be a good idea.

Did I lose you yet?

Well, if not, here's the thing that needs some thinking about: maybe telling people to go fly a kite (or jump in a lake, or get a life, or even fuck themselves) on one's own talk page should be treated altogether differently from doing so on an article talk page (or other content-oriented fora such as the Village Pump). Just something worth considering, IMO, since this whole situation is rather silly and "off-topic" (assuming the topic is supporting the writing good encyclopedia articles). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this were a social network, that would be fine. This isn't a social network. It is a collaborative project. Which means that nobody, absolutely nobody, has the right to ignore the feedback of other editors. If they are abusive, then they should be taken care of via all of the methods of conflict resolution and user conduct review that we have on this project. But any comments on your user page from other editors that do not violate policy are all things that you have no right to ignore. If you don't have the emotional maturity to deal with what other editors are telling you about your actions, then you do not belong on a collaborative project. VanIsaacWS Vex<sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">contribs 05:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Naming and shaming instead of blocking
Civility is not easily enforced, and blocking people for incivility is not likely to work on the long term. Typically, there won't be a consensus to block an editor for civility issues, even if there is consensus that there are civility issues with that editor. What can work is to allow such an editor to edit, but only with an added text to the username that says that the editor is prone to uncivil behavior. The editor will have to earn the right to edit without that added text to his username by editing without civility problems for a significant amount of time.

The added text also makes the civility issues less serious. By making the potential civility problem visible before it occurs, editors know what they can expect from the problem editor. That then significant diminishes the effect of any incivility coming from the problem editor. Count Iblis (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See the section above what if a person is using abuse on article talk pages to discourage contributions to that page and to help to enforce ownership of an article? Guy Fawkes Night, as with other anniversary pages, is likely to attract new editors around the time of the anniversary. A new editor will typically make a change to a page under an IP address. If the change is reverted, they may find their to the talk page. How likely is it that a new editor is going to want to contribute to the conversations on that page given the language that is currently on that page and directed at others who have proposed changes? Where does your "PBS (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A thought of my own
It's been a long time since I've edited or even looked at this page; I think the last comment I made here was right around Christmas time. At that time it was essentially the same issue at hand. Now I have no intention of getting myself involved in this beyond the following; instead of trying to recreate some profound comment, just read what I wrote then. Everything, including the article in question, is essentially the same. If you're starting to get riled up about the goings-on here, look at this and let it sink in for a minute; I know that for me it rather violently shakes me back into focus, and everyone I've ever spoken to has told me it does much the same for them. And now, I'll return to quietly perusing Susan Curtiss' dissertation and doing some work without the attendant theatrics. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U
Now that Eric Corbett has been unblocked, I'm starting Requests for comment/Eric Corbett to get this away from AN and to see if a solution which all parties can live with can be found. Everyone is invited to help create this RfC/U. My purpose is to focus on the interaction between Eric Corbett and other users, in both directions, not to have a "list-everything-he-ever-has-done-wrong" festival. Evidence of his incivility and personal attacks will need to be provided, but evidence of the causes of his reaction, possible baiting, possible recurring harassment, or possible bad or execssive blocks, is of course also a necessary part of the process. Just, well, try to keep it constructive and civil wherever possible. It is not a policy-free zone where personal attacks will be ignored. Fram (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked for this to be moved to User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett. I think an RfC is premature at this moment, it needs to be written, structured and evidenced. This will take time and creating it empty is the wrong way to do it. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 08:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Premature? It seems to me to be long overdue. "Creating it empty" is the standard way RfC/U are created by the template. I'm willing to move it to your user page, but not to keep it there for very long. Some attempt at resolution is needed, and I doubt that it will come from this AN discussion. Fram (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit pointless. IIRC, there's been an RfC/U before. -- 101.119.14.178 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge, I can't find a trace of it (old or new username of Eric Corbett). Fram (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the RfC/U to User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett, my invitation to everyone wanting to find a solution for this recurring situation remains open of course. My intention is to get this back to a standard RfC fairly soon (days, not months) if possible. Fram (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that WTT has since clarified that his "I think an RfC is premature at this moment, it needs to be written, structured and evidenced. This will take time and creating it empty is the wrong way to do it." doesn't mean that writing the RfC will take longer, which is better done in userspace first, but that he doesn't want to start on it until he has tried other avenues first. Make of that whatever you want. Fram (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For more information about my thought process, have a look at User talk:Fram <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Question about post-deletion-discussion actions
Occasionally, editors may move articles that are at WP:AfD (during the discussion); if the discussion closes as any sort of delete, the closing administrators will sometimes overlook the pagemove and delete only the resulting redirect instead. As I'm not an admin myself, I obviously can't carry out the delete, so what's the best way to deal with this? I usually use WP:CSD, which works just fine, but I wonder if there's anything better. Ansh666 02:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say do three things: (1) Keep using G6 as you're doing now. (2) Leave a note at the movers' talk pages, asking that they not to move pages without adding a big warning to the top of the AFD, something like "NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: page has been moved".  (3) Leave a note at the admins' talk pages, asking them to be a little more careful.  Wish I could suggest something more directly useful, but I don't know what it would be.  Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you notice that the page was moved while the discussion is still open, feel free to replace the article name in the header, with an appropriate eit summary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why I wrote WP:NOMOVE. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember too that these articles (where the AFD closes but the moved article remains because it was moved) usually end up appearing at WP:BADAFD. Once there, admins usually take care of it pretty quickly. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, nowadays usually I take care of it pretty quickly... =P Ansh666 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion
The Eric Corbett-related discussion is taking up a huge amount of space on this board. Would it be a good idea to spin it off onto a sub-page, with a pointer left here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh god, please don't. Every time we subpage something, it ends up dying on the vine and we never end up getting any real results until it finally goes to ArbCom.  Witness Betacommand, the past times we've subpaged a Malleus/Eric discussion, Rich Farmborough, etc., etc.... rdfox 76 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you believe that the discussion(s) is (are) heading towards a substantive decision while embedded here? It appears that ArbCom has already decided not to deal with this, in favor of RFC/Us, which (as usual) no one appears to be interested in starting, so why are do we need to clutter up AN with continuing discussion on this topic?  Maybe (I know this is a radical concept) everyone should just ignore Eric Corbett's potty-mouth, and just let his targets know that he's a valuable contributor who's not really responible for his outbursts, kind of a  Wikpeedia version of Tourette's Syndrome.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "ignore [his] potty-mouth"
 * I'm happy (sic)  to do that. However (Read Talk:Sunbeam_Tiger) Eric also does this as the worst sort of WP:BITE to new editors. We shouldn't expect them to have to suffer this. (TL;DR:, ) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about a namespace? MALLEUS:CIVIL, MALLEUS:AN, MALLEUS:AN/I, etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion too conservative. We need a new sister project: WikiMalleus (malleus.wikipedia.org)   (: --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The namespace could be colloquially referred to as hammerspace. Deor (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting Drmies' proposal for a general rule on civility enforcement
Proposal: If you want to block any established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. (Drmies' words, kiped from #Simple, above) It completely lacks any objectivity and would simply result in editor's aligning themselves for or against their favourite/disliked fellow editors. Leaky Caldron  18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as re-proposer. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and should always be carefully considered. Assuming good faith - and supporting the right of all kinds of people to edit (avoiding entrenched bias and treating fellow editors with respect, the underlying purpose of WP:CIVIL - we must recognize that people have varying notions of what constitutes unacceptable rudeness. The massive discussion about above showed this very clearly: for some, certain words are beyond the pale; for others, disrespect matters far more. (Full disclosure: I'm in the latter camp. I swear like a Marine off-wiki and I have a low tolerance for attack argument, including snideness.) It also demonstrated that we have more than one problem: it's not just Eric, it's not just the difficulty of factoring in extenuating circumstances ("poking the bear" etc.), we can't even agree which kind of incivility is driving more editors away. All we can agree on is that civility matters. Let's turn the issue around. We think hard before blocking a new editor, because biting people who don't yet know the ropes is unfair. We should also be sure before blocking those who do know the ropes. They - we - deserve that much respect, and getting consensus will afford more time for talking and untangling the situation so that a block is no longer needed, in addition to overcoming that bias we all largely unconsciously have. It will, I hope, exchange lots of short discussions here for the occasional mammoth ones ... such as about Eric. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So... you mean it's what we have now, minus the actual blocks. I think I like it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Me? I love it. Simple, sensible, avoids controversy, will reduce drama, acknowledges common knowledge, easier than the "clunky" "involve a bureaucrat" thing I saw, applies common sense. Oh, no, see... I did it again... I just listed all the reasons it'll never fly. Sorry. Mea culpa. Begoon &thinsp; talk  19:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose First of all, you'd have to get everyone to agree on a definition for established editor. Second, we already have problems with the relationship between admins and non-admins. This sounds like something that could create friction between newbies and everyone else, because if a new editor (someone who is not established) gets involved in a dispute with an established editor, the newbie is in greater danger of winding up blocked. Third and finally, how would this be enforced in cases where a block is issued without consensus? Does the block get lifted? Is the blocking admin desysopped? Yes, this could prevent some drama, but it won't entirely do away with it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we really opposing new proposals now because, although they would improve things, they wouldn't "entirely do away with" existing problems? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll put it more bluntly: I don't think this will be an overall improvement. I agree with what JohnCD says below about "introducing "established editor" as a divisive new social distinction..." I also agree with what he says about the difficulty of finding consensus in high profile cases. In other words, he's approximately 100 percent right, in my opinion. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to say - what's the definition of an "established editor"? DonIago (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Enforcement could be a nightmare and this indeed could create more friction between admin and editors. And I agree that the term "established editor" is....without clear definition. Some call editors who have established an account and passed all criteria for article creation to be established and that doesn't take much. Some others feel that editors that have a particular percentage of edits that are in article space only are established while others look at the edit count alone. Nah....this looks like a dead end, but Drmies is the actual proposer and may have more input on this that could convince editors of it's viability.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. If I were to pick nits, I would quibble over details - I'd prefer to leave "established editors" out of it, and instead say "if you want to make a block that you suspect will be controversial, you should get consensus first" -  but quibbling over details is going to be the death of decision making on Wikipedia. I strongly support the idea behind this, and we can tweak details if we find we're discussing too much, or arguing too much about whether someone was an established editor or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire proposition is based on the notion of editor's who have earned special recognition - established editors - having earned special rights. You can hardly remove that stipulation on the basis of it being an insignificant quibble. Leaky  Caldron  20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Egotist that I am, i shall take that as support for my proposal :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the basis that this would turn things into a blatant popularity contest where editors with enough friends to filibuster away a prposed block will be able to get away with anything. The solution is to not F and C bomb other editors. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How unfortunate that you have brought forward a rough, worthy first proposal with no attempt at refining it. That's not exactly the path to success.  I support in theory, but it would be wise to work on the wording before bringing it forward again.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, how about hell no. No one should have special status. Everyone should play by the same rules. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. Look at how we block VOAs: on sight, even without (final) warning if need be. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea of "before you take an action that you know will be contentious, discuss it" is a good one (and is actually already enshrined in some aspects of blocking policy). The idea that certain users should be more insulated from the possibility of blocking than others, solely by virtue of being "established" (how long do I have to be around before I'm "established"? How many articles do I need to write? how many policies do I need to have discussed?), however, strikes me as extremely wrongheaded and unfair. Yes, you should discuss contentious actions before taking them, but contentiousness has to do with circumstances, not the relative longevity of the editor. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am nearing my eighth year without a block, and I have a simple rule: if someone warns me not to do something, I stop doing it and start discussing the issue even if I disagree with the warning. If I ever get blocked, I don't know what I will do but I might just quit. Don't you think that an administrator contemplating a block should take that into account before destroying an unblemished record without warning? Yes, I do think that I should be treated differently than a new editor with one vandalism edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you should. The premise that you should not, or that there is any real difficulty in establishing who "you" are, or when this simple rule of thumb should be applied is bogus. But that premise will prevail. And one day shit will happen to you, or to me, and we will go away, because the maths involved in all of that no longer adds up for us. That's wikipedia. I wish it wasn't, but it is. Begoon &thinsp; talk  21:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Guy, if by "take that into account" you mean "take into account that you are likely to be personally offended and ragequit if blocked", no, I don't think that's relevant to any decision to block or not block if you were to suddenly go off the rails. Similarly, "But Guy's friends will raise a big stink" and "Guy has been here for eight years, not just one year" are also irrelevant. What could be, and often is, relevant is to a decision to block or not block is "Does Guy know this behavior is a problem? Is he doing it anyway?" and "Is Guy's behavior so bad or recalcitrant that a) he needs to be stopped in his tracks and b) it would be clear to any reasonable editor that that's the case?" Those things, note, have to do with the circumstances of the situation and what is known about your understanding of policy - Guy usually X-es, and he knows Y is bad, but now he is Y-ing, do I have reason to think/not think that a block will fix Guy's Y-ing - but nothing to do with with your longevity or importance as a persona. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's lovely, Fluffernutter, and I think all that's really being proposed here is that the need to consider those things should exist as a given. It doesn't always happen. Begoon &thinsp; talk  21:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well no, what's being proposed here - that is, the actual wording of the proposal - is in fact something entirely different: that if someone has been here long enough (or is important enough, or wrote enough articles?) and is Y-ing, their "importance" overrides all other concerns in deciding how to address the issue, and changes the blocking/DR process to something different than we would follow for anyone else who was Y-ing. I can't support that, because it privileges those who have been here longer (or, perhaps, who have "big" names - again, we've failed to define "established") solely because they've been here longer (or have a big name, etc). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not how I read it - see my answer to Guy. But exactly why I said "The premise... that there is any real difficulty in establishing ... when this simple rule of thumb should be applied is bogus. But that premise will prevail."  Begoon &thinsp; talk  22:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (non-admin AN/ANI stalker observation) In theory, this proposal sounds like a good solution. In practice, though, as others above point out, the language is just too broad for consistent and effective enforcement. Unlike many others, I'm not implying that we have a rotten admin corps, but I'd like to point out that the dramuh-boardz attract many non-admins (like me), many of which (not like me, I hope) tend to be problematic editors. Their presence, especially if involved in the dispute that leads to the potential for a civility block, could potentially lead to even more difficult situations. I do support the spirit of the proposal, but it would have to be carefully modified to avoid class tensions and such (and as Floq says, quibbling over details is bad for the 'pedia). The one modification I suggest is that the consensus be built from uninvolved editors, or involved editors must declare themselves as such; the problem with this is that it would also be impossible to enforce, considering how few editors actually read messages such as those on top of the edit window for this noticeboard...anyways, just my two cents here. [add another 8 dollars and I can get a Subway sandwich combo!] Ansh666 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AN and ANI are not exactly the same; I hadn't specified. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The lines are slowly getting blurred. I'd say that in the past week or two, maybe 1/3 of the sections here probably should have been at AN/I. Although, it is true, AN gets a lot less visitors. Ansh666 20:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course there should be some sort of consensus process before productive editors are blocked. The core problem is that currently any one of hundreds of loose cannon admins can block on whim. There can never be equity or stability under this cowboy system. The ability to block such users needs to be taken away from run of the mill admin and given to a disciplinary panel of admins specially appointed for the purpose. These problems will continue ad nauseum until this happens. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose based on having seen what this kind of concept, be it de jure or de facto, for bans and admin action has done every single place I've seen it come into play. More specifically, more well known and popular people become almost untouchable outside of the most absolutely egregious actions while new and/or less popular people find themselves being hammered and sacrificed to protect said popular people. In turn, this leads to resentment of the controlling cliques by established members (eventually driving them away or into much less participation) and scares away (or just outright bans) possible new members. Everything becomes about popularity and who your friends are. This is already a huge issue as it is (although generally after an admin action has been taken) and outright making it an official guideline or policy will just enshrine it into the system and encourage it. That is the last thing Wikipedia needs. Simple Sarah (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose once again because Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Unless we're going to get Fox to film it and call it Wikipedia's Next Untouchable.--v/r - TP 20:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it more a Paramount sort of thing...but I digress...--Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)ress.....


 * Oppose - all very well for uncontentious situations, though I am not happy about introducing "established editor" as a divisive new social distinction; but in a high-profile case like the one we are all thinking about, how do you expect to achieve consensus? The predictable armies of opponents and supporters will line up crying "We shouldn't put up with this!" and "But he was provoked, and those other people are as bad!" The same discussion we waste a day on every few months will happen all over again, and nothing will be decided, again. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If anything, experienced editors should be held to a higher standard, not lesser. CIVIL is a core pillar. By definition, every editor needs to adhere to it, and if they refuse, they need to leave. Making excuses and caveats that longstanding editors don't really need to abide by it is basically the worst possible idea. VanIsaacWS Vex<sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">contribs 21:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion In common with many legal systems, we should have a mechanism where the "accused" editor has the power to reject the participation of an admin, as in some jury systems. Too often I have seen admins involved in edding issues then morphing into the WP policeperson. The core issue is often not the status of an ed, but the often shameless personal involvement of admins who have been involved in the same incident, who then go on to use their blocking powers in subsequent escalations. I think an editor's ability to reject an admin in a disciplinery scenerario should be explored, if the above reasons apply. Ideally an admin that has had no previous interaction should be appointed to look into it. I think this would drastically cut the number of senseless blocks and embittered and lost to-the- project eds. A The suitability of this administrator to enforce sanctions in this case has been challenged on the grounds of prior envolvement/whatever template could be introduced. It must be at a low and accessable level. It would freeze further action. A mechanism could then be introduced to appoint another mop. In the meantime, all further relevant editing by that editor would cease. This would be the GF faith price that an ed would offer in order to envoke the challenge procedure. Irondome (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I am definitely supportive of tightening up on WP:Involved. It is a rare, but unfortunately still too common occurrence that admins become inextricably involved with editors, but are able to hide behind the technicality that they were just doing admin enforcement. VanIsaacWS Vex<sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">contribs 22:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose:Codifies untouchability and misses the point: most of Eric's misbehaviour is blindingly obvious.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As is most of yours. Eric   Corbett  21:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – As always, vehement opposes to a proposal like this pour in, mostly from admins (all with a conflict of interest here, some blatantly incompetent to be making decisions about content builders) and users who contribute a lot to drama boards and very little to building the encyclopedia. These users should not be permitted to vote on issues like this. So long as Wikipedia governance is under the control of these groups, this miserable downward decline into the muck will continue. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments. Yes, experienced editors should be held to a higher standard; if they deserve a block (and not only for incivility), it should be pretty easy to get consensus. Blocks are, after all, a last resort. As to making a class division between new editors and established editors, I understand the worry, but we already have one - all admins that I know of try hard not to block newbies except in egregious cases, and established editors are generally held to a higher standard. Yes, "established" is hard to define (for one thing, some people register an account but then edit very little), but if there's doubt about it, can it hurt to post here before blocking? Remember, the obvious cases where there's harm being done are obviously an exception. And most of us manage to figure out who not to template under "don't template the regulars" - that's more sophisticated than this suggestion, because considering an actual block arises less often. As to codifying untouchability, the civility requirement, and Eric specifically: the idea is to level the playing field so he (and others with long block logs) are not considered in isolation; if we have such a guideline in force and the expectation of a few such discussions on this board per day, a lot of the drama would dissipate; for one thing, we'd have a more robust admin consensus on things like civility because we'd have considered a lot more cases. Anyway, those are my thoughts; I'd rather the nitty gritty be simple, but I'd also rather it arise out of discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support.This whole project has been built on consensus. All of the content is built through consensus. The policy is built through consensus. Arbcom and admins are elected, which is a form of consensus, and arbcom decisions are also arrived via discussion and voting. It's only when handed a mop that editors suddenly start making important decisions unilaterally. Surely, it's blindingly obvious that if ANI cannot arrive at a consensus to block an editor, then that editor should not be blocked. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's only when handed a mop that editors suddenly start making important decisions unilaterally." - ???... Completely untrue... Ansh666 23:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. But do you not agree that if ANI cannot arrive at a consensus to block an editor, then that editor should not be blocked? 80.174.78.40 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support The idea of seeking consensus before enforcing blocks in problematic cases. Irondome (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * STRONG OPPOSE - This is quite simply the STUPIDEST concept that I have ever seen proposed here. Why do you want admins to gain consensus for taking a PREVENTATIVE and STRICTLY PREVENTATIVE action - Blocking to PREVENT further disruption due to incivility? PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't use as many capital letters as you did, simply because I hurt my left thumb earlier, chopping some garlic, and it keeps slipping off the Shift key. I hope that's ok. I just wanted to say that. Oh, yeah, and "read the proposal". That was the other thing I wanted to say, I remember now... Begoon &thinsp; talk  23:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to get to know this Begoon guy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope your dinner wasn't ruined, but if it was garlic it may have been worth the "owie".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the proposal. Still think it is the most [REDACTED] STUPID idea I have ever heard! PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please expand? Irondome (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you should stay around a bit longer than you have, maybe get a few more article edits under your belt (a few more than a few hundred), and you'll hear stuff much more stupid than what I could ever dream up. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "A touch Watson! A definite touch!" Irondome (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I so wish I could block you for that blatant assumption of bad faith. Oh no, hang on, I wish you could block me - or something.... Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose One of the basic principles of WP is that all editors are treated equally, and we judge on the basis of their work and their behavior, not their tenure or friendships. To the extent that someone is an established editor, they should know better how to do good work and conduct themselves properly, and know not to get themselves into situations where they might be blocked. Administrators are trusted to implement both specific and implied consensus, and to come here in doubtful cases for confirmation.  If an individual admin decides on a block in a way that is found to violate consensus, it will be overturned here; if they do so consistently, there are other ways of proceeding.  To ask for prior permission before placing blocks is essentially giving established editors a free run at disruption in the hope that they can argue their way out of it. We have in my opinion been altogether too lenient on established editors, to the point where complaints that the established people here form overlapping cabals is beginning to sound less like a paranoid delusion.  DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You make some valid points, but there is also the issue of a few (hopefully very few) loose cannons in the admin community. They tend to make swift and arbitary decisions, sometimes while having an editorial COI, and the issue never makes it here. We must have mechanisms in place to discourage that. I think there are issues that both communities need to honestly admit to and address. Irondome (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But there seem to be as many of those loose cannons as the other type, who adamantly support certain editors no matter if there is general consensus from others that they are right or wrong - which often leads to all of the "no consensus" discussions that happen here. Ansh666 00:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am trying to take that subspecies into account here too. An admin with COI can be a party to favouritism as well as summary execution. I would like to see admins being restricted in topics where they have a specialisation/interest, as that often breeds a POV familiarity in both camps. Compltetely impartial admins who have had no interactions with any offending eds should be brought in to impliment any bans. But the more realistic option is consensus in bans where the civility breach is open to a wider interpretation. Irondome (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If all editors were treated equally and judged on their work and behaviour, there would be no problem. But they're not. If admins acted only when they believed they had consensus, and came here in when in doubt, there would be no problem. But they don't. An editor will only be able to "argue his way out" if there is no consensus. If there is no consensus, there should be no block. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * DGG, if all admins were of your calibre there wouldn't be serious problem. But they are not. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And there's a great deal of sense in that comment too, folks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell. Irondome (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to propose policy or guidelines. I'd like some common sense; I'd like admins to think (more) before they shoot (from the hip or elsewhere). There is no doubt that there's a few admins who have a few editors high on their hitlist--Eric's not the only one with a target on his back, I'm sure. But really, ask yourself this. Eric was blocked for, what, 3 hours? for incivility. Fine. Some would say he had it coming; I wouldn't have blocked for it, but hey, one can read the civility paperwork and call it justified. But the thing is, then he got blocked for 3 months, and then indefinitely. Now tell me what happened to those blocks. Were they not overturned? Does that not mean that the blocks were perhaps wrong? (If they were right, they shouldn't have been overturned--and "wrong" and "right" are a matter of consensus, of course.) On we go: the blocks were wrong (too long, too harsh, not well-argued, whatever), and they were undone. What was the effect of that, besides yet another shit storm here and elsewhere? Eric's got two more notches on his block list, two more reasons for someone to say, "well, he's got 24 blocks, he deserves the next one"--when the very fact that the blocks were overturned means they shouldn't have been issued in the first place. We're setting aside the fact, of course, that such indefinitely escalating blocks must feel like escalating kicks in the bollocks for said "Eric Corbett". All animals are equal--well, not really, some are more unequal than others, because any unfair blocks still count against them. "Ah, well, it was the pro-Eric cabal that overturned a valid decision"--screw that. If you say that, then our entire consensus-building system is broken, because every decision made via consensus, from FAs to the MOS, is theoretically decided via some cabal. What I wanted was for some people to exercise some common sense, and to consider that if the blocks were overturned, they were wrong, but they are still there as a permanent mark, as a temporary but painful frustration/kick in the pants, and as a reason for considerable controversy. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah - but you were also hoping it wouldn't be wikilawyered to death, just for a kind of (wtf) refreshing change, weren't you? Go on - be honest. I know you're an uncontrollable optimist. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I think WP:Involved should be enforced much more as a first step. As someone mentioned above. Irondome (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Enforcing INVOLVED doesn't solve the problem. Once a cowboy has blocked, and maybe even removed the block immediately with a false summary, no matter how much you enforce INVOLVED after the fact, the block is still on your record. Even if you desysop the abusive admin.  And in Eric's case, then the block log is used against him over and over, no matter that few of the blocks were deserved.  That's why this proposal aims to stop the abusers before they can strike.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bit by bit Wikipedia is turning into a turkey shoot where admins who contribute very little to Wikipedia get to hunt down and dispose of the best contributors. It's a fraught and unjust environment for those who come here to write the encyclopedia. It's not fixable, because the admins themselves determine their own working conditions. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't want to propose policy or guidelines...I'd like admins to think (more) before they shoot (from the hip or elsewhere)". You won't get the second part without the first part. I thought that was the whole point of the discussion. Ah well, never mind. If it had been a proposal it would't have had a cat in hell's chance of getting through. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It it not in Wikipedia's interest to institutionalise a "two grades of editors" concept. Also, if there are in fact unjustified blocks, established editor are better able to cope than new editors, who will simply walk away. Agree with Irondome on WP:Involved, however. -- 101.119.14.189 (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See above on the false notion that INVOLVED solves this. And we already have two classes of editors.  Abusive admins can lodge bad blocks; regular editors can do nothing about it.  Even when the admins are desysopped, the block log follows you.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not say it solved it at all. Please see my more original and forceful proposals upthread. I merely indicated it as a possible initial sticking-plaster. Irondome (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do admins close down highly active discussions such as this one, as soon as core issues start to get air? It it because content editors shouldn't express their views. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't include it in the closing statement, but the proper WP:ALPHABETSOUP is WP:SNOW. There's no way this is going to pass. Ansh666 02:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, SNOW wasn't at all relevant (although it might be accurate). It was a process issue. I didn't read halfway though before deciding it was a waste of time. While working to codify my reaction, I saw SandyGeorgia's  it would be wise to work on the wording before bringing it forward again, which I now wish I had used as a closing summary. @Epipelagic. I'm in favor of getting some discussion of core issues. A straw vote on a hastily worded idea is not the right way to do it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  03:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still hurts my feelings a bit--"waste of time". Sphilbrick, you're a nice and intelligent person, though you have a confusing user name. Will you promise me one thing? Think before making a block that's possibly boneheaded or likely to be overruled? One person at a time--it's like prayer, I'm going to change the world. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's sweet, Drmies ... I can give you a (short) list of admins to start working on changing, one at a time! Sphilbrick did the right thing; this wasn't the way to go about proposing such a major change, it should have been a properly formulated and well thought out RFC, the wording should have been considered before re-launch, and it is unfortunate that the way this was re-launched actually doomed it from the start.  Good on you for the idea, but good on Sphilbrick for shutting it down, as that gives it a better chance to re-appear in better form in the right time and place.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wise words. There are elements in the closed thread that can be used as a nucleus for a newly framed proposal. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As is often the case, I think I state something clearly, but find I did not. My statement that the discussion was a waste of time was not intending to suggest that the core of the idea was useless. It is more of a process statement. What should one do if one has a decent idea, and slaps together a draft version? The right thing to do is to think hard about the words, and the implications and the alternatives, and carefully draft a decent proposals. The wrong thing to do is to put the draft wording up for an up or down vote. The notion that we would make a fundamental change to such a far-reaching policy based upon a simple up or down vote at AN is, or ought to be, preposterous. AN does have a role. It's a good place to add a link to a page where editors are invited to a brainstorming session to discuss ways to address problems. (I modified my sig to see if that would make it less confusing.) And I agree with Irondome. There's some useful thoughts in the discussion. Let's go off some place and discuss.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bah, just shows that I've spent too much time at WP:AfD. I agree that it's a step in the right direction, but needs to be much much more carefully considered and framed before being put out to vote (and I think it would belong at WP:VPP, no?). Ansh666 05:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better at WP:VPI. I'm trying (without much success) to push the paradigm that one should work out the wording of proposals before showing up at WP:VPP. I think WP:VPI has the potential to be that starting place. I still see some shortcomings in the way we develop proposals, and I suggested some alternatives at WP:VPI, which went over like a lead balloon. So now I'm wondering if we need to do brainstorming somewhere else.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the final vote. WP:VPI looks like a good brainstorming ground, but it doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic compared to other pages. Ansh666 20:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Short of someones talk page, I dont know where to discuss. WP should have "conference room" pages for discussions on things,esp to iron out wording of proposals. Six or seven eds can request it, book it and have a "meeting". Its not ready for a board yet Irondome (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Announcement: Localhost glitch
As of today at 14:52, some routine server operations caused an unexpected XFF glitch that has resulted in our loopback address spawning a bunch of edits, some of them vandalism. We're aware of the issue and are hard at work on fixing it - for the time being, please do not block the aforementioned address due to the potential for wide-scale collateral damage. Thank you, m.o.p  00:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an awfully accurate diagnosis. I wonder if it'll turn out to be correct. ;-) Roan is looking into the issue now. It's still unclear why 127.0.0.1 is editing. The issue appears to be affecting all Wikimedia wikis, though the edit rates are obviously differently everywhere (e.g., simple:Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1). And some wikis exhibit symptoms from much older, unrelated bugs (e.g., m:Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird. But what does this mean?  Did our software misattribute someone's edits to this address?  I don't see this being a computer going crazy or a rogue WMF staffer playing around; I've read the server admin log but don't understand it.  Perhaps you should add an edit filter to keep localhost from vandalising the The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.  Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a tech person but I would guess that something went wrong with squid that stripped out XFF headers resulting in edits being attributed to the load balancing server rather than the actual editor. Just a guess though.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not precisely what happened but it's pretty close. See my explanation on VPT. --Catrope (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need more people in the WP:Village stocks, now do we? Ansh666 02:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This should be fixed now, see this VPT thread. The fix isn't instant so it might take a little while for these 127.0.0.1 edits to completely go away, but I haven't seen any in the past half hour. --Catrope (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

IP from Suburban Express complains about User:CorporateM's edits to their company's article


"Suburban Express has initiated about 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors.[4]"

Here is the citation:

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

The article does not say Suburban Express filed 10 lawsuits against competitors.

It says this: In the past, Sub urban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX.

The three named companies are competitors, but it does not logically follow that all 10 lawsuits were against competitors. Champaign County Circuit Clerk's website reveals that suits have been filed against non-customers who are not competitors, ie Pitney Bowes.

This is the game that CorporateM is playing: He is relying on the laziness of readers. He expects that he can say something that seems like it is true, but which is not actually true, and that nobody is going to actually check. He constantly lies in his edits, which are biased and not consistent with NPOV.

Most of CorporateM's edits to Suburban Express article contain significant errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that CorporateM's edits are not consistent with NPOV, that CorporateM is making numerous negative edits without discussing edits beforehand -- even as he criticizes other user(s) and reverts their edits for not discussing before editing. CorporateM has admitted elsewhere to being a paid editor, and he seems to have an undisclosed COI wrt Suburban Express.

An adult in charge needs to get this user under control. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relevant links: ; ~ Crazytales  (talk) (edits) 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * CorporateM is a paid editor who usually identifies him/herself as such on the talk pages of articles they edit. We don't accept county clerk records as reliable sources because they are raw "primary" sources. If there is something noteworthy about the cases you refer to, find mentions of them in reliable "secondary" sources and discuss it on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Before making accusations that CorporateM is a paid editor, you should come up with a better justification than baseless speculation. Also, you should not be complaining about "paid" editors when you admit to being a paid representative of Suburban Express.

On the subject of the 10 civil suits you filed, you seem to be conviniently ignoring the fact that you filed 3 lawsuits against LEX and that you filed a lawsuit against Peoria Charter. --Gulugawa (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suburban Express is here to remedy false statements and false citations which appear in the Suburban Express article. Suburban Express is, in fact, advocating for Suburban Express, within the rules and frameworks established by Wikipedia. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * County clerk records are not necessary to refute CorporateM's false entry. The article cited simply does not state what CorporateM claims it states. You may find it difficult to accept that a wikipedia editor is doing sloppy work and/or lying, but that is absolutely the case here. Before you fire back defending CorporateM, look at the article and look at the cited source. Until you do that, you are just speculating. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And what is your connection, if any, to these articles, 99.147.28.113? Jehochman Talk 15:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the extreme accusations and insults against a very cautious and diligent editor over what at worst (and IF true) is an editing error makes this a good candidate for a boomerang. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

[11:46:06] erinacity:/tmp alisonc $ whois 99.147.28.113

[snip] NetRange:      99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119 CIDR:          99.147.28.112/29 OriginAS: NetName:       SBC-99-147-28-112-29-1104201844 NetHandle:     NET-99-147-28-112-1 Parent:        NET-99-128-0-0-1 NetType:       Reassigned RegDate:       2011-04-20 Updated:       2011-04-20 Ref:           http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-99-147-28-112-1

CustName:      ILLINI SHUTTLE-110420131800 Address:       Private Address City:          Plano StateProv:     TX PostalCode:     75075 Country:       US RegDate:        2011-04-20 Updated:       2011-04-20 Ref:           http://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C02741096 [snip]

According to WHOIS record, Illini Shuttle (aka Suburban Express) own this ip address range. ~ Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * !!???? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Article has been subject to a long history of socks/meats/paid editors consistent with this company's behavior on Reddit, where they allegedly used sockpuppets to attack users that criticized the organization for alleged corrupt business practices. Frustrated students involved in litigation with the organization have also made COI edits, but their conduct is less egregious.


 * POV pushers that do not get their way will almost always resort to personal attacks and a COI disclosure is an easy hand-hold for them to latch onto. It serves as good "bait" into making POV pushers self-out themselves by focusing on it. Who would possibly pay me? The students? I originally became involved in the article more or less to protect Suburban Express from legal antagonists.


 * An article protection, sock-puppet investigation, a few IP blocks and/or other administrative actions are long overdue, but I am too lazy to go through our bureaucratic processes. I have previously notified admins User:OrangeMike, User:Dennis Brown and User:DGG on the issues on this page.




 * As for the "correction" suggested above regarding the number of lawsuits, they may be correct or not. It would be worthwhile for someone to check. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No attempt is being made to hide the source of the IP edits. The ip address used to post this message is registered to Suburban Express. We are here expressing our concerns regarding wild inaccuracies and misattributions by COI/Paid editor CorporateM. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A large percentage of citations in this article are inaccurate. There are multiple examples of CorporateM misrepresentations in the talk section. Here is another one:

"Another False Edit by CorporateM: The student did not receive a letter demanding $570 for liquidated damages. The contract specified $500 liquidated damages for, among other things, disruptive behavior. The diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573947756&oldid=573926939 The alleged source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07194422871/bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit-meets-ken-white-runs-away.shtml" 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The two examples provided are not isolated examples, they are two data points in a pattern of bad edits.

We at Suburban Express object to the Suburban Express wikipedia article containing false information and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If CorporateM is habitually misrepresenting sources in such a way as to slant the article (something we call tendentious editing), please make a concise, coherent and complete case here. You are across the issue here, so you're the best qualified to do this. Provide a diff (enclosed in square brackets [], then quote what the source actually says, and quote what CorporateM represented it as saying.
 * You might want to familiarise yourself thoroughly with Identifying reliable sources and Neutral point of view, too. At a glance some of the sources being used to pillory you seem a bit dodgy (but I'm no sourcing expert - the people at WP:RSN are.) And Neutral point of view: again just glancing (it's bedtime here) but that article seems heavily negatively weighted, verging on an attack piece. I'll have a more careful look in the morning. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, some of the sources conflict on the exact numbers. Many of the sources are tech rags, like TechCrunch and Ars Technica, which are reliable, but should be used with caution, because they don't necessarily share our editorial mission. This small college bus company is arguably best-known for suing their own customers and allegations of astroturfing Reddit to insult students, but a certain amount of balancing media sensationalism is right and proper and has been reasonably accounted for already - though regular editors may reasonably disagree on the precise balancing. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuses and double-talk. CorporateM has been made aware of numerous false attributions and the response here is manipulative and disingenuous. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is already a bevy of evidence in the article's talk page. This evening or tomorrow evening, a concise and current list will be posted here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

speaking of lazy, the following text is directly out of the link you posted "Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994, when the first lawsuit was filed in Champaign County. Eighty-four of these lawsuits were filed prior to 2013." which seems to back the 200 lawsuits just fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Compare the statement in the wiki article to the source. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And from your second link "He received an e-mail from the company that said he was being fined $500 for "liquidated damages" and was permanently banned." also sufficiently sourcing the statement in your diff. Stop trolling. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding anything in there to support the "10 civil suits against competitors" though. 6, yes (see sidebar), but nothing directly to support 10. Gah, hate supporting obvious corporate trolls, especially one so foul. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ravensfire "Champaign County Circuit Court records also show that Suburban Express brought a civil lawsuit against the Peoria Charter Coach Company in 2009. In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX." The source is ambiguous on this point, so we may need to tweak the article text, but this certainly doesn't rise to an AN issue as our text is a reasonable interpretation of this source text. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed about both this isn't something for AN and that the text can be tweaked. In fact, when I checked the article text after posting, it had been revised to say that civil suits had been filed against 4 competitors. I think it could have been revised as 10 civil suits, including cases against 4 competitors so that both the number of cases and the number of competitors are included. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suburban Express -- if you go around suing lots of people, you will get a certain reputation, and that reputation will appear in your Wikipedia article. If you don't like this reputation, you might need to behave differently.  Wikipedia does not whitewash its articles to please business interests. Jehochman Talk 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suburban Expres sues cheaters. That is a well-established fact, and not something we dispute. The issue here is that the article is riddled with inaccuracies and false citations. We do not take issue with the article containing factual information from credible sources. We do take issue with false statements which cite sources which do not support the statements. Simple as that. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You need think about this from a public relations point of view. It might be within your legal rights to sue these people, but lawsuits can generate dsnews coverage, much of it adverse.  It's like negative advertising.  Maybe you need to balance the pros and cons.  Unfortunately, your service doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing.  You've made the company become notable as a lawsuit mill. Maybe you need to find a better way to deal with cheaters.  Jehochman Talk 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suburban Express does not profit-maximize in matters of theft and fraud. Suburban Express pursues cheaters even though it is not the profit-maximizing solution. Suburban Express will continue to vigorously pursue cheaters, much like many retailers vigorously pursue (and prosecute) shoplifters. Suburban Express will not be blackmailed or shamed, by cheaters or the bloggers who support their cause (what cause?), into not pursuing cheaters. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WRT your statement that "doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing". That is false. Suburban Express exists because it exploited a regulatory loophole and brought inexpensive, reliable service to a market that was poorly served by a company with a monopoly granted by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Suburban Express increased service and decreased cost for hundreds of thousands of students. Conventional media has covered Suburban Express well in its 30 year history. Online detractors of Suburban Express seem to delight in the fact that only recent (mostly negative) articles can be obtained online, while older conventional-media articles cannot -- and they have in the past bristled at the suggestion that they read conventional media sources posted as pdf's on the website of the owner of Suburban Express -- as if somehow posting a newspaper article on the website of the owner somehow makes it not a valid conventional-media source. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

boomerang
Not an admin, but reading through the article talk, I think its time for the boomerang boomstick. WP:DE and WP:HARRASS all over the place, attempting to throw the kitchen sink at CorporateM, and wear down the other editors via attrition. '''proposal : Permanently semiprotect the article, and topic ban/block the troll and obvious socks who are obvious. '''Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How do exactly you propose that Suburban Express address a situation where a user is posting false statements, false citations, and false edit "reasons" other than by calling out the infractions? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if the (only specific) complaints by the IP's were 100% true and accurate, they would merely represent a couple of errors that need correcting. And CorporateM has indicated openness to such. I don't even know what this is doing at the noticeboard, except for considering a possible boomerang. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As stated above, a large percentage of statements inserted by CorporateM are false or inaccurate and/or have citations that do not support the statements that cite them. Not one or two minor errors, a systematic pattern of either sloppy editing or errors. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Given 99.147.28.113's extremely precocious editing history (just look at his/her very first edit) I think the sock accusations are quite reasonable. 99.147.28.113, in the name of full disclosure, could you please tell us which other accounts you've been using? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above three editors. It appears that the banned sockmaster User:Thenightchicagodied might be related to this as well as User:Eyeteststar, and User:Joshuabcohen  I'd like to ask the IP if he is related to these editors and if there is anything else he'd like to say about any other possibly related editors, or if he wishes to make a full COI statement.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever you perceive to have happened in the past has no bearing on the the matter being discussed here - false statements and false atributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For context, the article has been semi-protected for quite some time, but that hasn't prevented paid editors with established accounts from slanting the article, which leads in turn to frustrated students with the opposite COI who are (mostly) self-prohibiting themselves from article-space. I posted a request for stronger article-protection, but they said blocking the disruptive editors would be more appropriate. What would be even better if anyone has the initiative is a full investigation into the network of paid socks and other related accounts. Many articles have been effected by the same network of non-disclosed COI accounts and it looks like user:Samllbones may have just provided some additional leads. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. One of the Wikipedia administrators should investigate the accounts in more detail. Gulugawa (Talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suburban Express acknowledges the participation of user Gulugawa in this discussion and cautions readers that Gulugawa has an admitted conflict of interest arising from his tireless activities online as a Suburban Express detractor. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, the ip I am posting from is a Suburban Express IP address and I do in fact represent Suburban Express. That has no bearing on the issue being discussed here: False statements and false citations in the article. They are false whether I point them out or someone else points them out. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suburban Express has the right to comment about their situation. We should not stifle the subject.  On the other hand, the subject needs to participate in a non-disruptive way.  You can state your case, but don't abuse your editing privileges.  If you think the article is biased, please be calm, say why, and suggest other sources of info that could be used to help create a better, more balanced article. Jehochman Talk 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course they have the right to comment. At the same time, 99.147.28.113 is an WP:SPA whose sole purpose is to oppose CorporateM. On top of that there are indicia of sockpuppetry. This user should not be allowed to bifurcate his/her anti-CorporateM accusations (no matter how valid they may be) from his/her other contributions to the project. This user should be putting their credibility on the line just like anyone else who comes to the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * False. The sole purpose of Suburban Express is not to "oppose CorporateM". Suburban Express would argue that the opposite is true, eg that CorporateM has made it his misson to oppose and defame Suburban Express, regardless of the facts. The goal of Suburban Express here is to ensure that the contents of the wikipedia article about Suburban Express is consistent with wikipedia rules, customs, and standards. To the extent that any user is posting false information and/or false citations, Suburban Express will pursue such matters vigorously and within the wikepedia ecosystem, which is exactly what is being done here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Spin it however you want; your edit history speaks for itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. That does not seem to advance the discussion about false statements and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pardon, but how could Suburban Express possibly be more open and transparent than posting from an IP address that is registered with ARIN as being controlled by Suburban Express? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That is encouraging. It sounds like you are prepared to accept WP's policies and practices, if that is what you mean by the term "ecosystem". Think of the boards as the Human immune system. Committed users, especially admin staff, have the duty of monitoring the editing of all editors, old, new, registered, I.Ps, illustrious editing histories, or non at all. It is nothing personal. Irondome (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 99.147.28.113, you could plaster a big COI notice on the user and user talk pages of every account associated with Suburban Express, including your own, and you could add a tag to the top of Talk:Suburban Express and associated talk pages.


 * That seems to be a sarcastic statement which does not advance the discussion of false statements and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't sarcastic at all. It was good advice, and I am now giving you the same advice. You ask how you could possibly be more open and transparent? You could start by not referring to Suburban Express in the third person, which is misleading, and you could demonstrate your alleged efforts to be open and transparent by putting a COI notice on the user page of every account associated with Suburban Express and adding a tag to the top of the user talk page of every account associated with Suburban Express. Not that I believe that you actually want to be open and transparent, but if you do, that is a good way to accomplish that goal. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That statement seems to contain many assumptions.99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you denying those assumptions...that the sockpuppets mentioned elsewhere in this thread aren't you? The last time someone asked you, you simply stated such information was not relevant (which I believe it is). 67.175.155.121 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bounty
FYI - Suburban Express has posted a generous offer on the bounty board (correct terminology?) for citation/accuracy cleanup. Perhaps one of the editors reading this would like to earn a donation for wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have the link? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about if that editor then requested the fee be given to a charity or good cause of their choice, which you would then pay? Or you donate the amount to local charity helping the disadvantaged in your locale? As some may be aware, that is the only kind of paid editing on WP I "personally" consider acceptable. However I note the terms of the bounty board do not admit of that. Perhaps it needs changing or broadening somewhat. You are aware that there is an information technology arms race raging, and its getting more intense out there. If the company is generating negative vibes through use of a liberalised electronic media by some disgruntled clients, and it is reflected in a RS, it is our duty to note it. Obviously it must be balanced by strict NPOV criteria by ALL of us. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

99.147.... If there are errors which you would like to work towards getting corrected, your best route would be to calmly discuss the specifics of them, propose fixes and provide sources consistent with wp:RS to support your statement. And continuously hurling insults, accusations, attacks, assuming bad faith etc. is about the worst possible way, certain to result in a train wreck. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Irondome: The bounty offer has been modified as follows: Expiration date changed, bounty may be assigned to any legitimate charity. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem there is that WP rules do not recognise that as another reciepient option at this point. It would require a community-wide discussion to change the bounty board criteria. However, there is a debate currently ongoing in the community in terms of payment on WP. I think radically reworking the bounty system, expanding it is the way forward. Having a company showing interst in that method may give any mooted proposals for change additional credibility. Irondome (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As stated in the bounty, Suburban Express is unfamiliar with all the rules surrounding bounties. Suburban Express has complied with your request for a change to the terms. The changes can be deleted. Guidance is needed here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is new territory to me too. I was not aware of the bounty board, and I have been here a while. It may be wise to provisionally delete, pending any discussions for change. Any other admin editor feedback very welcomed here. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How can the bounty be modified within wikipedia rules so that it is of interest to you? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is of no personal interest to me, however such an expansion of payment options may improve corporate/WP relationships in the round. It appears to be a neglected and almost unknown but rather imaginative concept, which has been left to neglect, apart from a few dedicated bounty hunters who still participate. Irondome (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that the "reward board" may be a means of facilitating what you desire. If that is correct, Suburban Express would be amenable to doing something there, to facilitate the charitable donation(s) that you deisre. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (1)The Bounty Board is a survival form the early days of WP, and I think rather than tinkering with the criteria, it is time to remove it, as facilitating misunderstanding of our mission. Perhaps the way to deal with it is MfD, & I have taken it there at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination). Offering material rewards for writing WP articles is not forbidden, just as paid editing is not actually forbidden, but neither should   be institutionalized as part of WP.


 * (2) I do not consider the complaints against Corporate M are made in good faith. The errors complained of are trivial and correctable, and the charges against him wildly excessive. I take note, as with an earlier discussions, that there is an accusation that because CM sometimes conducts paid editing ,he is therefore unreliable altogether. I am not sure whether there is any connection between the two complainants.


 * (3) As for SE, I think it's time for a community ban, including talk pages and WP space. They seem disruptive everywhere.  DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I am amazed that they haven't made this easy on us by making a legal threat. Given their history, it is astounding. Resolute 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ask somebody to write this up to start the community ban. There is enough evidence just on this page to support one.  Given the acknowledged history of filing lawsuits, and the passively acknowledged link to sockpuppets, there's no hope that we can convince them to stop the disruption.  At the same time, I have to admit some bizarre admiration for SE - it's them against the world and they are not backing down no matter what.  They sue their competitors, they even sue their customers and appear to have a somewhat successful business. On this page it's them against 10-15 editors, and they are not backing down or even willing to compromise.  What else can we do except a community ban?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Complaints against CorporateM are absolutely made in good faith and are valid. Suggest that DGG examine the actual false statements and cited articles, sales edit description(s), etc. At this point, it appears that DGG is shooting from the hip without first gathering information. Suburban Express is puzzled by DGG's assertion that the present discussion is somehow violative of Wikipedia rules or conventions. Suburban Express is objects to false statements and false attributions. The motivation for the present discussion is CorporateM's false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidence, please. You keep making these accusations, but you never point to any specific edits. Do you really imagine anyone is going to take your word for it? Evidence, sleaze please. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems as if you did not carefully read the text above your statement. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment
The company has a long history of sockpuppets/meatpuppets/CoI editors/possibly paid editors attempting to edit the article in order to make it more flattering of the company - they have tried to emphasize the company's supposed glorious history and to de-emphasize the negative information about lawsuits and astroturfing and trolling on the UIUC subreddit, which are actually the company's main reason for notability (as can be seen from the sources here). Semi-protecting the article hasn't prevented this, and pending changes protection won't either, since there seem to be two autoconfirmed CoI/possibly paid editors, User:Verdict78 and User:HtownCat who advocate for the company and quietly change the article when this article isn't making its usual rounds on the AN/SPI drama boards and no one is paying attention to it. Blocking users/IPs is unlikely to work either, since the company has used a range of sockpuppets in the past (see the sockpuppet investigation here), has access to a wide range of business and residential IP addresses, and many IPs which resolve to Sprint wireless. I see full-protection as the only option to contain this long-term pattern of tendentious editing.

I am very skeptical of the bounty thing - the company is offering money to effectively push the article toward a version that presents the company in a more flattering light. They have used their financial power to bully, harass, intimidate, and silence students who criticized them on the internet (on Reddit, Yelp, etc.) by suing them or threatening to sue them, knowing very well that college students lack the financial means to fight back against a moneyed corporation. They have been unsuccessful largely because Ken White of Popehat has stepped in and arranged pro-bono assistance for the students sued or threatened with lawsuits (the relevant blog post is here). I hope Wikipedia doesn't allow money to become a factor in deciding who gets to influence the article, even if the money is under the guise of charity/donations/for a good cause. AlmostGrad (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suburban Express acknowledges AlmostGrad's hatred of Suburban Express, which is frequently expressed here and elsewhere. AlmostGrad has been a tireless detractor for many months. As previously stated, Suburban Express is concerned with false statements and false attributions made in the Suburban Express article and is working within the wikipedia "ecosystem" to facilitate correction of false statements and attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Translation: The problem isn't my drinking. The problem is you complaining about my drinking. --00:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * SuburbanExpress sounds like an idiot for referring to itself repeatedly in the 3rd person, and by doing so makes it clear that the (ip) account is intended to represent a company (possibly used by multiple editors) which are both violations of wikipedia policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your attack does not advance the discussion. 99.67.249.6 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also like to note that IP 99.147.29.158 is registered to Suburban Express as seen here under the Customer Name

24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
A few editors have seen enough at the Suburban Express Talk page, here on the drama board and the company's approach to the bounty board to get a sense of things. This particular organization is unlikely to make any substantive positive contributions, but has a long track record of harassment, disruption and corrupt COI participation.

I propose: CorporateM (Talk) 02:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Blocking the Suburban Express range of IP addresses that have been posting personal attacks: 99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119
 * 2) Blocking non-disclosed paid editors user:Verdict78 and user:HtownCat (perhaps this should be handled separately since they insist they do not have a COI)
 * 3) Increase the article's protection to either full protection or reviewer status
 * 4) Get the article on a few more watchlists, in particular for block evasion


 * Please point out examples of what you consider to be personal attacks by Suburban Express in this discussion, so that Suburban Express can avoid upsetting discussion participants in the future. Suburban Express understands that you may be uncomfortable being called out on false statements and false attributions, but criticism of your writing and citations is not intended to read as personal attacks.99.147.28.113 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a page on your website about me that has personal information such as my name and where I live. Gulugawa (Talk) 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly posted your personal information on Reddit. Suburban Express is asking users for specific examples where wikipedia users feel they were subject to personal attacks *on Wikipedia*. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * strong support Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support items 1, 3, and 4. Re item 2, Verdict78 and HtownCat have clear bias in favor of Suburban Express, but I'd want to see the evidence of paid editing or other policy violations before supporting sanctions. CU is warranted as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like blocks may be in order anyway as block evasion. As Smallbones mentioned, there are previously blocked SPAs that are most likely the same person. CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support all 4 - Utter mess that has gone on long enough. Corporations trying to white-wash history always piss me off. This is one of the lamest and most half-arsed versions of that I've ever seen. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Counter Proposal
The proposal above does not remedy the large number of false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article.

Suburban Express proposes that CorporateM, who has made a large percentage of the edits to the Suburban Express article in recent months, and is therefore responsible for most of the text and citations, undertake the following:

1) Read each sentence of the article which is attributed to a source.

2) Read the cited source and verify that the attributed sentence/information is present in the source.

3) Correct all inconsistencies.

Earlier, you seemed to profess to be concerned about these problems, so this proposal should not seem to onerous. Furthermore, undertaking the corrections would quickly dispose of the current matter and relieve others from making the corrections. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Close as improper proposal and possibly trolling. A proposal at ANI has to propose something that an administrator has the right/power to do. For example, anyone can propose that I be required to no longer edit a particular article (also known as a topic ban) because administrators have the power/right to require that of me in order to prevent disruption. However, one cannot make a motion to require me to edit a particular article because I am always free to stop editing any page, and no administrator can force me to edit it or block me for refusing to edit it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is obviously not a formal rule-based proposal. The goal was to bring this discussion back to earth and back to the issue at the top - inaccurate statements in the article and citations which do not support the statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Guidance Sought
Suburban Express has come here to make specific complaints about a specific user's contribution to the Suburban Express article. The complaints are objective and easily verified. Two examples were provided at the top, and pursuant to a very small number constructive suggestions, Suburban Express stated that it would provide a more comprehensive set of (objective) examples "this evening or tomorrow evening".

Wikipedia community has responded by attacking Suburban Express from every angle, making numerous repeated unsupported claims, hurling insults, and generally working to cause the discussion to drift far from the initial, objective, and valid complaint about the user and article.

Suburban Express will work to provide a well-supported list of false statements and false attributions/citations, and will post Friday evening..

With regard to claims of personal attacks by Suburban Express in this particular arena - we are very puzzled by this. The way we see it:

SE: We have a problem. Here it is.

Wikipedia: You are a-holes, F.U..

SE: We're trying to address this specific problem, let's stay on topic.

Wikipedia: F.U.register a username, the ip address you are using is registered to SE

SE: We know the ip address is registered to SE. All statements from this ip address are from us.

Wikipedia: You're disruptive. We're going to get the rope and torches and ban you for being disruptive.

It is not clear to us how Wikipedia insulting Suburban Express in this discussion constitutes a ban-able infraction by Suburban Express.

Perhaps one of the least emotional participants can explain this to us. We are quite baffled.

Also, we are quite puzzled by a contradiction we see here repeatedly. Wikipedia simultaneously refers to Suburban Express as small, puny, and not notable AND talks about Suburban Express as if it's a huge corporate monolith -- "the man" to be reviled by all. Suburban Express is probably neither. We are a small business that employs about 10 people regularly and up to 75 subcontracted employees a few days a year. We exist in a competitive market where we must be frugal at all times, deter fraud as best we can, jump through endless regulatory hoops, try to keep all our computers running and protected from online attackers, etc...all to eek out a modest profit--sometimes. So which is it? Puny and non-notable or huge and evil? Unfortunately, the world isn't actually binary like that.

In any event, we will endeavor to post our analysis of the article tomorrow -- assuming that we have not been banned by then for letting ourselves be abused here.

99.147.28.113 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unimpressed by a number of the responses above, and I can't explain them. Thank you for your transparency here. As I said above, a clear, comprehensive and concise case against CorporateM is needed if you want action on that - and you're best qualified (and motivated) to prepare that. To demonstrate tendentiousness, you may take into account behaviour going back some time. More than errors need to be shown, you need to make it clear how CorporateM's edits slant the tone against you in each instance.


 * But that doesn't address the issue of undue weight being given to negative reports, which may be the case, and possible over-reliance on poor sources. Of these last two, I'd be inclined to first take the sources, if you think some are not good quality per WP:RS, (a clear, concise list of any that concern you, explaining what each is being used to prove - a source may be suitable to support one kind of claim but not another) to Reliable sources noticeboard for opinions and advice from uninvolved editors with experience assessing sources. Then, once the sources have been sorted, open a thread at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and ask for input on the amount and nature of text devoted to criticism. But you're free to do this in whatever sequence you're comfortable with, or not at all.


 * I know how much time and effort this will involve, and you have my sympathy; but that is the best way forward that I can presently think of. Don't hesitate to ask here or at my talk page if you have any questions or want someone to look over anything before you present it to a noticeboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, here's a much more concise guidance: Focus on the specific points in the article you would want to see re-evaluated, and drop the attacks against other editors. This thread here is laden with them, and pretty much everything else Suburban is writing is so too. It is very obvious at this stage that while the community at large will agree that the wording in the article can be improved and made more precise, there is also a consensus that you have no case against specific editors.
 * In other words, focus on edits, not editors. This will leave open your capacity to bring up what you see as issues on the article's talk page, and seek further input at other places.
 * I understand that the whole situation may be frustrating, but any further lashing out at or about anyone else here will lead to an indefinite block. This would limit your ability to comment about content to e-mail. MLauba (Talk) 08:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the recommendations and advice given by User:Anthonyhcole and User:MLauba. Let's return to pragmatic problem solving. Irondome (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support forgiving Suburban Express of its extremely disruptive conduct on the condition that (1) it immediately start following MLauba and Anthonyhcole's advice and (2) it fully declare its COI for each associated account as previously suggested. I still think an WP:SPI is warranted regardless. The COI disclosures and SPI should happen before Suburban Express expands this mess to multiple additional noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification Sought: What is the proper way for multiple employees of one company who wish to participate in Wikipedia to set up accounts and declare their COI wrt a specific article? What we've seen here is that different users are either all presumed to be the same person, or they are branded sockpuppets of one another in what seems to be somewhat of a witch hunt. When different individuals are working to defend the company they work for, it is unclear how they are supposed to avoid accusations that they are the same individual or that they are sockpuppets of one another. If three individuals who are employed by Suburban Express wish to participate, what is the "proper" way to do this? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One way to do this is to add a tag at the top of the talk page for each account that is associated with your company and has edited the article or its talk page. Be sure to read and understand WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS as well (in addition to WP:NOPR). In light of these policies I'd say best practice is to have only one employee participate in any given dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll look at that carefully. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Username Suburban Express President has been registered. That should remove any ambiguity. Employees have been instructed to use connected contributor. We cannot, however, control the actions of subcontractors or employees of subcontractors, who have access to wifi we own in their buses.Suburban Express President (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User: Suburban_Express replaced with user: Suburban Express President
User smartse blocked user Suburban_Express, apparently because the name has potential to be interpreted as being used by multiple users. User Julia_Abril suggested that the username was problematic, but we apparently did not resolve the problem quickly enough. Please be advised that user Suburban Express President has been registered to remedy the problems with user Suburban_Express. Please don't launch the sockpuppet nukes. We're trying to understand your secret society and adhere to its (numerous and often confusing!) rules.

We continue to work on the promised materials for the earlier complaint, above. It is turning out to be a very time-consuming project.

Thanks Suburban Express President (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You really don't know what the problem is with your name, do you? GamerPro64  21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * GamerPro, if the editor knew there was a problem with the name he wouldn't have chosen it. Only a total ignoramus expects everyone to know everything he knows; especially regarding something as impenetrable as Wikipedia norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your message reads as sarcasm, user:GamerPro64. Perhaps you are willing to explain what you mean. In the meantime, I have chosen to follow the guidance provided byuser: Julia_Abril. If anyone else wants to help me understand GamerPro64 's unspoken message, I would appreciate any non-sarcastic guidance you wish to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suburban Express President (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your name still refers explicitly to your company and therefore fails WP:U for the same reason your original name did. You need to have a username that doesn't mention your company, at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: using sarcastic phrases such as "We're trying to understand your secret society" while accusing others who show no signs of sarcasm of being sarcastic, do you see this pot? What color is it? How about this kettle? Really? The same color? What are the odds? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor makes a perfectly valid point about the "secret society". Our norms are dense and confusing to newcomers. This is a person who, at least on its face, has a Wikipedia article heavily weighted to vilifying him and his company, and he needs help learning how to work with us, not this kind of puerility. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone please step back for a moment. Suburban express was blocked simply for uw-ublock, with no additional or more specific reason given by the blocking admin.  As far as I can see, Julia Abril was the only person to suggest that the username was problematic, and that suggestion concentrated on a WP:ROLE violation, rather than the spam-username issue.  Between these two facts, it looks to me as if SEP really didn't know what the problem was with the "SEP" username.  Meanwhile, Orangemike blocked SEP with a uw-spamublock message, and SEP has requested a username change to "Arri416".  I'm going to grant the unblock with the usual "request a name change immediately" advice and a reminder to follow WP:SPAM/WP:COI/etc. very very carefully.  Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * actually, that's not quite true. Users are allowed to mention a company or organisation in their user name, as long as it is clear that the username belongs to a specific individual. Suburban Express President probably thought that the new name was ok because it pointed to a specific individual at the company, but actually it is possible that the position of president might change in the future, so I think that "Suburban Express President" still doesn't tie the account down to an individual person. Something like User:John Smith, Suburban Express would be ok, however. (The policy details are at WP:CORPNAME and WP:ISU if anyone is interested.) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Orangemike's use of the uw-spamublock template was wrong and confusing. The editor was clearly trying to be transparent, not using the username to advertise his company. Presidents change, so the problem was with WP:ROLE. Rather than a change to the meaningless "Arri416", I'd prefer to see something like "Suburban Express Arri"; and others from the company calling themselves "Suburban Express Sally", "Suburban Express Joe" or whatever. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Arri. From the above it should be clear that you're in an an odd environment here. The only way forward is to (a) read and abide by the policies and guidelines you're pointed to and (b) remain polite and constructive at all times, most especially on article talk pages (which should be hallowed ground on this project). (A) is mind-numbingly tedious and (b) requires super-human frontal lobe function - but I'm sure you're up to it. Ultimately, it's about seeming reasonable and persuading the genuinely open-minded through sound policy-based argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We seem to be making this user jump through hoops just to get the name right, when all he wants to do is have input regarding an article about him. I hope we can leave the user-name issue now and focus on the content. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could say what the problem is here, and why Suburban Express President can't edit with his current name? Leaving a source on talk seems like a reasonable thing to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has followed the article and the discussion can answer. As for anyone else with COI, this individual has no business editing WP mainspace at all about himself or his company in mainspace. As his editing in WP space (here) and talk space is unconstructive, he has no business editing at all. OTRS remains open to justified complaints. I am amazed at the patience some of my colleagues here are showing with the most unsubtle example I have ever seen of a company trying to conceal apparently justified sourced negative material.  DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * DGG, as you know I oppose any kind of paid advocacy, but I can't see what the user has done wrong here. These are effectively BLP violations that he's trying to fix, given that the criticism is aimed at one, borderline-notable, individual, and that most of it seems to be from social media. I hope we can help him to fix this, rather than make him jump through hoops about name changes. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello - Just stopping by to update the situation. I have put in a name change request so that my username does not violate WP:Role and am refraining from editing the Suburban Express talk page (or anything else except for engaging in conversations largely at my talk page) until the change is completed. I have no intent of editing the Suburban Express article due to COI. As for the article, the issues raised with editor CorporateM are still valid and I will be posting information consistent with user anthonyhcole's recommendations once the name change is complete. I notice that CorporateM has been very active with editing again, and that the edits are not accurate. For instance, a recent edit states that we have sued 200 students. That statement does not referencea any article and it is not true. About 40-50% of tickets are purchased by parents, and parents are not students. Clearly, remedial work is necessary. Also, I am in the process of posting pdf's of (copyright-released) articles on my talk page which are currently not available online so that wikipedia editors have access to all articles, not just articles which are currently available online. My goal here is to ensure that the Suburban Express article does not contain false statements or inaccurate citations. At this point, it does.

Hopefully, the name change will go through soon. Suburban Express President (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, you don't actually need a name change in my view, though if you want to go ahead with one that's fine. But in the meantime (with this name or with your new one) you're allowed to post on the article talk page if you have sources or suggestions for change. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

bulk deletion request
Drafts about the following topics were found in User:Sublimeharmony/sandbox11; a table listing the topics, with links to the drafts, is in Long-term abuse/Morning277 under "Sublimeharmony sandbox topics". I'm requesting deletion of the following pages in furtherance of the ban against the company Wiki-PR.


 * 4cabling
 * Aasted
 * American Writers and Artists
 * Bizible
 * Brosix Inc.
 * CHMB Solutions Inc.
 * ClassDojo
 * Confio Software Inc.
 * CrowdOptic, Inc.
 * DDC Advocacy
 * Articles for creation/Dominique Molina
 * Echopass
 * Genius Inside (company)
 * GroundWork Inc.
 * Heliospectra
 * ITelagen
 * Inflection (company)
 * Inigral (company)
 * Jonathan Cardella
 * Legitmix
 * Loyaltyworks
 * User:Melleber/sandbox
 * Network Capital Funding Corporation
 * OneHope Wine
 * PCN Technology Inc.
 * PeopleSmart
 * PressPad (software)
 * Rich Schefren (entrepreneur)
 * SJ (singer)
 * User:Cecilia.firstencoding/sandbox
 * Telly (website)
 * Tom Kemp (entrepreneur)
 * Virool
 * Zipwhip

&mdash; rybec   00:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's check these pages and make it simpler for deleting admins. I'm putting my name after the ones I've checked, along with a comment. Please add your input to ones where I've already commented; don't let mine be the only comments. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4cabling — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * Aasted — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * American Writers and Artists — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)
 * Bizible — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. At AFD, but simply on notability grounds.  Nyttend (talk)
 * Brosix Inc. — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)
 * CHMB Solutions Inc. — leaning toward delete. Nyttend (talk)
 * ClassDojo — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * Confio Software Inc. — leaning toward safe; stub with only basic factual information and simple wording, not like the type of stuff we're seeing on the problem articles. Nyttend (talk)
 * CrowdOptic, Inc. — safe; written by longstanding editor Netasif2004. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * DDC Advocacy — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * Articles for creation/Dominique Molina
 * Echopass — not eligible for speedy deletion, since it survived AFD. Nyttend (talk)
 * Genius Inside (company) — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)
 * GroundWork Inc. — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)
 * Heliospectra — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * ITelagen — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)
 * Inflection (company) — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * Inigral (company) — leaning toward safe; written by Kirti t, whose writing is mostly on things like the Morongo Unified School District, the Trade and Development Bank of Mongolia, and mediaeval kings in India. Nyttend (talk)
 * Jonathan Cardella — original page deleted and replaced with new page, but not so sure because of the author's lack of track record. Nyttend (talk)
 * Legitmix — leaning toward safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page, although the citation bombing makes me somewhat leery. Nyttend (talk)
 * Loyaltyworks — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. At AFD, but simply on notability grounds.  Nyttend (talk)
 * User:Melleber/sandbox
 * Network Capital Funding Corporation — safe; original page deleted and replaced with four-sentence stub whose longest sentence mentions criticism. Nyttend (talk)
 * OneHope Wine — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)
 * PCN Technology Inc. — leaning toward delete. Nyttend (talk)
 * PeopleSmart — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * PressPad (software) — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)
 * Rich Schefren (entrepreneur) — leaning toward delete. Nyttend (talk)
 * SJ (singer) — safe; written by someone who's editing in lots of different fields, including Iraqi politics, Peruvian history, and the a lake in Slovakia. Nyttend (talk)
 * User:Cecilia.firstencoding/sandbox
 * Telly (website) — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * Tom Kemp (entrepreneur) — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk)
 * Virool — safe; created by someone whose editing doesn't look spammy, and later modified/expanded by someone who's safe. Nyttend (talk)
 * Zipwhip — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)


 * First thing, Rybec, I've collapsed the list to make this section more manageable; that forced me to modify your signature slightly so that it wouldn't be included in the collapsed area. Secondly, blind deletion is a bad idea: some of the pages in this list were deleted after it was compiled, only to be recreated without problems by other, seemingly unaffiliated editors.  See the history of Virool or Tom Kemp (entrepreneur) for two examples; I checked just four articles and found these two.  I strongly suggest that admins not delete a page on this list until its history has been checked, lest we delete good content.  Finally, a little bit of process: all of these articles were created before the ban, as far as I can see, so they're not eligible for deletion under that criterion; however, the pages in question are definitely being created for advertising purposes, so they're speedy deleteable as spam.  Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not asking for immediate assistance from an admin. Rather my intention was to start a discussion about these articles as a group, so that they might be deleted if there a consensus emerges to do so. Whether the contributors of these articles are affiliated with Wiki-PR is unknown, because the Morning277 SPI has been closed. I didn't mean this to be about the contributors (although I did notify them) but about the article topics. &mdash; rybec   04:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although these articles may have been created before Wiki-PR was banned, they were created after Morning277 was blocked. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most or all were restored after Morning277 was banned. &mdash; rybec   22:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Page move undo
A page Mayor of Tower Hamlets has recently been moved without discussion and against consensus to Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets. This is unilateral, against consensus and has been discussed perviously. Can this please be undone to restore the consensus ad to ensure that discussion and consensus are formed before it is changed unilaterally. The title Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirect to the new pages and is not a disambiguation page and the page created to supposedly avoid confusion with is a red link article. Sport and politics (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sport and politics, I don't see any discussion of this on the article talk page. Where is the discussion that established the consensus you want to restore? DES (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus was there way no consensus to move a very similar article and that discussion can be seen here. I believe that the consensus not to move that  article discussed here shows no consensus for moving any of the elected mayors in England and Wales articles. This article is also specifically mentioned in the discussion on moving the other very similar article. It is also not right to spread the discussion on to every article talk page as that would be pointless and only serve to create a disparity of information. Sport and politics (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, Sport and politics, that move discussion was closed as "no consensus" which doesn't really firmly establish a consensus. Moreover, it was about a different article. While it is true that a list of similarly named articles, including Mayor of Tower Hamlets, was mentioned in the RM discussion, if you want to establish a general consensus to apply to all similarly named articles, the discussion would need to be more widely advertised then being at another article's talk page. it should be an RfC or at least advertised as if it were, in my view. Also I see only 3 editors making formal expressions of opinion (Support or oppose) and only 5 or 6 commenting at all. Not a very wide consensus in my view.
 * My advice is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article (now Talk:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets) or else start a general RfC and mention it on that talk page and other appropriate locations. DES (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also don't see any attempt to engage with the editor who did the move. That might have been a good first step. DES (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that but as neither of us are admins neither one can undo what has been done today. I understand that there was nothing malicious here and it was all in good faith but this was unilateral and needs reverting as going against consensus is undone and this cannot be undone unless by an admin. I will of course contact the there user and engage in a discussion but first the long-standing consensus of no consensus need reverting to. Sport and politics (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As an admin I am unwilling to undo such a move without either agreement by the moving party, or a significantly clearer consensus on the matter. Other admins may have different views. DES (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this requires direct administrative intervention. We have requested moves for contested moves. Is there some reason this process hasn't been used? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur, if you want the title moved back make the request at WP:RM. It is clear that the recent un-discussed move was not without controversy and should have been handled through RM. But that's what RM is for, getting titles correct, if they aren't. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While i can see what is being said here the onus is being placed on the wrong party. The move was a contested and controversial move so should have been moved only after going thorough a requested move. It should;t be that to go back to the long satnding title which came about after discussion a requested move should be undertaken that just strikes of being the wrong way round for doing things. If it was an uncontroversial move to start with then fine, I can see the logic behind requiring an RM to move it back but in this case the action undertaken was controversial so should have gone through RM procedures. If an Rm is required for moves of this kind then it gives carte blanche to make controversial and contested moves and then say well you now need an RM to go back to what it before the controversial or contested move was made. Sport and politics (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You point out one of pitfalls of the WP norm that allows any autoconfirmed editor to move pages. The only thing that prevents chaos with page moves is the need to have deletion authority (admins) when redirects are involved.  This is not an uncommon scenario, and indeed many editors do exactly what you describe.  However, RM is the venue to discuss the move.  Experienced editors and admins follow that venue and in many cases when this type of scenario occurs, an admin will chose to move the title back to the previous one immediately if the facts support it. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics should take these concerns to Talk:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets. This isn't the correct venue. MRSC (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * An admin will likely have to do it. It should, indeed, be moved back and an RM begun  ES  &#38;L  22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead the OP here has nominated a closely related article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Tower Hamlets. DES (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it's under criterion 2D or IAR depends on your level of AGF, but nothing good could come of that AfD so in the interest of maintaing a reasonable heat:light ratio I've speedy closed it. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Electoral Commission RfC
The RfC to select the three-member Electoral Commission for the WP:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 was opened. We need volunteers for the commission, and comments on their suitability from all editors. Details are found at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure review
This non-admin closure, of one of the most contentious discussions I've seen on Wikipedia, appears to be based on nothing more than a vote count. Is that appropriate? – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I self rved the closure myself Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...which is why when you ask someone about an edit they made, you should give them more than twelve minutes before going to AN. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Without expressing any opinion one way or another about the merits of the matter under discussion, it seems to me that this is an excellent example of the general principle that those of us who are not administrators (myself included) should refrain at all times from closing contentious debates. Non-admin closures, in my opinion, should be limited to cases where consensus is clear and indisputable. That seems not to be the case here.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone with oversight please help

 * I am an ordinary administrator. In Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen someone put this request:
 * : This is sort of the opposite of a cut-and-paste move. The article was originally started in a sandbox with a long history of userspace drafts. Then it was then moved to mainspace, along with the irrelevant history. If possible, please move all edits prior to [ this one] back to User:Finetooth/Sandbox3. Thanks! <b style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5 </b> 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When I tried to delete List of longest rivers of Mexico to perform the history-split, the deletion was refused as "this page has over 5000 edits". Can someone with the power to delete very long histories, please do this history-split for me? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think only stewards can do this -- see Deletion process. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that this page has now been deleted. I attempted a partial restore, but something went wrong. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the relevant revisions, 4480 revisions remain deleted. Fram (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to do the opposite: restore the irrelevant revisions so that I could move them elsewhere. I suppose we could move List of longest rivers of Mexico to some other temporary page, then restore the rest and move it elsewhere, then move the article back? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, busy doing just that. The restoring of these 4000+ revisions takes some time, but afterwards it's just a move to userspace, and a move back of the temp page to the original one. If the sandbox then needs further history splitting, we can always do this, but I don't think it is necessary. Fram (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * History moved to User:Finetooth/Sandbox6 (lower numbers already existed, didn't want to complicate things). Temp page moved back to List of longest rivers of Mexico. Please let me know if anything still needs to be done, or if I made a mistake in this somewhere. I don't do these very often, AFAIK User:Graham87 is the expert on these. Fram (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fram. It generally sounds good, but IMHO it's a bit weird (and also contrary to the letter of the request above) to have the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_longest_rivers_of_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=431683479 first revision] be blank. I'll move it to the sandbox in 24 hours if nobody objects. Graham 87 02:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Naaah ... that'd make the user sandbox history look bizarre, and it's not really that big a deal anyway. Am I indecisive? I've been wondering for years! Graham 87 05:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Block review of Lfdder
was blocked by for two weeks, after he made a "you talk like an idiot" remark directed at Willy himself. After the Eric Corbett fiasco, just above, I thought we established that WP:CIVILITY blocks of established users are a drama-ridden minefield (even if the community is sharply divided on their merit). Even if we put WP:INVOLVED aside (as the target of the snapping, WilyD probably shouldn't be the one to take a block, but I don't make a big deal out of that), I have a serious concern about the culture of "respect my authoritah" blocks. Escalating civility blocks on long-term positive contributors has the long-term effect of driving them away and further deepening the ensuing admin/editor rift (or appearance thereof).

Lfdder is admittedly not the easiest personality to work with, and his mid-October blocks were a rightful result of refusal to get it at this TFD. However, I don't think it is cool to use it as an excuse to open a hunting season aganist him... and this block has quite improper connotations of revenge.

Anyway: I'm putting the merits and length of this block for community review, since WilyD did not change his mind. Lfdder did not request an unblock (other than lifting of autoblock), but I am doing so on his behalf. "You talk like an idiot" snap at an admin on a user talk page, while certainly not within WP:CIVIL, ought not to be a reason for two-week block. No such user (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unblock - saying "you talk like an idiot" is not a blockble offence, and certainly not for 2 weeks. Lfdder's incivility is problematic (IIRC I have blocked him before) but this recent outburst does not stray into 'blockable' territory. However, I will always stand by my belief that severe incivility should be blocked. GiantSnowman 10:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I nearly came here with the same request, but when I looked into it, it seemed the block was for an unrelated incident I knew nothing about.  If it really was for his comment on my talk page, I'd agree a block (of any length) would be inappropriate.  Moreover, in order for it to not be used as a precedent in the future, it should be reverted with a comment in his block log that this block was inappropriate.  — kwami (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unblock per GS. A block was not called for.   GregJackP   Boomer!   11:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gotta admit that Wily has a point (see NSU's talk). With four civility blocks in the last three months, throwing around names and childish insults at a random passerby, with whom you have no history, seems like a fairly justifiable block to an outside observer. VanIsaacWS Vex<sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">contribs 11:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unblock mostly per GS, however I would like to note a couple of modifiers
 * Giving established editors a larger safety net creates the establishment of 2 sets of rules, one for new/unestablished editors and one for established editors. The rules should be equally applied, regardless of who the target is.
 * WP:INVOLVED is what causes me to significantly react in this case. If you block because a user directed the attack at you, the impression is that the block is retaliation.  Involved is there to protect admins from themselves and accusations of bias.
 * Therefore, I propose that WilyD be slapped upside the head with a trout so that they don't do something like this again. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment My first reaction mirrored that of Hasteur. We have INVOLVED for a good reason. However, we have to avoid gamesmanship. If an editor directs an uncivil remark at an admin, simply to preclude them from taking action, that's a problem. If the block was a reaction to that comment, it is a problem and should be reversed. However, the history looks a little muddled to me.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why there's the "Any ununvolved admin" exception in WP:INVOLVED. Obviously if you choose to invoke that line, you really should (read must) bring it to WP:AN to get the action confirmed. Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unblock and comment block log - per kwami. Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a WP:INVOLVED situation, unblock This is not an issue of WP:INVOLVED since WillyD was acting as an administrator only.  He clearly was telling that user, as an admin, to quit nominating an article for CSD after it had been declined by two admins.  Throwing a personal attack at an admin does not make said admin involved.  In fact, it's gaming the system.  If we accepted the premise that calling an admin a name makes them involved, two things happen: 1) We change the threshold from the Admin's actions to any user's actions.  As it currently stands, WP:INVOLVED is based on the choices and actions of the admin.  2)  All any user would have to do is say "All admins are dickheads" to involve us all.  Or, less exaggerating, call any admin patrolling or whom appears to be patrolling that topic area a dickhead.  Other than the fact that WillyD did not violate WP:INVOLVED, I think two weeks, or even a block, is a bit excessive for the name calling.--v/r - TP 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked
I see a clear consensus here to unblock User:Lfdder, so I've done that. The question of admin involvement is less clear, so I've kept the unblock rationale neutral (it seems unproductive to delay the unblock until that point is settled.) 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lfdder is an interesting case. Pity I don't understand fuck-all about what they're doing here, all this technical stuff, but they are pretty unbearable every now and then. I can't tell whether they're always right (and BTW, Eric isn't always right either, and by "not right" I mean "I don't agree with him") but they're not unreasonable. I have no comment on the involved bit either, but two weeks for a comment like that is too much. Note that Lfdder is also one of those editors I'd call "established", and I have on occasion tried to discuss matters with them, though they were blocked shortly afterward. Now, the comments by the blocking admin are interesting in their own right (, please don't get me wrong, I'm not taking issue with the block). Two reasons are given: edit warring on a TfC closure and personal attacks aimed at the closing admin. The first is a perfectly valid reason for a block, no one would dispute that; the personal attack, I don't know--"you suck at it" (being an admin), if that's what it was, that's not much either, and I note that Nyttend points at the block log as a kind of aggravating factor. (Nyttend, I'm trying to state this as a bland fact, not as a critique: I got nothing against you, nothing whatsoever.) That's the same thing that was pointed out in Eric's most recent AN thread ("just look at the block log!"), and it was mentioned again tonight, and again in a brief discussion over an Eric block. So, I guess that Lfdder suffers from the same thing: block or escalating block based on a glance at the block log. I can't judge if Lfdder's log is full of incorrect blocks, but someone is going to have to admit that an overturned block was a wrong block, and that certainly applies to Eric's log. OK, I think that we need to stop looking at the block log for those civility blocks. If someone is totally impossible, totally impossible and a net negative, block them indefinitely. If not, in any other case (established, net positive, etc), there's just no point in longer (escalating) blocks, no point whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm rather confused about your meaning. I understand that you're not criticing me, complaining, etc., but I simply don't understand your point.  Are you simply talking about how I mentioned the block log as a factor?  My point was not that we need to impose escalating blocks (I wasn't even attempting to address the issue, if I remember rightly); the point was that Lfdder is familiar with our civility policies to the point that we didn't need to go through the normal warnings.  It's basically analogous to the way in which someone unfamiliar with WP:ARBMAC will be given leeway because they're unfamiliar with it, but if you've been blocked in the past for an ARBMAC violation, you won't be warned because you quite obviously know about the standards.  In the same way, Lfdder unquestioningly knew that sanctions would follow from NPA violations.  Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See, I just don't think that civility blocks, especially the longer (escalated) ones, do anything useful. If an editor is cussing and swearing, you can argue that a short block will make them stop and have an effect. A longer block, I just don't see the use of it. (But I am not sure I see the point in longer blocks in the first place...) Yes, I know that Lfdder (and Eric too, of course) knows our policy. It's just that I think that sometimes (not always!) a warning of sorts (not a stupid template) can help defuse a situation, and I think that's preferable. Let's face it, the way in which an editor commits ARBMAC violations is not the way in which an editor commits civility violations. Take Lfdder--they get exasperated with votes in a TfD discussion and get more and more irritated with what they perceive as votes based on a lack of knowledge. That's an increasing pressure that they vent in the way that we are familiar with. Sometimes a conversation can help get them out of that. Maybe. (In this case, it didn't; I clearly didn't do a very good job, and I'm not faulting you because I could have done better. Besides, the whole TfD discussion, with the closure revert, was reason enough.) Someone breaking 1R restrictions or committing some gross POV violation because they're a Nazi (or violent adherent of either side in the Israel/Palestine conflict, or whatever), that's an entirely different process, not one that a decent conversation can bring any kind of alleviation. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So a Wikipedian walks into a bar and asks the barkeep, "You know what the difference between an established editor and a regular editor is?" The barkeep says, "No, what?"  The Wikipedian says, "You'll never see anyone argue that escalating blocks don't work for regular editors."--v/r - TP 02:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TParis, maybe you picked a different contrasting type there. If the point were pressed, I'd probably say that most regular editors can call themselves "established". Also, Wikipedians don't walk into bars, you dope. They sit at home with their laptops; outside of the house, they're unbearable. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, you've got me there. --v/r - TP 03:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; I made this edit at a Wendy's. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, actually: Five Guys, where I picked up a little something tonight, has free WiFi. But editing WP on an iPhone just sucks the big one, esp. in an edit conflict. Some of my delightful prose and much wisdom was lost tonight because of an edit conflict during a swim meet. Words we'll never get back. (Wait--Wendy's??? come on--that shit will kill you.) Drmies (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly was I topic banned for?
I would like to request a proper explanation of the reasoning behind my topic ban, enacted per Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813 - or removal of the ban if no such explanation is provided. As far as I can tell, three issues were raised in the discussion:


 * 1) The initial report was for a single rude statement that I made in a discussion. Even if some hold the opinion that this crossed the line of WP:CIVILITY, surely a single statement like that doesn't merit anything more than a mild warning - particularly since previous sanctions applied against me were based on a completely different policy.
 * 2) Several users brought up my block log in the discussion. How is it fair to bring up my block log when, as I already mentioned, previous sanctions against me were based on a completely different policy - and the last block was more than three months prior to the discussion? Additionally, I had significantly changed my conduct since the blocks in question in a specific attempt not to run into issues with that other policy again - and now I just got sanctioned for something completely different instead.
 * 3) The other issue that I noticed was discussed was my conduct in the discussion itself, but this seems even more unfair than the above point, since had the discussion not been started it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place! Furthermore, I changed my conduct in the discussion later on.

I realize that the optics of making an actual appeal this early may not exactly be positive, but from what I have seen, many - if not most - appeals are based not on the original ban but on the conduct of the user during it. In this case, however, I think that the original ban was not justified. (That isn't to say that I have no conduct record since the ban to point to at all - in the intervening weeks, I have made a very large number of productive edits, being both careful not to violate the topic ban and to stay away from the kinds of issues that may have led to it in the first place.) If I were appealing this ban in what seems to be the more standard way, I would almost certainly have waited for at least half of its duration, but, again, I think it was unfairly imposed in the first place. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: this request on their talk page. To me this seems like a typical case of WP:FORUMSHOP. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not pay attention to this user, who is very close to being reported for outright WP:HOUNDING. It's becoming quite ridiculous, actually. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any diffs to support that rather dramatic allegation? PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please ignore this user. I really do not want this discussion derailed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but discussions here do not work that way. And the more you say "please ignore X" the more likely it is to be considered that you're trying to divert attention from something lest it WP:BOOMERANG on you. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's see: I requested clarification of my topic ban at my user talk page, and now I would like it to be lifted completely via a request here. How is this anywhere remotely near forum shopping, and why are you supporting this user, who has repeatedly violated WP:AGF towards me at the very least? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not, in fact, supporting anybody. I am cautioning you that your constant assertions of "ignore this user" will only make people wonder why you're so adamant about it. - The Bushranger One ping only
 * @User:The Bushranger: Yet you did not "caution" the other user for immediately launching into an allegation without even attempting to address the points I brought up. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

and now we also have WP:CANVASSing!PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, my message was specifically worded knowing that you would write this (and I even pinged you in it). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh... did you just admit to WP:BAITING me? PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 23:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to put it that way, sure - I "baited" you into making yet another foolish post here. (By the way, perhaps you should check what you're linking to before actually doing so...) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since Dogmaticeclectic is clearly determined to create as much drama as possible, I'd like to request an admin to close this, probably with a WP:BOOMERANG block for disruptive editing. Dogmatic; you've admitted to baiting a user, and then you've gone and spammed a bunch of personal attacks. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to this
Since quite a few members of the Wikipedia community continue to act extremely abusively towards me, I think the question now is whether I should go to WP:ARBCOM or simply do a WP:CLEANSTART (the latter obviously after the ban has already expired). Anyone (besides the community members in question) have any thoughts on this? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing a CLEANSTART is obviously going to fail, since the entire point of it is to stay away from the topic areas where you have been found to be disruptive in. ARBCOM won't accept a case, since they rarely accept any case. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really trying hard not to be sarcastic here, knowing just how much you want me banned completely, but still: what do you suggest then? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you stopped baiting users (which you admitted to above!), stopped abusing users, and generally stopped being disruptive, then there'd be some hope for you. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 01:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this is going to end with anything other than you indefinitely blocked given your behaviour today. You were topic banned from editing Microsoft related articles because you have a reasonably long history of edit warring and tendentious editing, whether you like that or not, the community has agreed your editing patterns on Microsoft related articles are problematic and required attention, which has resulted in the community telling you not to edit Microsoft articles. I had my finger hovering over the block button, but I thought it was fair to tell you how close you are to being indefinitely blocked and giving you the chance to archive this, log out for a few hours and calm down. Nick (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94, you and several others have done pretty much everything possible to get me community banned simply because I disagree with much of your editing. Even if I changed my conduct completely - which I have already done to a very significant extent - all of you would almost certainly still be trying to achieve that goal. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. I have called for you to be indefinitely blocked (not community banned) because of your constant disruption and abusive behaviour towards multiple editors. You made working on Microsoft-related articles an arduous task instead of a pleasure by YOUR own conduct. As for disagreeing with much of my editing, considering that I don't focus myself in this one area, I'm calling bullshit on that attempted get-out clause. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 01:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Lukeno94: Whether what I wrote above is correct or not, the fact of the matter is that the next step for even the most minor policy violation (which is obviously pretty much guaranteed to occur at some point) is pretty much guaranteed to be a community ban. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy? Sure. No, that's not the fact of the matter--you've spent hours here and on ANI, and by now you should have become a little wiser. Really, the next step is (as hinted at above, but you didn't listen) that some admin gets so irritated by the constant whining over what those terrible wiki editors are doing to you, how it's all their fault, how the only they wanted is to ban you (cause they can't handle the truth?), and so on...so irritated, I say, that they simply block you indefinitely for this incessant disruptive editing. Not a community ban, mind you (please get it straight), but a simple straightforward indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Request
Please close this whole thing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

is the ban over?
is my ban over? or are going to be incredibly technical about it and do it by the days?Lucia Black (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RESTRICT it expired yesterday. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know better than to edit without some form of announcement given to me. it seems odd to not be notified.Lucia Black (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's over, and you're free to edit anime and manga articles again. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats all i needed to hear.Lucia Black (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Need help Please - Sandra from Dubai
Dear All,

I am hoping an administrator would be contact me in response to this post as I have tried all other methods. Quite frankly, I have found the talk pages, etc rather confusing as I am novice at using these things. I simply wanted to help a friend whose article we try to update with more accurate information but someone always goes and deletes the changes that we make. This is causing us a lot of problem. We have even tried to add images, but it all gets (WRONGLY) deleted.

Can I please please ask someone to contact me on (Redacted)

I really need your help. Sandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszapper (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sandra, we appreciate that you're trying to jump in an edit Wikipedia! From what I can see, the reason that many (not all) of your changes have been reverted (rightly) is because they either:
 * introduced an error into the coding
 * changed layout, etc in a manner that were contrary to our manual of style
 * introduced links to images that do not exist
 * were a new article that did not meet our basic standards for inclusion
 * may have been copyrighted files/images
 * A couple of pieces of advice:
 * be very careful editing topic for friends or about friends
 * every edit you made can and will be changed by someone else, some day
 * practice makes perfect: none of us were champion editors when we began
 * everything you add to an article needs a reliable source, especially when it's about a living person
 * I have faith that if you take it slowly, you'll get the hang of things! ES  &#38;L  09:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that this might be a shared account, not out of malice, but because the two editors may not have been aware of our policy on this. I've left a note on Jameszapper's talk page explaining that if this is indeed the case, Sandra needs to sign up for her own account ASAP. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Block review
I blocked this account for 48 hours. The user created an article called Overwerk. I deleted it per A7. The user went a bit haywire and recreated it, but lashed out in multiple places against me, admins in general, and other rants. After they recreated it, I posted a message at WP:REFUND in response to the user's opening up a thread there. The recreated article was tagged again. I intentionally did not redelete it but let another admin review it. deleted it per A7. The user recreated it. As I was writing this, deleted it. During this little circus, the user, of course, removed the speedy deletion tag multiple times.

Anyway, because I was marginally involved, I thought it best to bring it here. Any admin can feel free to unblock the user or whatever they think is appropriate without my consent. Just be aware that "Any admin trying to poke their nose in here can duly fuck off" per the user's user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support block. User appears to be more interested in disruption at this point.--MONGO 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, reluctantly, because up to 2012 when there was one warning about links, and since then up to now, they seem to have edited without problems. This is their only deleted article. I ignored the instruction quoted above to leave an explanation and suggestions, which don't seem to have gone down too well. It's not easy telling an editor who's been here since 2010 to read the policies... This behaviour seems well out of the ordinary for this editor. Peridon (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment irrelevant to the block, but the subject of the article actually might be marginally notable - I see tours abroad and a number of third-party sources, although many in French or Dutch. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think that was any more reliable a source than IMDb is. It seems to be user supplied info in the Tourbox part. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but other sources back up the fact those concerts happened. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I find deleting band articles to be tough. I try to go just on what the article says without hunting for sources myself (as one should do before AfD). Sometimes, I just skip over them because I'd rather let some more knowledgeable admin evaluate the article. In this instance, frankly, it was borderline, but the only sources it had (I know it doesn't have to have sources) were its own site, Facebook, and a press release, so ... As an aside, the article is now salted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, it was an A7 as it stood. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support extension of block. Their snide abuse of the unblock template is more than enough. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ban request for User:Jonathan.bluestein
Both and I feel that  should be banned for reverting good faith edits at  without adequate reasoning as explained at. Thank you, -- -- -- 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Bluestein here. These two users are both Haredi Jews. They have strongly biased opinions on matters relating to that page. User has been serially deleting contents off that page for months now. The talk page is full of extremely long discussions in which  is trying to make up all sorts of excuses as to why additions I have made to the page are invalid and inappropriate. Over the last few months I have added over 70 (!) relevant sources to the segments I have edited in order to 'please' 's demands. To no avail. Whenever I am not around, he takes the opportunity to delete any materials criticizing actions by the Haredim. The sources I have used are mostly from Israeli mainstream media, and relate mainly to two issues:  1. Military conscription of Haredi Jews.   2. Controversies related to Haredi actions against 'immodesty' shown in public in Israel. The debate at hand has been raised within Wikipedia's resolution center, but no resolution could be reached. Neither did asking for moderators to intervene helped in the past. I believe that the sole purpose of this request here is to eliminate my influence from that page, and with it to gain an opportunity to once and for all erase any trace of criticism towards Haredi populations. I wish to ask any moderators looking into the matter to read the wikipedia page being discussed first, and then thoroughly go through the long discussions on the talk page, to see the long history of our disagreements and how they were debated and resolved in the past.  Thank you. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hyphens, you'll need to explain what you'd like to be done. Do you mean a siteban (i.e., Jonathan's not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all), or a topic ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit articles related to Haredi Judaism), or an interaction ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit pages you've been editing, and vice versa), or something else?  Regardless of which one you mean, you absolutely must demonstrate extensive disruption by Jonathan; bans are a drastic solution that are only imposed when we've tried other solutions without the problem being resolved.  Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel Jonathan.bluestein has limited editing experience. After all my "mentoring", he still does not "get it." I am sorry to say, I feel his continued edits are a blight on this page. As a "litmus test", I added his material to Orthodox Judaism and soon after it was removed by another editor who stated: "This is an interesting and potentially important section to add; however, as it is, it is full of OR and unsourced assertions, and is not balanced." Jonathan.bluestein has been trying to insert his Hodge-podge of undue, pov, unsourced, etc. etc. material for some months now. It is clear Jonathan.bluestein has had enough "warnings" about his editing style but continues to add text which violates policy. He may be sincere, but he does not seem capable of understanding what belongs where, if at all. He needs to be blocked from this page so it can be fixed and the tags removed. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is worth investigating some of the recent edits by Chesdovi to get a perspective on what is behind this ban proposal. I agree that some sources added by JBluestein are not usable, but Chesdovi is removing a good number of sources that *are* usable -- and also removing material on the basis of a clear ideological dislike for the message they convey.  In that context, the ban proposal is merely an attempt to eliminate an ideological opponent.  BTW, the post at 10:39 just above is a clear violation of WP:POINT, and in general there might be a call for WP:BOOMERANG here, at least for Chesdovi (not for hyphens, though) -- the POV-pushing is by no means limited to one "side".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And Nomoskedasticity wishes to be seen as a neutral broker in this discussion? My foot. If Nomoskedasticity acknowledges "some" sources JB added as inappropriate, why has he never removed any? He is always seems very quick to remove or tweak to the intricacies of material only I have added, happy to leave this rest of the page full of bunkum. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that I wish to push my POV or "eliminate" an opposing ideology. My edits clearly demonstrate my attempt to edit neutrally. Nomoskedasticity has a real gall to even suggested I have a POV pushing problem. It is the edit's of J Blustein which are a genuine problem here, and it is him and Nomoskedasticity who are intent on blurring real editing issues by claiming the issue at hand is to do with pro/anti Haredi stances. This is unfair and offensive. Nomoskedasticity has not ever once highlighted JB's problematic edits, until his latest post, which is an obvious attempt to frame himself as neutral on this issue; how idiotic. In his latest edit on the page, Nomoskedasticity has re-added primary sources which have been discussed previously at talk. Yet Nomoskedasticity does not feel he needs to discuss the inclusion of these primary sources himself at talk, but re-adds blindly. Shameful. Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually think that among all the people who have been editing the page in recent months (including myself), Nomoskedasticity has been one of a few that maintained very decent and respectable neutrality. I fact, he did delete or have called for the deletion of a few of my sources, with sound arguments. Probably about 4-5 sources so far, and they're now gone. Weren't good enough... As for Chesdovi's other claims here - I find no reason to try and counter his claims. I sincerely believe that reading the page, talk page and the sources themselves would easily reveal who is the troublemaker among us. The admins are welcome to check out the facts and decide for themselves. I should add, as I have before in the dispute resolution discussions, that this issue and page would better be examined by someone versed in Israeli culture and Hebrew. All points of controversy relating to this page have to do with events in Israel from recent years, and most of the sources on the page in general are in Hebrew. The latter fact is because the vast majority of news reports, article, studies and literature about and relating to Ultra Orthodox Jews (Haredim) is written in Hebrew.  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, if Nomoskedasticity modified some of your material, please can either he or yourself point me to where that occurred, because I do not remember this happening, and I have checked and cannot find when this happened. Hebrew sources – how helpful. JB adds reams of text cited to Hebrew sources. But why? JB obviously can converse in English. Hebrew sources are unhelpful, confusing and usually against guidelines. What has J Bluestein added to this page? Material about specific peculiarities of the Haredim and why are so loathed in Israel by ardent seculars like himself. That's all. That is the glaring POV issue which strikes me. He is a proud anti-Haredi activist in wiki and in real life. That’s okay and obviously, I am not against inclusion of such material, so long as it adheres to normal editing parameters. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, here's a sampling of what has been going on:
 * On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan deleted a sourced paragraph of Haredi Judaism without explanation. This unexplained deletion was reverted by User:Nomoskedasticity on 14:54, 24 July.
 * On 20:46, 29 July, User:Chesdovi changed "Lithania" to "Lithuania". On 01:19, 30 July, Jonathan changed it back to "Lithania".
 * On 20:21, 5 August, User:Black Kite changed "a Haredi men" to "Haredi men". On 04:05, 13 August, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men". On 10:31, 30 August, User:Leveni changed it to "a Haredi man". On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men".
 * On 16:02, 13 August, Chesdovi added tags " " & "  ". On 19:36, 9 September, Chesdovi removed those tagged sentences altogether. On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan restored those sentences, but without the tags.
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I changed the "Sabbath" (which links to the general concept of Sabbath) to "Shabbat" (links to the Jewish Sabbath). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "Sabbath" without explanation.
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the phrases "even go as far" and "might prove" which do not seem very encyclopedic to me. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored both phrases without explanation.
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the word "interestingly", classified as editorializing. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly" without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I removed "interestingly". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly".
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "There had been more extreme cases, too". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I disambiguated: Egged → Egged (company) . On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored " Egged ".
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back" to: "required men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front and women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back." (The fact that men are not allowed to enter from the back or to sit in the back is important because it shows that this is not an issue of Sexual discrimination, just separation between the genders.) On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed it back to "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back". On 10:42, 30 October, I restored "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" and added a reference to: "" On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan redeleted the words "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" together with the accompanying reference.
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Orthodox and Secular Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" to "Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" (the source cited (חדשות 2 - בקרוב: רחבה משותפת לגברים ולנשים בכותל) actually says that 'Neshot Hakotel' is comprised of Reform women). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "A group of Orthodox and Secular Jewish women" without explanation.
 * On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Male, Female and Mixed" to "male, female and mixed". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "Male, Female and Mixed".
 * On 01:29, 28 October, I removed the reference to A news report (March 2013) of how one female drummer and one female singer were forced to cancel their participation in a municipal music festival in Jerusalem because of Haredi demands which is unrelated to "the show of exposed arms and legs", as discussed on Talk:Haredi Judaism. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the reference.
 * On 07:45, 28 October, I added links to Derekh Eretz Rabbah פרק א and Nedarim 20a. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan removed those links without explanation.
 * On 07:45, 28 October, I removed 9 references unrelated to, but lumped together under the banner of 'immodest' women, and thus causing a mess out of the article, as discussed at Talk:Haredi Judaism. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored all 9 references. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the 9 references. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored 7 of the 9 references, and replaced the other 2 with duplicates of the existing references.
 * On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "On March 2013" to "In March 2013". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "On March 2013".
 * On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines" (n-dash) to "'Mehadrin' buses — bus lines" (m-dash). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash. On 10:42, 30 October, I restored the m-dash. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash.
 * On 07:45, 28 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "The cause for the existence of 'Mehadrin' buses was, to begin with, the wishes of many Haredi communities to further set men and women physically apart, for the same reasons and rational that called for 'modest' female display in public". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
 * On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed " mainstream rabbis " to "mainstream Rabbis ". On 10:42, 30 October, I changed it back to "mainstream rabbis". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "mainstream Rabbis".
 * On 10:42, 30 October, I changed "have been known to censor pictures" to "have censored pictures". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "have been known to censor pictures" without explanation.
 * If think that will have to be enough for now, as I'm running out of time. -- -- -- 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first diff hyphen produces is a good example of how Nomoskedasticity is happy to add superfluous material to this page. On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan indeed deleted a sourced paragraph, but he merged it into the text he added in his next edit. This was over-sighted by Nomoskedasticity who carelessly re-added the exact same paragraph on 14:54, 24 July, making it appear twice in the article!! This is of course of no consequence for Nomoskedasticity who seemingly likes to add unnecessary duplication here. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Chesdovi and -- -- -- failed to include my answers and explanations for the above-mentioned issues, which were addressed and appear on the talk page. They only put here a part of the discussion - the part representing their writings and opinions. The full-length discussions from the last few days are found here. At this link are the lengthy explanations for my edits and additions, which both users have claimed 'did not exist'. I wish to again stress the fact that in my opinion, in order to understand what has been going on with that page, it's best that one takes the time to read the entire talk page. Then one could see that most of the issues at hand had already been discussed over and over again, countless times. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On a more personal note, I am not an "anti-Haredi activist" as Chesdovi suggested here, and have never claimed to be one. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, you stated above that Nomo deleted about 4-5 of your sources. Please show me which ones. Or was it an oversight? Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall it happened, but I couldn't find it being discussed on the talk page. Perhaps he explained it in one of his edits, or perhaps I was wrong. It doesn't really matter and has no relevance to your claim that I should be banned. You are merely trying to point out that myself and that user are somehow united under an anti-Haredi cause. Which is funny, considering you and user -- -- -- are both Haredim, and have very distinct political agendas about that page, which you have been promoting with sincere cooperation. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You made a claim which cannot be supported. Pretty much sums up the additions you have littered this page with: Sources which do not support the text…. Neither do you have the courage to admit your error: "seems, perhaps, doesn't really matter." Well, the poor additions you continue to add to this page do matter. That’s what this report is about - whether what you add matters – and mark my words, it does. Nomo does tend to have an air of neutrality about her, but the problem is, her efforts at balancing this page are, well, unbalanced. They have not once focused on the material you have added. But my goodness, to give the impression that Haredi men only get violent if a women is "scantily" dressed was taking it too far… They have to be dressed in what is "deemed" immodest, i.e. midriffs would probably pass, right Nomo? I mean that is pretty much in the mainstream nowadays. "Scantily" would have to mean walking down the street clad in a bikini and trunks. Clarification of that fact was imperative, but nothing Jonathan added needs attention? "Decent and respectable neutrality" indeed. Having noticed you have just re-added a copy-vio youtube clip, I really suggest that you leave this page alone and use you time more productively by attending a protest or parliamentary meeting. There you can say all you like without having the bother of finding RS to back you up.... (Please see Re-addition of primary sources.) Chesdovi (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's always the same. You claim something I added is wrong, misinterpreted, not suitable for the page, etc. I answer in length and provide 1-10 additional sources. You ignore the sources and raise another claim... and so forth. Luckily for the editors, the talk page is pretty clear about who has the sources supporting the truth, and who isn't. Any native Hebrew speaker would laugh at most of your arguments. But since you're so keen on criticizing the use of Hebrew sources, in the future I will make sure to bring on dozens more in English for your pleasure, stating the same things and supporting the same claims. Your criticism has caused the number of sources you don't like on that page to rise by the dozens (I gather I added at least 50 sources over the last few months, from many different books and websites). How many hundreds of sources more should I include? Would you like me to cover with at least 1-3 sources for every single sentence I added to the article so far? That might actually be possible. There's plenty of news, articles and literature about the Haredim... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think 1-3 sources for every single sentence separately is much better than 17 sources for 1 sentence but which refer not necessarily to that sentence, but to different (albeit similar) issues discussed elsewhere throughout the article. -- -- -- 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Admins should beware of the list of edits that Hyphens listed above. Take the second one, for example: Looking at the actual history shows that Chesdovi's edit made many changes, with 300 letters removed in total, and Jonathan's was a revert of a long sequence of Chesdovi's deletions, more than 12,000 letters altogether. The spelling of Lithuania is about the least significant issue in there, so why is it OK to mention only that? I'd like to know if there is a kind explanation, since the only one I can think of is that Hyphens deliberately misrepresented these edits to make Jonathan's edit look malicious. This suggests that Hyphen's behavior here and in the article should be scrutinized carefully. Zerotalk 02:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On 20:46, 29 July, User:Chesdovi changed "Lithania" to "Lithuania". On 01:19, 30 July, Jonathan changed it back to "Lithania".
 * I meant to demonstrate how carelessly Jonathan reverts good faith edits while putting back his previously deleted additions. If only this discussion will cause Jonathan to cease this careless behavior, then opening this discussion was somewhat worthwhile. He should at least learn how to use the Show changes button before saving. -- -- -- 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you don't have an excuse for misrepresenting the evidence. I suggest that you be blocked for dishonesty. Zerotalk 08:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence was meant to show Jonathan's carelessness, and nothing else; and I honestly think that that is what the evidence shows. I didn't think that would be considered "misrepresenting" or "dishonesty". -- -- -- 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jonathan here. I certainly admit to have been careless at times. In the beginning of my edit war with Chesdovi, he used to make many consecutive deletions. He still pursues this strategy. This meant that he'd make several edits in a row, each time deleting different things. That is, instead of making all the changes he wishes to make within a single edit. In the meanwhile and in-between his several deletions, many a time people made useful grammar and phrasing corrections to the article. To counter Chesdovi's deletions, I used to copy and re-paste a version of the page I have kept to myself beforehand (since he'd pick and choose to delete materials from different parts of the article at different times, and it was sometimes difficult to follow his deletions). But by undoing Chesdovi's deletions in this manner, it often occurred that I have accidentally deleted some useful additions and fixes that had been done to the page by others. That is why during the last month or so, whenever I made a new edit and undid Chesdovi's deletions, I tried to make sure that my own copy-and-paste version of the page included the additional changes that have been made since the deletions. I have also specified in all of my recent edits that I have kept these changes. Still, I did miss a few things here and there. When user -- -- -- complained about this on the talk page, though, I immediately agreed and returned the useful materials and phrasings which have been accidentally deleted (this can be seen here). In general, I have been in agreement with many suggestions and corrections made by Chesdovi and others on the talk page, while I cannot recall a single instance in which Chesdovi was in agreement with anything I added. He complained about the vast majority of my sources, and attempted to refute or dismiss almost all of them. Neither did he contribute much to the page - it was mostly me writing and adding sources, and he complaining about it and deleting my materials, as well as materials previously added by others. I wish to repeat once again - the history of the relevant talk page reveals the nature of this long argument to anyone willing to go through it. The banning request, in any case, appears inappropriate. Not only because of Chesdovi's personal agendas. Take a look at the talk page - user -- -- -- and I are negotiating things in a rather friendly and professional manner, devoid of personal attacks, and slowly find agreement on various matters. Why would he then ask for me to be banned?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to support a short block, at the moment. I can see Jonathan blanket reverting people without checking what they're doing, and essentially edit warring to do this. Bringing up an editor's ethnicity, and claiming that they must be biased as a result, is bang out of order. However, we've got mud-slinging left, right, and centre in here, and there may be justification for blocks on other users as well. As a result, I suggest this thread is closed. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Luke. With all due respect - may I inquire if you have read the facts beyond what has been posted on this thread? By that I mean - have you read the history of this dispute on the actual talk page? I ask because of the following facts, which are apparent on the talk page:


 * 1. Chesdovi never denies being an Ultra-Orthodox Jew.


 * 2. User -- -- -- identifies himself as one on his own user page.


 * 3. Chesdovi has been serially accusing me for months as being an "Anti-Haredi Secular activist posting Anti-haredi government propaganda".


 * 4. Chesdovi has been bulk-deleting my sources consistently without bothering to read them, claiming they are irrelevant, false, a form of anti-Haredi conspiracy, etc. Then, after I have explained in length on the talk page why they are relevant, he'd delete them again.


 * 5. Chesdovi, who can read Hebrew to some lesser extent (shown as he expressed a general vague understanding in what's in many of the Hebrew sources), serially pretends that the content within Hebrew sources is irrelevant to the page. This has forced me to translate massive amounts of content from the sources on the talk page to justify their relevance... which did not prevent Chesdovi from deleting them again afterwards with other excuses. User -- -- -- who also claims to be able to understand Heberew, has done similar things on a few occasions (made claims of irrelevance based on supposed understanding of source text to not be relevant to not be relevant to the page/paragraph).


 * 6. Many of the topics discussed on the page, as well as the relevant sources, are what I've referred to as 'common knowledge' with regard to Jewish and Haredi religion/culture. Meaning - that the common Jew/Israeli knows these facts by default, as part of Jewish/Israeli education (for instance - in Israel, all Jews study the bible for 11 years straight in school and are tested on almost all of it, so they all know the general plot-lines and the meaning of famous verses). Therefore, stating some things about this culture/religion is akin to stating the cold war was primarily between Soviet and Western powers - sort of fact that you don't really have to argue about or thoroughly justify. Chesdovi, on the other hand, was very manipulative on the talk page, taking advantage of the fact that non-Jews aren't aware of many such things being 'common knowledge'. He then attacked many of my edits and sources with the claim that the interpretations for sayings in Hebrew (either in news sources or religious ones) are false, and that I have to prove somehow that such things actually mean what they say they are (basically accusing me of serially lying, since he knows I'm an Israeli and a native Hebrew speaker). Then, I would go out of my way to translate those things Chesdovi argued against, and bring more sources to support their proper interpretation. The result would always be that Chesdovi would claim that I'm still wrong, and delete my sources nonetheless. The best example for this, perhaps, is found on this part of the talk page. Chesdobi argued against a common and well-accepted interpretation of a verse from the Book of Numbers (: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם"). I quoted this verse as relevant to the page, because that verse is, in my opinion, the source for prohibition in Haredi society for Haredi men to look at 'immodest' women. Chesdovi claimed I completely misinterpreted the verse, and a call to prove my claims was also subsequently made by another user. I then brought forth the following sources in Hebrew to prove my claim      , and also this one in English . These are all sources from Haredi websites, and some of them are quoting very famous and universally-accepted Rabbi authorities, such as Rashi and Maimonides, in support of what I have argued. Chesodvi completely ignored these sources, and replied as follows: "As has just been demonstrated, Jonathan has no idea what he is doing here. He needs to be blocked from this page asap".


 * I have taken the time to explain these issues here because I suspect that admins have not taken the time to read the talk page in length, as it is a long and an arduous task no doubt. Yet I gather that it would not be fair to consider my banning without being exposed to the whole story. I sincerely believe that reading the history of what has been going on the talk page of Haredi Judaism would reveal a different reality than presented here on this page. User Zero have already commented prior here that there seems to have been a manipulation in the presentation of facts with regard to my edits, and I agree with him.  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that after all this time Jonathan still cannot grasp why primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia. Let me just reveal to him that the biblical injunction which forbids gazing lustfully at women is not learnt from the one which he insists he learnt in bible class. It is in fact primarily induced from Deuteronomy 23:10. And let him also be aware that there is no source in the classic Jewish texts that forbids men looking at women. The problem only arises when a man needs to recite a prayer in which case he cannot do so in the presence of certain areas of uncovered flesh. He claims to know everything, but in truth knows very little. This ignorance will not continue to feature on Wikipedia! In his latest limp attempt to provide sources for why men avert their eyes, he has managed to collect no less than 8 "sources". THEY ARE ALL INVALID! I fear for the Israeli bar! Let me proceed to demonstrate the problems, and this will be the last time I will do so:

To substantiate his claim:
 * "Haredim who live among secular citizens usually either ignore the way the latter are dressed, or in the case of Haredi men, even go as far as looking the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female"

He cited: "Origin of the rule of not looking at things which can cause sexual arousal is in the Book of numbers, in a verse stating: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם" (see: ספר במדבר, טו, לט) " By using a raw primary source, he in in fact using original research to substantiate the claim that men "look the other way on purpose to avoid eye contact with the "overly exposed" body of a female" hence his use of quotations, for by his standards the women are not "overly exposed"! Let him just find a proper source which will back his claim without the need for quotations. He finds no problem with this bible verse as a source, but in an effort to placate me he provides the following:

1. "The very extensive Hebrew Wikipedia page discussing the matter, mentioning this verse as the source for the rule prohibiting to look at private parts"
 * The "source" in in fact Hebrew Wikipedia which cannot be used as source. HE HAS BEEN TOLD ABOUT THIS BUT STILL PERSISTS TO USE IT!!!!!
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * Yes, this is not to be used on page itself. This was put on the talk page for your reading pleasure, as it's a very well written source in Hebrew. No wonder you got upset about this one the most, as it says, and I quote: "מקור האיסור הכללי להרהור עבירה נדרש בחז"ל על סמך הנאמר בספר במדבר בסוף פרשת ציצית: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם". Which translates as: "The source for the general prohibition of pondering an offense (the offense of looking at private parts, mentioned in the title of that page) is..." the phrase Jonathan has been speaking of  :-)  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

2. "Explanation by Maimonides, linking this rule to prohibition of looking at 'matters of prostitution'"
 * He uses a text of Jewish law discussing the laws of Idol Worship. (He mistranslates the words "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות as 'matters of prostitution") But nowhere in this primary source does it mention men avert their eyes from women to prevent arousal. It is not discussing that but Idol worship. No wonder...
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * Really? Allow me to quote from this source: "ועל עניין זה הזהירה תורה, ונאמר בה "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, ואחרי עיניכם, אשר אתם זונים, אחריהם" (במדבר טו,לט)--כלומר לא יימשך כל אחד מכם אחר דעתו הקצרה, וידמה שמחשבתו משגת האמת.  כך אמרו חכמים, "אחרי לבבכם", זו מינות; "ואחרי עיניכם", זו זנות". Translation:  "And of this matter the Torah has warned, and it was said in it: "And you shall not go after your heart, and after your eyes, as you are whoring after them (in their footsteps). Meaning - each one of you may be pulled after his short-sighted thought, and mistakenly take his thought to be the truth.  Thus said the wise: "After your hearts" - that is (means) sexuality, and "after your eyes" is prostitution (also whoring)". We hereby see that in this source, the interpretation of that sentence from the Book of Numbers is said to mean that looking after the heart's desires is pursuing sexuality (מיניות), and following the eye's desires is prostitution/whoring. The reader is therefore advised not to do so. That is pretty much the interpretation I had presented. Mind you, that is an interpretation by Maimonides - are you claiming him to not be a Jewish authority?  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jonathan, but מינות does not mean "sexuality" at all. (Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism.) So you can see how we might get into problems when using primary sources. -- -- -- 10:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

3. "An article from a book in the Habad library explaining that the meaning of the sentence is that following the whims of the eyes and heart is like an act of prostitution"
 * This is a excerpt of a discourse, a primary source, which nowhere mentions that the verse is used as a reason why men avert their eyes from women.
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * Sorry. I seem to have mistakenly assumed that one some Jewish religious authority writes that some act is "like that of a whore", he meant that by default, it's something that you should avoid. Isn't this common sense?...  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

4. "An article with a quote by Rashi, explaining that this sentence means that the eyes and heart lure the eyes to make an offense, and therefore one should not look"
 * This source does even mention the word "women".
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * From the source: "Rashi says: ...the heart and eyes are spies for the body and pimp them into doing offenses (Jonathan: as in pimp of whores). The eye sees, and the heart covets, and the body (physically) acts upon the offenses". I find that this supports my claim and interpretation. It's pretty clear to any Jew what sort of "offenses" there are on matters of a combination of what the eyes can see and the heart desires.  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

5. "This article from an Israeli Yeshiva explains that the meaning of the sentence is that the eyes and heart create lust and wanting by looking and thinking about something."
 * This article actually discusses the issue of reading heretical material. It contains the paragraph from Maimonides Jonathan brought above in source 2, which does not link women and the verse?!
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * This article adds more from Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

6. "Rabbi Bnayahu Bruner from mainstream Conservative Jewish website Kipa answering a question about this quote, and explaining it means that one should rule over man's inner lust, and avoid the direction in which his heart and eyes lure him"
 * Nowhere in this source does it mention women. Neither should we use a Conservative source to substantiate Haredi behaviour!
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * With all due respect for Haredi behaviour, Judaism does not solely belong to the Haredim, and there is also room for the opinions and interpretations of Secular, Reform and Conservative Jews. Many of their interpretations are, in any case, identical or very similar to those of Haredim, with the chief difference being the importance each stream gives to the words and commandments. An answer by a rabbi or either a Haredi or Conservative website would not normally include mentioning of sexual matters in an explicit way, because this is considered immodest. You know that well. Instead, as in other sources, Haredim and Conservative Jews discuss such matters using evasive language, speaking of these matters by referring to them using more polite words and terminologies... Which are nonetheless obvious to most Jews, as they are to you and me. Here's a translation of most of that answer: "that sentence (the one we're discussing) includes in it a saying of a moral and (moral) principle nature, which means that one should govern the lusts which are embedded within man; that the eyes and heart are "pimps of the offenses", as Chazal have said. And therefore the gist of the warning is against following the lusts of the heart, in case the eyes help them (these lusts) to come true in a substantial way. A man who is impressed by what his eyes see might end up in a state in which his eyes would drag him to a place he does not want to be in spiritually, and therefore it is for the best that one uses his brain any action one does". This, again, I find supportive of my claim. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

7. "An article confirming that this interpretation of the verse is the most common interpretation"
 * Again, no mention of women here.
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * This source states that the majority of those (earlier) rabbis who 'counted' the commandments (decided which was important and which wasn't) included the one found in this sentence to be an important and independent commandment. Then it is explained further that this majority opinion is detailed in the interpretations of Rashi and Maimonides which I've already quoted earlier. In other words - it seems that this article is suggesting that whatever these two rabbis said (and the article quotes what I quoted before), is the more common take on this verse. This strengthens my claim, mind you, and makes it more relevant. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

8. " http://m.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7906/jewish/Chapter-27.htm"
 * A primary source which just mentions "sinful thoughts". Not women.
 * — Preceding comment added by Chesdovi, 20:45, 2/Nov/13
 * You know as well as I do that when Haredim talk of 'Sinful Thoughts', using that terminology, they almost always mean things related to women. This is ridiculous... I call for anyone who reads this who had ever seen an Ultra-orthodox Jew to ask him whether the term 'sinful thoughts' in Haredi and Conservative Judaism is related to immodest thoughts relating to women. The answer you'd get is: "Yes, most often it is a case in which a man is thinking immodest thoughts about a woman, and this is forbidden". This is a very integral part of Haredi society and education, and Chesdovi is taking advantage of the fact that many of the people reading this are non-Jews to pretend that this is not so. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The use of all these fake "sources" is an attempt by Jonathan to back up his own assertions. These are not reliable sources by any means. He keeps filling with this article with similar rubbish. Why must we put up with this any longer. It has been going on far too long. He will just not listen. He has no understanding of what policy demands here. He has left this article a total and utter mess. Chesdovi (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you just call sources from Maimonides and Rashi fake? :-D  Are you serious? They're some of the most well-known Jews to have ever lived, and considered to have been two of the greatest Rabbis who ever lived among pretty much all religious Jews.  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, you still don't get it? Primary source does not mean that the author of the source is fake. It just cannot be used according to Wikipedia's standards. -- -- -- 10:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Update
On 13:28, 2 November, Jonathan:
 * restored the reference to www.youpost.co.il, after being told not to use personal pages or blogs; Previous comment was added by User:-- -- --, 11:33, 3/Nov/13.
 * This isn't a personal blog. This was explained on the talk page. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * once again deleted the reference for requiring men to sit in the front; Previous comment was added by User:-- -- --, 11:33, 3/Nov/13.
 * That source was manipulative and trying to support the bus segregation with weasel words, not portraying things as they really are. I cannot believe that Chesdovi (and perhaps yourself) shows support of this bus segregation thing, like we're in 1950s America. The same source states, and I quote: "(the segregated buses and other Haredi-related events in Israeli) even prompting Hillary Clinton to remark that when things like this happen in Israel, it reminds her of Iran", but then goes to say Clinton doesn't know what she's talking about. Other fine quotes: "Nor will I speak on a practical level to the wisdom of seeking gender segregation on public transportation in Israel" - suggesting the author of the article fully supports bus segregation, and therefore is very, very biased. Another quote: "(the media attention of bus segregation in Israel is) information … intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question" - which points to the fact that the author of the article considers hundreds of news reports from many websites and newspapers to be forms of anti-Haredi propaganda/conspiracy (a claim which Chesdovi has sounded many times before). Another quote: "When that discussion takes place in the State of Israel, where degradation of women in the vaunted precincts of academia and the military is epidemic, and where there have been many highly public moral scandals like the one that once caused such humiliation to Madame Secretary Clinton herself, it is Torah Jews who hold the high ground and their secular counterparts who are left grasping for answers" - showing that the author is trying to sell his religious beliefs as a solution for the country's "immoral issues and problems". In short... the author of that article which I have deleted is extremely biased, and the article itself is big on justifying the male-female segregation in buses. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I used that reference solely as a source to the claim that men are not allowed to sit in the back, as opposed to the 1950s America, when there was no such requirement concerning whites. It seems that when someone deletes a source you add, claiming that the source is biased, you revert that right away. But you have no problem deleting a source someone else added because the source is biased. -- -- -- 01:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * once again restored the hyphen in 'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines;
 * restored the unnecessary space which I removed at 22:30, 30 October. Previous comment was added by User:-- -- --, 11:33, 3/Nov/13.
 * These were all by accident. I really don't mind about these changes - I just didn't notice them. Over the last few days, whenever you pointed to such a mistake, I hurried to correct it. This is documented on the talk page Why are you so eager to ban me, then?... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

How long will this go on back & forth? -- -- -- 11:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

An outsiders perspective
Reading through your discussions, you all seem to have forgotten the reason for the discussions:- Jonathon Bluesteins unreasonable editting behaviour. You must be a very tolerant bunch, because in the projects that I inhabit i would have had a permanent life ban for such behaviour!!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering you have deemed my editing 'unreasonable'... Have you read the talk page? Have you read any of the sources being discussed? These two things are required to get a real sense of what has been going on among us for the last few months. What's attached to this ban request is just the tip of the iceberg... Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We're rarely called "a tolerant bunch" around here ... I'd love to keep that post somewhere for posterity reasons :-) ES  &#38;L  11:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure
The RFC has been closed by an uninvolved non-admin, which is fine, but (IMHO): I'd just like an uninvolved admin to review the close on its merits, and add a detailed note there, to address the above points and any others which the admin thinks of. --Lexein (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The closure isn't specific about the exact proposal (by name) to implement. (after revs, it's clearer. See below. --Lexein)
 * 2) The closure states that there's "clear consensus to remove links" - there's no such thing - it's highly contentious.
 * 3) The closure doesn't seem to consider the usual policy weight of !votes. There's no indication that WP:ATA issues were excluded, such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:CRYSTAL predictions of future "bad acts" like advertising, and possible future "spam", and other (IMHO) assumptions of bad faith.
 * 4) The closure doesn't consider that future anonymous edits to add links to Archive.is have been addressed entirely by the newly implemented edit filter(s) by.
 * 5) The closure doesn't consider that Archive.is links were in good repute for 9 months before the recent (August, September) flurry of botlike edits brought the issue to the RFC.
 * 6) The closure offers quite unclear suggestions to deleters of Archive.is about what to put in the edit summary.
 * Go ask the closing admin ES  &#38;L  22:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there was no closing admin, it was a non-admin, as I indicated in the first line above. And I did ask at his Talk page, but he has declined to review or revise. I don't think all the boxes were ticked for a proper assessment of !votes, as I've listed above. So I'd like an admin experienced in closing deeply contentious RFCs, and RFC's which directly affect Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability (RS V upon linkrot, in this case), to review. --Lexein (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to note that the RFC was listed on the WP:AN/RFC list and was picked up by a volunteer there Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_8. I would also like to note that the OP of this thread as been the source and target of significantly less than civil discourse.  Hobit did not participate in the RFC and therefore is persumably neutral to the dispute. No drastic changes are required (only editors to scrub the links out of the wikitext) which is a normal editorial process, therefore it is not unreasonable that a experienced editor should be able to render a consensus. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The decision to remove the links was pretty clear.  The decision to blacklist them was close and went against my own instinct about what the right thing is to do.  But I felt the consensus was clear enough and the arguments reasonable enough that it was the only way I could close it.   If it is the sense of un-involved editors that I got it wrong, I won't be upset or offended--feedback is welcome. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've indented your reply to me. I've struck the first item, as clarification of language was added. I've changed to a numberedlist, in the hopes that those numbered points could actually be discussed and clarified in the close. It was not an uncontested, easy RFC. Therefore, a close which does not address the valid counterarguments at all seems incomplete. For example, statements in the close about "risk to Wikipedia" were validly contested in the RFC viz. our sources deal with DMCA issues, and so does WP, so our linking to those sources constitutes no "risk" to WP. The close doesn't note any of the valid oppose points, and opposing comments, which dispute point-by-point, many of the support !votes. It's not just vote counts, is it? My strongest point, that links to archive.is by in-good-standing editors, to deadlinked sources which happen to have been archived only by Archive.is, should not be included in the deletion of the "over 10,000" links to Archive.is in place before the swarm edits. --Lexein (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. #2 I believe the consensus was clear to remove the links.  I'm seeing opposes from an IP, you, Luke, Ohc, Qalnor and Jztinfinity.  Out of 26 comments, the numeric consensus is pretty clear especially if the IP and Qalnor are discounted.  In order to overcome that, their arguments would have to be fairly flawed.  Worries about future problems from a company/site what has shown significant ethical problems in the past and a willingness to ignore Wikipedia rules wouldn't seem to be clearly flawed--in fact I'd say they were reasonable.  On #3 I don't see how opinions stated were violations of any of those wiki-links you cite.  And it certainly isn't bad faith to assume that an organization which has violated Wikipedia rules and used what looks like an illegal botnet to do so might have something "more nefarious" coming down the pipe.  Assume good faith isn't a suicide pact.  If someone does a bunch of bad things, it's reasonable to worry that they might continue to do bad things.   On #4, that's true.  But given that the consensus was to remove the existing links, I don't see why that's relevant.  On #5 it's not the closer's job to consider that--it's part of the discussion.  And the weight of the discussion was that the bad behavior exhibited in the recent past was worrisome enough to justify pulling all links to that site.  On #6 I'd be happy to clarify if you can explain what wasn't clear.  In any case, that's just a suggestion and not part of the consensus.  I was simply worried that an automated removal of archive.is links could greatly annoy a number of users and that the situation should be described to them as clearly as possible.
 * This is a serious issue with serious ramifications. WP:LINKROT is a very important thing for us to address and Archive.is seems like a great way to do so. But after abuses related to Archive.is the community had significant reservations about allowing links to go from Wikipedia to Archive.is and has chosen to remove those links.  I'm hopeful we can find a way to get them added back, but it's going to take some time and effort to build up the trust needed.  As a note, I'll most likely be off-line for the next 24-48 hours.   Hobit (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the flaunting of policy and bad faith involved in the addition of those links by the unapproved proxying botfarm, Sisyphus will get that rock on top of the mountain before anybody can possibly trust them again. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So 9 months of good faith should be ignored for a few hundred proxy edits by a still unknown party? Seems like a bad choice of permanent solution to a temporary problem. --Lexein (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact - and we can't say that that was "nine months of good faith" or "nine months running under the radar". If a 10-year-old attack dog that has never hurt a soul suddenly tears someone's throat out unprovoked, the 10 years doesn't count against destroying the dog as vicious. (And last I saw the party proxing was hardly "still unknown".) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but I still disagree about your interpretation of consensus. This reads like *Comments and discussion comments indented from !votes, were disregarded, and that two editors were disregarded, without explanation. If true, that's sending the message that nobody should ever bother commenting at RFC's, that only !votes count, and that's not what WP:RFC is about: it's about discussion, including comments. This lack of consideration is fundamentally why I wanted an experienced RFC-closing administrator to make an assessment. Faulty logic, such as WP:CRYSTAL conjecture that future anonymous "spam" will occur, even though it's now impossible due to filtering, can certainly be addressed by a closer. About removal edit summaries, something clearer would be: In removal edit summaries, please add "rm per WP:Archive.is RFC". I'd still like an independent uninvolved experienced admin to review this close. --Lexein (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Endorse - The Archive.is RFC close was that there is a community mistrust of Archive.is and its interaction with Wikipedia. To address that community mistrust, (i) all Archive.is URL links are to be removed from Wikipedia and (ii) Archive.is be listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (to prevent an external link to Archive.is from being added to an English Wikipedia page when the URL matches one listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist). Per challenging other closures, RFC review is to determine at the Administrators' noticeboard whether the RFC closure was a reasonable summation of the discussion. Those supporting what ultimately became the close made strong arguments that there was a community mistrust of Archive.is and its interaction with Wikipedia. There was little to no rebuttal of these arguments. Those proposing the removal of all Archive.is URL links and blacklisting of Archive.is took into account the community mistrust of Archive.is whereas the other options did not sufficiently address the community mistrust of Archive.is in view of those alternate options. In looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions, it seems clear that the RFC closure was a reasonable summation of the discussion. Endorse. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for somebody taking the time to actually look, but: "community mistrust" was addressed as an emotional knee-jerk reaction (addressed in at least one comment), formed by WP:FUD, premature leaps to conclusions, and crystal-ball predictions and fears of future behavior (addressed in other comments). So I disagree that points were unanswered. Can't say I'm not disappointed that objective facts, like the presented points about the accuracy of the archive, the archive's sole possession of some deadlinked RS, the inability of Wikipedia editors to predict the future, and the impossibility of future anonymous "spamming" due to in-place filters, were ignored in the closing and in the single independent closing review I requested. But whatever, I did only ask for one. --Lexein (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting to sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT ES  &#38;L  00:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Objective facts really shouldn't be dismissed in favor of "mistrust" based on non-objective arguments. I asked for an uninvolved admin review, and I got one. --Lexein (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that now that 2 admins have commented on your petition to review the closing (and not overridden the closing), it seems reasonable to put down the stick and walk away. As evidenced by my own efforts in hand checking the links, removal of the archive.is links can be done, but must be done carefully so as to ensure that we don't loose any thing in the removal of links. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird hoax reality TV show articles in multiple userspaces
Recently, I discovered two very similar reality TV show articles in two different user sandboxes: Normally, I wouldn't think much of this, but here are the weird circumstances around these articles: Since no policies have been violated, I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about this. Should it go to Sockpuppet investigations? Should the articles be deleted? Should the accounts be blocked? Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Jeremyrohm/sandbox
 * User:GuysGirls/sandbox
 * 1) The show that both of them are about, Modelesque, doesn't exist. It is completely fictitious and seems to be mentioned nowhere on the internet besides these 2 articles.
 * 2) Both of the users are obviously experienced Wikipedia editors (probably the same editor), but have edited almost nothing except these fictitious articles. In other words, they appear to be throw-away sockpuppet accounts.
 * 3) On October 12, Seraphimblade demanded an explanation from GuysGirls. No explanation or reply has been given by GuysGirls, but he/she continued to edit the fictitious article.
 * 4) Unlike most hoax articles, these articles contain nothing humorous or even interesting. They are about as banal as you can get.
 * 5) Wiki-PR's biggest client is Viacom whose main product is reality TV shows. Is there a connection? I have no idea.


 * You can send the articles to WP:MFD. Hosting articles about fake reality shows in userspace is in violation of WP:USER and WP:NOT. MFD seems to get a lot of these and they are routinely deleted. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like Kaldari already deleted them, and just undeleted it for reference here. I'd originally planned to check back in a month, since that editor didn't edit too frequently to start with, and delete the page unless they'd explained what was going on. But since they did edit in the meantime, they obviously got that message and ignored it. I have no idea what their angle was with it&mdash;I can't even find an indication that it's a real show.
 * They're oddities, but I can't imagine what either Viacom or Wiki-PR could stand to gain from fake articles about shows that don't even exist. I'd certainly have no problem saying we ought to block both accounts until they explain what's going on, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest that WP:HOAX applies to all namespaces. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe they actually are tryout sketched articles for some actual Viacom product in the works? Agree it does not violate anything major, and they are in non viewable mode. It is an interesting possiblity. I don't see a problem there really, and some may know my feelings on paid editing. unfunny, boring and banal sounds like the state-of-the -art in the reality show genre. Just adds to its authenticity to my mind :) Irondome (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was very similar situations some, maybe 3 years ago? I can't even remember the names, but I do remember that the same ploy was being done - fictional shows (though like, fictional "seasons" of existing shows) with fake cast lists and the like. Like there was some off-WP fantasy league for these. Those were quashed way back then but I wonder if these have any relationship. --M ASEM (t) 22:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:CSD applies to all name spaces, not just article space. Therefore, hoax pages can be speedily deleted, even if WP:HOAX, a guideline, not a policy, says that should be rarely done. Thus, if an admin is convinced the page is a hoax (or at least tagged for another admin to review), then it should be deleted, the user warned, and if the user recreates that hoax or another hoax, the user should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree: G2 applies to all namespaces as well, but we don't delete test pages in userspace because testing is appropriate in userspace. In the same way, deleting a hoax userpage under G3 really isn't appropriate — in short, as long as it's not attacking someone else, or violating copyright or some other law, or a repost of deleted content, there's no real reason to speedy delete a userspace page without the request of the user in question.  Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Using your analogy to G2, how is a hoax page appropriate in user space?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we so sure it is a hoax? It may have been created for entirely different reasons. There may be some validity to the Viacom theory in inital posting. We should suspend judgement till we make contact with the creators. Irondome (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be true of any hoax page, whether it is in user or article space. One always has to evaluate carefully a page tagged or evaluated as a hoax. When I've deleted hoax articles, I've rarely if ever heard complaints from the creator, who is usually a vandal anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response; I've been busy since I wrote my first statement. My point is basically that we've always "allowed" (in the sense of it not being speedy deleteable) pretty much everything in userspace, aside from illegal stuff, personal attacks, etc.  Perhaps the users are testing MW coding and learning MediaWiki writing skills with stories they made up about TV shows?  That's probably not the case, but we need much more evidence of bad faith when speedy deleting userspace pages un-asked-for than when deleting pretty much anything else.  Finally, the fact that we're having this much discussion about these pages shows that they're really not uncontroversial, so I'd suggest that you take them to MFD.  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read item one by the OP. You can also check this which backs up the assertion that the show does not - in any way shape or form - exist. Since both sandbox articles claim that it started airing this past summer if it did exist there would be some info out there about it. The users and IPs are just using WikiP to play around. If that is okay then so be it but I have seen more than one article in a userspace moved to article space by editors who did not create the original item so, if we aren't going to delete them it would be nice to keep an eye out so that this does not happen. MarnetteD | Talk 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, here is the report of a near similar problem but back in 2008; you can see (if you are an admin) the type of pages that since-banned would create here, which, at 2008, was completely fake.... except that some (not all) of the challenges actually had ended up being used in later Project Runway seasons.  (eg the Ice Cream theme was done in All-Stars, which aired in 2012).  I would consider there's a possible connection here in terms if a sock investigation is appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 01:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the added info. I have thorougly read them both. Quite bizarre. The attention to detail, casual confidence of the description of events. It has a very realistic feel. I have searched too. Zilch. A very obsessive hoax. Or some weird tryout for additional items for an existing programme name but with name changed. Would totally support a SP check. Irondome (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This case reminds me of six months ago when I nominated a bunch of "articles" for deletion after failing to establish communication with the user. See User talk:Elste007 for the long list of hoax articles which were about a non-existent world-famous singer named Sailee who seemed like an amalgam of primarily Madonna but also some Gaga and Pink. The careful concoction ran to tens of articles, all in userspace. Only a few strange remnants are left in that userspace, the ones that did not have enough hard information to identify them as hoaxes.
 * In that case, I pointed to WP:What Wikipedia is not which says that the encyclopedia is for "accepted knowledge regarding its subject". None of the hoax material qualifies as "accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not trained mental health professionals, but mere WP volunteers. Such a crystal-clear vision of a fantasy is oddly disturbing. Are there any grounds for banning at this point? I would doubt it. Suggest deletion and a strong invite to open communications. It may sting whoever into an actual response, and we can get to the bottom of this. By my reading of WP guidelines, this is an easy delete candidate. Irondome (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And I've deleted both of them as violations of WP:BLP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP? Nice angle :) Irondome (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the problem, or why so many words. Such fake articles on fantasy shows are found all over Wikipedia. Common are variations of Survivor or those awful singing shows, and very often they seem to be multi-player fantasy games that are coordinated (or scored, or whatever) externally, after which a user updates their sandbox here to keep score. This is not the first time I've seen complete articles created on such non-existent shows; I deleted a whole bunch of them a few weeks ago. Useful rationale: NOTWEBHOST. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While easily dealt with, someone seems to be encouraging these users to use Wikipedia to store the results. It would be extremely helpful to find who that is (it may be a site that has no idea that its users are doing this) and tell them to stop their users from doing so. --M ASEM (t) 04:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be related to a sock farm I found within the past year, which can be seen at Sockpuppet investigations/Aquarius2/Archive.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 closed
An arbitration case regarding the Ebionites has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) and  are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
 * 2) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed.
 * 3) requested removal of his administrator rights on 1 November 2013, while these arbitration proceedings were in progress (log of removal). John Carter may regain these rights only through a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Please move
Created wrong place User:182.237.170.90/Roshan Kumar Sahani, thanks--Musamies (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic Appeal Ban (2) by Martinvl
I wish my topic ban to be removed or relaxed. While I understand that the topic ban is aimed at preventing further disruption and that ultimately I am responsible for my own actions, I would like to plead in mitigation that I had never seen the page WP:NOJUSTICE until it was pointed out to me via private correspondence by another editor. Although it is my responsibility to have been aware of that page, had User:BeyondMyKen quoted the page concerned when he cited from it, I would certainly not have adopted the stance I took. As it is, there is no mention whatsoever of that page in the ANI concerned. My entire stance, especially that outlined in my earlier appeal, was made in ignorance of the existence of that page.

In light of this and of the stress that I have suffered, I request that my topic ban be removed or relaxed. I undertake to be more careful with any edits or reversion that I make and I am willing to work under such restrictions that you might see fit to place on me. Up to this point I have tried to improve articles more or less on my own, and that in large part has placed me in the position I now find myself. Under the proposed regime, I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself. Learning to do this will ultimately make me a better editor. Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite block of this editor due to continual violation of their topic ban ES  &#38;L  16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support indef block - Martinvl simply doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 16:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support extended block - As a participant in the ANI discussion which lead to the topic ban I do not understand how MartinVL could ignore what was said to him simply because it was not cited to an essay (not policy). 192.76.82.87 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support indef Martinvl is not hearing it.  Konveyor   Belt  17:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait--why would we block him? I see that there's something Martinvl doesn't get, but I see no violations of the topic ban in their recent edits. I'm tempted to close the request per SNOW and IDNHT and all, but is there a violation that justifies a block? This request in itself shows they might not get it, but that in itself is not, in my view, sufficient reason for a block. Please tell me what I'm missing. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See, closed less than 24 hours ago. GiantSnowman 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Drmies, Martinvl's ANI resulted in extensive wikilawyering on his end (citing vote-stacking by the filing party after insisting himself the filing party notify all involved in the current dispute), then bordered on actual lawyering based on statements made on his talkpage. Once the topic ban was handed down, after several people tried desperately to get him to listen, he immediately asked for a relaxation in part to file an ANI complaint (what should have been an SPI filing) against another party in the subject from which he was topic banned.  Prior to receiving that answer (which was "no"), he filed the report, which dealt extensively with the subject from which he is banned.  The ANI complaint was closed with a reminder that he is topic banned.  He then lodged a complaint GaintSnowman linked to above, where he refuses to accept that despite being told in the ANI that he does not have legal rights on Wikipedia that we failed to let him speak, when in truth he just didn't listen to what was being said at him.  Now, he is topic banned from his preferred area, and rather than pursue other areas he is intent on having the ban revoked. 192.76.82.87 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't !vote "indef" right now, because it's all very sad - but honestly, I've seen this so often. Editor has a "niche" area (in this case measurements) which they edit to satisfy a POV. Editor gets on everyone else's nerves with tendentious editing to said area, and pernickety wikilawyering. Editor is topic-banned, when community becomes exasperated with this. Editor continues tendentious wikilawyering with multiple topic ban appeals. Community gives up and indefs due to massive timesink, and well, unwillingness to put up with it. Rinse and repeat. I don't think it's necessarily the way things should always happen, but it's sure predictable, and even understandable. In this case, oddly, Martinvl seems to be claiming that until now he did not know that wikilawyering about his "rights", and being a major pain in the arse was a "bad thing". I doubt it'll wash right now, but fascinating, even if only to the extent that it may well be wikilawyering about the right to wikilawyer if you didn't know you didn't have that right... or something...(I'm lost) ... Or it could be genuine, but see that's what happens when people have had enough - AGF fails. Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gotcha (Snowman). Thank you. Odd: blocked not for breaking their topic ban but for excessive disruption only partly related to said topic ban. Martinvl may place an unblock request--indefinite is not infinite--which will be turned down immediately unless it shows some understanding of the irritation and disruption caused by their behavior. I'm not going to list policies and guidelines here that they should study; they're linked in the various threads on ANI and on AN and on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I think this is a little too much. Martin's made another plea, but how does that equate to an indef block due to disruptive editing? I would encourage people to encourage Martin to take a pause for a moment and to leave both AN and measurements etc alone. Did anyone warn Martin that another entry at AN would result in an indef block? Can someone provide those diffs please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at The Bushranger's close of the previous topic ban appeal, where he wrote "...if this same tactic is adopted in any further appealing an indef WP:BOOMERANG is likely to hit." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Relax topic ban to 1RR First, Martinvl does get it. He has a world view (very effective for the areas he edits) where what is documented is valuable and random opinions aren't. Pointing out that WP:NOJUSTICE exists settles the matter of wikilawyering in a way that multiple people giving their opinions could not; we're not going to see any more of that behavior.

Martinvl has a long track record of being an effective, expert contributor. I've never had a technical disagreement with him that lasted beyond one or the other of us producing a reliable source. Despite constant harassment from a sophisticated sockmaster, I've never seen him be anything less than civil. But if there's a disagreement that can't be adjudicated objectively, his stubborn streak can come out.

I'd like to keep the expert contributions while Martinvl learns how to walk away from unwinnable arguments. A 1RR restriction lets him contribute but won't let him argue; we get the benefit without the disruption. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A good compromise. I hope that others here can assume good faith (perhaps just one more time) and allow Martin a shade of latitude.  1RR is a harsh mistress and I'm certain several here would be happy (even keen) to enforce it when required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove Topic Ban, Impose 1RR Restriction Based upon Martinvl's comments above, I am confident that he does get it. In particular, looks at this comment:
 * "Up to this point I have tried to improve articles more or less on my own, and that in large part has placed me in the position I now find myself. Under the proposed regime, I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself. Learning to do this will ultimately make me a better editor."
 * Based upon my previous interactions with Martinvl, in my opinion he is unlikely to make a commitment like that and then take it lightly. And of course if I am wrong on this, there is always WP:ROPE to consider. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. This replaces my comment above. I have carefully read all the other comments on this. Though I am not 100% convinced, there have been some compelling arguments -- enough so that I am withdrawing my comment above, and neither support or oppose any of the proposals. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support indef - I also support a further topic ban on appealing this topic ban for a minimum of six months to a year. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 21:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And almost certainly banishment to a dark dungeon with rats, whips, spikes etc. Point made.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the dungeon have Internet? DSL or cable?  (Don't be so melodramatic, there's life outside of WP - I think.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give IRR a try, with the caveat that it must be clear to Martinvl -- and I mean that he must say clearly and distinctly that he understands this -- that 'any violation of 1RR, or any Wikilawyering, tendentious commentary or WP:IDHT behavior will be immediately met with an indef block, with no community discussion necessary. In other words, I am in favor of approving the indef block in advance . I don't have any great hope that this will work, and I put litle stock in Martinvl's words of wonderment which began his appeal, which, frankly, seem specious to me, but I take it on good faith that he's got something to offer the project that may possibly make another try worthwhile - but the rope's gotta be really, really short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep topic ban as 1RR cannot apply to his talk page comments, where he has been disruptive in the past. —Rschen7754 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The more disruptive part has been the persistent Wikilawyering, not the reverting, so 1RR won't help any.


 * As to the indef, well, I viewed the previous appeal as an WP:NLT violation - and the threat has not since been withdrawn - so I feel he was lucky not to have already been blocked indef before this appeal. Plus let's remember that the topic ban has already been broken, as noted in the previous appeal.  I put approximately no stock in Martin's saying he gets it, as per RGloucester below, and per my previous experience with him. Kahastok talk 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I support an indefinite block until Martinvl agrees to follow the topic ban. --Rschen7754 18:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Martinvl is an editor, so they should be editing. So they took longer than the average editor to grok the intricacies of the bureaucratic non-bureaucracy we've erected around here; not that important. As one of the editors who took a shot (not "desperately") at explaining things to them on their talk page, my time will only turn out to be "wasted" if, at the end of the day, they don't end up editing in a collaborative fashion -- because that's supposed to be the goal of dispute resolution. Their post here makes it seem like they finally got it; personally I don't care why and long as they did. And we can't figure out whether they really did until we all stop yakking about it and they return to editing. NE Ent 23:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I support an indefinite block, however, the topic ban should remain. Martin is a long-time editor who has been around all edges of Wikipedia. He knows how it works, however, he has chosen to disregard that repeatedly. He may say he "gets it", but he has said such repeatedly, after the fact, and yet continues the behavior that leads to sanctions. For example, as a result of the 48 hour initial block that he received for disrupting the ANI, he said that "he would not've done that" if he knew the person who told him to stop "was an administrator". These type of retroactive "getting it" phrases should not be bought wholesale. Look at the history. Not to mention his previous repeated obsession with legality and justice. It suddenly disappears today? That seems a bit queer, doesn't it? RGloucester  — ☎ 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support indef on reflection. It's not forever and he can work on convincing admins on his talkpage that he is no longer going to waste everyone's time like this, and truly understands the issues. There does come a point where the sheer amount of time involved in dealing with this kind of repetitive, tendentious editing is too much. You fit in, or you get out, in the end - that's true of any community. The mere fact that this has rumbled on for so long and now is reignited shows that any sort of "ok - but be good in future" result, again, is insufficient, because every view other than Martin's must be wrong, nothing is ever Martin's fault, Martin "gets it" now, but never before when explained, if that serves the cause, and oh, it's all so unjust... This kind of timesink stuff may well be the death of this place if we refuse to address it. Yes, I mean don't set a precedent here that wikilawyering wins. Oppose the rats and whips, and also the spikes. Begoon &thinsp; talk  22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support retention of year long topic-ban and propose a 3 month block - whilst I am an involved editor, Martinvl will continue to post requests to overturn their topic-ban as they don't believe they have done anything wrong and will not defend the accusations against him, always trying to pin it on someone else or trying to worm out of it by a technicality even when that is turned down by several admins. The fact they didn't get a sanction for their incivility to me and DDStretch and the continued lying and twisting in regards to doing it at the UK article is in my eyes a let off for them never mind edit-warring with admins on AN/I of all places. A 1RR would be of no use. So instead of an indef block, maybe Martinvl would benefit from a short-term block of say 3-months so they can think about their behaviour and attitude. Mabuska (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest NE Ent I don't believe Martinvl is being sincere. They haven't even apologised for their false accusations which equate to personal attacks on me and DDStretch, and the twisting he partook in to avoid taking the blame for it. So on that, how can Martinvl be described as finally getting it when they can't even bite the bullet and accept they where in the wrong and apologise for their incivility? Any editor with even the tiniest amount of remorse and wanting to receive penitence would at least acknowledge their fault and apologise for it - Matinvl seems absolutely unable to accept their fallibility, and at this stage any such acknowledgement and apology would more likely be an attempt to game. Mabuska (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly; this sort of stuff has been going on for years. --Rschen7754 00:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: As will have already been noticed by people who have been aware of prior events, I am involved as the administrator who initially tried to deal with the edit-warring Martinvl incorrectly attributed to Wee Curry Monster (thus downplaying his own deep involvement) on Talk:United Kingdom. We then saw Martinvl launch a series of actions that ran counter to the spirit of wikipedia, for which he has not yet apologized, withdrawn, or even acknowledged in many cases. All these are documented on the AN/I thread about him. I am not sure that Martinvl will comply with the small amount that he has acknowledged and written here after such a short time since his last problematic behaviour, and may be he cannot easily control himself at the moment. But we have at last seen a statement that begins (and only just begins) to acknowledge something. We should try to build on that, even if some of us cannot, at this stage, believe that it is true. There are, however, so far no apparently sincere expressions of regret for his edit-warring or personal attacks, or his other disruptive behaviour, bar the "no justice"-related issue. I think he needs to be guided firmly to deal with the other issues now. And if the action of the community now is to allow an immediate relaxation of the present sanctions, then I think he needs to be urged, if possible, to join the mentoring service to guide his behaviour on here to much more acceptable forms. It would count in his favour, in my opinion, if he voluntarily agreed to this rather than being required to. In addition, if the sanctions are immediately relaxed, I think there should be developed an explicit list of bullet points concerning specific aspects of his behaviour that Martinvl should be required to deal with before any relaxation should be considered. He should be put on probation about all of this (a bit like a suspended sentence). I know this seems harsh, but the extent to which his behaviour has been abberent to this project up to now, and the extent of a change we see in the apparent Damasene conversion before us would seem to require it for us to be sure. I would hope that if Martinvl is sincere in his change in attitudes, he would not object to doing this. The problem is that his prior behaviour seems so entrenched given previous problems with him, that, although his contribution to wikipedia could be very great in the area of measurement, it also carries great risks to wikipedia because of the disruption that has sometimes gone along with them. I hope he can be encouraged to contribute in his special area of measurement in the future, but I hope we can help him become a more agreeable editor to the wikipedia project by adopting some of the ideas (or adapting them after discussion) I have suggested here. If this is impossible, then I, sadly, cannot hold up much hope for his future as an editor on wikipedia.  DDStretch    (talk)  03:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert indef, reinstate topic ban as before - I've supported Martinvl in the past, but let's set that aside a second. Firstly, this appeal is not convincing enough to suggest that the initial concerns will be resolved from now on. However, it is not so purely disruptive for a lynch mob of "indef block" votes to be thrown into the ring (and the close of the previous discussion is irrelevant, to be perfectly honest; that's one admin's opinion, however valid it may be) - Martin is at least attempting to demonstrate a willingness to change, and although I can understand the lack of good faith being assumed, it is utterly unhelpful. I think Martin should change his editing focus for six months or so, work on his abilities in disputes, and attempt to find a mentor. If this happens and it is successful, I would see no reason to not lift the topic ban altogether - but that's a big if, Martin, and you need to do the work yourself, because no one can do it for you. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sustain indef block for now Until Martinvl gives a commitment to drop the stick, follow the topic ban and generally move on an indefinite duration block is justified. Unfortunately he's going around in circles on this issue pursuing the supposed injustices he feels he was subjected to, and this is not a good use of his time or that of the community. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: because Martinvl appears to have made valuable contributions to articles about measurement, and since the conduct that has been found problematic seems to have been concerned only with the usage of measurements in articles generally, to narrow the terms of the topic-ban to those ‘circumstantial’ areas—I’m not sure how best to reword it, but the idea is to permit him to work in his area of interest, if not (or only under a 1RR) in its broader applications where disputes have arisen. ISTM the exception allowing him to follow up his GA nominations was already a step in this direction.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose this suggestion because Martin has addressed almost none of the substantive reasons for his block, and the one he did address seems so quick on the heels of his continued disruption in that manner as to make make some editors wary of its validity. Until he does show real and more changes in more areas where he was disruptive, and gives assurances that he has a clue about the way wikipedia works in all the areas he has created so much disruption, past experiences are that he will simply resume his disruptive ways. If your suggestion is to be given any traction, then he needs to address a list of bullet points we should develop specifically about his problematic behaviour, giving assurances about each one, before we should even consider relaxing the current restrictions. Even then, I am not sure it can easily be done without Martin getting involved with this service: WP:MENTOR  DDStretch    (talk)  03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Odysseus1479: "and since the conduct that has been found problematic seems to have been concerned only with the usage of measurements in articles generally" - what about their conduct in regards to making personal attacks and trying to blame others for them? Is that not problematic also? A lot of issues need resolved in regards to Martinvl's behaviour before any relaxation should be done. Mabuska (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a note, for the sake of it. An editor has opened a new ANI request with regard to Martinvl. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And to add, as the editor who raised an SPI check in reponse to that ANI report, the SPI check demonstrated the two were unrelated. Furthermore for the record, I never thought there was much substance to the complaint.  It is relevant to note that User:EzEdit who commented in the ANI thread has been revealed to be a sock pupper of the banned edit User:DeFacto as alleged by User:Martinvl.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Indefinite block, please. Martinvl says he wants to follow NOJUSTICE from now on but then he says that under the self-imposed restriction: "I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself." The constant trying of other editors' patience is what brought him to this crossroads. The essay NOJUSTICE says we should strive to "allow editors to return to productive editing instead of getting bogged down in conflict." Martinvl's proposal says nothing about allowing others to be free from conflict—instead, he is lining up his next persuasive arguments and planning his next RfCs. I think Martinvl must acknowledge that he must stop robbing productive editors of their time and energy. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Request for closure - Considering this has been around for a while, I'd suggest that an uninvolved editor close it. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Block Review: User:The Banner
I'd like to request a block review. I approached User:HJ Mitchell about the block around 16 hours ago and haven't received a response. I see he's not been editing, so I don't hold it against him but I do think this block needs attention. The Banner was blocked for "belligerence", according to the blocking admin, and not his editing. Though that admin did point out this diff in particular after this discussion/"consensus". Now, when I see a block with belligerence cited as the reason, my first thought is 'this guy disagreed with the mass' and that's what I truly think this block was for. We have an editor who disagrees with the rest. However, considering the physical evidence I still oppose the block. I see a rough consensus at best and one that doesn't support a block for the diff provided. User:Laurel Lodged proposed that villages that were geographically within a parish of the same name would be covered in the same article, and those that were geographically separated would have their own article. He proposed that as a simple formula and it received consensus. The edit in the diff provided above seems to be supported by this consensus. The diff by The Banner clearly says "Doora (Dúire) is a village in County Clare, Ireland." and then goes on to describe the parish below. I believe Dr. Blofeld's revert was knee jerk and as evidence of that, I'll note that he did not revert The Banner after The Banner was blocked. . Thus, I argue that The Banner's edit was supported by consensus, uncontested by lack of revert by Dr Blofeld, and that blocks for belligerence have a chilling effect on the development of consensus.--v/r - TP 21:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd bothered to read the context (or had the good manners to wait for a reply), you'd realise the block was not for one single edit. I think even The Banner realises that, even if he doesn't agree with the block. I explained myself here, but you seem to have decided that I've acted improperly, so I'll wait for some people with common sense and manners to comment. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you've decided to take offense at my mere disagreement with your actions. I've neither explicitly nor implicitly implied anything of the sort about you being unevenhanded.  What I said was that I disagreed with what you've done.  Are you above reproach, then?  The line at the top of your talk page suggests your open to admins disagreeing and I'd like to see that attitude here instead of suggesting that I have no common sense.  On the matter of manners, 16 hours of a weeklong block is nearly 1/10th of a block.  Since I feel the block is unjustified, and since your user talk page makes the offer, I could've simply unblocked him.  Instead, I gave you 16 hours to respond which is lengthy in my book.  Perhaps if it were an indefinite block, then time would be of lesser importance.  But even considered, 16 hours is enough time to check Wikipedia after you've blocked a well known and established editor to see if you have any push back.  Sorry, but that's not a lack of manners.  If I had given you an hour or two, unblocked the editor unilaterally, or even taken it straight here than you could criticize my manners.--v/r - TP 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I do take offence. Not that you questioned my action—I fuck up from time to time (I don't think I did here, but it harms nothing to keep me on my toes)—but at the way you did so. You came to my talk page having already made up your mind, making a gross assumption of bad faith with language like highly inappropriate and accusing me of forming a consensus what consensus am I trying to from, exactly? I'm a neutral third party by blocking editors who oppose me. Had you posted something closer to "Hi Harry, I can't quite see your thinking behind this block, could you explain it to me?", I'd have been more than happy to politely explain my thinking, and I might even have brought it here myself if we still didn't understand each other. As it is, I don't think you've approached this with an open mind, and for that, I most certainly can criticise you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, that approach would seem dishonest to me. I had made up my mind at that point and suggesting to you that I hadn't would've done you a disservice.  You should know what I was thinking instead of being led to think I hadn't formed an opinion yet.  Wouldn't you rather know my thoughts and the motivation behind the question before you answered it?  Not telling you and not telling you what was on my mind would seem to me like I was deceiving you.--v/r - TP 00:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not supported by consensus. It was still essentially denying the historical importance of civil parishes while having weaselly type words that acknowledged their existance but not their continuing relevance. This diffshows the difference between the Banner's poition and something that truly reflects the consensus, as acknowledged on the WProject Ireland talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're bickering because he used different words? The substance is there and the diff you've provided essentially rearranges material but neither adds nor subtracts anything substantive.--v/r - TP 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No comment on the block.
 * I did find TheBanner's version  more understandable than the revert, with one exception - it would seem that it is more correct to refer to the current Doora as a Village and not a Civil Parish in th Infobox. Whether right or wrong on this point, I would like to humbly suggest that everyone involved in this editing kerfuffle is too close to the problem to see that this article and the article on Civil Parishes are confusing to the reader uneducated on these issues.
 * Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No comment on the block, but I will say that HJ Mitchell's response to this is clearly sub-optimal. I'd hope that when questioned on an issue admins would respond with kinder words.  It's actually fundamental if our governance model is to work.  Otherwise people are much less likely to raise issues if they think they are going to get such blowback. Hobit (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Last thought before I turn in for the night (it's 02:30 in Blighty): the main cause of the disruption, as I see it, is the edit-warring against multiple people and taking the edit war from one article to the next. If (pinging so they see this; Banner: feel free to respond on your talk page if you want) were to agree to a moratorium on reverts pending discussion, I'd happily unblock them. If they agree to that while I'm asleep, any passing admin can unblock them without further deference to me. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Kneejerk? Why would I have waited many hours before reverting if that was the case? Banner has blatantly ignored consensus at WP:Ireland. HJ acted perfectly appropriately given the belligerent "I'm not hearing you" way in which Banner has responded even since the block. His comments on the Ireland talk page if nothing else were disruptive. Even now Banner states "are you serious" when HJ says he'd be willing to unblock him if he promises to stop reverting. If an edit can't accept consensus then there's no choice but to block or impose a topic ban which I suspect will be needed once the block runs out. Give HJ a break. If he'd done anything really inappropriate Banner would have been unblocked by now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that Dr Blofeld's analysis is correct and that HJM's block of Banner was perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. According to Banner's own comments at his talk page, he refuses to stop edit-warring if unblocked, basically on WP:THETRUTH grounds. I think the block needs to be extended, possibly even to an indef, until Banner agrees not to edit-war and to respect consensus even if he disagrees with it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

help!
can someone create a piece on whats on Newfoundlands mainland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.40.224 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The winter weather storm?--v/r - TP 19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Labrador? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget!
April Fools' Day is roughly an hour away - don't forget to enforce or abide by the new WP:Rules for Fools! Cheers, and have a good one, ansh666 22:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nooooo, Admins should not be spoilers. No rules should be enforced April Fools' Day :( . Count Iblis (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My idea was to simply write protect the entire encyclopedia so we wouldn't have to police sophomoric attempts at humor, but no one listened. I will be away most of the day, thankfully. And yes, policies should be and will be enforced.... Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm....WP:Rules for Fools is not an official policy or guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It has a consensus: Requests for comment/April Fools' Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually makes sense, and I believe was based on a discussion last year, where I submitted my futile request for full protection for the wiki. From memory, that very much reflects the consensus in that wiki-wide discussion.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As an information page, it's close enough. WP:Vandalism is a policy, though. ansh666 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Further do's and don'ts: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-26/Comment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification requested: I don't seem to remember a consensus either way about the AfD log - there is currently a mix of "serious" and "joke" AfDs. Should jokes be listed there? ansh666 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let the admin that deal with that, deal with that. No essay on the consensus can reasonably contain every instruction, only a general guideline.  When it comes time to log, it will be discussed and decided.  You can join at that time, but we don't need to dot every i and cross every t at WP:AN.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just wondering. ansh666 02:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * April Fools is just an excuse to shitpost and increase that edit count size. I've had my fun today, so I'll stop my share of it. Wasn't aware of the RfCs either. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  03:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to close the joke AfDs as I see them. I don't have a big-big issue with the nominations other than them clogging up the board and making it more difficult to find the valid ones in a swamp of joke noms. I've moved the ones that are clear jokes to the bottom and I'd actually somewhat argue that we should probably move them to a separate page such as Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1/Joke nominations because well, some of them are sort of funny and we've kept worse things just for the humor value. On a side note, I'll be logging off to head to school in about 30 minutes, so another admin will need to keep their eye on the page for the time being after 7 am. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Separate logging makes sense to me, put me down for one of those. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  13:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy April Fools
Happy April Fools everyone. Cyberpower &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC Technology journalist wants to talk to admin(s) about checkuser
BBC Technology journalist, Rory Cellan-Jones, would like to talk CU with someone. This is follow up from the Grant Shapps sockpuppet investigation - Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh/Archive. Anyone interested can contact Rory on Twitter @ruskin147 Nthep (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I passed him on to Jimbo. As usual with Wikipedia dramas of this sort, the details can't be discussed publicly but people still want to talk about it so they fill in the gaps with speculation. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This has already made its way to WP:RFAR. anybody who actually knows anything about it is not likely to be feeling very talkative on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Legitimate requests such as this, from bona fide journalists, are not a matter for Arbcom, and should not be hatted in the above manner. Both WMUK (as this is a UK issue) and WMF have professional media officers whose job it is to handle such queries (and who have been doing so in this case) and to whom RCJ should be referred. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood. Of course responding to a query from a journalist is not a matter for arbcom. The propriety of what one specifc CU may or may not have already told another journalist is the matter now before arbcom, making it unlikely (and probably inadvisable) for any other CUs to feel like discussiong this in public lest they too be dragged before the committee. I can assure the entire functionaries team is well aware of the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Huggle reporting 1k+ edits per minute
Over the last few minutes the Edits per minute counter in huggle has steadily climbed from the average 100 epm to around 1000. I've never seen it that high and wikipulse seems to confirm this. Is there a problem with wikipedia? This is pretty weird, and I don't know where to post it so I'm just going to leave it here. Hopefully we can get some answers. Winner 42 Talk to me!  13:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * is currently delivering massive numbers of messages related to SUL finalization. I suspect that may be what is being detected. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would explain it, thanks! Winner 42 Talk to me!  14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was amused by seeing those notices go to User:Vandal, who is now User:Vandal~enwiki‎ BMK (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It also auto-created User:Vanda1~commonswiki, which was subsequently reported at WP:UAA by the bot as a potentially disruptive sock acct. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP
There appears to be a backlog of 8 hours and 18 requests at WP:RPP. If any admins are free, could they start looking at these requests please? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The board is pretty much caught up as of now. Thanks for the alert. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA
RFPP may be caught up, but UAA is backlogged. BMK (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Caught up as of now, BMK. See you tomorrow, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Muchas gracias. BMK (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)