Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 2d) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231.
Line 1,093: Line 1,093:


[[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Cleanup]] has been running for 16 days now. I suspect it hasn't been closed because almost everyone who's ever used this site is involved. I know this because the discussion is at over 21,000 words (not a typo) so far. If someone happens to be uninvolved, perhaps they'd consider the daunting close. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Cleanup]] has been running for 16 days now. I suspect it hasn't been closed because almost everyone who's ever used this site is involved. I know this because the discussion is at over 21,000 words (not a typo) so far. If someone happens to be uninvolved, perhaps they'd consider the daunting close. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

== On the "no consensus to unblock" conundrum ==

[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] has on several occasions drawn attention to the following conundrum:
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=462191040&oldid=462182911 Admin:A blocks User:X. Admin:B thinks it's a bad block and takes the issue to AN. After a good discussion, half of those commenting believe A was justified and that X should stay blocked. The other half of those commenting believe A was unjustified and X should be unblocked. Both sides are making sound, reasonable arguments. Is the proper outcome of the discussion that X should stay blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block), or that X should be unblocked (because the default state of any user is unblocked and there is no consensus in favor of the block)?]

I would like to propose a way of dealing with this problem. My proposal is simple in outline, so I am airing it here to get a feeling for whether something like this is workable, not for an agreement on detail. My proposal is to take advantage of the fact that blocks have duration and to agree upon a minimum and maximum time for which a bad/contested/controversial/difficult/courageous short block would be tolerable, no matter one's viewpoint, in cases where there is no consensus on whether to overturn the block. This time period might on some occasions provide an opportunity for further thought and cooler heads to prevail (perhaps leading to a reblock with better reasoning and/or a more appropriate duration).

'''Concretely''' (for example), if the minimum and maximum times were 24 and 48 hours respectively, then a specific proposal could be that for blocks contested at ANI where no consensus for blocking or unblocking is reached, ''the block should be procedurally reduced (if possible, and without prejudice concerning reblocking) to the longer of: 48 hours total or 24 hours from the application of the procedure (if this would not reduce the block, then it should be allowed to expire in the normal way).''

I won't add to the length this initial post extolling the virtues/benefits of such an approach, but encourage editors to think about whether something like this might have been helpful in past situations they are familiar with. There are obviously similar ways to deal with contested unblocks, but I think it would be simpler to focus on the contested block case first. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:00, 16 February 2012


    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

      (Initiated 120 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --slakr\ talk / 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 94 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      new closer needed
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
      If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
      Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
      However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --slakr\ talk / 03:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 6 17 74 97
      TfD 0 0 2 1 3
      MfD 0 0 0 1 1
      FfD 0 0 0 3 3
      RfD 0 0 10 14 24
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

      (Initiated 75 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence

      (Initiated 140 days ago on 30 January 2024) This seems to just now be a forum thread about being banned elsewhere or something (in fact I am unsure it has ever been anything but a forum thread). Slatersteven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I am the main author of that thread, and I agree with this request. Initially, it was a reply to a Facebook post by Anthroposophists seeking to remove me from Wikipedia. At /r/WikipediaVandalism, the attacks against me were even more vicious. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done I had a look at the talk page and could not see what needs closing. I'd suggest deleting/collapsing anything about the dispute, particularly which isn't related to the content of the article, and leave only discussion relevant to improving content of the article. Happy to take input from others, Tom B (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)  Closed[reply]

      Talk:Fiona Muir-Harvey#Merge Request

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 29 May 2024) Some1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June. 2 !votes in the last 5 days. Discussion, on the criteria, appeared to stabilise on 15 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor theleekycauldron. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Together (coalition)#Requested move 16 June 2024

      (Initiated 2 days ago on 16 June 2024) This is a combined merge and move request for two articles. At the very least, consensus seems to have been reached on one of those fronts, (that being to merge L'Europe Ensemble and Together (coalition)), while the rename discussion seems to be at a standstill. There hasn't been any major discussion or back-and-forth in over a day, and I think it would be worthwhile to at least act on the consensus to merge the two articles while leaving the rename discussion open. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @GlowstoneUnknown:  Not done One day is far too short a time to establish consensus, unless a massive pile-on of WP:SNOW occurs - which isn't the case here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How long would be reasonable for consensus? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily

      Probably many of you admins have heard of me since I have been around for quite a while and have done a lot of stuff. Although my main responsibilities are a bit out of the way (WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARDS) and, generally, I don't like to spend a lot of time in lengthy discussions, I am pretty experienced at them. My two most recent WP:TFD nominations have ended with closures that were surprising to me based on my experience. In January, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10#Template:OlivierAward_DanceAchievement was closed one opinion to delete (plus the nominator) and three opinions to keep as a consensus to delete. I spent several days seeking an explanation at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_... and the long and the short of it was that after a few days of ignoring my queries, he claimed to be happy to explain his decision and felt the proper way to explain such a decision was to delegate the responsibility of explaining it to the nominator. Eventually, the nominator and I agreed that these should be restored with minor modifications based on discussions now located in three places:

      Today, I found another odd closure decision at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24#Template:New_York_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population when a discussion with four deletes and three keeps was closed as consensus to delete. In my experience at various WP:XFD, even if you count the nominator if 3-5 out of 8 people are on one side of and issue and 3-5 out of 8 are on the other, generally, this is regarded as a no consensus. This particular decision may effect a total of 35 similar templates (most of which are listed at Category:United States mayors templates by state) in the near future. My alternatives are to pursue a WP:DRV. However, since the first step in a DRV is to talk to the discussion-closing editor, I would be back on Fastily (talk · contribs)'s page. He has already expressed a belief that the proper way to explain your decision is to ask the nominator to do so, I feel pursuing that would be fruitless.

      I am curious about the closure because there is a possibility that no consensus is no longer considered a discussion resolution. I see my options as follows:

      1. Accept the decision
      2. Pursue a WP:DRV
      3. Find a place to discuss
        1. whether no consensus is still used in TFD resolutions
        2. whether Fastily's understanding that the nominator is responsible for explaining a TFD closure for DRV purposes
        3. whether Fastily may be too aggressive in closing TFD discussions I have been involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Remember that the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter. Number 57 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Indeed; the arguments for keeping the NY mayors template amounted to "It's useful" (without actually specifying how) and "You didn't nominate all these other templates at the same time". Fastily was perfectly justified in analyzing the quality of the arguments rather than just counting numbers. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I nominated the NY mayors template for deletion.) Powers T 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The whole point of templates is that they're useful. WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, but it's the only valid reason for having templates such as {{Pp-meta}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You might want to read WP:USEFUL again, Nyttend. It says that being useful can be a valid reason for keeping (whether article or not), but it has to be explained rather than simply asserted. Powers T 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Umm, navboxes are pretty much always useful for navigating from article to article within related topics, which these are. It's definitely on those advocating deletion to explain why a specific example of such a common type of template is an aberration from the common pattern. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't make a simple declaration of "it's useful" in any way a valid argument for keeping. Powers T 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      If you disagree with what the closer says take it to DRV. I think you are reading way too much into Fastily asking the nominator to comment. To me it looks like he was fed up of you badgering him, so asked someone else who might be able to explain without getting annoyed at you. I could be wrong of course. Also, you don't have to look very hard to find no-consensus closes by fastily (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#Template:Closed_down). Polequant (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It is hard to disagree with what a closer says if he won't say anything and hard to take it to DRV when the first step is to talk with the closer when the closer won't say anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well DRV will in fact hear it in cases like this; and it frequently does get the occasion to hear it, because Fastily does not explain his closes at the time he makes them, and often not on his talk p. either. Considering that a reasonable number of his closes have been overturned there, I don't think his continuing this way is constructive behavior for an admin. For everyone who take s the matter to DRv, there are probably ten who are not willing to undergo the further bureaucracy. Since many of these are people who would be making their first contribution here, closing discussions in this way, let alone avoiding discussing them, is has the effect of discouraging new contributors, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage them (Most of his closes are good, of course, but an editor, especially a new editor, deserves an explanation--a good explanation of why something must be deleted will often keep the editor. Some of this should be dealt with by a rule requiring meaningful rational for non-unanimous XfD closings, but changing deletion process in practice seems to require unanimous consent. In the meantime, we can strongly urge Fastily to change his work habits in this respect. Yes, he wouldn't be able to do as many closes, but there are a few hundred other good administrators. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I proposed just that a couple of years ago. It was shot down in flames by other admins circling the wagons to defend their own laziness and highhandedness: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 5#Closing rationales - optional or not?. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dare I suggest that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Fastily may be in order? If this is a long term, widespread problem then that would seem the next logical step. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • AFAIK, this is appears to be a personal vendetta of Tony's. Awhile back, he contested one of my TfD closes on my talk page. I informed him that I would userfy the templates and that I was busy in RL and would provide my reasoning shortly, but he immediately dismissed it as fallacious. Annoyed by the lack of collegiality and respect I was being shown, I asked a participant in the TfD to comment in the meantime. Somehow, Tony perceived this as an attack, and literally accused me of canvassing and conspiracy. At any rate, User:Frietjes was able to work out a compromise, and the templates were moved back to the mainspace. I had believed the matter to be resolved, and so did not feel it necessary to provide rationale, granted that the concern was moot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I will always provide rationale for my closures when they involve contentious and/or complicated matters. I do not provide rationales when the result of the discussion is, IMO, unambiguous; nonetheless, I have never had any issues with explaining my closes/correcting errors (with and without publicly stated reasons) when requested. If that approach is so wrong, my god, we'd better start RfCs on some 20 other-odd admins who follow similar procedures. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are in some twisted universe where when I note your consistent efforts to close discussions regarding templates I have created as delete, when normal closing procedure would be to either keep or no consensus close them as my personal vendetta. All I am doing is noting your apparent vendetta to close my TFDs as delete even when to do so is non-sensical. You sound like someone explaining to the police officer that the victim's face was in front of my fist as I innocently moved my arm forward repeatedly at high velocity. Then, he went on a vendetta of screaming about how I was abusing him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lol, if you're determined to resort to personal attacks, my job is done here. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is that a personal attack? I was making an analogy. You have no reason to be running around deleting my templates in contravention of procedures and then claiming I am on a vendetta for pointing out your actions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to say it, because I hold Fastily in high esteem, but his talk page has been on my watchlist for a couple of years, and Beeblebrox is right. This is a regular issue—whether it's files, articles, or templates, somebody seems to dispute Fastily's deletion of something every few days.

        Fastily, don't get yourself dragged into a nasty RfC—you need to slow down a little and properly explain your rationale when closing a deletion debate and when people come to your talk page disagreeing with your close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Not only deletions, keeps as well of course. I haven't asked for an explanation of his close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata, but a TfD with that many comments, and with rather divided and lengthy opinions, could do with an argued close (e.g. indicating why it isn't closed as a no consensus instead of a keep, and what the opinion, if any, was about the other elements in the nomination) instead of a simple "keep". I'm planning to start an RfC on this template anyway, so it won't make a huge difference probably, but I felt that the close of that TfD was rather disappointing, not because of the actual result, but the manner it was presented. Fram (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) @HJ Mitchell, I agree with this sentiment. Just yesterday I had an unclear deletion of an image and Fastily gave an unsatisfactory explanation of the deletion reason and the process followed. I asked for further clarification and I'm still waiting. We can't require everybody to devote time to Wikipedia, but administrators should be held to a higher standard since their actions can't be reversed by us entry-level editors. Great power, great responsibility; if Fastily is not willing to explain his actions in detail then s/he should refrain from closing controversial discussions. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot comment on any long-term trends, but in this specific case, I think it's clear Tony was being unreasonable in demanding immediate explanations, to the point of checking Fastily's contributions log to see when Fastily had been editing most recently. Can we agree, at least, that if better explanations are required, that they at least be requested in a calm and civil manner? Powers T 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did I say anything uncivil? I was using the contributions log to get an understanding of the likelihood that he was ducking me. He has yet to give any explanation why he considered three keep votes and one delete vote consensus to delete. I continue to await an explanation by anyone who might be able to expalain that one. We may never know since we worked out a compromise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The discussion on Fastily's talk page looked to me like you were badgering Fastily (due, apparently to your own admitted "impatience"). Furthermore, you jumped immediately to the conclusion that Fastily was "ducking" you rather than acknowledging that Fastily might be busy and is volunteering his/her time to this project. Powers T 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I'm noticing a trend here. But as it is, I've repeatedly seen Fastily's name come up over disputed deletions and other related matters, and it's beginning to give me a sense of deja vu. There comes a point where we have to stop saying "it's every body else" maybe there is a problem with the way this user is going about things and their process should be improved. I've found him a little quick on the trigger when a cursory examination of something might solve the problem. This comes across as a binary mindset that has gotten other editors in conflicts in the past, often over similar issues.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • [4], [5], [6] here he seems to jump into a situation he just isn't really informed on and revert a bunch of stuff that doesn't need it, [7] while old, this is simply to show that it's an on-going and long-term issue for him, etc. I don't have time right now to paw through the AN/I archives for all the times I've seen his name come up over questionable behaviour, or deletions just my opinion based on the interactions I've had with him and the discussions I've seen come up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In my defense, all of these are extremely old, resolved, and irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not fair, we won't get our dose of wikidrama now. Diego (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      December 2011 is "extremely" old? You have a rather interesting definition of "extremely". The concerns were not just about closing discussions. [8] This is talking about deletions, so I can't see how this makes anything moot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There may be an issue here that goes beyond closing deletion discussions. I have no particular memory of previously interacting with Fastily, but for what it's worth, I am semi-regularly editing DRV and I remember closing (or commenting in) an uncommonly high number of review requests that concerned an clearly mistaken speedy deletion by Fastily.  Sandstein  07:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Is it appropriate to ask that Fastily explain his reasoning for the two closes that caused me to initiate this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fastily thankfully deletes a whole lot of things - templates, images, etc. So much so that he has a simple page that describes his reasonings. Typically, if you approach them, they point you there and if you want more info, simply ask for a follow-up ... usually, unless the question is already answered the first time, Fastily is more-than-willing to give some extra explanation. By sheer ratio, I would actually bet that the number of just fine deletions to questionable is better than most of us. Just like the average American has heard of more problems with Plymouth Sunfire automobiles than Jaguar XJC's, it's a matter of quantity for the most part (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, in coping with the large number of inquiries about deletion, the boilerplate responses may come off badly with good faith editors who recognise the general concern, but don't understand the specifics as to what was wrong with their article. I understand that this is a wider issue, especially with over-use of warning templates, and I don't necessarily think that Fastly should be specifically highlighted here, but it does seem to cause issues. Otherwise there is no question that Fastly does lots of great work, and the one time I raised a problem it was fixed quickly and without any hassles at all. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support the suggestion of an RfC/U on Fastily per the comments here by Beeblebrox and Sandstein above; there have been related problems raised on ANI and with his bot Fbot. In all cases administrative tasks were performed in a mechanized manner without the need to provide careful justification either at the time or later when queried. Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was troubled by this recent (4 days ago) section at ANI. Article is deleted as G11, the editor asks if they can have a copy, Fastily's response is a link to G11 that ignores the clear request for a userfied version (and then another admin cleans up after Fastily at ANI). If Fastily has enough time to delete a hundred articles, but not enough time to adequately communicate with the users he affects, then Fastily doesn't have enough time to delete a hundred articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fairness to Fastily, he has done over 170,000 deletions, so this instance and those cited above represent a vanishingly small percentage of his actions and I suspect are in-line on a percentage-basis with all other administrators. He's just doing more work, so more people notice any mistakes. MBisanz talk 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If the proportion is no higher than others it would explain mistaken deletions; but it also explains, though does not excuse his frequent failure to give adequate reasons or engage in genuine dialog. It would seem to show that he is doing too many deletions to work accurately or keep track or deal with the people involved. Bu I'm not sure that;s true. But that the proportion is no higher remains to be shown. As I take an opposite approach than he, while still finding plenty to delete--though my count is only 8% of his-- I have generally refrained from challenging his deletions, in order to facilitate the necessity of working together. Perhaps others have done likewise. NPP and related activities can not be done accurately fast. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That is true. I would say he probably is working accurately, but doesn't have time to deal with the people involved. Otherwise, I would agree with you. MBisanz talk 17:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a huge problem since we're a community after all. We've seen similar behaviour from other long term users that ends up generating endless drama. Often eventually leading to them getting blocked, banned, etc. As DGG said, above he dismissed the links I provided to earlier AN/I discussion claiming they were all "extremely old" and yet one of them is from December. Good faith doesn't extend to time travel.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This is not related to deleted templates but it's along the same lines. It seems Fastily just speedy deleted the article Aunt Bam's Place under G8. G8 states: Examples include talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; and categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates.. Now, this was an ARTICLE, not a talk page, subpage, image page, redirect or anything of the sort. EVEN IF somehow this article qualified for speedy deletion, G8 is obviously the wrong reason. The thing is that IT DID NOT qualify for a speedy deletion. What has been going on is that an anon IP has been going around monkeying around with articles related to Tyler Perry [9], and has been repeatedly nominating this page for speedy deletion, seemingly for laughs (or who knows, anyway, "disruptively"). Now I'm not THAT familiar with Mr. Perry's ouvre, and maybe I'm missing something, but "Aunt Bam's Place" appears to be an actual play [10] (by one of the highest paid producers in Hollywood). Unless there's some widespread internet wide hoax going on, the article deserved at the very least an AfD. It's obvious that Fastily didn't bother to check details, or even glance at the subject but just saw a "speedy delete" template and then deleted it. And then made up a bs reason - or at least gave a completely wrong reason - for the deletion. Per discussion above, it's obvious that this isn't the first time this kind of thing happen. And unlike with TonyTheTiger I can't be accused of perusing a grudge here. So either Fastily is a bit out of control, or s/he simply doesn't know what the heck he's doing. Either way this is going towards sufficient reasons for removal of admin tools. Before that happens, how about a topic-ban from deletions (including closing AfDs and speedies) is tried?VolunteerMarek 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That was a fairly silly deletion; just because something is tagged G8, doesn't mean it is a G8. You have to look at it. I've restored the article and its talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I'm starting to think that the "170,000 deletions" is actually a symptom of the problem rather than an indication that everything's ok. You do that many deletions, they're gonna be sloppy. It's very much "quantity over quality" and I don't see a point of trying to up one's deletion/edit count this way if it just keeps causing work for others.VolunteerMarek 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen Fastily around doing good work, also (and only recently) a couple of things I'd have questioned. Maybe it's just perceived "pressure of work"? (I will add, as I often do, that every time I have looked at any deletion process in detail I have seen stuff being deleted that should be kept, this however is not just about deletes.) Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates

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

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

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

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

      For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this


      Requesting reappraisal of a block

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

      The case centers around the BLP of a San Diego-based neuroscientist, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and some of the pages about topics of his research. These topics include autism, which (in ways unrelated to the BLP subject himself) is something that sometimes attracts editing agendas. I originally raised the SPI that led to the block (the second in the archive linked above), based upon an IP edit, [14], that has a now-hidden edit summary, claiming to be an "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform". At the time, it appeared to be a blatant admission of socking, and the checkuser data indicated that the accounts, including the IP, all geolocated to the San Diego area, with the two named accounts having a shared history of interest in editing in these topics.

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

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

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

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

      Looking purely at their use of edit summaries the two are very similar but there are also subtle differences. Both like to use caps and finish sentences/sentence fragments will full stops, Neurorel slightly more consistently. Both prefer double speech marks for quotations. Neurorel makes a few more typos and likes the word "reorganize", whereas Edgeform never uses it. If I was forced at gunpoint to make a decision I'd say perhaps meatpuppetry or some other form of collusion similar interests and points of view rather than socking, but since the effect is the same I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong). EyeSerenetalk 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Neurorel is not currently blocked, fyi, although the template on their userpage says they are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me, then, ask this: If (if!) we think it's more likely to be meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry (which makes sense to me, regardless of whether the accusing IP is acting in bad faith), then does it really make sense to block one account and leave the other account alone? I understand the rationale for socking (limit one user to a single account), but it doesn't seem to make sense for meatpuppets. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      timestamp --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And remember the principle is against abusive sockpuppetry. Unless these accounts are !voting or revert tag-teaming (which shouldn't happen anyway) there is little issue here, regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      Both users have been active at Roger Bingham too. I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here, despite the similarities in style. It would be easier if the accounts would disclose if there is a relationship. Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      That would certainly clear things up. I tend to agree that we should give Edgeform the benefit of the doubt and unblock. I find Tryptofish's explanation for the IP editor(s) behaviour plausible, and if we have no evidence that Edgeform and Neurorel have been tag-teaming there seems little point in keeping Edgeform blocked. Related to that I've struck some of my earlier comment, which came across rather more strongly that I'd intended. EyeSerenetalk 13:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, both of you! I have previously left notes on the talkpages of the two checkusers who took part in the SPI. Tiptoety said that he doesn't currently have anything to add, while WilliamH said that he is looking into it further, so I'd be inclined to give him time to reply here if he should choose to. As for the question of tag-teaming, my observation would be that, although the two accounts consistently tend to reflect similar perspectives about editing the pages that interest them, I really see no evidence of them actually tag-teaming, in the sense of working together at the same time to support one another's edits or talk comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Neither did I to be honest, which is why on reflection I struck part of my earlier post. EyeSerenetalk 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Are these very long-term blocks on shared IPs really necessary?

      I'm beginning to see a big increase in long-term blocks on shared IPs, especially those belonging to schools, colleges, and libraries, but also on other shared IPs. For example, this IP was blocked for three years. Three years! Think about it, high school in the United States lasts for four years; anyone that was a freshman at that school in 2010 will be a senior before they can touch the edit button from that network! This one was blocked for two years in 2011. I understand as much as anyone that administrators and vandal fighters are tired of the bullsh*t that some of these people keep dumping on us, but some of these IPs represent many, many individuals, and anybody accessing our wiki from these IPs are barred from improving our project because of a handful of troublemakers, unless of course they have an account. To be honest, this is beginning to remind me of TK's rangeblocks on Conservapedia, don't get me wrong, I liked TK and I'm proud to be a member of Conservapedia myself, but most agree that the ruthless mass rangeblocks were just too much, and most of those blocks have been lifted because of their potential to negatively impact the project. We're supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, yet some people are unable to edit because their IPs are blocked.

      Abuse reports could potentially be a good alternative to these long blocks, I know a lot of people here will say that abuse reports don't work, but I've had great successes with them at Conservapedia and Wikipedia. For example, no vandalism has come from this IP since I contacted the school about some vandalism referencing several students' names. The school was very cooperative, and was apparently able to trace down the vandal and punish her/him. Keep in mind that was a small school, so I'm guessing everybody heard about what happened and will not want to follow in that vandals shoes. An abuse report might not stop all vandalism at a larger school, but it can stun it. This IP stopped vandalizing for a month at least after an abuse report. The problem is of course that it probably wasn't the same users vandalizing each time. Enough abuse reports and word might make it around that Wikipedia is not to be messed with. Another thing that has been brought up is what if filing abuse report causes problems for someone in real life. Why should we care if John Doe can't go to prom or Jane Doe gets kicked off the cheerleading squad because they vandalized Wikipedia? Obviously the vandal doesn't, because (s)he wouldn't be breaking the rules if (s)he did. Unless we're talking about someone in Cuba or North Korea, I would guess that someone would usually get a warning and perhaps something like detention unless they've been in trouble before for internet abuse.

      I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one month except where networks outright refuse to cooperate or actively encourage vandalism. But that's just my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one year, and require ISP/School/Employer/Etc contact before issuing blocks for longer than one month. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      There's nothing preventing them from creating accounts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My first thought is that I don't like this idea. However, I'm curious: have you ever made an abuse report for an IP, and the vandalism stopped, and productive edits started coming from there? If not, then why in the world would your labor intensive solution be better than a long block? If so, then I'll think about it some more. Three years does seem like a long time, but I routinely make {{schoolblock}}s of one year, and if those switched to 1 month, you would dramatically increase the amount of crap we'd have to deal with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen some of these IPs that have had productive contributions in addition to the malicious ones while unblocked, particularly college and university IPs. For example, this one, although never reported for abuse, was blocked for a whole year after a vandalism spree, and it has had a mixture of malicious and constructive edits. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Almost forgot, this one, belonging to West Franklin High School, has been to abuse reports and has a mixture of malicious and productive contributions. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If three years is far too long, then one month is far too short. It is great to imagine the isolated cases where a new editor might first contribute from one of the problem IPs (positive: more editors), however we should also remember the draining effect on established editors of continuously dealing with the same crap (big negative: known good editors despair and depart). There have been several cases where an obviously mature individual from a school IP has requested that the IP be blocked because the individual is dismayed that their colleagues are damaging the encyclopedia—such potentially excellent editors understand the reason for long blocks and can work around them (make an account; edit from elsewhere). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary. I am quite sure that a large proportion of the "please block my IP, there are many bad people here!" anonymous IPs are just trolls. However, you are right that three years is too long and one month is too short. Thirteen months is a sensible maximum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • e/c I imagine there are times when long blocks are the best solution, and yes, filing ARs is tedious, but I think slapping another long, one year (or longer) block on a shared IP not long after another one has expired is the wrong approach; I think it might be more appropriate to start over with a shorter block and escalate back up to a year. As Johnuniq has described, abuse can cause established users anguish, and if an IP is harassing established users, then we need to do anything reasonable to stop the harassment. Something that disturbs me is when I see IPs that were once blocked, and didn't vandalize immediately after the block expired, but when an isolated incident of vandalism occurred, an administrator escalated to a longer block length. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open project, and we're supposed to assume good faith, but I can see it getting to a point where most schools and a significant number of universities and libraries are unable to edit Wikipedia. That's sad, to me any way. I also have to wonder about the effectiveness of blocking these shared IPs, since it seems to me that if someone wants to vandalize and can't do it at school that they would just do it elsewhere, unless they have no internet access elsewhere. I remember, when I was in high school, I would sometimes correct errors in pages (mainly typos and unnoticed vandalism) without logging into my account because I didn't want to get distracted from what I was doing (usually researching a topic). I imagine a lot of people would be bothered going home or registering an account to fix such things if they don't already have an account here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also note, I never thought that we shouldn't use one year blocks, I just think that we should at least contact the network administrators to let them know that we've blocked the IP due to abuse and can lift the block if they'll cooperate. Some schools would probably just assume it remain blocked, but it should be our goal to minimize the need for long-term blocks. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer the question in the header: yes. Absolutely. We frequently get multiple people vandalising from school IPs over a period of time, so reporting to the school and getting one kid detention (if the school bothers to do anything at all) isn't going to solve the problem—there'll be another one, and another one. So we block them, and no matter how long the block is, it's usually not long after it expires that somebody is vandalising from that address again, so it gets blocked again. Renewing the block every few days or weeks instead of every few years would massively increase admins' workload.

        By way of a possible counter-proposal, we could allow account creation from schools we block, since it's easy to just indefinitely block any vandalism-only accounts that spring up. But the autoblock on those accounts would still catch anybody who tried to edit from that IP for the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • That is a good idea, except the autoblocks are hardblocks (if I'm not mistaken) and could potentially create more havoc for legitimate registered users than the soft-blocks with account creation disabled. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a rebuttal to the notion that abuse reports do nothing as different people would keep vandalizing, we should encourage the IT departments to monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism. Assuming they don't have a ton of IPs that they don't even need, it should take about a minute to pull up the contributions page every couple of days and pop every single one of the vandals for policy violations. Sooner or later, all of the users would figure out that vandalizing Wikipedia results in the vandal getting in trouble. Personally, if I was director of IT at an educational institution, I would do this and recommend to the principal that their computer access is revoked for the remainder of the school year as most of the ones that vandalize probably engage in other policy violations as well, especially the one's that engage in cyberbullying on here, and the OCD ones that keep coming back for more. It's their job to monitor for such policy violations. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have any real-life examples in mind where school authorities have done anything to "monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism", to your knowledge? Remember we need a few thousand such instances, for it to be worthwhile... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone, supposedly a cheerleader from what I've heard, got caught vandalizing Wikipedia in another high school in the local school district in '06, seemingly without Wikipedia even contacting them (and I'm still not sure if it was someone at the district or that school that caught them). This is what she did the next day, and the district blocked all of Wikipedia as a result. Obviously that's something we should stress that they do not need to do to stop the vandalism, and that we can manage the vandalism at our level without them needing to block all access. Additionally, when I was on the phone with an IT department for a school district in Illinois regarding Conservapedia vandalism, the IT person mentioned that they had similar problems with Wikipedia and dealt with it; apparently that school district would revoke the vandals' internet access for the entire school year over it. Also, I've seen evidence of action taken when vandals have sent me harassing messages from somewhere else after I reported them, in one case when I reported them to their DSL provider at home, and in one case when I reported them to their cellular provider. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Per your notice on my talk), PCHS-NJROTC, I would love to stop blocking those schools and restart my writing. The current reality is that we don't have enough admin-hours even to amply warn and block, let alone contact the schools - i.e. we never know how many good editors do we scare away by blocks (surely we do), but we do know how many vandal edits come out from there. Further, more and more single-purpose accounts are being created recently for vandalism only (i.e. they are prepared to spend time on registration). A solution is more than welcome, but it needs proper thinking and a wide community discussion. Reaching out to IT departments is certainly a good idea, but I and most other admins simply do not have time for that (can WMF/ambassadors help there? - it is a top priority after all). I did have first-hand experience teaming with a college sysop to catch local Napster spam - he was a dedicated sysop and managed to identify real people with IPs in real time, but I saw how tricky that was. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm glad to see some openness to my idea, and I do understand that ISP is a cumbersome task; I do a lot ISP contacting for Conservapedia and it does take time to research everything and try to get them to work with you, and trying to work that in along with a job can seem damn near impossible at times. I also know that persistant vandals are annoying; I've been here since 2007 and have seen plenty of them. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've only once contacted anybody over vandalism: it was for this edit (note that it's been revdeleted; sorry, non-admins), and I got cooperative responses from a school admin, a police officer, and the kid that was responsible. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I usually make contact whenever someone goes bashing other people, like that girl (I assume that it was a girl based on the edit) in Indiana that's rev deleted, but that's not the only times. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something else I'd like to add is that it's not always schools that end up in this situation; I recall coming across an IP belonging to the United States Department of Homeland Security that was producing very childish and vulgar edits like the ones we see from schools, and it was on the fast track to getting blocked like the schools do. The sad thing is that it was obviously one person doing it and there were many other contributions that were legitimate from the IP, but I sent a report to Sprint's abuse contact (since it was through Sprint) and the vandalism ceased. This was sometime between '07 and '09. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why not continue blocking IP's the way we have been doing all along, but if someone wants to contact the school, and it results in a satisfactory response, we can just lift the block? If it works, it's almost the same effect as contacting the school first. If it doesn't, then there's no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Students in schools will vandalize on the internet, and most schools do have a policy about this, but unless they actually censor outgoing traffic, it is very hard to stop them; bored students in a computer lab will try anything. Some schools I've known sometimes try to ignore the problem, some try to come down much too hard. I am reluctant to involve school administrators except in truly exceptional cases, because all too few of them are likely to take a reasonable course of action. I think long-term blocks on schools are inhibiting good faith would-be contributors as well as the others, and we need those contributors. A short term block to stop a major campaign of harassment makes sense, but long term inhibits sensible participation also. We can deal with vandalism much better than when the practice of school blocks began: we have the edit filters, which has reduced vandalism in general very considerably, and the response of anti-vandalism patrol for the ones that get through is usually very fast. We just don't need this. I suggest we end all such blocka at the end of the current school year, and see again what happens in September. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the block logs of those two IPs that you link to, I would say yes. Absolutely were the lengthy blocks necessary. I understand from a non-admin's perspective these may seem bizarrely long or excessive— I had a question on my RfA about unusually long blocks and I said something along the lines of "I would rarely, if ever, impose a lengthy block". I couldn't have been more wrong. Just working intermittently at AIV in my few months as an administrator, I've had to impose seven two year blocks and one three year block. These situations are far more common than you may realize. Also, we already have an abuse response team. Nothing's stopping our non-admin vandal fighters from going to them. Swarm X 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ABUSE has been around for quite some time, and I was actually a member of the abuse team for a while. Unfortunately, it's horribly insufficient in my opinion; it's always required IPs to have been blocked at least five times, and now it requires that an IP has been blocked for a year at least once. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most school IPs that I've warned or blocked have never contributed a single productive edit, so there's no loss to Wikipedia when they are blocked. Furthermore, I figure that with most long-term school blocks, Wikipedia is doing the school's faculty a favor, as the kids are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia while in the computer lab, and once editing is blocked from an IP, editing Wikipedia becomes one less distraction available to the bored kids in the computer lab. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, Orlady's second sentence hits the nail on the head: I've encountered what she mentions in the first sentence, but the second has never occurred to me. Why should we tolerate behavior that's already problematic if it's prohibited by the school's rules in the first place? My first thought is that this idea is contrary to our policy of encouraging editing by people in countries where Wikipedia is restricted, but I then remember that there's a massive difference between editing around government censorship that harms the whole society and editing around simple school rules that don't hurt anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This idea assumes all contributions from shared IPs are happening during class time/work time when students/employees are supposed to be studying/working. In high school, I used to edit Wikipedia from the library during lunch time, using a work around to access Wikipedia that only a few people knew about. The school administrators and district IT were okay with this. Every situation is unique. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, that comment I posted from a shared corporate IP while on a lunch break, which is allowed by policy. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can only judge IPs (or ranges) on their edits, and trying to second-guess whether there are multiple people behind the edits can often be a wild goose chase. If a school IP produces a hundred vandal edits, I don't care whether it's a hundred different student or just one persistent student; the net result from en.wikipedia's perspective is the same, and the 101st edit is extremely unlikely to be productive in either case. Similarly, if the IP has made a mixture of positive and negative edits, we can't distinguish between a mixture of good/bad students, or just one Jekyll & Hyde student; in either case, a short block might be an appropriate reaction to a sequence of bad edits. bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes We already have more than enough headaches with Vandalism. It takes a significant amount (or very disturbing) of non-productive editing to get an IP editor a block. I do however recognize the need for parole, therefore if the address has done enough to get a longer duration block (more than 6 months) that the block be limited to expire prior to the start of a new "term" for the educational institution and no more than 1 year for non-educational institutions. The purpose is to allow peer/community pressure to influence the bad apples to clean up their act. Hasteur (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I agree with you, Hasteur, that having the school blocks expire at the end of the school term would be nice. The only reason I'm not 100% behind this is that, assuming the vandalism patterns don't change, every August/September the community will have to deal with all the vandalism, and the admins will have to deal with re-blocking all the schools. This is a potentially huge pile of work at the start of every school term. I'm very tempted to say "let the kids who want to edit either do it at home, or register an account." I get that we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that shouldn't come at the expense of being the encyclopedia that anyone can freely vandalize. If someone can show me why using another IP or registering an account is too high a bar, then I'll change my mind, but otherwise I can't support changing the existing procedures for school blocks. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with all the admins here that vandalism is a pain, but my thoughts are that we are supposed to be an open wiki that assumes good faith. I'm usually pretty conservative and support blocking, but of kids want to vandalize, there's nothing stopping them from doing it at home or from a mobile device, so why long term block the schools and keep constructive editors from editing? -PPCHS-NJROTC 208.62.154.8 (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Users who wish to edit constructively via a school computer can do so simply by logging in under their own account. Rklawton (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If they have an account or are willing to create an account. 208.62.154.85 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Forgot to log in. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Either the student (and I pray it's not Faculty/Staff) will either mature and learn not to vandalize or they will graduate. My thoughts for non college level is something like 3~4 months so that at the start of Fall/Spring terms the educational institution is given a limited leash. With the history we keep we can spot trends early on. For College Level I see more of a Fall/Spring/Summer rotation. Yes it means more disruptive editors for a few weeks and a few Administrator headaches to sort out the vandals, but also demonstrates our AGF that the disruptive elements have moved on to other forums for their trolling needs. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You do realize that new students enter schools every year, right? Kids will be doing this every year in perpetuity. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely we can make the AGF assumption that the entire school isn't filled with students who get their kicks by vandalizing WP. It's the reason why we have the 6 and 12 month reviews on long term blocks, because we assume that people will change and are willing to correct their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is difficult when virtually the only edits from a school are vandalism. By the way, between British schools starting summer vacation around the end of June, and American schools (and some British) going back mid-August or so, there isn't much time the schools in these two countries aren't open. And as someone who does a lot of school templating, can I ask people to check IPs more with WHOIS to see if the IP is a school. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my experience, other than one hugely helpful sysadmin I ran across a few years ago, no-one is interested in abuse reports and nothing gets done about them. However in principle I'd support a maximum block length for known educational institutions of perhaps six months as a compromise. EyeSerenetalk 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I am one of the admins who hands out such blocks as well. I do that generally only after the editor has been blocked a good handful times, and they are schoolblocks. I see often cases, and one of the cases above (Special:Contributions/204.193.118.11, blocked by Materialscientist) is a good example, where there are two 6-month blocks. The first 6-month block ends on the 2nd of June (six months from the 2nd of December). Their first edit: this on the 3rd of June. Then there is summer holiday (nothing from the 30th of June until the 26th of August), but on the 31st of August the editor gets blocked again for 6 months. After that block ends (28th of February) the first edit is a vandalism edit on the 3th of March with this. Between the last 6 month block, and the next 2 year block, there is about 2 weeks. In those two weeks, there is NOTHING but vandalism. It also suggests that the editors keep trying to edit while blocked - how else do you figure out that you can vandalise so fast after a block ends. I share the sentiment that those IPs are used by schools with kids, and in half a year there will be another group of kids sitting there who may be willing to work constructively. But fact remains that it is either a 2 year block, or 4 6-month blocks in short succession. The vandalism, unfortunately, will not stop. I would be in favour of checking whether IP blocks over 6 months of length still target the same institution every 6 months, sometimes IPs do change. For the rest I believe that our editors have better things to do than to run after bunches of schoolkids who (seen that the vandalism starts sometimes so fast after a block ends) do nothing but try to vandalise Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm seeing a lot of people speak of different kids causing problems all the time, but this morning I was reminded of one of the main reasons I brought this proposal here. If you analyze the vandalism coming from IPs that aren't constantly under a school block, like this one, it often appears that most of the vandalism comes from one individual or a small handful of individuals that are addicted to vandalism. Never mind the fact that educational and corporate IPs often represent 1,000+ users. It's so obvious that one person has been behind a lot of the vandalism from that IP because there were incidents on 02/15/2012, 02/10/2012, and 11/16/2012 where similar incidents of vandalism occurred; a notable person's name was replaced with a person with a particular last name, the more recent ones being female and the one from November being male. What are the chances that these two are related? What are the chances that one of them is responsible for the vandalism? Those posts should probably be oversighted, but may I ask that they are not oversighted until I can send links to logs of the abuse to the technology department at that school district tomorrow? Granted that IP has engaged mostly in vandalism, but you might notice there are a few good edits in there; I've seen other IPs that had been under constant school block where the vandals must have moved on and several constructive contributions were generated as a result of the blocks expiring. When shared IPs of any nature (not just schools) are constantly under a schoolblock or an anonblock, how would we know what constructive contributions have been thwarted? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This has gone on long enough. If you have spotted edits that should be oversighted, please send the diffs to the oversight mailing list (Email this user at User:Oversight will do fine). PCHS, these IPs are soft-blocked in most cases; the students can go and start accounts at home or they can request an account through account creation. If there is classroom-approved editing, teachers and school officials can make arrangements to have accounts created for their students. Deliberately leaving edits in article histories that ought to be suppressed for the purpose of trying to get someone punished at their school is contrary to what this project is about. Risker (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, sometimes schools have over 1000 users, but most don't edit. According to wp:About we have over 16 million registered users, of whom only about 90 thousand are regular editors. If that ratio holds, such a school might have six editors. Forcing these six to register in order to edit from school is not that odious a price for keeping vandalism in check. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      LeadSongDog has hit the nail on the head. Having been through such a school environment in the not-too-distant past, I can tell you that the vast majority of students who use Wikipedia at school (for projects, etc.) couldn't give a rat's ass about editing. A fair number of those who edit do so maliciously; I can recall one instance where I was editing a page during class and several guys sitting near me thought it would be great fun to vandalise that page just for kicks. And those who wish to edit productively are quite receptive to creating an account (seriously, not that hard). While this proposal is well intentioned, I am not convinced that it presents a realistic view of the situation at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      PCHS-NJROTC, you are right, but whether there is one person behind an IP, or 1000 behind one IP, if all the edits that we see here are vandalism, then this is, unfortunately, the only solution. I try to go through the edits since a last block and see if there are a significant number of non-vandalism ones, but sometimes IPs remain unblocked for a month or 2, there may be only 1, maybe 2 reasonable edits, and 100 plain vandalism ('Gary was here', 'Lizzy is a moron', 'poop!' - and way worse getting into BLP type issues 'Our teacher, Mr John Doe, is screwing Jane Doe!'). In perspective, the damage that the kids sometimes, unknowingly, can do is quite big. Yes, sure, such block may hit an occasional good editor. Do note that we do block regular editors sometimes if they go on a bad spree - editors get banned by ArbCom because they are deemed 'a net negative' - that does not mean that they do not do good work, many do good work, and can return after the block/ban expires. Those editors are after that on a short(er) leash (for a while), school IPs have the same, they get blocked for vandalism, if vandalism continues (on a significant scale) after the block expires, they will just be reblocked. Good editors are unfortunately forced to create an account (for instructions they can see the block message), those who have an account can just edit on without problem, and I hope that some who want to edit and can't ask the organisation to have a look what is going on, and get awareness that their fellow students are causing Wikipedia to block them, and I hope that the organization then does something about it (but I am afraid that is an idle hope). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Did you see the block log on the 208 IP? It is epic. There are 14 blocks. When the 1 year block first went down, the IP was blocked again within 2 days of its release. And after that one, within the next 2 days. The next block was exactly what the OP's talking about I think, which is to be conscientious about school schedules when doing school blocks: it was 8 months long. And it stayed quiet during the summer. But blocked again by November, and after that one, vandalizing within 4 days. That's just an example.
        IPs don't get blocks this long unless there's a long history. The history stretches over 5 years on that one too. Either there's some really bad student there, or the vandalizing is done by multiple people over multiple years. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of school year duration blocks, if a block of 1 year is appropriate it's because the IP has a long history. Usually I suspect it's due to 1 IP representing lots of students. Allowing login edits is probably the best response in this case.
        I also agree with DGG that we've gotten a lot better about monitoring a lot of vandalism. With that in mind I would encourage blocking admins to look at the nature of the vandalism. If it's stuff that ClueBot's going to catch, then shorter blocks are acceptable, because the workload they create is smaller. But persistent, malicious, and subtle vandalism needs longer blocks since they extract a higher cost. Shadowjams (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment / Community ban proposal

      Note: Non-Admin closure. Mbz1 community banned per near unanimous consensus after 24 hour discussion. If this closure is too controversial, feel free to revert me and ask an uninvolved admin to review and close. Night Ranger (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

      flag Could we get an admin to close this discussion. It seems unlikely that further discussion would change the result. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC) moved from ANI Nobody Ent 13:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

      Please see m:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale, history http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale&action=history. Meta wiki is not a place to appeal disputes from en-Wikipedia. ArbCom is the final level of dispute resolution. Two editors are carrying a dispute way beyond it's logical end, and have created an attack page on Meta for the sole purpose of defaming a Wikipedia contributor.

      I would like the community to confirm that the following indef blocked editors are community banned from en-Wikipedia. This will help put an end to their activities on Meta.

      Thank you. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm really puzzled why the folks over at meta are allowing that RfC to proceed there. It seems like a really bad precedent to set. 28bytes (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      We have an official response from a m:global sysop [16]. Basically, it's allowed. I think the next logical step is to go on meta and start a RfC on the purpose of [meta] RfCs. Any single editor apparently can start a RfC on meta. Not even a co-certifier is needed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      That global sysop needs to have their bit removed by WMF. Meta is not a place for defamation of character. ArbCom is the final appeal on en-Wikipedia, not meta. A banned user may not carry a gripe from here to there. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      RFCs should not be defamatory, regardless of where they're located.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A user's global sysop-flag has no bearing on the import of his/er statements, either way. So there's no flag to be removed. (I also removed the section-header, as this is no "official" response.)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so global sysops are not meta sysops? How can we get a meta sysop to respond? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed they are not. Meta-sysops are few, list is here. But they hardly ever do anything about the RfC's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The place to contact Meta sysops is m:WM:RFH, although they're certainly aware of the RfC since Mbz1 has linked to it themself on that page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact a number of them have made comments in the RFC. E.g. Billinghurst, Philippe (WMF), WizardOfOz all 3 of which have some experience here. However I'm pretty sure there as here, the meta sysops speak for themselves and don't represent the community or make 'official' statements so it's largely a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before you start a new Votes for Banning, consider this. Our collective inability to ignore silliness probably causes more "drama" on Wikipedia than anything else, by an order of magnitude. A meta RFC is completely meaningless; it will have zero effect here. Let anyone who wants to waste their time on it do so. Creating a similarly powerless section about it here was 100% the wrong tack to take. See Streisand effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disagree. We need to take a stand against the harassment of our editors. Anybody thinking of copying Mbz1's tactics needs to understand, clearly, that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole. Ignoring such harassment is not a good idea. Jehochman Talk 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ignoring such harassment hasn't exactly had good results for the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • In fact, it had a huge Streisand effect. If not for this circus with its deletion, the RFC would become stale in a few months and then would be archived and forgotten (by few people who have actually known about it). Ruslik_Zero 09:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Support community ban for Mbz1. An editor whose positive contributions were warmly appreciated here and all over the world, but, sadly, also an editor who does not fit into en.wiki's model of working together to build an encyclopedia. The negative contributions - in terms of disruption - were repeated and overwhelming. The involvement in the off-wiki email canvassing ring and the DYK fraud was the last straw as far as I was concerned, but the off-wiki (and on-wiki?) hate campaigns have continued unabated since then. It's time to draw it all to a close, I hope.

      I have never encountered the other named editor. If it's the same person, a community ban applies to both of them and any futher accounts they may make, so it's irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support Full siteban for both Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha. I vaguely recall the latter has been a part of other offiste harrassment and threat campaigns in the past, and in spite of this it looks like someone was nice to him, renamed his account and added noindex tags to his userpages. (UPDATE: I see Malcolm Schocha is already community banned from Wikipedia via his User:Kwork account. Of course, nobody realizes this because someone went around and hid all the evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm undoing this. Night Ranger (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless they are handed a m:global ban from all WMF sites, this won't make any difference in their activities on meta. But I suppose a local en.wiki ban is a necessary first step in that direction. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's what I meant, I don't think a ban from en-wiki extends to meta, but that's for them to figure out over there. Night Ranger (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Night Ranger, when you say "someone went around and hid all the evidence", do you mean on English Wikipedia? I remember being told that I would likely be banned if I posted the evidence about the canvassing ring and DYK fraud, but were administrative actions taken on this wiki to hide that sort of thing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it sure appears someone went out of their way to hide his identity and connection to the Kwork account. I'm not provy to what happened, but as far as I can tell from looking back through the block log and userpage histories: (1) The account Kwork was banned in 2009. (2) The editor later came back with the Malcolm Schocha account and proceeded to get involved in the I-P areas, apparently taking part in some off site harassment of administrators (this last part I also read about on WR of all places, where Schocha briefly participated). Anyway, the MS account was blocked, then it was later apparently renamed to Kwork2, and the MS account was recreated and blocked. I also vaguely recall him lobbing some legal threats around to try and get the MS account renamed... who knows why. This is all going back a couple years or so and I wasn't really active here at the time. Anyway I tagged the sockmaster and sock accounts appropriately so people can see the connection. If you look back through the edit histories you can see what was done and who did it. Night Ranger (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


        • (ec) That's right. This discussion won't have any effect. So you need to go to meta and institute a global ban. As far as en.wiki, they are already dead, but you can't make anyone "deader". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban for Mbz1. It's clear that when an editor continues a dispute after all en.wp DR means have been exhausted, and this includes our ArbCom, [18] they effectively place themselves outside of the English Wikipedia community. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the WP:List of banned users he was banned in 2009 for abusive sockpuppetry. Seems he came back with a new account Malcolm Schosha, which was then blocked and at some point it was renamed to Kwork2 and then someone went and added noindex tags to the userpages. Anyway, I added the sock tags so now people can actually see the connection between these accounts instead of staggering around blind. Night Ranger (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schosha, aka Kwork and Kwork2, was just a run-of-the-mill I-P topic area troll/warrior and frequent enabler of Mbz1, little more. He showed up at Meta just to assist. Honestly the entire site there is like some bizarre Dances With Wolves-esque outpost that pretty much everyone's forgotten except for the loyal ones left behind. I tried to make use of their deletion process to bring and end to the harassment but it lasted all of 6 minutes. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Users are a net negative to the WMF as a whole, not just en.wiki. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will support a ban for Mbz1 since I remember their time-sinking, unhelpful, and beyond-tedious battles, but a quick look around has failed to find the pages I recall. If anyone has some links (particularly for the other editor), please post them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thanks to someone for finally informing me of this discussion. While I am a global sysop, my opinion nor the opinion of any Meta administrator is important. One of the primary reasons that RfCs exist is to resolve unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, and I personally believe this to be one of them. While I do not necessarily agree with the comments being made (or more correctly their relevance), I do see this as an issue which is being dismissed here off of hand. I don't edit here so I could easily be mistaken, but either way, surely a simple refuting of the evidence presented there would solve the problem. On a related note, quite a few Meta sysops also agree with me as seen here. On aside, this has nothing to do with my gs flag which is only used to fight vandalism and maintain small wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you are seriously uninformed and mistaken. This is not an unresolved dispute. It is an obsessive, harassing, banned user going after a good faith volunteer beyond all reason and fair process. This dispute has no reason at all to be heard on meta. As a sysop, you should not take a decision without first fully informing yourself of the facts. In this matter you have enabled serious harassment. Please correct your error. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If folks can be sanctioned for what they do on other websites then there are a bunch of WR contributors who'll have a lot to answer for. I think that might be a good idea, but I just want to make sure that folks know the proposed action here would set a precedent.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Users can be sanctioned for serious off-wiki harassment. Moreover, I dispute the idea that en-wiki must ignore harassment occurring on a sister WMF project. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban. Carrying disputes across Wikis does seem to be a problem here; just recently Mbz1 badgered me on Commons about a past grievance related to this project.  Sandstein  08:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose ban Draconian solutions do not work, and, in the case at ahand, all it does is indicate a spitting contest between meta and here. Since it will not solve anything, and since it may well cause more problems, it simply is not a wise action. Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban for Mbz1 - I have seen enough of this persons off-wiki harassment and comments to indicate to me that they are not able to edit positively in a collaborative environment, and are therefore an overall negative on this project. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Support ban - seems like highly inappropriate behaviour to engage in - and the concerns raised here seem quite legitimate (and therefore the thread is appropriate). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia. (This comment should be taken as a neutral when weighing consensus)--v/r - TP 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban on Mbz1. This endless crybaby crap has gone on way too long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban of Mbz1 per ASCIIn2Bme. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban also per ASCIIn2Bme. Kcowolf (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban per ASCIIn2Bme as well. Aslso, trouts all around for those on Meta who allowed the RfC to go forward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose in light of Will Beback's precedent and per Collect's draconian solutions. Also I am glad of the disclosure of information (and supporting diffs) about this administrator, much of which gives me cause for concern. Writegeist (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since you are not blocked on enwiki, why don't you start a RfC/U on Gwen Gale here given that you are concerned about her behavior? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the considerate suggestion. An en.wiki RfC/U might be rather a tall order if she's indeffed the peeps with the evidence and blocked their UTPs. Maybe it's something you'd like to pursue? You're a lot more active here than I am. Nearly 40 edits today alone - admirably energetic for a "semi-retired", "burnt-out" editor! Writegeist (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the vote of confidence. I hate to disappoint, but I have my way of faking a higher level of activity by copy-editing each post of mine a few times . I'm not as persuaded as you are that the issues mentioned in the meta-wiki RFCs are a cause for action. Several enwiki admins stated over there that Gwen was merely doing here job, at least with respect to the contested admin actions. I don't know what the deal is with the previous identities. I haven't looked into that. However, a google search for "Gwen Gale" immediately finds some SEO-friendly blogs dating back to 2008 discussing her past accounts etc. So, it seems the matter was well known for at least 4 years. I don't know if there have been any on-wiki discussions about that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Update. Even Encyclopedia Dramatica was less biased than that meta RFC/U, by linking to this explanation. So, I think the matter of past accounts was disclosed and resolved at the time of the RfA. Is there anything else that concerns you? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, it's interesting that the ED entry on Gwen and the meta RFC use similar language. ED has a heading: "Gwen Gale - a bully administrator". The RFC demands that she "stop being a bully administrator, and, if for some reason she cannot do it, stop being administrator at all". Also, the structure of the meta RFC and ED article are eerily similar, almost as if the latter was a draft for the former. Not surprisingly, the ED article was largely written by the single-purpose account "Lyuba" in September 2011 (can't link because of the spam filer.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban. Mbz1 has been harassing Gwen Gale for literally years. Her ban from Wikipedia was a positive outcome but it evidently hasn't stopped the harassment, so we need to go further. With regard to precedent, Jehochman's point about bans being possible (and imposed in the past) for off-wiki harassment is valid, but I'm not sure it's even relevant as I'm skeptical of the claim that other WMF projects are "off-wiki." ((Non-administrator comment)) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Addressing the systemic concern

      Just a sidenote: The above discussion contains a quote that was taken from a comment I made about the origins of Meta. Few Wikipedians would know that Meta was originally set up to handle all policy, policy discussions, noticeboards, disputes, etc for Wikipedia. This was around October 2001, several months before we had the Wikipedia namespace. When the Wikipedia namespace was created in 2002 there were a few of us (eg. Larry Sanger, myself) who actively campaigned for keeping all non-article-related material on Meta. Obviously we lost that debate, all policies moved into the WP namespace, Larry left the project (for unrelated reasons) shortly afterwards in mid-2002, and it's never been an issue since (so much so that most people don't even know that was ever the case). I was quoted as if I was currently agitating for a fundamental change to how WP works, whereas in reality I was simply relating a bit of ancient history. Manning (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Is all of this kerfluffle-promotion now of any actual benefit to anything? Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Wikipedia is not a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing our productive volunteers. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That meta-meta-RfC seems to have caused quite a few users banned from en.wp to come out of the woodwork over there to oppose the demise of their soapbox. Meta gives Wikipedia Review a good run for the money in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it a place to go around attacking and harassing our unproductive volunteers? Nobody Ent 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you one of them? Them who created the page are to blame for the ruckus. It is not okay to stand around and watch when an innocent person is attacked by thugs. Jehochman Talk 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia should not be a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing anyone; your unnecessary "productive" qualifier implies some category of users (IPs? Socks? Trolls?) are fair game. Nobody Ent 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You are arguing a logical fallacy. I mentioned "productive" to highlight the different between "banned" and "productive" as this is an exacerbating circumstance. One "productive" editor harassing another is also not good, and even a "productive" editor harassing a banned user is also not good because that sort of goading can create negative results. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Is anything in the allegations worth looking at?

      Checking this out. My personal opinion is that there was nothing biased or outrageous about Gwen Gale's actions. There's never been an RfC on Gwen Gale, which would seem to suggest that she's not a problematic admin. But I know some sections of the community are keen that admin conduct is examined. Having said that, Mbz1's allegations are way over the top, and from my long experience in dealing with complaints, once things have got to this stage nothing will satisfy the complainant except someone's head on a pole, so looking at it here probably wouldn't resolve anything. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I consider this mess to be a systemic failure. Meta needs to understand that they do not have the power to review ArbCom decisions. At times I've been very critical of ArbCom, but the way to address that problem is to vote for different members at the next election. We need to have a process to globally ban users who engage in cross-wiki harassment. I'm not sure how to go about that. We should not allow grudges to be carried from one wiki to another. Any advice would be appreciated. Jehochman Talk 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A m:global ban is possible for a user banned from at least two projects. However, given the self-righteous mission of meta admins to review en.wp ArbCom decisions, I doubt that's going to happen in this case or ever. Meta-wiki is basically a WMF-sponsored Wikipedia Review in that respect. Whether they'd ever have the balls to do anything overriding en.wp decisions is another matter though. Right now they seem content to enable banned users to soapbox endlessly over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I intend to change that situation, if necessary by WMF office action. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why don't we hold an RFC to tell Meta that they can do whatever they want, we don't really care what they come up with on there and they're wasting their time? (You see that? I used all three).--v/r - TP 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Meta could have a useful role in evaluating whether dispute resolution processes work correctly on WMF projects, and advising WMF with well-considered opinions when it is necessary to reform or reset their administration. There is always a chance that any wiki will fall under the control of some clique that abuses its power, even en.wiki. (On the other hand, the same could happen to WMF...) But arguing RfC/U cases about specific users on other wikis seems unreasonable. As with an appellate court, the question should be whether the process was flawed, not what the verdict should be. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Meta does not have any power to overrule a local decision, not even with global bans. When it comes to problems with one user on one project, RfCs really won't accomplish anything other than raise awareness. We do get quite a few banned enwiki editors on Meta, although this is the first RfC I've seen made by one of them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The war of rhetoric is building up [19]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Can we put the feud with Meta aside for a minute Assume they are just a bunch of clucks who will let anyone graffitti their wall. I posted this question because I don't want anyone to say that allegations about an admin were being swept away because of a feud with Meta. Instead, we have Tom Paris suggesting that the complainat should be banned here for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia - which rather left me shaking my head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Just for the clarification, that was more an expression of my frustration over the arrogance it takes to think they can dictate dispute resolution to use rather than a real !vote which is why I said it should be taken as a neutral !vote in parenthesis. I just feel that en.Wikipedia has the most complete dispute resolution process and tougher sysop prerequisites than any other project and some sysop on meta who didn't have to go through half the RfA that any of us did, then an additional month long vote and (ceremonial) appointment by Jimbo to the role of Arbcom shouldn't feel they have the right to judge and jury the English Wikipedia. Besides, they have no technical capability to fulfil their decision anyway (besides the global sysops) and they should stick to their own sandbox. As I said, it was in frustration and not a honest !vote that I said what I said and I made that clear in the first edit (no subsequent edit to clarify what I meant) that it was in actuality a neutral !vote.--v/r - TP 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't you have some sort of red telephone you can use to call Meta and straighten things out? There's a rule if you send more than two emails trying to straighten something out, pick up the phone instead to avoid misunderstandings. Jehochman Talk 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, there is no such "red phone"--project-to-project leadership coordination is actually quite lacking, and essentially accomplished only through informal links among those who participate in multiple projects. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Besides, meta-wiki doesn't have an ArbCom or a Jimbo, so there's no clear "supreme" authority. m:WM:RFH (their AN[I] equivalent) is already swamped with threads related to mbz1's RfC on Gwen, so it's not awareness that's lacking over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, my experience is en.wikipedia to other project communication can often be poor with many users from other projects not always happy with the way en.wikipedia people approach their projects or agreeing with our blocking and banning policies, and en.wikipedia people confused by the rules or allowance of banned/blocked users and their content in other projects. (One thing of course is that very commonly many people in other projects have some experience at en.wikipedia but of course most en.wikipedia users have little or no experience with the other projects.) Of course usually they stop any attempts to comment on people at en.wikipedia but I guess it's more difficult here given meta's purpose. As with EotR, I'm not convinced the way we're approaching the situation there is helping anything, in fact it seems to me it's just going to further convince them that perhaps there are problems at en.wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, let's cut to the chase: which concerns about Gwen need addressing, and how do you propose we address them? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I never said any concerns about Gwen need addressing. What gave you the idea I did? I have little experience with GG, but the consensus here and at the meta RFC by meta participants who I presume have analysed whatever evidence was presented appears to be that there's no legitimate concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Mkay, so are we supposed to have some sort of show trial then, in which nobody [on en.wiki] believes the concerns are real, but we do it anyway to appease someone at meta? WP:BURO? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm further confused by your comments. No one at meta seems to think the concerns are real either as I've already said. However it's clear that the way we're (well at least some people from here) approaching this is not helping convince those at meta with less experience of our systems that our dispute resolutions systems actually work or that we're fair to every user. Quite the opposite. (Note that I'm not saying either is true, simple that our approach is giving that impression.) And for those who already have a poor view it further re-enforced that view.
      In other words, rather then helping shut down the RFC quickly and efficiently, what we've done is made it worse. And we're far less likely to convince them to change their policies and how they handle RFCs in the future or at least not in a way many here desire. And whatever we do achieve, it's likely to be a much more torturious process then it had to be.
      This isn't exactly surprising, treating people like they're an enemy that needs to be destroyed rarely get them on your side. Of course what it does do is get their backs up and make them disinclined to believe anything you say, and think that perhaps those complaining about you may have a point. To put it in a mildly rude way, being an arsehole to someone just makes them think you're an arsehole. (If we're supposed to be the 'better' wiki, we definitely haven't shown it in this dispute.)
      There's no reason why we couldn't have approached this in a clear and even forceful but calmer, politer, well argued way, following their rules as much as possible and treating them as fellow wikimedians rather then an enemy. If we had done so, I suspect a much better outcome would have been achieved and perhaps they would now be actively considering a better RFC policy, rather then the insane crosswiki mess we have now where it's not clear that anything productive is really going to come out of this. Perhaps even that RFC would have been deleted or blanked by now.
      P.S. I'm not saying they've been perfect. But I don't really regard myself as a metadians and have very limited experience there so it's not for me to comment. Further, while 'they started it' may be a childish argument, it is IMO the case that we seemed to be the primary instigator of the mess we have now. In any case I agree with Bobrayner, it's generally better to discuss metadian actions on meta; on meta. Which is after all what we're asking for here.
      Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know how "following their rules as much as possible" could be done when they simply reply that we are misreading their written rules (like m:WM:NOT # 11) without further explanation as to how they interpret it, and when they edit war and block people right and left for merely stating disagreement with them, as they've already done to two enwiki admins in this case. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the developments below, but a meta-wiki admin and crat promised to go on a vandalism spree after losing the argument and was globally locked. Is that the kind of people that we can hope to convince with rational arguments if only they were more elaborate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Mutual assured destruction aside, hasn't ArbCom reviewed this already? From the not-so-confidential-anymore email that ArbCom sent to mbz1, [20] I would have thought so. If someone who isn't blocked on en.wiki wants to bring a RfC/U here on Gwen Gale for the multiple accounts stuff or anything else, I'm not sure what's stopping them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The Wyss account was begun in 2004 and blocked at the user's request in 2006. That's an incredibly long time ago. Those matters can't be reopened now. Jehochman Talk 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If there was ever a justified "tl;dnr", this, and the barrage of words on Meta, must be it. I make no judgement here about any of it except Jehochman's assertion above that matters between 2004 and 2006 cannot be re-opened now. In general terms, if a behaviour or set of behaviours started then and is continuing into the present, it would seem to be very important to know just how long it has been going on. Bielle (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The matters were hashed out long ago. The complaint was raised by a chronically disruptive, community banned editor. Sorry, no, they do not get the satisfaction of putting a good faith user through the wringer. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am astonished by the abusive, nasty behavior of the admins over there. I would fully expect ArbCom to hand my head on a plate if I acted like that over here. I know they aren't used to en.WP style uber-drama over there, but an admin participating in a discussion and then edit warring over a deletion tag, and threatening to block anyone who dares to revert him? And conversations just shut down while people are still adding comments because those admins don't think the request is valid, regardless of what consensus is arrived at? The whole affair makes me sick. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The same admin just indef blocked me without talk page access over there. Something is very rotten in Denmark when the guy defending a banned users right to attack someone over there for things that happened here can indef block me for saying something he didn't like. And I can't even appeal it on-wiki because he cut off my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess they are very fond of playing overlords when "admin abuse" on some other wiki is brought to their sérénissime attention, but they have a giant blind spot for their own petty, autocratic behavior. Meta = Animal Farm. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He isn't involved in the discussion, he is involved in keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama as possible. Your personal attack were why you were blocked, not the fact the you were arguing on the opposite side as him. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's totally fair, an indef block with no talk page access and no email access, applied by the very user who was the subject of said attack. I linked to WP:DICK, which is hosted at Meta and this is the fair result from a good faith admin just doing his job? Bullshit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've had a bit of experience with that user; at the infamous bug 30208 at bugzilla, he came out of the woodwork to join the WMF people in patronizing us as if we didn't know how to run en.wiki and he was somehow graced with infinite knowledge (Dunning and Kruger could hardly find a better example). So I can't say I'm shocked over him doing something like that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict × 2) Yeah, right. He is "keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama" by abusively closing early the deletion discussion multiple times so that actual user consensus can't be formed. And blocking users who protest that action. And the "RFC" your metapedian wizard is so carefully protecting [from enwiki drama] contains soapy commentary like "self-pitying" and "shameful, childish, dishonest and cowardly retaliation", words penned by author of the RFC. I rest my case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion on meta:User talk:Nemo bis#Deletion closure is also instructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also m:WM:RFH#Involved_block.2C_WizardOfOz_and_Beeblebrox. It looks like there are some sane admins on meta after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Although the original drama-thread is an obvious cross-wiki problem, secondary discussions here about edits on metawiki process by metawiki editors could be unhelpful; we don't need even more interwiki drama. Having read through a lot of diffs there (and tried to contribute to the RfD) I was very disappointed, and moved to make a rather frustrated comment, but specific criticism of metawiki activity should preferably be done on metawiki. It's possible that I'll get banned there, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... bobrayner (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Floating an idea

      Since there's no ArbCom on meta-wiki [to appeal to] but they love RfC/Us so much, how about we start a RfC/U on User:WizardOfOz and User:Nemo_bis, both of whom are responsible for abusively closing the Gwen "RFC" deletion discussion multiple times. I'm not sure what the best venue would be. Meta might not be a good idea unless you want to get blocked over there for "intimidating behavior". Given that off-wiki harassment is actionable on en.wiki, and the two meta admins have clearly taken sides in that, a RfC/U on en.wiki has cause, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I intend to appeal my block, if they will grant me a way top even do that, and I certainly think Wizard is an absolute disgrace of an admin, but just as the discussion there will have no effect here, no RFC here can influence anything over there. I find it comical that an admin who was acting the bully and openly threatening to block anyone who reverted him would turn around say I was the one doing the intimidating and proceed to block me for it. And he took the coward's route, denying me any avenue of appeal right off the bat. It is clear to me that Meta is severely dysfunctional if this sort of abusive admin behavior is considered acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be so sure about the opposite direction. A sizeable number of users from en.wiki asking the WMF or Stewards to relieve these two guys of their bits has some chance of succeeding. Hopefully, they'll see reason before it comes to that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not do that. They are probably doing many useful things. This matter is outside their area of expertise so they have fumbled it badly, but we can forgive them if they will agree to be more clueful in the future. Jehochman Talk 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      We all know...

      ...that no matter what "consensus" Meta-Wiki comes up with in regards...well, anything, we have no reason to follow it. And, seeing what's going on over there, I don't feel we should follow any decisions they make whatsoever unless there is a clear consensus here to do so. At this point, I really see no purpose to Meta-Wiki at all. They just seem to be a clique of people who fancy themselves rulers of all language Wikis, while having absolutely no power as it is. SilverserenC 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      That sounds about right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, they do have some practical power over all wikis, like via the global abuse filter and probably a few other bits. So we can't just let anyone be in charge over there. The meta-wiki pages have the same high google juice as most other Wikipedia sites. Let meta turn into soapbox where banned users can attack whoever they want with impunity? Their RFC/Us aren't non-indexed by default. True, almost everyone can put a blogspot page up and get practically the same result on google. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Then we clearly need to take some sort of action about this abuse of power and, really, the abuse of the trust of the English Wikipedia community. SilverserenC 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I cannot even find anything about a de-adminship procedure on Meta. The only kind of de-adminship their process pages say anything about is for inactivity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The blocking administrator on Meta has an account here as WizardOfOz. Is it not possible to request arbcom to review his actions on other WMF sites if they are directly related to en.wikipedia? He saw fit to leave Gwen Gale a note here which seems a little bit odd.[21] Does this not count as acting as a proxy for arbcom banned users? Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As a courtesy I have informed WizardOfOz about this discussion.[22] Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It appears he is not very active here, his primary user page is on the Bosnian wiki here, perhaps leave him a message there. Youreallycan 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No. Leaving a user notice is not proxying. Let's focus on getting the deletion discussion restarted. That would be more productive than starting tangential issues like this. Jehochman Talk 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Apparently you've been shut down on that count again. They sure don't like dissenting opinions over there, do they? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Irony alert. Apprently he expects a higher standard from our admins [23]. This guy likes making with the accusations, as he accused me of edit warring (with him, but he leaves that part out) threats (actually he threatened me) and trolling, which is just odd but not unexpected. Luckily cooler heads have prevailed in regard to my block there and it's been reduced to one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The whole thread on User talk:Kwamikagami [24] is surreal. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, WizardOfOz would probably not pass a RfA on enwiki if his usual demeanor in a dispute is like in that content conversation. We can tell he isn't exactly acculturated to enwiki polices on sources, verifiability, and no original research, besides exhibiting hostility and edit warring. This part was funny:

      It is obvious edit warring, and you just did it again. I will give you a chance to revert yourself (I'm going to bed now), but if you continue I will report you and ask to have you blocked. I contend that your sources are not reliable. [...] — kwami (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

      This is a threat of an involved sysop. [...] I´m not going to revert myself as it is a edit in good faith and acceptable by all rules of the project. And as a sysop and crat, I can´t imagine that there will be someone who is prepered to block me because of one edit that is sourced and improvement. Good night, and ping me tomorrow when you are awake so we can end this discussion and find a way out. Just leave me something on meta or bswiki. --WizardOfOz (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      No wonder he prefers that dispute resolution on meta be used to overrule enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      By the way, this comment suggests that the meta-wiki RFC conflict might have been seen by some as an opportunity to force a change in m:Stewards policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Good grief, and FYI...

      I don't see M's RFC as a particularly productive enterprise, but discussing it "here" and then going "there" to make waves isn't particularly productive either. The "regulars" at meta (or commons, or pretty much any other WMF project) tend to have the same reaction to a bunch of WP admins (and noticeboard surfers) suddenly showing up as the WP admins (and noticeboard surfers) tend to have when a huge contingent from WR shows up here. Some of you are also behaving like stereotypical American Tourists and loudly bossing people around there as well.

      The stewards aren't going to barge in tomorrow and start taking away people's block buttons willy-nilly in any case. Relax. --SB_Johnny | talk 04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think there's a substantive difference between the two scenarios you mentioned. Wikipedia Review is non-WMF site where some people discuss, rant about, and occasionally outright attack some Wikipedia editors. Although it sees some (occasional) serious participation from enwiki Arbitrators etc., nobody in their right mind thinks that WR has any sort of WMF mandate to solve problems on Wikipedia. In contrast, Meta-wiki is a WMF-run site that vaguely claims to be the wiki to rule them all, and where some admins assert a nebulous right to host somewhat official reviews of editor conduct from other WMF wikis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, the analogy is singularly inappropriate. Meta is a place that has no "community" and no autonomous purpose of its own, other than that of serving whatever members of local projects "suddenly turn up" to get their business done. Its "regulars" are truly just janitors, whose job it is to make the place work for those who, like us, come there maybe once or twice a year, or once in a wiki-lifetime. And if they don't do that job properly, they indeed deserve to be "bossed around", as loudly as the situation requires. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is, Fut Pref, that our sysops and ArbCom members go through a much more thorough process to confirmation and authority than theirs. More is expected of our sysops and higher standards of conduct are required. WMF has constant and direct involvements with out sysops and Arbcom. There is no reason that a project of tougher qualifications should be judged by a project of easier qualifications for authority. This is like a circuit court of appeals being judged by a local high school student court. And WizardOfOz's martyrdom (the request for global block, not the self desysop which was respectable) is exactly the behavior that a 'crat and sysop shouldn't have. The analogy is accurate and appropriate.--v/r - TP 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe a misunderstanding here – were we talking abut the same "analogy"? :-) I was referring the comparison made by SB Johnnie above, between Meta admins objecting to an invasion of en-wikipedians, and en-wiki admins objecting to an invasion of WR'ers. On what you just said, I quite agree. – By the way, I note with considerable amusement that I too have now been blocked on Meta, by an admin directly involved in a dispute with me, who is now claiming he "didn't remember" we had a dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the analogy is actually pretty accurate, but it's an analogy about the perceptions of the local communities. The more you accuse them of being incompetent and/or power-hungry and/or corrupt (which are rather similar to "WR-ish" criticisms of the regime here), the more they'll circle the wagons (which is -- again -- what happens here). Try putting yourself in their shoes for a moment. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Yeah, they are really twitchy over there when it comes to criticism of their wikiturf. [29] Apparently you get tagged as a WP:SPA [30] over there if you don't troll the place all day long like users banned from enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I asked Courcelles on Meta to look into FPaS's indefinite block on Meta. The blocking adminsitrator, Nemo_bis, does not seem to have an account on any part of wikipedia in any language, but I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, it's not an indef, just 48hrs. Or at least it was the last time I looked. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Most sincere apologies :) Mathsci (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I hadn't realized that it was for disagreeing with Ottava rime that you were blocked. [31] TMathsci (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Again User:Nemo bis has an account here. It's hard in those circumstances to understand his conduct on Meta. (I have left a notification on his talk page here.) Mathsci (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fut Perf - Yeah, we were talking about different analogies then. I was referring to the One wiki to rule them all reference.--v/r - TP 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Comments about other wikis "not having a community" are generally wrong. Certainly so in this case; Meta has a steady and active daily community, on top of the groups that use it for one specific function or another. – SJ + 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      And WizardOfOz is globally locked. Good riddance. Goodvac (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't endorse "dancing on the grave" of any wiki- or meta-pedian, but the lock summary "Self proclaimed future vandal. locking per self request." is worrisome. WizardOfOz was an admin and crat on meta (meaning he could promote others to adminship over there). Someone invested with that kind responsibility promising to become a vandal the day after losing an argument rings all sorts of alarm bells about the meta-wiki regulars. Note a farewell message left on his page [32] mentioning "some idiots who have arrived recently". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is now clear to me that Meta, in addition to its stated purpose, is a gathering spot for malcontents who have been banned or indef blocked from this project, along with users from other Wikipedias who have grudges against this project because it is the largest and most well known Wikipedia. However it has also become clear that these users are not in total control of that project, there are some in the administration there who possess common sense and ability to judge things objectively. I think the problem is that is such a small project that if only one or two admins are around, and they happen to be in the camp that dislikes en.WP, their obvious contempt for users from this project and their rejection of our opinions on subjects germane both to this project and that one can cause serious problems. Not that I acted like the paragon of civility either, I tend to react badly to being bullied. What i find ironic in this whole episode is that some of the Meta users, and indeed some users right here are complaining about us barging in to the clubhouse over there when the reason most of us showed up was exactly because we didn't believe a dispute from here should be allowed to continue over there, and those very same users were defending the right of these banned users to do so, some going so far as to suggest that is actually part of Meta's purpose, to give people we kicked off a place to bitch and moan and endlessly challenge the outcome of disputes here. As we all know there is in fact a website specifically created for that purpose, but Meta is not it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like Avi is not getting through to some metapedians. [33] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          ? Avi is indeed getting through to metapedians. Mbz1 is not acting as a metapedian; simply the antagonist in this situation. – SJ + 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even if we discount the three [temporarily] departed metapedians (Malcom, Mbz1 and WizardOfOz), Ottava Rima is also on the barricades defending metapedia on that board, and so is Herby who is an admin over there. You can find a nice quote from him on my talk page over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm getting a kick out of seeing so many en-wiki banned users popping in at the votes for deletion. Guido den Broeder, Ottava, and others. It's almost like old times. To make it truly complete they just need some Russian/Ukrainian/Bosnian/Serbian nationalist POV pushers, someone paying MyWikiBiz to puff up peoples keep votes, a shouting match over whether Larry Sanger was a co-founder, and Willy on Wheels to move the whole thing to Meta:Requests for deletion/ONWHEEEEELS!!! Night Ranger (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      What does meta even do?

      My only participation at meta thus far has been to join in the related GG discussions. In the meantime I've been looking all around and trying to figure out just what purpose meta serves beyond global account locks, the global blacklist and hosting WP:DICK. As far as I can tell, it's some kind of obsolete governing functionary group that has been dead ever since Wikipedia was granted self rule nearly 10 years ago. Like the Queen of England, a leftover anachronism, but without even the respect and ceremony that position holds. Can someone explain to me exactly what they do over there? Night Ranger (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it would be worthwhile to invite some folks who are active at meta to answer your question. It might also be beneficial if more of us went over there and helped out. There are lots of tasks that are common to all the Wikipedias, such as software upgrades. Meta has an important role to play coordinating those activities. We should also suggest more productive methods of handling cross-wiki disruption. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, as far as I understand, there are a few actual decision processes done on Meta, like closing or opening new projects. Also, the field of global RfCs or other global dispute resolution processes is something that there is certainly a need for (though rarely with individual user RfCs as attempted here). For instance, there's certainly a need for a big meta-RfC to be held one day about all the smaller projects that completely refuse to play by foundation rules when it comes to image licensing, non-free content and fighting copyvios. In situation where the whole admin corps of a project collectively and systematically refuses to enforce common policy standards, the possibility of a binding meta-process would be sorely needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Good to know. I was genuinely confused about their function. Night Ranger (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The also host a "process" by which confusion in interwiki links is supposed to be solved, m:IS, although that's mostly broken. And they host cross-wiki efforts like the m:Controversial content stuff (reports and referendum on the image filter etc.) and m:Stewards elections (which are currently ongoing, by the way). More details here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Has anybody asked Jimbo for his comments in this matter? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, see this discussion (now archived automatically by MiszaBot III. Goodvac (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It amazes me that all of this has been going on while people seem to have no clue what meta is or why it exists. Meta serves many roles, including translation organization, fundraiser organization, global policy determination and implementation, assigning and removing global groups, mediating conflicts on smaller wikis. As I have said before, Meta does not govern enwiki in any way. There are some technical features, such as the spam blacklist and the title blacklist which affect all WMF projects, but other than that Meta has no editorial, political, whatever control over enwiki. The point which seems to have been avoided by just about everyone here is that the Gwen Gale RfC would not have resulted in any action - it is well outside of the scope of Meta to be screwing around with enwiki affairs. RfCs around unresolved issues on large wikis serve to facilitate further discussion on the matter, not result in a definitive course of action. RfCs are more for smaller projects that do not have the facilities to handle such things - and yes, that means that the Gwen Gale RfC was a waste of Mbz1's time. It amazes me how often people forget than the WMF hosts hundreds of wikis - about 515 open ones right now. Meta is more for about 400 of the smaller projects than it is for large wikis. What Meta is not is an outdated system in place from the first years of Wikimedia - it is an active body which coordinates many cross-wiki activities. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the main reason most users here don't know much about Meta is that, as you say, we really don't need it as it is intended to help out smaller wikis. Which makes one wonder why some admins there fought so hard to stifle discussion of deleting said RFC and why there is such a large contingent of users who are openly hostile to this project hanging about over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly, their purpose is not so much helping as it is bossing around. It's just that now that en.wiki gets a taste of it, you guys take note. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      View from uninvolved, random guy

      This meta vs en.wp showdown is patently ridiculous. I think the en.wp needs to formulate a local policy as to the relationship between meta and their so-called "rule" over all other projects. Possibly this policy needs to be endorsed by ArbCom so as be unified in this view. This sort of dramamongering on the part of some meta admins is really disruptive to this project. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      View from semi-involved, not-so-stochastic guy

      As much as I try to refrain from commenting on the drama boards, I feel a need to respond to the concept of a "Meta-EnWiki" showdown. I am lucky enough to be able to have perspective both as a Wikipedian and as a Wikimedian, and I think most of what went on here could have been prevented. For better or for worse, the English Wikipedia is the 800 lb. gorilla of the Wikimedia projects. We have the most articles, the most editors, the most readers, the most coverage, and the most reach of any Wikimedia project. Unfortunately, we also have a pretty unique culture, specialized rules, and more space dedicated to procedure, as opposed to content, than any other wiki. To navigate these issues, most EnWikipedians develop certain techniques to handle process and policy. When we go to other English-speaking projects, it is natural and human nature to continue to behave in that fashion. However, the other projects often have different policies, guidelines, or even unwritten cultures than we do. So it is very understandable that when a group of EnWikipedians starts commenting in another project in a fashion that would fit in with WP:ANI, that would engender resentment. Our "drama boards" have, unfortunately, become very argumentative, and respectful discourse is the exception not the rule. As much as I would like to take that kind of behavior and excise it from our project, it is there. Other projects may not be as confrontational as we have become, and using the "EnWiki" style of demands and proclamations will only serve to further the idea that "EnWikipedians are a bunch of rude oafs who try and bully everyone around them." For goodness sakes, read the WP:ANI or WP:RfAR archives and see how confrontational we can be.

      To place the shoe on the other foot for a moment, think about how we would feel if a group of Commons editors came en masse and starting posting images that we would feel violate WP:BLP, but not Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and then complain when we take them down. Did any regular reader of this board who is not a regular on the Commons know that that our BLP policy is local, not global, and that the Commons has a looser view when it comes to images of living people? Meta's m:Biographies of living people policy is even looser. It is incumbent on editors to understand the policies and guidelines of the project they are in before making suggestions.

      The primary among Meta's purposes is to be a place where matters relating to all wikis are to be discussed. It also serves as the place where various wiki-processes are performed for projects too small to have full processes of their own, be that RfA, RfB, CU, OS, opening and closing projects, AND dispute resolution. Similarly to EnWiki, there is an unwritten culture that has developed over the years at Meta, and one element of that culture is that Meta tends to view itself as a forum of last resort, so being banned on a project does not automatically make one banned on Meta. Personally, I think that this is an important escape valve to prevent small wikis from being taken over by a cadre of people who start banning anyone who disagrees with them. So for someone to make a complaint on Meta about something that happened on another project is not unheard of. It isn't that Meta is going to "take over" EnWiki—that is not going to happen. But it serves as a venue for for certain valid complaints. Unfortunately, it also gets abused, like any process on any wiki. In my opinion, this particular RfC (Gwen Gale) was an abuse of policy as I've posted there, at the ongoing discussion at m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users (in the comments section), but that does not mean that ALL discussions would be automatic abuses. Those for EnWiki should be very rare, in my opinion, because we have a robust (if dysfunctional at times) dispute resolution process. As an aside, while I would not want EnWikipedians trampling like a herd of bison all over the process, it does affect all of us, and well-thought out comments, either for or against, should be helpful.

      If I could impart one thought from this tl;dr screed of mine, it would be that when we EnWikipedians go to other projects, especially English-speaking ones, we should ensure that we know the appropriate polcies and guidelines about the project we want to edit, take some time to try and grok the culture, think thrice before we post (especially early on), and AS ALWAYS, never be confrontational when polite and respectful will do. Remember, other projects have as much right to have their own cultures (foundation-permitting) as we do, and just as we want them to respect ours, we need to respect theirs. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I object against the proliferation of this odd meme that what we have been doing on Meta (assuming I'm included in your description) shows some kind of unwillingness to accept local norms, or ignorance of them. That's a meme that has been bandied about by some of the wagon-circling regulars over there, but as far as I can see it's simply wrong. Nobody has ever told me what those mysterious local rules are supposed to be that we have been ignoring. As far as I am concerned, I have been defending local Meta rules (e.g. the proper Meta-policy-conformant running of a deletion debate) from rogue Meta admins who were breaking them. I know those Meta policies; I looked them up. The only point of contention is the notion that "RfCs can never be deleted", but that's not Meta policy; it's simply a habit and some regulars' personal opinion. I and others happen to disagree with that opinion, and our opinion is as good as theirs. A certain number of Meta regulars can't distinguish between their personal opinion about Meta rules and the actual Meta rules, and that's where the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The manner in which some people proceeded to "disagree with that opinion" is hardly appropriate. Excellent analysis of the issue, Avi. —Dark 07:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The only reason the "manner" of debate escalated was the fact that abusive local admins (and a few trolls) were trying to shut us out. I don't take kindly to that, and no, if they expect us to continue talking in a manner as if all was nice and fuzzy in such a situation, that's one thing I'm not willing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I was not referring to anyone in particular, Future. I have been an active member of the Commons and Meta for a number of years now, and have seen issues like this come up many times before. This one is just a little more extreme because (at least in my opinion) Mbz is abusing Meta's policies by attacking ArbCom, and by extension EnWiki, so the feeling that some EnWikipedians have as being attacked, and thus responding defensively, is understandable. However, there is a "Meta" way to go about it; and that usually requires more patience than here on EnWiki. Furthermore, people who are more aware of Meta and its culture and policies etc. would know that there is nothing Mbz could do to get anything overturned here on EnWiki. The only people outside of EnWiki who would be able to affect the ability of someone to edit on EnWiki are the stewards, who are granted the ability to affect all wikis. Speaking as one, I can tell you that I would be extraordinarily surprised if any one of us would overturn the valid wishes of a project in good standing, and without some REALLY good explanation, that would be grounds for de-stewarding (and we would get the devs involved if we had to). Again, not to pick out ANYONE in particular, but someone who was more comfortable with how Meta worked and what occurred there may be really frustrated with what Mbz is doing, but would not be concerned about "Meta-takeovers". peaking personally, it took me months to grok, as it were, the Commons culture vs. EnWiki and the Meta culture vs. Enwiki. Now, I think I understand them well enough to function within Commons guidelines on the Commons, Meta on Meta, and EnWiki here. I know that one of the main concerns about me when I was running for steward was since I came from EnWiki, would I be able to understand and work within the policies of other projects with different norms (for example, many wikis allow the "checkuser for innocence," something forbidden here. As a steward, one cannot allow one's EnWiki preconceptions to affect one's ability to serve the other projects). I think, again, it boils down to different cultures, is made somewhat worse by being in the same native language as EnWiki (so Metapedians bring their conceptions here and we bring ours there), and most of the stress could be alleviated by each of us taking just a little time to understand the others' projects, what is accepted and what is not, what kind of claims are valid and what are mere posturing, and then work together as necessary. Once again, I reiterate that there is a discussion going on Meta now about the use of these RfCs, and I, for one, firmly believe all Wikimedians should have a say, as Meta is supposed to serve us all. I'd only request that EnWikipedians who are not regulars at Meta try a little bit extra to respect the Meta culture; just as we would want ours respected. Again, FPAS, no specific editor was targeted in my discussion above; it was the result of years of watching inter-project relationships and trying to alleviate some unnecessary frictions between them. Understand that just as we would be somewhat defensive if a bunch of Metapedians, who were not regulars on EnWiki, would descend en masse on WP:ANI and try and get so-and-so banned or unbanned, they may take a bunch of us coming in without preamble and in a non-amelioratory manner to be somewhat disconcerting as well, and act defensively. We may not appreciate their response, and I think Nemo bis was improper with some of his blocks, but understanding them will help prevent future fracases. -- Avi (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Taking up your example of what went wrong, I think I have to correct the picture in one crucial detail: the notion that the RfC on Meta could in fact possibly overturn something here on en-wiki was not brought to the fore by ignorant fears of en-wikipedians. It was proposed most visibly by a Meta admin and buraucrat, WizardOfOz. Indeed, people who are more familiar with Meta ought to know that that was nonsense, but evidently they didn't, and it is hardly astonishing that some of the less Meta-experienced people then took the notion at face value and argued forcefully against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Firstly, I am unaware of any statement by Wizard of Oz indicating that a potential resolution to m:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale would include any changes on EnWiki. I'm not calling your statement into askance, I just don't recall any such statement, and would appreciate a link. Secondly, WoO has returned his 'crat and sysop bits, went on a vandalism spree, and is now globally locked at his request. Sadly, it seems to be a case of serious burnout, and I think a week or three off from all wiki projects may help him calm down a bit (note, Meta has no similar provision to admins leaving trying to escape scrutiny, so it will be interesting to see what happens if he wants his bits back). So I do understand that to the non-regular on meta coming from EnWiki, it may look like that "the Metapedians are coming". What I am asking for is the next time something like this happens, clarify if there really is a concern (and get that clarification from people who have the power to enforce it; a Meta sysop can do nothing on Enwiki solely by virture of being a Meta sysop or crat), and maybe we'll find that we are more like-minded than not. -- Avi (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      See [34] for Wizards' forward looking statements. As for like-minded, I sure hope not. Insofar nobody here referred to meta-pedians as "some idiots", but the converse did happen: [35]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. About the other thing you added, the analogy "if a bunch of Metapedians, who were not regulars on EnWiki, would descend en masse on WP:ANI and try and get so-and-so banned or unbanned, they may take a bunch of us coming in without preamble and in a non-amelioratory manner to be somewhat disconcerting as well": I think I've said it before, but it bears repeating. While reactions along these lines may be understandable, it is nevertheless unacceptable, and we should not tolerate them. We should not show any understanding or patience or tolerance with local regulars who react like that on Meta, at all. People who react like that on Meta need to be kicked out, period. Because here's the crucial difference between Meta and local projects: Local projects have a right to have an established local community, and they have the right to treat their regulars differently from one-off outside visitors. Meta just doesn't have that right. There is in fact no such thing as a "Meta community". The community of the Meta wiki is just whatever members of any of the local wikis happen to have any central business on Meta at any given time. If some of the small club of people who hang out on Meta a bit more regularly than others think they constitute a local "community" that has the right to treat others as outsiders, they are wrong, and they must be shown in no unclear terms that their attitude is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: "There is in fact no such thing as a 'Meta community'." Unfortunately, there is. It's just not a very healthy one judging from the past few days. If I may use a phrase borrowed from Jimbo, it's "not the kind we want". In fact, looking back at my edits early last year on m:Dick, I see the small set of meta-admins involved there were also involved in keeping the GG RFC: WizardOfOz, Nemo bis, Wikiwind, etc. And the same tactics used: reverts without discussion, nearly meaningless posts on the talk page and so forth: m:Talk:Don't_be_a_dick#try_discussing_one_revert_at_a_time_please. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)Thank you, ASCIIn2Bme, for pointing out that link. While technically WoO was correct, the m:Stewards do have the ability to overturn any decision on any wiki, I'm pretty confident speaking for my fellow stewards (and I'll take this opportunity to plug the ongoing steward elections) that we would not overturn the valid decision of any ArbCom solely because of a Meta RfC. If you were concerned about the steward actions, wouldn't it make sense to ask a steward if that would happen? We all have pages on Meta, and most of us have a presence on EnWiki as well (see Category:Wikimedia stewards). Just because stewards hang out on Meta doesn't mean that they jump to any Metapedian's bidding . I do not think it has ever been done, and the only reason I can think of doing it is for a project gone amok, and EnWiki may be dysfunctional, but it certainly has not run amok. Outside of a local project crat going around and desysoping /blocking all other admins/crats in a project, we only flip bits when asked, and we are very careful to try and not step on the toes of any local project. I believe that in truth WoO's statement was more meant as the bluster of a frustrated Meta admin who wanted to impress upon the newcomers that Meta had teeth; thankfully, the Metapedians with teeth also, usually, have both patience and common sense (or at least we delude ourselves into thinking that). For more discussion about stewards, I'd recommend asking at m:Talk:Stewards. -- Avi (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Responding to your issue with the Meta community, FPAS, here I have to respectfully disagree. Maybe the word community is not the best, but Meta has its own policies and guidelines like any other project, and they are not always the same as EnWiki's. There is nothing preventing someone from complaining about another project on Meta; using Meta to host an attack page—that is forbidden. But Meta has different, and often looser, restrictions than EnWiki, and those should be respected. My personal opinion, and I've made that clear a number of places on Meta, is that there should be no claims of "canvassing" when a Meta discussion related to a local project is advertised on that project, as every project and every member of every project has the right to access Meta, its discussions, and its service. However, that does not mean that Meta has to conform to the mores of the local projects; that's actually impossible as there are contradictory policies. So, I agree with you completely the Meta should make non-regulars welcome, and should treat no-one as "an outsider", but I believe it behooves us to understand the difference between Meta's culture and other projects' cultures. And simply, FPAS, the way to change a project's culture is to work from within. EnWiki's culture certainly has changed over the past 6+ years; Meta's can to, if so desired by a consensus of its members. -- Avi (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no problem with Meta having its own rules. In fact, as I said, most of my activities over there was to defend those rules against the very regulars who were pretending I didn't know them. What I do object to is the practice of some regulars, of using the "we have our own rules here" mantra as a club to hit newcomers on the head. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      According to their regulars, we are "misreading" their written rules. See last chunk in this diff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't disagree with you in that. I think certain Metapedians have been too defensive, although I understand why, and I think certain EnWikipedians have been too attacking, although I understand why, and I am trying, in both projects, to provide some insight that will prevent future friction—no more, no less. -- Avi (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood, and just in case I didn't make that clear, your activity is very much appreciated. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I agree. I also want to thank Avi for being a voice of reason and moderation in this matter. It's clear that meta-wiki has its own bad apples among their admniship, but I would certainly not generalize along the lines of what one of those meta-wiki admins said: "my experience of most en wp admins is not all that favourable - that is actual experience not things I've heard or whatever." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The history of Meta

      A view from the past. Meta was originally created to serve the function that is now filled by the Wikipedia namespace. Under UseModWiki (and possibly under the earliest versions of MediaWiki, I can't remember offhand) namespaces didn't exist, so it was impossible to distinguish between a policy page, a noticeboard, a userpage or an article. Meta was created by Larry Sanger in around October 2001 to separate the 'encyclopedia' from 'discussion of the encyclopedia'. For a while most of the policy discussion happened over there, but with the arrival of the Wikipedia namespace somewhere in the first half of 2002 all of this migrated back to WP, and by 2003 most folks weren't even aware of what Meta was for. For a while the site languished but it eventually found a new role as "caretaker of the baby wikis". By 2005 it was widely accepted that Meta had no meaningful relationship to WP anymore, other than the fact that desysopping could only be done by Meta stewards (since changed as well). I'm a bit baffled by what is all going on above, but I thought I'd give the historical perspective anyway. Manning (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      meta:Requests for comment/POV in Chechen Wikipedia is one of the core reasons that Meta exists, and in this instance it doesn't appear to have gotten any attention from that at Meta who should be dealing with it. Yet, instead, it appears that instead of giving issues such as that the attention it deserves, they have put all of their resources into giving Mbz1 yet another opportunity to rant and attack editors. If anyone at Meta is reading this, please tell us how this is not a misdirection of Meta's resources? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, good point. A case where one of the smaller projects is aggressively treating its wiki as home turf for a nationally motivated POV, using the language barrier as a means to shield itself off from outside correction. That kind of case is really where Meta should come into play. But in those areas where it really matters, it seems they have never grown the strength and determination to actually do anything. This would of course not be an isolated case. I suspect it's pretty common in most of the smaller wikis whose languages don't have much international spread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      err... no. I did follow this, and the person who filed the RfC deemed it resolved. Besides, it often (as in this case) isn't clear what action is requested other than some "comments" which were obviously given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Others do not see it as resolved just yet. [36]. I don't know how much of this other story is real, but it looks like on some wikis there's something like Balkan war going on, where only "disarmament" of admins seems to have stopped it, temporarily. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There are those cases, yes. But what is one to do when all one is allowed to do is listen (often in languages one cannot read or has to rely on some translator who might be partisan)? In the case that just got everybody's attention it was all in English... would I advocate de-sysopping or not or whatever based on a broken translation of [insert language not covered by google]? I don't think so... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It was evidently "resolved" only in the sense that the complainant gave up, seeing that the Meta structures were unable and/or unwilling to curb the abuse. I quite agree that it would have been difficult to figure out how to intervene, in the given circumstances, but that's just the point: where it really would matter, Meta has structurally and systematically failed to grow teeth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (did you think we'd succeed where the two World Wars, the UN, and the US-army failed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      I wasn't aware the two World Wars were fought about the issue of how to grant access rights on websites, nor that the US army ever tried to influence that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't be that naive... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Naive? What are you talking about? Your comment about world wars, UN and the US army makes absolutely no sense in this context. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just so I'm sure I've got this - all of the above is because of a POV issue on a website that we have no influence over and which is in a language most of us would have zero chance of understanding? Manning (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, all of the above, with the exception of the references to Chechnya, is because of a now-banned editor's inability to accept dispute resolution on EnWiki. The reference to the POV Chechnya issue is just an example where Meta was supposed to work but couldn't due to a dearth of multilingual editors, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It makes perfect sense. Have you noticed that most contentious RfC's at meta come from the Balkans, the Caucasus, and similar places where the imperial powers tried to solve stuff? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I think everybody familiar with Meta issues knows that the RFC opened by mbz1 had no chance. Such RFCs get opened on a regular basis by users banned on big projects (not only en.wp), or having troubles going through the dispute resolution process on big projects, and I can not recall an instance such an RFC led anywhere - they just decay, and some get formally closed, others stay there open forever. There are no policies indeed to prevent opening of such RFCs, but it would be difficult to create such policies - to list projects which are ineligible for RFC and to update their list on a regular basis? These RFCs should just not be taken seriously and definitely they do not deserve such attention and creation of such drama as we see here. As for Chechen RFC, indeed, I believe this is the case which requires action, and I am really glad you reopened the issue. But generally we should not consider "meta regulars" as a kind of enemy which have the only goal to destroy the dispute resolution process here - I find the direction the discussion was taken before Avi gave his opinion was less constructive and leading nowhere. Meta is a place for collaboration, not for warring or emphasizing the differences in policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This one is different. By searching for some phrases from that "RFC", I've uncovered that earlier versions of that text have been published on Encyclopedia Dramatica and then on MyWikiBiz, in both cases by single-purpose accounts. (I provided the details in the meta-wiki RfD.) The conclusion seems inescapable that it's part of an obvious campaign of defamation that has nothing to do with legitimate dispute resolution on WMF sites. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Is it possible to ban a user from meta?

      I could not find a banning policy among the list of meta policies, but it seems to me that if a sanctioned user from en-wiki (or any other wiki) is using meta as a "safe house" from which to stage attacks on editors at en-wiki or elsewhere, or are otherwise abusing meta policies, we should be able to initiate a ban proposal on meta, following whatever requirements (if any) are in place there. 28bytes (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It technically is, but it takes much, much more than on EnWiki, or pretty much any other project. Yes, Meta, at time views itself as a place where others who have been banned from EnWiki (or other wikis, such as Guido Broeder, I forget his exact name) can come and vent. There are many banned EnWiki editors who are not banned in Meta. Some of them have issues with EnWiki in particular, but are helpful contributors to other projects, and yes, others use meta as a forum for complaints. Remembering that not much of actual substance can be done on Meta itself, I don't see it as that much of a problem if banned editors want to vent their spleens. At best, they vent, they can have a discussion with others, they actually may see where they could work n themselves, and after a while, they can apply for the standard offer or the like. At worst, they vent, they complain, and nothing happens other than there being a record of their frustration on Meta. And if they convince non-EnWiki (or what ever wiki is under discussion) members to come here (or there) and plead on their behalf, we should greet them cordially, explain our rules and how the person in question violated them to the well-meaning editors, and deal with the non-well meaning ones in accordance with our behavioral polices.
      As an aside, may I point out, as deferentially as possible, that your question here, 28bytes, is an example of thinking in accordance with EnWiki's culture, which is very different from Meta's culture, and asking that question on Meta may engender immediate defensive responses. Meta has much more patience for what we would consider malcontents on EnWiki; perhaps they just ignore them more. Either way, I would not suggest trying to get anyone banned on Meta without some severe evidence that they are trying to undermine foundation-level issues, such as the authority of the wikimedia board, or engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment. Just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My only concern would be to prevent meta from becoming another version of Wikiversity, where en.wiki banned users go there and begin disrupting operations here (something like what Abd did some months ago from WV). While I of course understand that meta has to be somewhere that people who we call "malcontents" can go and express themselves, I think the line has to be drawn when it moves from simply sounding off to using it for actively disrupting other projects. Based on the size of this thread, I think it's safe to say this was somewhat disruptive; not ban-worthy, but if it became a pattern it could be, at least in my (en.wiki-shaded) view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree there is definitely a "culture clash", in that asking on meta if there is a policy on meta that supports or prohibits an action (e.g. an RfD for an RfC) seems to be taken as aggression. Thus, I asked here. :) Am I correct in presuming, then, that there is no formal policy for banning, and that such things are handled on an ad-hoc basis? Or have no cases yet arisen there that have required a ban? 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Very wise, 28 :). There have been some users either indef blocked or banned from Meta, but always on an ad-hoc basis, yes. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Avi. Hopefully the end result of this discussion will be that en-wiki editors become more educated on what processes there are or aren't on meta, so we can better understand our options when something comes up there that may affect us. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      From what I have seen they happen the same way topic bans happen here on ANI. They tend to be informal discussions which end up in a !vote. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you recall any of the cases? I'm unable to find anything in the m:WM:RFH history, although it's possible I'm not looking at the right page or using the right search terms. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Either way, I would not suggest trying to get anyone banned on Meta without some severe evidence that they are trying to undermine foundation-level issues, such as the authority of the wikimedia board, or engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment. Just my opinion. WizardofOz managed to get his accounts globally locked pretty easily. I hear what you're saying but to me it sounds much more like Meta views itself a project unto itself that doesn't really have much to do with the various wikis, which makes me think many over there have lost sight of their mission. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      WoO was global blocked by self request, and most of us stewards didn't want to do it anyway; a cooling off period would have sufficed, Speak to Jyothis as to why he decided to acquiesce to WoO's strange request. -- Avi (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      About Avi's criterion of somebody having "engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment": since we now have very clear evidence that Mbz1 is the same person who also wrote crass anti-GG rants on Enc.Dr. and on "MyWikiBiz", using the same diffs and the same wording as in her Meta "RfC", of a degree of similarity that makes it entirely inconceivable these texts could have been written independently of each other, I'd say we are pretty close to making such a case. A Meta-ban or a global ban for Mbz1 is certainly in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      What she did is not criminal in the way that we have had to deal with editors who have had orders of restraint issued against them, and even incarcerated. I don't think a ban from Meta would be an apprpriate thing to ask for. Learning to ignore her would be better, especially as she cannot affect EnWiki now that she is community banned. By the way, she got blocked for a week on Meta for calling those who disagreed with her "abusive", for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't have to be a criminal matter; imposition of restraining orders is not done solely for criminal matters, although their breach may be a crime. I can think of a lawyer or two who would accept bringing a false light lawsuit for stuff like that found on those web pages. (This isn't a legal threat in any way, particularly as I would have no standing myself whatsoever to be a party.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      FPAS, I am going to ask you to retract that comment above. There isn't a person on this page who doesn't know how to copy and paste a page from one wiki to another; given the lulz-value of doing so, it could be any number of people who have done so in this case. I'll also ping you on your page. Risker (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Risker, I have submitted private evidence to ArbCom (receipt acknowledged by Elen), which strongly suggests that the meta-wiki RFC was the last of the three similar pages to be created. The other two non-WMF wikis have public edit histories, so this isn't rocket science. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The only thing I have to clarify is that the identity of the ED author is not quite as certain as the identity between the MyWikiBiz author and Mbz's RfC on Meta, which is 100% certain. And yes, even if it were just those two pages, given the unconcealed insults contained in both, in my book, the threshold into harassment in the legal sense has been crossed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough on the authorship issue, FPAS. But it is not appropriate for anyone here to state that there has been a crime or to assess the "legal sense". Suggesting that an identifiable person has committed a crime for which they have not been charged isn't acceptable. The place to determine that is a court, not the Administrator Noticeboard of a website, even the 5th most popular website. or is it the 4th? 7th? I can never remember. Risker (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Avi suggested that a certain course of action on Wikimedia projects ought to be taken if there was harassment. It is my personal opinion that there was harassment, and that Wikimedia projects therefore ought to react accordingly. I do not subscribe to the idea that we should sanction people for harassment only if such a charge has previously been confirmed by a court; that would expose the victims to an intolerable extent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me clarify, I did not suggest a certain course of action should be taken; I said that in this case a certain course of action should not be taken, for the only times I know of where it has been taken, the harassment has been orders of magnitude worse. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand your position, but I disagree with that argument. If it's been done only in so few cases, it's been done too rarely, and should be done more often. And don't tell me my opinion about what should be done on Meta counts less than that of the regulars there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't made any comments about anyone's opinion other than my own. My own opinion is that Mbz is not someone who needs banning from Meta at this point; once her 1 week block elapses, if she stops her campaign, all is well. Even if she continues to merely complain about people, we should learn to ignore her (reverting any truly defamatory or actual harassment, of course). Don't give her more credence than she deserves :). But, of course, that's just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This turn of the dialogue isn't particularly productive. We don't need recourse to a real-world legal standard to have someone banned from a WMF site or another. WP:NOTLAW. I don't think any WMF site has a policy saying than an editor cannot be banned unless they broke some real-world law. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Dont' retract anything FPaS. If you retract it, I will take ownership of the comment from you. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Meta-Culture and failures to communicate (Lessons Learned?)

      I've been over on Meta, trying to participate as a good Metamedian. I was annoyed when it was suggested that somehow, users should not be listened too, solely because they don't hang around there much. I've seen such ad hominem here and it's just as useless as anywhere -- comment on the content, not the contributer. But I was appalled at the behavior of admins from both en wiki and meta wiki. The admin corps from both projects were shown in a very bad light. I find it difficult to understand why so many of you failed to communicate so disastrously. You all should know better, and be better, and you should now work on fixing what went so wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have to admit, much of the behavior from both en-wiki admins and meta admins has been appalling. However, it should be noted that there have also been editors such as billinghurst, Avi and others who have worked very hard to try to bridge the gap between the sides, and they should be commended for it. 28bytes (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes, good on both sides but it never should have happened that way.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Courcelles should be commended too. Although he has been more low key in this brouhaha than the other two mentioned, he also made significant contributions to restoring a sense of balance. And speaking of balance, the meta-admins (Nemo bis actually) eventually blocked Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha for a week. So, while their approach to civility is more heavy handed than on enwiki, it's not lacking balance overall. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I had a similar reaction, as well as the bafflement Manning expressed above.

      RfCs on Meta are not appeals. They do not 'overturn decisions' of other wikis. They may discuss potential systemic problems with the policies or process of other wikis, which can lead to cross-wiki discussions, but that is rare.

      Allowing an RfC to stand for a time does not indicate support for its claim; Meta is simply tolerant of people sharing their views, and in general avoids deleting discussions. In this case, I would say too tolerant of a ridiculous and personally attacking view, which should at least have been blanked. But the emphasis was on tolerance and discourse, and not any opinion on the appropriateness of the topic.

      Finally, noone on Meta was in support of this RfC per se, but simply opposed to anyone coming in and peremptorily demanding its removal. This became a big deal, rather than being handled smoothly and without fuss, only because of the approach and attitude of the requests. And then the cycle of recrimination and (unintentional) misinterpretation that followed. – SJ + 16:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I find it amusing that they saw fit to ban Mbz1 for a week for making personal attacks, yet still refuse to remove the actual attack-masquerading-as-RfC itself. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The regulars over there have this weird idea that if you slap a "RfC" tag on a page you can write whatever you want in it, overriding m:BLP and what not. They also seem to think that if you add diffs to a page you get a free pass to use headings like "X is dishonest and untruthful". In fact, a google search for "dishonest and untruthful" returns that meta-wiki RfC as the 3rd result for me! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Template:Rescue

      Having been deleted following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue, the deletion reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 27 the template has been re-created, I have taged to for WP:G4 (which was removed with the edit sum Its no longer been added to anything. I don't think you can speedy delete it. No harm in leaving it for historical reasons and to prevent broken links) I then restored it to the Deteted template messages version which has also been reverted. Can a administrator please look into what's going on and protect the page. Mtking (edits) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Historical retainment of templates (and many other things) is commonplace. It is clearly not meant to be in use, as it states on the page, but is retained so that old page revisions that would contain it do not have broken links instead. I don't see the problem here. Historical things shouldn't be deleted. SilverserenC 00:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Mtking, not sure you realize, but the rescue template is wrapping inside of a template of it's own that marks it as an old template on any pages it's used on. Go try to use it in the Sandbox and see for yourself.--v/r - TP 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, but no, the ARS should not be allowed to retain it in this fashion like some sort of martyr's rock. If it is to remain as something other than a redlink, then it should be clearly labeled as a deleted template and not still fly the lifesaver imagery. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Tarc, that seems a bit harsh. We don't need to hold over their head our 'victory' in TfD and DRV. The template is clearly marked and wraped in another template that prevents it from being used. It only exists in this fashion to prevent the redlink {{rescue}} in old revisions of articles.--v/r - TP 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is the "This template is deprecated" text not enough? Reyk YO! 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed the "This template is deprecated" text is enough, it is not as if the template contains any information that related to the article it was placed on. Mtking (edits) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note. Due to the (silly) ongoing edit war on the template, I have just protected it for three days. I'm off to sleep now; fellow admins, feel free to unprotect without asking me should a consensus emerge here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Shouldn't {{Tdeprecated}} be used in these cases? →Στc. 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't think so: it says that the deprecated template has been replaced by another one, while it was my impression that the TFD said that this one should be removed and not replaced. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Its not being used any longer, nor hurting anything at all. What possible reason would there to be to destroy it? You won. You somehow got enough people to show up to convince the opinion of the closing administrator to prevent it from being placed on any articles in need of Rescue. For historical places that link to it, its best to show what it was, instead of a dead red link. Dream Focus 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't a deletion discussion; you don't need to add a vote to your comment. By the way, is this edit considered simple enough and housekeeping-like enough that it's appropriate while the template is protected? I immediately self-reverted; the only reason I did it was to make it easy for you to understand what I'm asking about. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it much matters either way on the categories. Those categories could only show up if the template was transcluded from a live page with a revisionid older than the template deletion. Since all such transclusions were removed, these categories can never show up on a live version of a page because any new edits will have a higher revisionid. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but this is an obvious G4 speedy. Kept because article histories contain its usage? Seriously? There are literally hundreds of deleted templates that show up as redlinks in article histories. I'd like to see a very good reason why this one deserves special treatment. Resolute 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. There doesn't seem to be any real need to keep it around, other than some kind of shrine. Reyk YO! 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We generally delete templates because they're unfixable, because they're redundant, because they're unused and won't be used, or because they violate core policies. As this one was deleted because of the way it was frequently used, rather than because of a design problem or because it was never used, deletion isn't as helpful of a solution. The discussion's goal was to ensure that this template wasn't transcluded or substed in other namespaces; its preservation with the notice of deprecation will go along with the result of the TFD without causing the problems with tons of article histories that would result from deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the prominent arguments in the deletion debate was that this was redundant to the real AfD template. Also, this is now unusued and won't be used. So tell me again why this shouldn't be speedy deleted? Resolute 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at the discussions at AFD and DRV, it's clear that the consensus was not for pseudo-deletion or faux-deletion, but for deletion. How is this not a {{db-repost}}?
        Tangentially, I tagged {{ARS/Tagged}} and {{Afdrescue}} for CSD yesterday (although the former was removed, for some reason). Both of them should go to the same place that {{ARSnote}} is now, and where {{rescue}} ought to be. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As soon as it is unprotected, I will file another TfD, then. This isn't about lording over ARS...if I wanted to do that I would have joined the recent ANI attacks against their deletion discussions...it is about respecting the consensus of the Wikipedia community. The consensus was that this thing should be deleted, not left intact with some weird "we won't use it" pledges. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama. Resolute 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question Do we keep other old transcluded templates to help make sure previous versions of articles appear correct? If or if not, why is {{rescue}} special such that it should deviate from the norm? In other words, can we de-politicalize this and look at the underlying (at least, as stated) issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Templates are routinely deleted without any consideration as to how they will make old versions of the page look. I happen to think that's a mistake (it is probably technically feasible to have articles display the template as it looked at the time the revision was made, even if the template has been edited since), but common practice is what it is at the moment. NW (Talk) 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In this case since the template added nothing of significance to the article, why not just have it produce "white space" then fully protect the template. Mtking (edits) 06:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Jclemens' question is the relevant one here. I've never seen a deleted template get re-created for the sole purpose of ensuring that old revisions look nice. It may be that it happens from time to time and I've never come across it, or it may be that it happens rarely or never. If it does happen from time to time, I highly doubt it would happen on something that doesn't affect the content of an article, like a maintenance template. I can't imagine it would ruin someone's day to see Template:Rescue on an old revision instead of the life-preserver template. If this type of template re-creation is truly as uncommon as I think it is, then I see no reason to apply special treatment to this particular template. —SW— yak 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, who cares if our articles look like crap, as long as the bureaucratic niceties are preserved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's old article revisions. They arn't exactly pretty with or without the template because of that big red bar at the top. I personally don't care if the template is kept for historical purposes, but that argument is flawed.--v/r - TP 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. ((TFD==Delete) && (DRV==Endorse) == Redlink). Page histories are full of redlinks and other brokeness; relax and breath normally; this is ok. This is a camel's nose to get this all overturned. Alarbus (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid. We don't need to discuss this, because we already did, twice as a matter of fact. The community has already spoken, and it said to delete thos template, and then it said it again. Whoever recreated it needs to be blocked for deliberate disruption per WP:POINT and the template, in accordance with the already clearly expressed will of the community, needs to be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It wasn't recreated; it was restored, along with the talk page. Kanguole 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, not quite: it was first recreated (as an empty, and non-functional, {{Deleted template}} stub) by the previous deleting admin Ironholds [37]; then the old content was recreated on top of that by Rich Farmbrough [38] and the prior history restored. The first step may not have been speedy-worthy but didn't technically do what was intended; the second step should never have been done without authorization from a DRV, and in my view does fall under speedy-repost. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the instructions for the template that after the article survived the AfD the template was to be removed? I ask because if the only argument for restoring the deleted template is that it preferves the look and feel of the article historically at that point it shouldn't be restored in it's full glory. A simple 1 liner of "This article was tagged with the Rescue template" that links to the ARS (or it's successor) page explaining about what the rescue template was. It satisfies the need to indicate that the article was tagged and also minimizes the amount of influence said tag has. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      One (of the meany issues) that were discussed at the TfD was the wikiproject "advert" in main space, so any link to the ARS would not be acceptable, I also don't see it as acceptable to keep a template for only history reasons (see my comments below). Mtking (edits) 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're all for confusing future editors in wondering what this template was intended to do just so you can stick it to ARS? Take your pound of flesh and move on. The template is consensus deleted, we're just quibbling over the final disposition of a few edge cases. Unless your permanently volunteering to provide a NPOV explanation of what the template was about every single time an editor asks about what the template was supposed to do. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • not to mention the fact that it was recreated (albeit just with the "this template was deleted" text) by the admin who deleted it in the first place! 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point me to the community discussion about using this {{Deleted template}} ? as it seams to be the work of just one editor ? I can perhaps see the logic for having while current versions of articles use a deleted template, however when all examples have been removed then the template should just be removed.Mtking (edits) 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We generally use {{being deleted}} while removing templates. {{deleted template}} was the work of quite a number of people and has never been controversial in and of itself. There was a community discussion about {{deleted template}} and there was also a notification left at WT:TFD after it was created. There was also further discussion on AN and probably elsewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      • The "Us vs Them" comments by a small number of editors above are part of the reason we've ended up here in the first place.

        To clarify a few things which others commented or touched upon:

        I asked Ironholds to restore {{rescue}}'s talk page and edit history and add {{deleted template}}. He indicated he was swamped with other community issues and with his blessing I asked Rich Farmbrough to handle it. I knew Rich Farmbrough would know how to apply {{deleted template}} since he had done some of the initial work on the template (I've made quite a few complex logic code changes to improve it since then).

        Talk pages of templates are routinely deleted under CSD G8 and the talk page of a template which has a long history and lots of discussion should be left intact for historical purposes. Using {{deleted template}} makes this fairly straight forward and easy.

        Using {{deleted template}} also further discourages someone from creating a new template with the same name. This has happened a number of times and that really tends to break old page revisions.

        The logic code used for {{deleted template}} works like this:
        Old page revisions prior to the template's deletion show the original message box of the {{rescue}} template.
        New transclusions and edits display the red notice and do not display {{rescue}}'s original message box, and are categorized in the Category:Pages containing deleted templates maintenance category.
        The template page for {{rescue}} itself shows both the red notice and the original message box.

        {{rescue}} does not fall under CSD G4 and I would caution the handful of individuals who are threatening to TfD {{rescue}} yet again that doing this is not productive and will further waste the community's time. It does not harm Wikipedia in any way to preserve the talk page and edit history of the template, and while doing so had not historically been routinely done, we didn't have a working solution for doing this until the latest {{expand}} discussion in January 2011.

        With the above out of the way, the handful of individuals ranting about Ironholds, Rich Farmbrough, and ARS need to double check who they are ranting about. If they really want to rant about someone, they can rant about me, since I'm the one who asked Ironholds and Rich Farmbrough to handle this task. ARS didn't have anything to do with it, and while I've occasionally "rescued" some "hopeless" articles at AfD, I'm not a "member" of ARS and I have rarely participated in discussions at WT:ARS. That said, I'm likely to ignore any ranting directed my way because it doesn't serve any constructive purpose and doesn't help improve Wikipedia. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Tothwolf asserts that G4 doesn't apply to that template. I think that's a grey area, and it might be worthy of a WT:CSD discussion. But essentially for G4 to apply to a page, the page would have to be:
      • A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy of the page that was deleted.
      • Given a deletion result per consensus during its most recent deletion discussion.
      • A page where the reason for the deletion must still apply.
      • Not "userfied".
      • Not undeleted via DRV.
      That third criterion above might be the sticky point. If a template is no longer in active use, does the reason for its deletion still apply? With the text stating that it's a deprecated template, it won't be effective as canvassing or a rallying cry or an advertisement for ARS or whatever objection someone would have to it even if someone does try to use it. Does that deprecation effectively remove that criterion from any template? In that case, why don't we just add such text to every template at TfD that should no longer be used rather than deleting them? -- Atama頭 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, and as I mentioned above, should someone attempt to transclude {{rescue}} via a new edit, it will only display the red text and if the page is saved anyway, it will be added to the maintenance category where we can monitor and remove the transclusion. This is far better than having confused editors who didn't know of the TFD getting a red link when they attempt to use the template, etc.

      I know some editors thought such an approach might work for all templates, but I'm not sure we would really need that. The current design of {{deleted template}} works well for message box templates, but might not work well for other templates in it's current form. For message box templates which have previously been heavily used, {{deleted template}} seems right now to be the best way to handle them. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Atama, if a template is no longer in active use, it would be deleted at TFD anyway. And Tothwolf, clearly if the template is deprecated it would be better for it to show up as a red link that doesn't work than to allow it to exist in any fashion any more. If it is necessary to keep the template so it can be prevented from use, then simply include the coding that allows it to be tracked but remove the former functionality and formatting.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Or you could simply salt the template so it doesn't get recreated. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


      Ryulong, please go back and re-read what I wrote above. New transclusions of the template do not display any "former functionality of formatting". Only old page revisions accessed via edit history links with a revisionid prior to the template's deletion will display the original template's message box. Any new transclusions display a red notice and are added to a maintenance category.

      While I think a small number of people have been blowing a lot of things out of proportion, the very idea some have put forth that "ARS is going to continue to use {{rescue}} now that its history and talk page have been restored" is simply absurd. The code in {{deleted template}} simply doesn't work that way or allow it.

      <soapbox>
      I can understand how some editors might not understand how {{deleted template}} works, which is why I explained its logic code above, but beyond that, I'm growing tired of the anti-ARS propaganda (both blatant and disguised) that I've been seeing both here and elsewhere. Such propaganda and fear mongering fly in the face of our policies and if it were being done towards any other "group" of editors here on Wikipedia, such as say new page patrollers or FA writers or whatever, it would have been stopped and/or brought before ArbCom long before it got to the point where it is at with the current anti-ARS crowd. In fact, if ARS itself simply didn't exist, those pushing the anti-ARS propaganda would certainly be doing the same thing to some other group.

      On an individual level, members of ARS appear to be very tolerant and I've noticed that despite the persistent attacks by the anti-ARS camp, while a few ARS members tend to fall into a pattern of being baited and then finally lashing out, the majority of ARS' members simply ignore the anti-ARS rhetoric. I can't say the same for the opposing camp however. At times I've been astonished at the level of intolerance I've seen from the anti-ARS camp.

      Individual members of ARS apparently genuinely feel that keeping whatever material they are discussing is in the best interests of Wikipedia and helps improve our coverage of a particular subject. While that may or may not be the case depending on the particular discussion, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs and should still be able to feel secure that they won't be persecuted here on Wikipedia for voicing them.

      So... why am I speaking out if I'm not even a "member" of ARS? As a community, this is our problem, and somebody needs to say it.

      To the anti-ARS crowd: The majority of the community has been able to co-exist with ARS just fine. The problem is you, not them. Suck it up, work things out, and go write an article or find something else constructive to do. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You tell others to assume good faith while assuming stunningly bad faith of them. You tell your perceived opponents to stop being intolerant, while comparing them to nazis. What is wrong with you? Reyk YO! 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My perceived opponents? I think you need to re-read some of what I wrote above because I've made it quite clear that I'm not in either of these camps. I've been sitting back and watching people go at it for weeks and I'm now simply calling it as I see it. If you feel offended by my reference to First they came… above then I apologize. My intent however was to point out the apparent "persecution" of ARS by a small anti-ARS minority within the Wikipedia community who've chosen to turn the TFD of {{rescue}} into a cause célèbre and use it as a staging ground to further propagandize and attack their perceived enemies within ARS. Given that, I feel my reference was spot on. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a blindingly obvious G4. The deleted revisions thing is BS many templates that no longer exist appear in deleted revisions. This is slighting the community concencus by bringing back a contraversial template without discussion. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you in the right place? Please see the top of the page: "Review of a deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review.". The template was at TfD multiple times and so it seems right and proper that it should have several performances at DRV too. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a related note, if an administrator could restore the documentation subpage and add {{Historical}}, this should allow the red notice to properly display directly below the original message box on the template page itself (see {{Expand}} for an example). Right now the preloaded documentation message box is being displayed in between the original message box and the red notice and it might be possible for some people to miss seeing the red text on the template page itself. This doesn't have any effect on the logic code used by {{deleted template}} so any potential transclusions will display the red notice text correctly anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The |name= parameter for {{Ambox}} was what was causing the restored documentation page box to display in the wrong location. I'm not sure why just yet, but I've removed that parameter so it displays the red notice text correctly now. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, here as go. {{Ambox}} includes the code which would cause this to happen:
      {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:{{PAGENAME:{{{name}}}}}
 |{{#ifeq:{{{doc}}}|no|
  |{{Documentation}}<!-- Transclude documentation on template page -->
 }}
}}
      It also looks like the |subst= parameter cannot be used without |name=, so either |doc=no has to be passed to {{Ambox}}, or the subst: check has to be done externally to {{Ambox}} when {{deleted template}} is used. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is absurd. Consensus at the TfD and DRV was clear, and that was that the template should be deleted. Not quasi-pseudo-half way deleted but retained as some kind of memorial. Deleted. Are we going to start restoring articles because other articles have redlinks in their histories now? How ridiculous can you get? And congratulations to Tothwolf, who with his extensive explanations of the coding feasibility and "BAWWW! I'm, like, totally neutral but the ARS are blameless angels fighting the evil hordes" handwringing, has managed to deflect from the real issue- which is that the template should not have been undeleted at all. The consensus is what it is, and people simply need to accept that. G4 and salt. Reyk YO! 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • From my viewpoint, neither "side" is particularly happy with the current situation. ARS doesn't have their template anymore, and the hardcore anti-ARS camp isn't happy that the template has been wrapped in {{deleted template}} in order to prevent new transclusions and allow old page revisions to continue to work.

          As a member of the larger community, I for one am glad that the talk page which had been speedied under CSD G8 is visible to non-administrators now. Deletion of the talk page resulted in a loss of transparency as to the discussions which had been taking place there prior to the TFD and incoming links to the talk page had been made non-functional. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Things I see above: "Sorry, but no, the ARS should not be allowed to retain it in this fashion like some sort of martyr's rock." "And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama." "knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid." "And the ARS wonders why they have such a bad reputation for creating such needless drama." Ummm, Really?. You guys are creating your own drama. Who cares about this, really? You are arguing about the proper treatment of a deleted template for historical purposes. As some are doing above, figure out the standard rule, discuss it, come to a result. Meanwhile I'll work on building an encyclopedia.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      TfD once again

      Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

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

      It is a shame that some just refuse to accept the community consensus and edit was to keep a sentimental/historical copy of what was deleted in project space, but it seems an official TfD is the only thing that will work here, as one wikiproject saw fit to edit war to keep speedy tags off and keep the old template itself in. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yes, the ARS is sitting around a fire perusing the template history and listening to [39].--Milowent • hasspoken 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk page archives

      Could an administrator please restore the talk page archives and sandbox edit history?

      I've been able to find 4 talk page archives and another talk page so far, but there may be others as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Could an administrator like, not do that, and not take any more admin actions related to this until the current TFD is closed? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      With your comment at TFD and now here, I certainly don't understand what exactly it is you don't want us to see in the talk page archives. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know or care what is in them so I'll thank you to leave your backhanded accusations at the door. They were deleted as a result of a community decision to delete the template. A decision that was upheld at DRV. None of this should have been restored without a new discussion first that clearly overturned the previous consensus. That's how WP works, as I'm sure you are already aware. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't particularly care what is in the talk page archives, then you shouldn't really be all that concerned if they are restored for transparency reasons, either. The talk page was not deleted per any sort of community discussion so it might be best if you stop attempting to mislead others who may be following this discussion. If the deletion of the template itself was as non-controversial as you and a few others have tried to claim, then there also wouldn't be any reason for a small minority of individuals to try to prevent non-administrators from seeing the talk page archives now would there? --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because speedy deletion is supposed to only be used for non-controversial deletions, and because the G8 criteria for speedy deletions specifically excludes talk page archives:
        "This excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user pages, user talk pages, talk page archives, [...]"
        I again ask that an administrator please restore these pages for the purposes of transparency. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Heads up: unapproved survey of inactive administrators

      Hi all. I just wanted sysops to know that in the last 48 hours a banned editor -- James S. editing under Nrcprm2026 and other socks -- emailed ~300 admins on the inactive list with a survey. It's not particularly a cause for alarm, other than that...

      1. It says I am the Foundation point of contact for this survey. This is untrue, and the Foundation did not request or approve of the survey.
      2. The survey was not reviewed at all by the volunteers/staff of the Research Committee. (That group tries to keep the number of frivolous surveys to a minimum.)

      While I am sympathetic to anyone who cares about retention of admins enough to do research, I am pretty mad that there's nothing we can do to prevent this kind of mass email from a banned editor. Apologies to anyone who was confused or annoyed by the survey. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I've removed Nrcprm2026's ability to send emails. Could you specify which other accounts were used, so that they can have email access removed as well? Or should we block access for all of his 80+ socks? Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If it isn't too hard, I would suggest they should be. It's already been demonstrated Nrcprm can't be trusted with email. Unfortunately if they have that many socks, it sounds likely they'll just create more so it probably isn't that useful. Incidentally, if they're mass emailing people with a small number of accounts (or even one account), perhaps this would help to reenforce the view to the foundation that the proposals to find some way to attempt to limit such abuse (arising out of the mailinator aided abuse of some wikipedians) are important? Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't really an en issue but if this foundation is concerned about the way this was handled or that the emails were misleading, are there any plans for a global ban? I ask because it looks like the survey was developed on meta meta:Inactive administrators survey and there was actually some discussion about the survey with Philippe meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Community Advocacy. Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, while I was aware of the survey, I was unaware of distribution mechanism and was certainly unaware that it would list a Foundation staff member as the contact. I also would never endorse doing such a survey without going through our research committee. I will make a clear statement to that effect on the meta page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Steven is right in its points. This survey was not at all under Rcom supervision or review. It is problematic to me that someone send message with clearly false content about the involvement of others --Lilaroja (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm surprised that we allow users to use the email system to send 300 messages. Is there a legitimate reason to send even 30 messages in a day.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Over the summer there were a couple times that I bombed out probably a couple hundred emails at once. There are definitely sometimes legitimate needs to mass email, although it might be a good idea to set up a new user right +massemail and restrict volume of emails for people who don't have it. (I was interning at WMF at the time and they were related, so it wouldn't have been a problem if I had had to acquire a special userright or something to do so.) Kevin (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Curious - the "research" which underpins this survey is based on a Granger Causality test, and some IP is claiming it "proves" a relationship between declining admin numbers and declining editor numbers. An interesting claim, given that the Granger test is unable to prove the non-existence of a third variable driving both elements in the time series. It's a useful test for developing hypotheses, but no statistician would ever regard it as conclusive until the existence of other influencing variables had been ruled out (which is certainly not the case here). Manning (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think we should limit the amount of emails that can be sent per IP per day. It is not particularly helpful that all users have the capacity to send as many emails as they can. As this incident proves, the e-mail feature is vulnerable to abuse. Exceptions may be made by administrators as and when there is a valid requirement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Note that based on a forward from someone who received it, it looks like SPTF-CH (talk · contribs) was the sock sending the email. Thankfully it's been blocked. Thanks for the help everyone. (As a side note, I totally agree about limiting the amount of email able to be sent from any account per day. If you want help organizing a serious feature request for this, let me know.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have no objection to some sort of limit on emails per account (or per IP address) per day, but I think those who are intent on abuse of the email system will get round it. It would also have to be a global thing—there's be no point us implementing such a restriction on enwiki if somebody would only have to hop to another wiki to do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is already a limit of 200 per account per day per wiki, which is too high to be of any use. There are already feature requests to curtail email abuse, see e.g. bug 7518 and bug 33761. MER-C 03:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is of use in some ways. "Real spammers" send millions of emails per day, bites of 200 aren't worth their while. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      It looks reasonable to email block al known socks, and suspected socks, but I'm not certain this is appropriate for the IP addresses without a little checking. Also we would need to ensure that we "control" the email blocking, to make sure every new sock is included. Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      Known socks email blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      If there is consensus (or BOLDness) to email block the suspected socks they are at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nrcprm2026. Please note on the talk page which accounts you have blocked for future reference. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      Anybody else interested in helping out at the copyright problems board?

      I would dearly love some increased admin involvement over there. I was, I have to admit, struggling with burnout on that work months ago (having focused on it for years), and while I'm still putting time into it every weekend I cannot keep up. More assistance there would be very much appreciated. I'm happy to offer guidance based on my own work there to anybody who's interested in helping out. We also have WP:CPAA with guidance for admins interested in helping. This area is sorely in need of some additional hands. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'll try to lend a hand at it. I'm always worried that I might miss a copyvio, so I don't tend to do this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Marvelous! If you ever want a second opinion, please feel free to drop by my talk page or just place a note at CP with your own impressions and wait for me or another admin to come by. Second opinions are sometimes helpful at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Start by asking all the people in the thread below who accused Rlevse/PumpkinSky of "massive plagiarism." If they haven't helped you out, I think it is time they did! (I mean this in good faith, there are a lot of them down there, obviously concerned about the issue. What a great pool to draw from!) It is tough work -- I worked on the CCI on that user just mentioned and I also worked on reviewing the zillions of articles on the ItsLassieTime sock-- which kind of burned me out. I agree more people are needed and that yes, miss one and everyone jumps on you, that is a worry. It's also why I've stopped submitting or reviewing GA and FA articles unless I have a team of at least four people to help me, too scary to do these things alone any more. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Nagorno-Karabakh

      I'm retiring from the Nagorno-Karabakh articles for the time being, having been the only admin to appear to be trying to keep control there lately, and I'm putting up this notice looking for another admin, hopefully a totally fresh one with no knowledge of the region or its history, or the editors or their history, to take over and keep an eye on it. This is a long-term job that will eat your soul. Enjoy. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm soulless, just like the great Death Angel song, so I'll see what I can do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Is this a G6 or not?

      Plastomer (disambiguation). I've had a G6 denied a couple times. This is a dab with one blue link and two reds. It disambiguates nothing. Anyone want to tell me how in the flying hell this is NOT a G6? I see no reason to let this rot in AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Personally, I believe that page could reasonably have been deleted per WP:G6; edit summaries such as this one, however, are completely unwarranted and over the top. That said, the AfD will be snow closed quite soon I'd wager. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, the edit summary was "(Undid revision 476889682 by Nyttend (talk) don't be an idiot)", and the diff (for admins only) is now here. Graham87 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello, why was the page speedy deleted as uncontroversial when I had already declined it? "Uncontoversial" means that nobody disagrees, and I daresay an when an attempt is declined multiple times, it's controversial. Moreover, why did I only learn about this discussion by browsing this page? Why was I not notified? Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This three time renomination for speedy deletion was inappropriate behaviour by TenPoundHammer, but this has already been discussed by those involved. The close of the AFD is also not the best as it should have waited for a full delete decision as a declined speedy delete should not be speedy deleted. However snow deletion could have been fine if it waited a while. Because it has only been deleted with a G6 if it is recreated there is no recourse to delete it again immediately, which if the AFD had been fully debated would have allowed a G4 delete on recreation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I am at a loss to understand why Nyttend thought the G6 criterion didn't apply. {{db-disambig}} clearly says: disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)". This was obviously the case here. Nyttend simply misread the rule. No point in making a fuss about it now. I also don't see how the technical distinction between a G4-able AfD decision and a speedy makes any practical difference here. If anybody should ever recreate the page, then either there will still be no more than a single target, in which case the dab will automatically again fall under G6, or such targets will have been created, in which case the dab will undoubtedly have become legit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would have deleted that as a G6 myself, but someone's decline should still be respected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If the original decline is based on such an obvious factual error about the rule? I don't see why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Avoidance of drama, perhaps? Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      That page was an obvious G6 candidate. I'd like Nyttend to explain why he thought G6 did not apply, as it seems he did not explain himself other than by asserting that "neither of those cases is true". Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      PumpkinSky return request

      Request withdrawn. 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User:PumpkinSky (formerly User:Rlevse) has posted on his talk page a request to return to editing. A recent community ban proposal was closed with consensus against the ban, but he remains blocked. The ban proposal focused on several legitimate concerns with his editing, mainly copyright/close paraphrasing issues, and presenting himself as a new user instead of a returning/unvanished one. He is offering an apology for the misleading presentation of himself as a new user, and has proposed some safeguards to help prevent any copyright issues from entering the mainspace.

      A number of editors, including myself, have volunteered to act as mentors to help make sure the copyright concerns don't recur. This editor has made some mistakes, but he has a lot to offer the project, and I hope my fellow editors will consider supporting his return to editing. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      My name is PumpkinSky. I used to be Rlevse.

      I love this project because as a child I read the hardcopy World Book Encyclopedia for fun. The 21st Century version of that is Wikipedia. I love learning new things.

      I've devoted a ton of time and edits to wikipedia (see the appx 100k of my Rlevse edits). I worked hard to do the best that I could and tried to recognize the efforts of others with the “this is your day” program.

      I edited from Nov 2005 to Nov 2010 as Rlevse. I can’t recall the numbers exactly as my pages were deleted, but I had about 15 FAs, 17 FLs, several GAs, and about 30 DYKs. I am most proud of helping save Medal of Honor from FAR because of the sacrifices of those veterans, Gilwell Park, Brownsea Island Scout Camp, William Hanna, and Joseph Barbera. In mid 2011 I was helping my friend BarkingMoon learn wiki. That whetted my appetite and love of wiki again. I came back as PumpkinSky in July 2011. As PumpkinSky I am most proud of the FL List of stutterers as I did it in honor of someone I know who suffers from that affliction and my work on WP:Montana articles—especially Yogo sapphire. Towards the end of that time I really enjoyed working on WP:NRHP articles. As PumpkinSky I had 1 FL, 2 GAs, and about 23 DYKs, with two DYKs still on the nom page.

      I apologize to the community for presenting myself as a new user. I especially apologize to User:Casliber, my wiki friends, and those who have worked through the CCIs. I also thank those who worked the CCIs to improve the articles. I never plagiarized or paraphrased too closely on purpose. I honestly thought putting a valid ref at the end was enough. I accept responsibility for not knowing better. Allow me to take this opportunity to state that I’ve for years said wiki has always been terrible at educating users in practically everything. As PumpkinSky, I’ve been making a sincere effort to get better at paraphrasing/copy requirements. I feel this is shown by the results of the current CCI in which 13 reviewers have described with words such as “constructive”, “improvements”, “gnoming”, “helpful”, and “good”. I’m willing to help with that but keep in mind I’m not exactly wiki’s subject matter expert on the topic.

      I ask User:28bytes to undelete my Rlevse user page and all its subpages. I ask the community to leave them alone as I merely want to get some info from them.

      I will agree to these return conditions for one year:

      1. I wish to return as PumpkinSky. I will post a permanent note at the top of my user talk page that I used to be Rlevse.
      2. Five users have agreed to be mentors: User:28bytes, User: Ched Davis, User:Gerda Arendt, User:Montanabw, and User:Wehwalt.
      3. I agree to contact one of the mentors before submitting a FAC or DYK.
      4. I will endeavor to my utmost ability to avoid conflict with others. If such a situation does come about, I will contact my mentors and give justifiable reasons for offense/disagreement.

      Going forward, if I am allowed to return, I would like to still focus on Montana and NRHP articles. I will not for at least a year nom a DYK without one of my mentors vetting it first. As for FAC, look at the Yogo article and the many people I sought to help on it. Several other people, not me, had the idea to prep it for FAC. I gladly accepted their help as I know I cannot meet modern FAC standards on my own. As for copy issues, see the talk page. I was reaching out to Nikkimaria to help get the article ready. It still isn’t ready but people tell me it’s close. I will not nom a FAC without several others, including Wehwalt, vetting it first.

      I wish I had learned the copy issues better sooner. I was truly trying to get better at the copy issues and I think the current CCI shows that. I know that I still need help and I truly thank those willing to help me. I think I came back as another name to avoid the überdrama that I knew would occur, but it happened anyway.

      That poor ability to handle feeling cornered did me in again. I apologize again. In real life and on-wiki I find it difficult to deal with situations where I feel cornered and I tend to withdraw. I apologize for making a decision to completely withdraw instead of sticking around to work things out. I will endeavor my best to be super-cautious about paraphrasing issues.

      PumpkinSky talk 21:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment (non-admin). I read the request on PS's talkpage, and I'm favorably impressed with the list of mentors. I'd like to suggest that PS explain a little better on his talk what was going on with the PS account initially failing to identify as a returning user. I think that there was an appearance of intentionally trying to come back without disclosing, and I'd like to see a clearer explanation of what PS now thinks about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Has he admitted to also being User:BarkingMoon? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      His talk page statement says BarkingMoon is/was a friend of his... I've got no other information about that than what I've seen in the various discussions on-wiki. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a pity, because in light of the evidence I saw during the discussion a few days ago, I must believe he's lying. I would have been inclined to support otherwise, but not this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm inclined to believe it may be more complicated that this. The BarkingMoon account may well have been created by a friend of RLevse, but RLevse may have had access to the account, or at least influence over some edits. Geometry guy 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think item one on any list of conditions for a return is that he needs to be committed to cleaning up messes he created through years of plagiarism, copyvios and "close paraphrase" (which is the bullshit term copyright violators use to make themselves feel better about their crimes, c.f. ethnic cleansing vs. genocide). He also needs to make it clear that he understands how to write his own words when editing Wikipedia articles. This is not a minor, little issue, this sort of thing is a core issue to Wikipedia's and the Wikipedia community's reputation, reliability, and trustworthiness. That Rlevse was also a user with advanced permissions makes the problems even more troubling; such a user with such advanced permissions cannot claim ignorance in these matters; it had to have been willful. Of those who is given much, much is expected. Rlevse fell short of those expectations spectacularly on the most basic part of Wikipedia, article writing in a trustworthy manner. I am not necessarily opposed to returning, but this sort of thing is far worse than what some simple vandle or POV-pusher, who's easy to identify and stop and fix up after; Rlevse created a giant pile of shit at Wikipedia with his "close paraphrase" and continued it even through his new account, and unless he's willing to clean his own shit up, then this is a non-starter. Iff he is, then he can... --Jayron32 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I am here only for 2 years and don't know what you describe as te "mess" Rlevse created. I have worked with PumpkinSky for half a year, and the CCI tells me that there is only minor close paraphrasing in the 729 articles he touched during that time. That tells me he learned a lot since Rlevse time. He can clean up only if he is not blocked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If there is a !vote on lifting the block it should be here, rather than on the user's talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine with me if someone moves it here, but given that folks have been asking questions and requesting clarifications, would anyone object to me unblocking him for the purpose of participating in the discussion? Ferrying over talk page comments is a bit of a pain. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I object at this time. There is a discussion at the PumpkinSky account talk page in progress. Rlevse is participating there. --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You can wrap part of his talk page in <onlyinclude> tags and transclude his talk page here. →Στc. 23:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the kind of idea I wish I had thought of - too late now! :) Geometry guy 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion of return request

      NOTE: I have unblocked user:PumpkinSky for the sole purpose of responding to questions to this request. I have advised him that any deviations may result in immediate reblocking and may jeaopardize his request.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note - Copied over from users talk page. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • support, as I trust you (PS) know. I will do all that I can to help. If you want me to post a note of this somewhere, let me know. I have your talk watchlisted, but haven't been on wiki a lot for the last few days. — Ched :  ?  21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have placed a note on WP:AN asking editors to weigh in here. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • support, I have good faith in you, PumpkinSky, and would like to continue our enjoyable work together, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • support also, per the above. Even without mentors, PumpkinSky's edits will be closely scrutinized. Where is the risk?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, per my statement at WP:AN. 28bytes (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question Could you please comment on your involvement with the FAC RFC and the events leading up to it? --Rschen7754 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I clearly went overboard there but I still believe the core of what I was saying, that neither FAC, nor any part of wiki, should have a defacto permanent director. When I was Scouting WP director, I gave it up after 5 years on my own because I felt I'd been there long enough. In any event, the community ruled against my position, I accept that and consider the matter closed. PumpkinSky talk 22:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Why would a former arbitrator, who judged cases of inappropriate behavior in editors, need a mentor? Or more than one? What could a mentor tell you about what is appropriate or not on Wikipedia that you don't already know yourself? --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the mentors is there as those are the two areas where he got into trouble before.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This is for Rlevse to answer. Specifically, I have concerns that the mentors would not object to the same kind of invective Rlevse used on my talk page and in discussions about voting for FA director and delegates. Wehwalt was involved in these discussions and said nothing about them. Would the others step in? And now why would they have to? Can a fully functional adult not censor himself and participate in discussions where he respects others who disagree with his views? --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Moni3--Yes, the prior answer was meant for you. As to expanding on it...I know I've made many mistakes, not just the copy stuff, just as you say. I have apologized and truly want to do better in all regards. I would ask the mentors to mainly help with the copy stuff. No I don't need them to explain the other things to me, but if I fail again. I expect them to wiki-slap me. I have to sign off for tonight. Will come back tomorrow. PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He already answered, just below... perhaps you missed it? 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't miss it; I just thought he answered someone else because I'm nonplussed here. If that is his response, perhaps I'm looking for a more specific answer. Rlevse, what do you see your mentors doing for you? How will you communicate with them and they with you? Will they step in to speak for you? Will they tell you to tone down your comments if you start using the same poor communication against Raul or other people at FAC? If I'm not mistaken, were you not a voting arbitrator on the Mattisse case, where she was assigned mentors? Perhaps you think I'm referring to copyvio problems when I am not. I'm referring to creating alternate accounts and using manipulative overstatements to create false doubt in procedural discussions, such as your participation at FAC polls and the RfC. That's pretty much the basic description of disruption. There are finer points to copyvio and a learning curve, but it should be exceedingly clear to a former arb that creating alternate accounts and disrupting discussions to score points against another editor you see as an opponent is unquestioningly unfavorable behavior. Do you need mentors to point this out to you? I sound like an asshole asking this--especially with this no-grudges-forgiving-notavote-discussion, but these are legitimate questions and I'm seeking a frank and candid response from Rlevse. --Moni3 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Moni3, I think these are perfectly legitimate questions - but one thing to keep in mind is that, unfortunately, there's a huge disconnect between admins/arbs, or more generally speaking the "constabulary" of Wikipedia and content work. Arbs/admins/constables can be familiar with the lawyerly aspect of the project and be completely clueless of its content side. And then when these bureaucratic types try their hand at content creation, usually just to establish some "street cred", that can be a recipe for trouble, as was the case here. If the mentors appointed are of the sort who can help the user become a better writer, creator, avoid future copyvios etc. then the mentorship idea is perfectly legitimate. Hell, I can think of a couple other arbs and plenty of admins who should have mentors appointed as well.VolunteerMarek 03:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not quite sure which of my questions you're referring to, but you're making a point to say that admins/arbs don't necessarily know how to write content? Maybe? If so, sure, I absolutely and depressingly agree with you. But I don't know how this is relevant. It's not Rlevse's content work I'm focusing on here, and I stated so above. His content work is probably what I'm least knowledgeable or comfortable speaking about. It's his other behavior. Do you mean to say that sitting arbs or even admins do not know they are not allowed to create alternate accounts, disrupt procedural discussions with unhelpful commentary and invective, and repeatedly attempt to malign specific editors? This is already spelled out in policy. And Rlevse ruled on this kind of behavior when he was an arb. I don't know how to phrase this more delicately, honestly, but I absolutely understand having mentors for editors who are mentally challenged or have psychological issues, are very young or whose grasp of English is poor, or even new to Wikipedia. I really don't understand why a fully functional adult needs people to guide him gently through the labyrinth of Wikipedia--a labyrinth Rlevse knows better than a large percentage of editors. My concern here is that Rlevse made conscious decisions that he knew were wrong. This cannot be avoided. And it seems editors in this discussion is treating those conscious decisions as if they were borne of mere ignorance. They were not. --Moni3 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah ok, these are legitimate questions too. To clarify, the initial reason why Rlevse resigned was because of copyvios etc. i.e. content stuff. They then did what a lot of people who get banned or blocked or "disgraced" but who have a significant interest in Wikipedia do - they socked. It happens all the time. And yes, it's wrong, and yes, you're right on this - this decision was not made out of ignorance, it was a deliberate, conscious decision to violate policy which he himself upheld so stringently before. But... maybe it's just me but I do think there's a big difference between people who are deliberately trying to be malicious and ones who are... let's say "responding sub-optimally to circumstances", but whose intentions are ultimately benign. The thing here is that it's not like PumpkinSky is going to get approved at RfA again or something (god, I hope not, though how that page works, who knows really). My understanding is that this request entails PumpkinSky sticking to just plain ol' content work - maybe not writing articles, but categorizing them etc., doing other gnome-ish stuff. So the mentors should keep an eye on that. Of course, if there's policy-related shananigans then these same mentors need to alert the community to it. And yes, at this point it would help it if PS said "I fucked up. I've changed. I look at things differently now that I'm on the other side of the block button barrel". Which, I think he sort of has. With four mentors there's very little potential for damage though... I hope.VolunteerMarek 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      VM, you wrote, "It happens all the time. And yes, it's wrong." Not it's not wrong, especially when the person left in disgrace as compared to having been banned/blocked. The problem with PS/R is that 1) he left before allowing dispute resolution to occur. Had he suffered his lumps then and left, nobody would really care that he came back as PS. 2) As PS, he rekindled some old fueds, which since he had a secret identity gave him an advantage. And 3) He didn't disclose his new identity to ArbCOM. If he had come back 6 months ago and said, "ArbCOM, I'm back, but because of the way I went out, I am invoking my right to a Clean Start", he could have done so. Then if he blew his cover (many cleanstarters do) ArbCOM could have stepped in and said that he was trying a clean start. Clean start socks are allowed per policy. PS/R was trying to clean start, but failed.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In an ideal world, of course, arbs would be free of deficiencies by virtue of being arbs, but as a practical matter it makes sense to have people who've been able to successfully navigate the thorny path of WP:PARAPHRASE offer guidance to an editor, former arb or not, who has struggled with it in the past. The fact that several of us are willing to help in that task reflects how seriously this issue should be taken. 28bytes (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • To add to this, being an arbitrator has little to do with knowing how to avoid paraphrasing issues. --Rschen7754 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Obviously I didn't know what was allowed as well as I thought. By accepting the advice of those who have a better grasp, I get their help, and the community knows that people they trust are checking my work.PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Sorry, but I don't believe you when you say BarkingMoon was not you. Would have been inclined to support otherwise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It may be more complicated than this, but it is a serious question: see my post below. Geometry guy 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • weak support Neutral wanting to support. It pained me when he left in disgrace the way he did; but he's served his time. Let him come back in the open. I only wish he had disclosed the Pumpkin Sky account to ArbCOM as a clean start account to begin with. That would make this easier and more of a no-brainer without some of the drahma we recently had... there are also open issues that I think need to be resolved. But in principle, I'd like to see his return---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Note: re Will BeBack below, I don't think I've ever participated in a meaningful way in any previous discussion relative to Pumpkinsky/BM/Rlvese... but I do consider him a friend and somebody whom at one point had the respect of this community. I think he'll work hard to regain some of that trust.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I've moved to neutral wanting to support. I WANT Rlvese to come back. He was one of the first people I connected with here at WP, but some of the non-plagarism/copy-vio issues are concerning. He NEEDS to address them honestly. If he did them, come clean---a scout is trustworthy. Come clean, then we can work on the rebuilding.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. First: The list of mentors include some users who have been vocal defenders of Rlevse/BarkingMoon/PumpkinSky. Mentors who are friends may not be in a position to provide the neutral guidance necessary. Part of the problem before with Rlevse was that his frineds let him get away with lots of content violations. Second: the request starts with bragging about accomplishments, many of which were quite tarnished. There's no explanation given for how someone who is intimately familiar with Wikipedia content policies committed so many violations, apparently in an effort to secure bronze stars for his user page to brag about. Third: I don't see any explanation for his work as a bureaucrat, when he apparently used his wife's account to vote in RFA which he later closed. It's hard to support an unblock when there are still unresolved issues like this.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A purely selfish reason would be because many editors will be looking over our shoulders, and we like keeping whatever respect we've got. I like to think there are better reasons though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What would you say to the user if he posted a message like this? [40]   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd tell him to cut it out, that word's not appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd tell him that's not a helpful response, and he shouldn't have taken the IP's bait. That said, it would have taken a lot of self control for me to avoid posting a similar response to the IP's comment. User:Materialscientist does so much great work here, and is abused constantly, that I understand the frustration. But no, he shouldn't have taken the IP's bait. 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So even just before his block he was making inappropriate edits. His DYK was pulled because of close paraphrasing. Back when he started with this account he attacked an editor for treating him poorly as a "new user", an outright lie.[41]. More deceitful talk page posts: [42][43]
      DYK pulled and CCI: please see yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That thread looks like your making excuses for him rather than getting him to stop making close paraphrases. Is that an example of how you'd mentor him?   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That thread started as a question trying to see where the problem was in this specific case (I failed to see the paraphrasing as "too close", see yourself), then including SandyGeorgia also for advice. I commented more generally below that PumpkinSky seems to have a much better understanding for paraphrasing issues than Rlevse (if I may say so). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Further, how would his mentors deal with these two articles: History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) and Arthur Rose Eldred?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding the deceitful diffs: you're absolutely right that presenting himself as a new user was completely unacceptable. If he had not offered an apology for doing that I would not have agreed to be a part of his return to productive editing. Regarding the FAs, I will defer to Wehwalt, who has more experience in that area. 28bytes (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the problem with having multiple mentors - no one is responsible.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not even going to look. Suffice it to say I will carefully look at all situations as they arise. I'm not interested in playing "what if" with you, WIll.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So what is your mentoring going to entail, if your not interested reviewing his edits?   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Am I correct in saying that at the time Rlevse was a crat, that both he and his wife had disclosed their relationship on wiki? If that's the case, was there any discussion about any issues at the time? I'd like to read through some of that history if it's available before I comment any further. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Review the contribution history of JoJo (talk · contribs). Notice her minimal editing and her lack of English skills. Then notice her extraordinary participation in RFAs and, on occasion, her comments about policy issues and users' careers. Then tell me that you truly believe she made those edits on her own.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, in hindsight it all looks suspicious. And, those who know the relationship, should have probably raised a stink about it 2 years ago as a possible violation of COI (I know I would never act as an admin on a case where my wife participated.) But nobody did. I think that is what Ched is looking for---was there any discussion 2 years ago while he was a 'crat alleging these violations?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think anyone noticed it at the time. PumpkinSky hasn't offered any explanation.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, I know nothing of P Sky’s issues as Rlevse, my only dealing with him has been as an editor on Montana and NRHP related articles in 2011 and early this year. That’s all been a positive experience. Copy vios are a big issue, but it always seems to me that many people actually have to stub their toe in a serious way before they see the light. As many of us have said above, everyone will be watching P Sky like a hawk. But if he stays blocked, WP doesn’t get the benefit of his contributions. That’s not good as every editor ought to be cherished and nurtured for their contributions to WP. We’ve paid a price for those contributions in the past with P Sky, but if P Sky is sincere, then the price we pay for future contributions should be minimal and well worth it. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Net positive to the encyclopedia. (ps, there's a typo in "Five uses") HF25 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Extend standard offer, 6 months without socking etc., then he can ask again. At that time, generally editing should be restricted until his copyvios are cleaned up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OpposeNeutral, but if Rlevse refuses to work on his CCI and fix the problems he made, then I will be an Oppose. Due to the issues raised below, I feel that Rlevse had thoroughly destroyed and used the trust of the community for his own ends, in order to bring disruption to multiple areas of the Wiki. Because of this, I can't bring myself to support his unblock under any condition. SilverserenC 23:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose but seeking to support. I don't bear grudges and I don't believe the community should: there is much that RLevse did wrong, but I believe he has suffered for it, and there is much to be said in favor of allowing him back through an openly declared and mentored account. I remain concerned about the BarkingMoon story, however. I am willing to believe that the account was created by a friend of RLevse (at RLevse's "cajoling" according to the edit history) but there is strong behavioral evidence that the account was not entirely independent from RLevse, who may have edited from the account, or influenced some of the edits made by his friend (such as this comment at ANI made less than 3 hours after the BarkingMoon account was created). This is a serious matter, but not as serious as the account being an undeclared and subsequently denied sock.
      At User talk:PumpkinSky, the relation with BarkingMoon is presented in a purely positive light as the idea that "helping his friend learn how to edit whetted his appetite and love of the wiki again" (I paraphrase slightly). I would suggest, however, that human emotions are often more complex than this, and that it was frustrating for RLevse not to be able to contribute to issues which he still cared about, and this may have played a part in encouraging his friend to register an account, and in the subsequent use of that account. If that were the case, I believe it is something editors may be willing to view with understanding. However if PumpkinSky wants to regain the trust of the community, then he in turn must trust the community to accept him not merely as a rosy, new-improved, learned-from-his-mistakes version of RLevse, but as an editor willing to present himself as he is, as one who has taken the wrong approach in avoiding the problems of the past, and now, with the help of mentors, needs to face up to them. Geometry guy 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Strong points override errors and mistakes. I think PSky is willing to be a productive editor and will address any good-faith issues that are raised. As for having your friends mentor you, well, I would think it foolish to call upon one's enemies, eh? Some of the nominee mentors seem neutral, I haven't "met" them as far as I know. Sure, I'm a bit biased in PSky's favor, I've had a wonderful time working with PSky on the Yogo Sapphire article, it's one of the finest collaborations I've personally been involved with on wiki. And from Rlevse, I was awarded my own day! (And no, PSky did nothing to tell me that he had been Rlevse! ) I want him back; I'm not going to babysit everything he does,but I will respond to any request for mentoring -- and I am well-known for speaking my mind and having strong opinions! Anything that happened on the Rlevse account is now well over a year old and most misdemeanors (and even a lot of "high crimes" get sentenced to "time served." He was gone around a year, that's as long as any sort of block would have been, and all that without an actual "conviction." So I say, call it what you want, but declare it over. And if people like Moni or Sandy or Raul have specific concerns, or PSky with them, I say maybe they should take them to a specifically identified individual referee who will be fair to all (Hey! Mike Cline! You're good at that sort of thing!) and both sides must disengage from wherever the dispute is and work via the referee. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, mainly because Wikipedia lost any moral high-ground here when it allowed an administrator to threaten Rlevse with exposing supposedly pejorative information about his editing if he didn't banish himself. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am I reading the above wrong, or was there a discussion ongoing on "block to discuss" and that there was no consensus for unblocking? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, it's a net positive thing. I think that if Rlevse is indeed unblocked, he would be under very close scrutiny for a period of time. How much damage can he do, really? He should probably pitch in and help clean up the CCI's though, but I think indeffing a user who clearly has a will to do good for this project (and has done so in the past) would be a bad thing to do. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. PS believes he made some mistakes, he describes the mistakes, and he'd like to work on those mistakes, and on improving his editing. His experience is a net gain to an encyclopedia that is losing editors and not gaining the numbers they need. I agree with Cla68. Whatever PS was believed to have had done he didn't deserve intimidation or harassment from an admin. There have been problematic issues on both sides of this. Perhaps we could move on in a positive direction. (olive (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment I tend to agree with Silver seren. That being said, if he is willing to use the CCI of his past edits as a basis from which to work with his mentors to both help clean up that mess, and to learn what not to do in the future, then that would be a credible effort toward regaining community trust. Resolute 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong oppose copyright, plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We may as well start the RFC/U immediately for that matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support My76Strat (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Rlevse/PS, I am glad you are opening dialogue for an open comeback rather than cladestinely as another account. I personally have trouble believing BarkingMoon was not you, but I really want to look forward from all this and figure out a way through. I'd support a trial (three month?) period during which time the main focus is reviewing and cleaning up of articles identified to have paraphrasing or copyvio issues, and that during or after this period, the mentors are able to allay concerns that the cleanup has been systematic and thorough, and that PS accepts the need for future spot-checks for an as yet undetermined period. You do realise what a massive massive timesink copyvio/paraphrasing is to review? If you're willing to roll up sleeves and get stuck in cleaning up, I think that'd be a big big step in the right direction.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand it is ok for me to post here? Lord I hope so. Cas, I have no problem with that at all. I'll need help at first as the copy issue is not clearcut to me, but I am quite willing to give it my best shot. PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it's ok for you to post here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, while some may question the act of unblocking you, I felt that it is the best way to get a full picture and to allow you to present your case/defense without having somebody copy edit it for you...---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Steven Zhang, basically. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Questions What do you mean when you say you clearly went overboard at the FAC RfC? What could cause a mature and experienced user to go clearly overboard? Is there anything you intend to mend there? How will you deal with such a thing in the future? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I genuinely believe in my view on that, unfortunately based on my experience with the principals, I let my enthusiasm show more than I should and startled people. Again, I accept the community's decision. PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. We even allowed the owner of Wikipedia Review back. I think PumpkinSky will produce the kind of TFAs that Jimbo wants. And nothing else matters. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I second Montanabw's comments on PS's Talk page. I think his apology was sincere and valid, and he addressed what were brought up against him. It was truly remarkable what he was doing on Yogo sapphire, and I have total faith that the lessons have been learned, the points/problems addressed, and PS will move on in a positive direction under the watchful eye of a few Wikipedians until he has earned the respect of us once again. Good luck to you PumpkinSky! I'm looking forward to seeing Yogo sapphire become Featured someday, and I'll be happy to provide comments whenever it goes up for nomination. But please PumpkinSky, be sure to always log in. No more aliases! Jessemv (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose This is way too soon. The standard offer stands, come back in 6 months without socking or disruption and we'll see. Night Ranger (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Useful editor with clue. This project needs more like Pumpkin and less of those who are not. I've no doubt that the 5 above will ensure that all goes well. Anyone can edit. Alarbus (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Clue? Right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Clue!. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Clue is required to detect it in others, or to detect lack of clue. Alarbus (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - continue community discussion. I was surprised that the initial 8 sentence copying led to such a harsh outcome, and I am unconvinced that the plagiarism (?) described by PumpkinSky here is even a violation of policy at all. The discussion around these points has repeatedly conflated close paraphrasing with "copyright violation" for sections of text which have not been proven to exceed 400 words of overall length, the only standard actually mentioned in WP:QUOTE. WP:Plagiarism discusses copying "with very few changes" without "in-text attribution". If the behavior discussed in that section about PumpkinSky is truly wrong, then Wikipedia needs to make that clearer. If there's some boundary people are enforcing de facto, then tell people what it is in the policies. Instead of following Rlevse around and waiting to pounce, the community needs to be standing alongside him trying to figure out where the line is. And if he crosses over it just a little, like this, that is a minor pecadillo, not reason for trying to throw him out. Likewise the situation with "WP:Clean start" versus "WP:Sock puppetry" is so confusing that there seems to be some kind of blowup every time. Wikipedia has become way, way too nasty to editors who seem generally beneficial to the project. Wnt (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am also going to support this, though I can't help but note the irony that as an Arb this editor made the phrase "banned means banned!" famous. But I think he's eaten enough crow by now. I think PumpkinSky/Rlevse genuinely wants to contribute in a positive manner here and he should be given the chance and in fact if the folks mentioned as mentors are willing to help out (I'm about to leave a response to Moni on the mentorship thing above - so see that) it could result in a win-win situation for everyone.VolunteerMarek 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but he's now making famous the phrase "vanished doesn't mean vanished" . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. At a bare minimum, I would not even consider this unless the issue with RfA and JoJo is fully explained, and the editor explains more accurately what the BarkingMoon relationship was (since I previously strong evidence that at least some of the edits were either Rlvese himself or edits done on behalf of Rlvese). Should these issues be legitimately dealt with, then a conditional return to editing may be possible, though I can't say for now exactly what conditions would be necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. - Not willing to consider before six month standard offer since last disruptive socking. There are also unanswered questions about this users edits under differing accounts and IP addresses. Mentoring is a red herring as Moni said - he knows all about it. Youreallycan 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. He should be allowed to come back and do his best here. --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Editor can't be trusted, per the sock situation. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that this is beyond what can be worked out on this board, and propose that this be moved to a request for comment. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment There are several things here I think that do deserve to be addressed. For the most part, I think that Rlevse/Pumpkinsky (PS if that's ok), should speak for himself, so I've tried to minimize my "but he's a good guy" comments. Geometry Guy, 28Bytes, Balloonman, and others all have made good comments, suggestions, and asked very valid questions. One quick point: I didn't really interact with the editor in question circa 2008-09 when he edited as Rlevse, and only got to know him in the last few months as the Pumpkinsky account. To be blunt, I didn't even know that he had a wife that edited here, or what her name was until another admin. followed through with his threat to produce the revelations. I'm not entirely sure what's to be expected of me as a "mentor". I'd prefer to work with a community of adults that provides a checks and balances system, and in that respect I do indeed offer to help or provide any input that I can. I have not offered to "check-in daily" and review each and every edit another editor makes - but if someone asks me to look at something I will try to do so as time permits. I am intrigued by the suggestion that on the say so ... I'm not sure how to put this in politically correct terms ... but ... If SandyG were to tell Balloonman "block him", that he would do so. I like the idea of thinking outside the box sometimes. (Hence my "Consider yourself blocked" effort a while back) .. and with that ...
      • @Sandy, I apologized on your talk page; and I do so here now again in a fully public venue - I did not mean it as a threat. I tried to do what I thought was best at the time - I didn't know Wehwalt had gone to bed - I tried to treat all sides equally - I wanted the ANI thread to die a die a natural death, and took my best shot at resolving a situation with the least amount of turmoil. Your point about allowing a discussion to continue through to a resolution was sound: you were right, I was wrong, and I apologize again - not sure what more I can say beyond that. Now, I do have limited time for wiki due to real life issues over the next few days, but I will do my best to help where I can here. My own personal view here is a bit of a Gordian Knot - meaning "grudges". People are holding grudges for far too long (on all sides), and it really needs to find a resolution. What was once a FA in 2007 is not now meeting our current standards. Rather than pointing fingers at "editors", I'd rather see everyone working together to address the "contributions" (PS included). IIRC we have some sort of policy or guideline around here that speaks to that? IJS folks. If we're pulling in opposite directions, we're not going to get as far as we could if we all pulled in the same direction. (apologies for the tl;dr) — Ched :  ?  05:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Grudges? Really? That does not sound like mature behavior and if PS is a part of that kind of ridiculousness, then no. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I said support before and want to expand a bit, it was very late at night my place when I posted. Please understand that both my English and my understanding of Wikipedia procedures are limited, and my history here is only 2 years.
      PumpkinSky - I think that he proved during the last months that he is a valuable editor, CCI (only 17 of 729 articles not checked) found only minor paraphrasing issues and copies within Wikipedia (I didn't know myself that they need to be sourced). I see him open to collaboration and helpful.
      Rlevse - PumpkinSky could openly deal with that past (that I don't know) and clean up. Someone blocked could not do that.
      BarkingMoon - I believe that he is a real different person, we started working together, I miss him. My POV: he learned from (then) Rlevse and let him edit, to which extent would be hard to tell. He had no copyvio problems, as far as I know.
      Canvassing - I had to look up what it means, and if letting people know where a topic related to them is discussed means canvassing I apologize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed that link anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - and expressing some astonishment that anyone is even treating this seriously enough to support a return. Rlevse had the most trusted position it is possible to have on Wikipedia, got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and inviked RTV--as a sitting arbitrator, Rlevse was under no illusions as to what RTV meant. It means goodbye. Forever. You are vanished. Returning via multiple socks, especially to continue grudges? Not fucking acceptable. Lock the door and throw away the key. → ROUX ₪ 08:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Rlevse has:
      • Violated core Wikipedia content policies, over and over, which has taken countless volunteer hours to remedy.
      • Interfered with efforts to clean up his content problems.
      • Abused the trust of the community by using an alternate account to vote in RFAs which he closed as a bureaucrat.
      • Snuck back at least once and maybe twice with unacknowledged accounts despite having "vanished".
      • Lied repeatedly to the community.
      • Worked to build a claque of supporters, a battleground behavior.
      • Engaged in a feud with the FA volunteers.
      • Made personal attacks.
      This editor is not a "net positive". Just the opposite. He has apparently been so obsessed with gaining FA and DYK credits that he has run roughshod over most Wikipedia policies. He is actively harmful to the project.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      There is new evidence of massive sock-puppetry using web hosts, colocation centers, and open proxies to edit articles on scouting and engage in attacks against other editors at a FAR, all while he was using the PumpkinSky account in parallel. Evidence will be introduced here within a day or so. If you're impatient, check out User_talk: Geometry guy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Strongest possible oppose - NO. In the first place it's way too early to even consider this. Furthermore, the multitude of issues in this user's past are poisonous... plagiarism, copyright violations, abusing sockpuppets... and now there is extensive evidence of even greater malfeasance? No way. Rlevse/Vanished 6551232 needs to be community banned, or at the very least remain blocked. I don't buy this "BarkingMoon wasn't Rlevse" stuff either. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - It really does not make sense to sweep everything under the rug, sorry...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't support at this time. Changing to Support. He really wants to try, and he has a great team of mentors. I am pretty sure he can make a success of it. -- Dianna (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Originally I was ready to post a "hells yeah" response, but my investigation of User:JoJo has given me pause. She had only 375 edits. Of these, 78 were posts to requests for adminship threads, with 57 actual votes; ten votes on Requests for Bureaucrat pages; eight votes in the 2008 Abrcom election; this works out to 25% of her total Wikipedia activity. Surely even with another Wikipedian in the home these levels of interest in these esoteric topics requires explanation? I am concerned that her opinions were being overly influenced by Rlevse. An explanation is required here before I would support a return to normal editing.[reply]

        Sandy, your Diff#1 below goes to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55#Clearing the air, which does not seem to be related to Pumpkin Sky. Could you check this out, please? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        That was intended to be to a discussion that would shed light on the suitability of the "mentors" (eg, Montanabw), specifically, their impartiality and the likelihood that they would enforce behavioral norms. Not sure where the disconnect is ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I still don't get it. Wehwalt is in the quoted diff, agreeing that the page should be shut down for 24 hours. How does this relate to Pumpkin Sky or the mentorship qualities of Montana BW? -- Dianna (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I see now what you were trying to say. --Dianna (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Glad you got it, sorry for the confusion. That was another case (where Wehwalt and Raul had agreed to semi the page, Wehwalt was the only one who might have objected, he didn't, yet Rlevse jumped all over Raul for doing that-- the only person to jump on Raul for that. I thought you were referring to another discussion (hard to track since you're referencing something in another section). Point being that Rlevse returned to engage a grudge at FAC, and he has yet to explain why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the fix on my strike-out there. Sandy, you don't know what Rlevse's motive was for posting at FA. You are assuming his motive was "to engage a grudge" but in actuality you do not know what his motive was. -- Dianna (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Count me among those who would like to support, but who cannot so far. I think that Pumpkin Sky will really need to step up and explain for himself how he can address the many concerns that are being raised. A lot of people are speaking for him, but he really needs to demonstrate, himself, that he understands what the problems are, and understands how to address them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My wife and I were seeking to find more things to do together. That is how she got started in wiki. As soon as she started we posted our connection at the top of our user pages. She was curious about all the admin/crat stuff I did and I showed those area to her. No one cared at the time about me closing things she voted in, probably because nothing was close and her vote didn't matter. I would never have closed one of those if the vote was close. PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That explanation doesn't hold water. First, The JoJo account participapted in at leas one RFA which you felt was so close that you needed to post a lengthy explanation for your decision: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath. Second, although she uses very broken English in most of her postings on Wikipedia, and had very little involvement overall, she makes astute comments about some editor's understanding of policy and their overall tenure on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2, etc. It simply is not credible that she formed these opinions on her own. Further, even if we take your explanation at face value, the idea that a bureaucrat should encourage his poorly informed wife to participate in RFAs which he was going to close shows really poor judgment. Furthermore, rather than giving this explanation initially and rationally, you've made personal attacks against me for even raising the issue. This seems like another instance in which you are giving partial and unbelievable explanations for your policy violations.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • oppose I got along ok with this user ok in his prior incarnation, but at this point it looks like there were so many different problems going on, some of which are ongoing, and there's minimal indication that he actually appreciates what he did was wrong. So I'm going to need to reluctantly oppose at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support In his open letter style post above, Pumpkin Sky appears sincere and genuine and forthcoming. He has volunteered to come back under restrictions that should insure that his editing has oversight, and is productive and in accordance with guidelines and policies. He is a very experienced editor and one that we should not lose, if possible, as he can be a valuable asset to the project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose As he was pulling the wool over our eyes just a short time ago, the massive loss of trust takes far more time to heal. Although WP:OFFER, paired with exactly the same restrictions and mentors would probably be best, I would probably be content with 3 months (plus the restrictions and mentors), as long as we see the obviously requisite beneficial work on another Wikimedia project. He used to contribute good content - think how much improved Simple could be if he (copyvio-free) improved things over there for 3 months, and how much more we could trust him! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. This is a bad idea. The socking and willful deception is enough to prevent a return, in my book. The plagiarism is enough on its own, as well. I don't know what idea is more appalling, that a sitting arbitrator and experienced editor didn't know any better, or knew better and did it anyway. No amount of mentoring is going to fix what's broken here. And, I don't think all the facts have even come to light. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, on balance. I remain unconvinced on the "Rlevse = Barking Moon" allegation, but there have been too many other disturbing issues brought to light, particularly the strong evidence of a campaign to disrupt FAC. Rlevse was a colleague who I respected, so voting "oppose" here is a difficult personal decision. However the welfare of the project comes first, and on balance, this looks like a net negative situation. Manning (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I think another chance is due here. I've noticed two things about Wikipedia "regulars": one is that we love drama and any chance to stretch what should be an easy decision out into a long worthless thread we will take it. The other is that we are an unforgiving bunch of assholes. As socking goes, this wasn't particularly egregious or abusive. As for holding grudges, well the only thing regulars here like more than long threads where we talk past each other is holding grudges. If grudge holding is blockable offense, then a number of people who have commented here should be blocked. Since he's agreed to work with CCI, I don't see that as a problem either. Let's give someone who has done a lot of good here in the past a chance to do good in the future. It's not as though he won't have eyes on him, and if he messes up it will give someone a chance to go to one of the drama boards to scream for another indef block. Who wouldn't relish that opportunity? AniMate 00:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Anyone that has done all of the things that Will Beback has mentioned above should not be allowed to edit here.--Rockfang (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Restrictions if unblocked

      I, personally, am opposed to unblocking PS before he has served out a 6-month standard offer period, however I recognize that many editors whom I respect feel otherwise, so I like to open this additional discussion about possible restrictions to his editing should the community see fit to unblock him. Specifically:

      If PumpkinSky is unblocked he must help to clear up the copyright violations he has been held to be responsible for, and shall do so without protestations or arguments about whether any specific contribution is or isn't a copyvio. Further, he shall not submit any DYKs or FACs unless his mentors, with the advice of the community, determine that his clean-up work has been of sufficient value to that project that the specfic restriction against DYKs and FACs can be lifted. Even then, though, PumpkinSky must continue to work on the clean-up until all identified copyvios are fixed.

      • Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that he may not be capable of doing it. At least he should not interfere with the process. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's the case, perhaps someone whose conversant in the copyvio area should be added to his list of mentors, someone like Moonridden girl. After all, if he's incapable of cleaning up his copyvios beause he doesn't understand what is and isn't a violation, why are we letting him loose to expand articles for DYKs and write FAs? Don't we need some assurance -- other than AGF and his professed good will -- that he knows what goes and what doesn't? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as a point of order, he has in his return request stated he's willing to help out with the CCI cleanup. 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose for now
      I could be convinced if the plan were restructured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have reservations not so much about Rlevse's intent to return to editing, but about the way this has been proposed. If my concerns are addressed, I may consider adding myself to the support column, but I have serious reservations that Rlevse might not yet understand the gravity of all that he's done recently, evidenced by the way this return to editing was put forward.

      1. My first concern is that one of the proposed "mentors" (User:Gerda Arendt) has already canvassed. If someone is willing to canvass for support for Rlevse to return to editing, is that person going to make a good mentor? Arendt posted to DYK, where Rlevse/PumpkinSky was a regular and where there is opposition to stemming copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, but he did not (for example) post to WT:FAC, where Rlevse's return to editing might not be as welcome.
      2. As Moni mentioned elsewhere, why does someone who sat at the highest levels of Wikipedia need a mentor? What exactly are these mentors going to do? None of them are likely to disagree with Rlevse on anything and at least four of the five of them have been aggressively favoring his return to editing. Did we learn nothing from the Mattisse case, an indeff'd serial sockpuppeteer, where the mentorship plan failed mostly because she was allowed to set the plan and choose the mentors, and she "fired" anyone who didn't support her?
      3. Rlevse has not adequately addressed, IMO, in his responses above why he went after Raul and FAC with such a vengeance; those who claim the issues were only about "a wittle bit of close paraphrasing" apparently didn't read all of the disruption that occurred at FAC, including taking issues with Raul where even Wehwalt had no issue (diff1, diffs), having to be reprimanded at WT:FAC for his tone in a disagreement over images (diff), and wasting huge amounts of editor time in a feigned discussion on Casliber's talk page where he pretended not to know issues he knows quite well, wasting a lot of other editors' time. Those are only a few issues-- there were more. As someone who sat in judgement of other editors, Rlevse must have known he was being disruptive. Why are we to believe him now that he will change? Because he got five friends to "mentor" him? Is Rlevse agreeing to stay away from FAC and FAR and DYK, for example?
      4. "Five users have agreed to be mentors: User:28bytes, User: Ched Davis, User:Gerda Arendt, User:Montanabw, and User:Wehwalt." I'm not aware of 28bytes role, so can't speak to that, but I fail to see what these others are planning to "mentor" or that any of them will keep the behaviors of concern in check. Ched Davis is long-time friend of Rlevse, BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky, and in the midst of the FAC disruption (instigated by less than six editors, of which Rlevse was one, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership), Davis threatened to block me for simply stating my side of the story after being away from my computer, and threatened to block Wehwalt who had long gone to bed!!! I don't see that Davis is neutral wrt Rlevse or that he will be objective when it comes to Rlevse. Arendt has already canvassed, and is a DYK regular; PumpkinSky slid right back into DYK where Rlevse left off-- that is, there has been no change in the copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing problems occurring there since the Rlevse Hallowwen issue, with the exception that one editor (Nikkimaria) is doing all of the work of screening for and removing the DYKs that are promoted with issues. With the ongoing need for scrutiny at DYK, Rlevse jumped right back in, and is likely to defend the status quo, which is resistance to stemming copyvio/plagiarism. What will Arendt add as a mentor? Montanabw is likewise a long-time friend of Rlevse, where he weighed in on Equine Project issues, and this thread at ANI does not inspire confidence that Montanabw will be an effective mentor. Nor does this thread inspire confidence. Wehwalt is a long-time supporter of another sockpuppeteer, Mattisse-- and as I mentioned earlier, her mentorship plan failed partly because she was allowed to set the conditions and choose her mentors. What will he contribute to mentoring a former arb?
        • In summary, although I'm less informed about 28bytes' role, I don't see any mentors here who would be willing or likely to curb any of the recent behavioral issues we've seen from Rlevse, such as attacks on Raul, FAC, or the issues with ongoing copyvio/plagiarism, etc at DYK.
      5. "I agree to contact one of the mentors before submitting a FAC or DYK." I would be more inclined to support a trial return to editing-- considering the personal way in which Rlevse went after Raul, and considering the ongoing copyvio problems at DYK-- if he agreed to stay away from both FAC and DYK for a trial period of (perhaps?) six months. Until he learns better paraphrasing and reliable sourcing, he shouldn't be passing other DYKs, and he jumped right back into doing that, with the result of more work for Nikkimaria in removing the faulty passes (Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed).
      6. Strong evidence has been presented elsewhere that, while he may not have controlled the accounts, Rlevse edited from both the BarkingMoon and his wife JoJo's accounts. Again, something a former arb should know better than to do.
      7. When his first copyvio was uncovered, Rlevse's first inclination was to run; had he simply stayed and helped address the copyvio, we'd not be having this discussion today. I've seen no indication that he understands that, which worries me that if he again gets into problems, he won't duck and run, and return to socking, again.

      So, considering everything, why are we not putting stronger restrictions on his possible return to editing? With satisfactory answers to my concerns, mentors who are not all his friends and supporters and would be willing to rein him in, no participation in DYK, FAC and FAR for some trial period, and with an adequate trial period that includes mentors who would be willing to re-block should he revert to bad habits, I would be willing to support. But what I see in his plan so far is that he found five friends who aren't likely to rein him in, and there are still questions about the accounts he operated and his potential participation at DYK and FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yeah, the "mentors" proposed in this case are more of a political action committee. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec)Sandy, radical notion, but would you be willing to mentor him in the areas where he needs help? WE both know that he wants to be a valued member here and has the potential to be one... despite his flaws and copy vio issues, he apparently has enough writing ability to push articles through to FA quality... which is more than we can say for 90% of wikipedians here... and 90% of the 10% who are capable don't. If you don't want the bit, I would be willing to act as your surrogate bit master in this regard.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In theory, I wouldn't mind, but in practicality, two problems. One, I'm not an admin (a mentor should be willing to block him when necessary). And two, other than my now very minimal watchlist of my most important articles, I'm no longer planning on being very active here. Multiple events of the last four months have disgusted me to the point of ... well ... disgust. Nikkimaria is the one who has to catch all the DYK copyvio-- maybe she'll be willing, but I'm more worried about some of his childish outbursts and behaviors. And, with respect to his ability to bring articles to FA standard, he does not understand the level of sourcing required for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In regard to 1. If you and Rlvese were both amiable, I would be willing to block upon your simply asking for it as his mentor (or alternatively, if he were to accept you, it could be part of his probation that you could simply ask here at ANI and it would be done.) As for 2... that's a different issue. But I can't think of a better possible mentor for him... one who has been around the block, knows the ropes and his failings, and can be obstinant enough to stand up to him. (Some people might kowtow to him as a form arb/crat---you won't). You might also be one of the few people who can really help him to get where he wants to be.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @ASCIIn2Bme: speaking only for myself I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. I have no hesitation whatsoever about telling anyone I mentor when they are behaving badly, either publicly or privately. My role is not to "lobby" for a mentee, but to offer them advice on areas they may have struggled with. I'm happy to answer any other questions about my approach, and to listen to suggestions. @Sandy: my remaining online time this evening is brief, but I will read and consider everything you wrote and linked to, and offer some thoughts tomorrow. 28bytes (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to be in a minority in that committee. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      28, revisit what happened with Mattisse-- she fired every "mentor" who would stand up to her, so that few were left who were willing to block. This looks like a setup for the same deal-- why is Rlevse choosing his friends as mentors? Particularly when several of them benefit from a shared viewpoint in certain areas (FAC, DYK, Equine)? You could be left holding the ball-- the bad cop-- having to take on the political actions committee (which in the case of Mattisse, turned out to be her support committee, with a few exceptions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Which again is a reason I think you are infinitely qualified. Rlvese would have a hard time firing you and not having it become an issue. While I think your clout has faded a little over the past few years, you remain one of the most power non-admin/crat/arbcom voices at WP.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've got no problem being the bad cop if needed. I have in no uncertain terms told him what I thought about the "new user" business, for one thing. The impression I have at this point is that he is willing to accept responsibility for his mistakes and errors in judgment, and edit productively, to the extent the community allows him to. Re Mattisse, I'm only passingly familiar with that situation; if you could post some background info and/or links on my talk page I'll be happy to get up to speed for my own education. 28bytes (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandy, what are your thoughts on Casliber's proposal, above? 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On the Mattisse situation, SilkTork (who was one of the mentors) said it best. On the notion that Rlevse should help clean up copyvio: I don't think he's qualified or able (and I've long had concerns about his knowledge of reliable sourcing). Yes, we should want him back as an editor, but the problems started at DYK precisely because there is limited understanding of copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism there-- and that extended to his FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the link, I will take a look at that discussion in the morning. Yes, that is a bit of a catch-22: he's willing to help clean up the copyvios, but is he the best person to do the vetting/cleaning? Probably not, at least not yet. What he should do is make sure no more are added, and I think his proposal (to have one of us vet anything for copyright issues well before it could appear on the main page) is a reasonable one, although I'm of course open to ways we can fine-tune it. 28bytes (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unhelpful; leave things to the 5 above. Alarbus (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I do not agree with unblocking based upon this discussion and on those conditions. Note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rlevse is a red link, propose return to status quo of blocked until more clear plan with wider support and more time for discussion appears. There's no rush on this, let's take the time to think it through. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      RFCUs are generally used as tools to curb problem behaviors before a block or ban occurs; at this point the horse is out of the barn, as it were, and changing the venue at this point is likely moot. Given the history here, I'm not sure an RFC would result in presenting us with anymore insight on this problem. --Jayron32 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I've ever heard of an unblock RfC. I can't say that I think it would be a particularly good precedent to set. 28bytes (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm uncomfortable with a decision of this nature/complexity/whatever being hashed out here. I don't have enough confidence a well-informed, thoughtful outcome will result. Would be happy to hear other proposals for venue, but I simply can't see how "cooler heads" are expected to prevail here, given the haste with which we normally act out these little dramas. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)
      This is the correct venue, by long-standing precedent. I agree with 28bytes that an unblock RfC is not a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally, its always been done that way is a weak argument; it seems to me it could be a good idea to open this process up, perhaps then some community standards could be explored, and ad hoc decision making avoided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Maybe this is better structured at an RfC/U (with support AND oppose sections)

      PS: The only option as far as mentors/Reviewers would be editors firm on copyright. I'd be keen to hear from Moonriddengirl, Laser Brain, Wizardman and Ucucha to name a few as to whether this is feasible, not the mentors suggested already. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Maybe this is better structured as a SPI conducted by non-enwiki personnel. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Two questions: why does the issue with Rlevse keep returning to copyvio? If that is all he had done, and he had helped clean up, we wouldn't be here. He returned to FAC with an axe to grind, he personalized discussions there, he disrupted, he returned to DYK to continue where he left off, he socked, there is evidence he used others' accounts, and he generally abused the community on issues he knew well as a former arb. Finding mentors firm on copyright is not the only issue: we need mentors who will deal with the childish behaviors.

      Two: Balloonman, you unblocked him so he could respond here. He's generally not responding here. Please reblock him until there is consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Sandy, even Wikipedians sleep. I am an early riser, personally. Is PS? Incidentally, I object to any reblock prior to the conclusion of this discussion or PS violating the terms under which he was unblocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note that from my understanding of timezones and likely life schedules; that would be the most likely explanation for his non-response. MBisanz talk 14:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He's made 3 or 4 edits here, and as pointed out above, we don't know what the time differences or work schedules might entail. It is possible that he might not be able to edit for several more hours. I think the key to a fair trial is to assume good faith and give him a chance to respond. If he strays off the reservation, then we can reblock him.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, thanks; I now see that he signed off last night with an edit summary that he was off for the night, and it's possible he's working or something today. So, correct-- premature to reblock, and it would be nice to hear what he has to say about his disruption and personalization at FAC, and if he would be willing to stay away from DYK until/unless the issues there come under control (particularly since detecting and dealing with copyvio isn't a strong point for him). I also think if he comes clean on BarkingMoon, people will generally be willing to forgive and forget: it's the breach of trust that most needs to be squarely dealt with here. With respect to re-blocking, my point is that he wasted inordinate amounts of other editors' time as PumpkinSky, and he should be on a short leash lest he does that again. If he isn't engaging as soon as possible to frankly and honestly answer the queries here, then I hope the temporary unblock doesn't extend longer than necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There is considerable input from editors above either supporting or opposing. If that input is going to be ignored this discussion should be moved to a place where all input is taken into consideration and will be used to make the decision on Pumpkin Sky.
      I wonder if the irony of a request like this," I also think if he comes clean on BarkingMoon," seems well, ironic . PumpkinSky says he is not Barking Moon, but that Barking Moon is a friend. If Pumpkin Sky says he 's not Barking Moon, he's told he's not telling the truth. Basically he's being told he has to say he's Barking Moon to be forgiven despite the fact that he says he's not. And what more can he say about whomever he was helping without outing them. Now that's irony. This is in response to several editors who are asking PS admit to being Barking Moon, not just to SandyGeorgia's comment, to clarify my comment.(olive (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      Not at all ironic: Rlevse should address the evidence. I have not said that he is BarkingMoon, but there is evidence that makes it appear that Rlevse was editing from that account at times. For example, edit summaries (see the evidence posted by ASCII). If he did occasionally edit from his friend's or his wife's account, and admitted that, I'd feel better about the likelihood that he understands where he went wrong and those behaviors won't repeat. But he can't just ignore the evidence; it is too abundant and clear to go without explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Or even if he addressed the allegations. Two of the issues that make people wonder if BM = PS/R are 1) the similarities between edit summaries and 2) apparent hostility towards specific members of the community. I can think of rationale explanations for these, but I want to see PS/R address them.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Demeanor (with the latest account)

      Just a quick note that looking at PumpkinSky's first few edits this conversation struck me. And you should also read the "followup", six weeks later. I see the same harboring of grudges and petty vindictiveness in action there that we saw when PumpkinSky went after the FAC/R regulars with whom he had past disputes. I dare say: that was conduct unbecoming of an Arbitrator, even a former one. And it qualifies as WP:HARASSMENT in my view, especially the 2nd thread where he barged in on an unrelated conversation to resume his six weeks old grudge. Yeah, new page and recent changes patrollers can and do make mistakes. I've been on the receiving end of some of those myself. But I don't see anything that Nasnema did which that might qualify for a six-weeks-later repeat abuse of that kind. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unblock request withdrawn

      PumpkinSky has e-mailed me and asked me to withdraw the unblock request, as he recognizes there is no consensus for letting him return to editing at this time. He is disappointed, obviously, but says he will respect the community's wishes. I have re-imposed the indefinite block, until such time as there is consensus for his return. Thank you to everyone who commented here for considering his request. 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm very sorry about this. Many editors supported Pumpkin Sky's return, and I don't think the supporters where in the minority. There was as well a lot of assumptive evidence being presented as if it was fact which can be typical on Wikipedia but is still disturbing no matter how many times I see it. I'd have liked to see this go to arbitration. (olive (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

      Betacommand 3 closed

      An arbitration case regarding Betacommand (Δ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

      1. The existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
      2. Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
      3. After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.

      For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Most appreciated. The return of the arbcom resolution summary is very welcome. NativeForeigner Talk 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Return? It's precisely the same format it has been for a long time. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but it's usually not posted at AN in this level of detail - usually just a link to the discussion or announcement, unless I've missed one or two. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking of discussion - the discussion of this case may be found Here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Please delete copyvio picture

      Please delete copyvio picture File:Aryanshiva.jpg, it's from facebook, thanks--Musamies (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Thanks for the notification. EyeSerenetalk 13:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      RS/N recommends preventative action against encyclopaedia disruption

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

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

      • Was used in Madonna: Like an Icon until I removed it:
        • Jansen, Christina (2008-01-05). "Meeting the Woman behind She-Bop". People. 581 (50). Time Inc.: 21–22. ISSN 0093-7673.
      • Used in Keep It Together (Madonna song) and Oh Father:
      • Used in Saqib Saleem:
        • Deb, Anupama (2011-11-09). "Saqib Saleem: From Cricketer to Actor". Starweek Magazine. Bennett & Coleman Ltd: 19–22.

      All of the above-listed cites were added by Legolas2186 as part of a drive to bring the article to GAN. If anybody here can help him by verifying one or more of the cites, please do so. Otherwise, it would appear that Legolas2186 has been fabricating references in order to create or expand articles and thereby gain credit for GA. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

      (ec)A search of People magazine website does not show such an article, nor can I find "Christina Jansen" who is meant to be the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      Considering that Legolas lives in India and the time now is ± 00:00, Binksternet hasn't waited to Legolas to reply him and immediately started to research in the articles he mentioned challenging offline sources (just because he can't access to them (Talk:Saqib Saleem/GA2)). I suggest Bink to wait until Legolas explanation before he starts to question the reliablility of an user (WP:AGF). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      See also. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      This is not newly discovered today, so it doesn't matter whether it is midnight somewhere. I signaled the serious nature of the unverifiable cite at Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon/GA1 on February 7, eight days ago. Legolas did not respond even though he edited other articles during that time. On February 10, I asked him about a problematic reference at Talk:Saqib_Saleem#Major question about major source and he responded very quickly there on the talk page and also by offering to send me scans of the physical pages, but he has not yet sent me any scans. On February 10, I began looking at other articles he was involved with and found that he had used an unverifiable Becky Johnston article from June 1989 Rolling Stone so I corrected it to the same Becky Johnston in May 1989 writing for Interview under a different title. (This unverifiable source was added by Legolas in August 2011.) This appeared to be sloppy work, not necessarily bad faith, since the writer's name was correct and the quotes were correct. Yesterday and today, I looked for more recent sloppy work in articles that Legolas was involved with and I found the Paul Zollo cites that I cannot verify anywhere online. Legolas has not posted here for three days but I am not willing to wait for him to respond before I ask the community to try and help me find whether the cites listed above can be verified by other means. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      It does matter that is midnight, as he is sleeping right now (see his contributions, he rarely edits at this time), and it matters as I told you that is seems like you can't wait until he answers. As you said he offered you the scans, but you never asked to him send them to you, the only thing that you did was start to check all his recent work to see if his offline sources are "falsified". This sounds more like a revenge of something rather than a concerned editor. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      Actually I asked him for the scans soon after his offer. He continued editing for two more days but he did not respond yes or no about the scans. This thread is not about whether Legolas is sleeping right now, it is about whether he has been putting sloppy citations into articles since August 2011, or possibly putting knowingly wrong citations into articles more recently to attain GA credit. The first step is a plea to others in the community to see if the cites are verifiable. As such, it does not require Legolas to respond. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      I regret to say that I can find no evidence of that People Weekly article in databases that catalog the magazine. That issue doesn't even seem to exist. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      It is not just the references listed above. [44] - in that edit a vast amount of information was added, including the sentence With SongTalk magazine, Madonna explained that "isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of my marriage, I could only reach out to the stability of my family roots, and 'Keep It Together' is for that only." supposedly sourced by one of the references listed above and page 122 of the book Madonna: Like an Icon by Lucy O'Brien. The book is viewable on 'Look inside' option on Amazon.com, and there is nothing of the kind on page 122. Page 131 does however say There is the sense that Madonna, isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of her marriage, is reaching back to the stability of family roots. but that is written solely by the author, and not a quote from Madonna. I find the suggestion that an editor has fabricated references and a quote from a living person to be very troubling, and would suggest this is moved to another noticeboard. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      Agreed. A People issue from Jaunary 2008 would one of the following:
      • Vol. 69 Issue 3 - 1/28/2008
      • Vol. 69 Issue 2 - 1/21/2008
      • Vol. 69 Issue 1 - 1/14/2008
      not volume 581 issue 50 dated Jaunary 5th. A database search turned up no articles by that title or author. Major US magazines have different overseas versions, so this editor may be using the Indian version of People, if such a thing exists. But that would have a different ISSN, and the ISSN provided is for the US People. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      [45] According to that book the edition was published in August 1989, several months after the alleged May 1989 publication date. From what I have been able to learn about SongTalk it was published quarterly with "Spring", "Summer", "Fall" and "Winter" names used not months. [46] There is a full transcript of the interview from the summer 1989 edition, it does not contain the quote attributed to Madonna, so neither of the references added are real even if we accept by "May 1989" what was really meant was "Summer 1989". I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcript as it matches the excerpt in the book I linked to, I certainly believe it more than Legolas2186 at this point. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      The Songtalk interview is also in Zollo's book "Songwriters on songwriting" (ISBN 0306812657) so it might be worth checking there. It's not currently available at my library so I can't check it. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I note that Fifelfoo closed the discussion at RSN here with the summary RS/N recommends preventative actions over sustained and deceitful encyclopaedia disruption This has been moved to WP:AN to request preventative actions. However the discussion as closed does not contain anything like a consensus for "sustained" or "systemic" "deceit", nor any mention, let alone "requests", of "administrator action on the matter". Considering that discussion of the verifiability of the disputed edits was still in progress at the close, I would suggest that this request is at best premature and at worst disruptive in itself. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      At least two works that simply do not exist—it is deceit, and this kind of violation of good faith, encyclopaedic conduct and standards has previously been treated as block-on-sight. IP 86.186 suggests fairly clearly that such action is necessary ("this is moved to another noticeboard"). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said, there is no consensus, discussion is continuing, and one user saying "moved to another noticeboard" is very far from being a consensus asking for "administrator action on the matter". If you believe that disruption justifying block-on-sight exists, bring it to AN/I under your own name, just don't claim support from a non-existent consensus. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bullshit. If he's falsifying sources he needs to be blocked, end of. The evidence in this thread (I have not read the RS/N thread as of yet) is enough to block him until this gets sorted out (and nobody is going to object to blocking someone who's quite blatantly making up sources). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If you disagree with another editor, please find a more acceptable way of saying so. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You are wikilawyering. While the first word in Jeske's response might be regrettable, the sentiment he's expressing is one that I, and probably others, agree with. Fifelfoo was right to bring this here. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slow down. Let's not block anyone "until this gets sorted out". Let's sort it out first, and then decide what to do next. I don't know Legolas myself, but I see his name pop up frequently in productive or helpful places, and he's been here a long time and does a lot of writing. I'm not saying it's impossible that there is intentional falsification, but I'd be really surprised if it is; I suspect there's a less sinister explanation. One that may still need to be addressed, perhaps, but intentional falsification of references is a pretty strong thing to be assuming. I think it would have made the most sense to leave this at RS/N until we heard from him, but I guess that ship sailed already. But there should be no blocks, or threats of imminent blocks, until we hear from Legolas. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he dosen't come here and address these issues within an hour of resuming editing, I'd say that an indefinate block be issued with the unblock condition that he explain himself on the talk page before being unblocked. I agree we shouldn't move to block him before he responds, but this is serious enough to warrant an immediate response from him. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If he dosen't come here and address these issues within an hour of resuming editing, I'd say that an indefinate block be issued Is this a threat? He has a life, you know, he is at work right now, and doesn't our policy state "block are preventive not puntatives? What will a block prevent, vandalism from his account? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes actually, given that there's demonstration that in two sampled instances he violated WP:V through deceptive citations that appear on the surface to be good but are non-existent. Citing non-existent texts is a heinous attack on WP:V, and there is a reasonable assumption of future bad faith given the deceptive nature of the attack on V. It is conduct in the territory of copyright violation and plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I really don't see the issue Tbhotch. I didn't say "he has to drop everything including his real life and address this right now", I essentially said "he can't go back to editing the project until this is addressed". He might not have time to make any edits to Wikipedia for several days, and that's fine by me, but it wouldn't be appropriate for him to edit Wikipedia, when he does have the time to do so, until after he comes here and addresses this. As to the second piece of your comment, I would see this as a preventative block, the aim being to prevent him from adding any more sources to articles, since there appears to be a problem with his sources not existing. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • As for me, I think Legolas2186 should be made aware that this is the first issue he should address upon resuming editing. A block would serve, and it would be easier to administer than a half dozen admins constantly visiting his contributions page to see if he has resumed. However, the latter method would work fairly well, and with so many eyes on the issue, I seriously doubt Legolas will get away with faking another reference in the near future. Moreover, I wish that Legolas will learn from the experience and will resolve to use only true blue citations in the future. He has been a valuable editor but he needs to know that snubbing WP:V cannot continue. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I strongly agree with the previous point, the outcome I'd like to see is rehabilitation and improvement. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Fabrication of material is about as serious a charge as is possible, and, if shown, should result in a community ban on the perpetrator. One of the few places I support "draconian soutions." Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'd say pause this discussion until he chimes in with his side of the story. He may have simply written the wrong magazine name (very easy to do if he was starting to look at People while citing his material from a different magazine) or done something like that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Topic ban proposed

      Moved from Related discussion on ANI Nobody Ent

      A proposal: User:The Devil's Advocate may not bring up threads at ANI or any other noticeboard regarding the Article Rescue Squad, broadly construed, and may not nominate for deletion any pages that are part of the ARS project or bring them up for Deletion Review. [someone please rephrase this for necessary comprehensiveness.] This includes pages and templates used by the ARS and complaints about ARS members (loosely defined) as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined).

      • Rationale: too many fishing expeditions and divisive, disruptive, and time-wasting threads in various forums. Violating this ban may be punishable by tickle death or a block. Please phrase this better if you can. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Funny that you would say "complaints about ARS members (loosely defined)" as you would probably be including complaints about yourself in that situation. Also, it would appear to deny me the ability to make any note of the numerous uncivil remarks you and other editors involved with ARS have made about me pretty much from the outset. You are making this out like I am just going after the ARS for no discernible reason.
      The reality is that I saw an article that should be deleted, nominated it for deletion, and saw the ARS was back to its old tricks just weeks after they got a big wake-up call from the rest of Wikipedia (anyone is free to look at that first ANI discussion and the TfD about the rescue tag). I am not repeatedly bringing up the same issue to try and get a different result. The first ANI thread in this latest instance did not directly name a case and focused instead on the fact that the editor most complained about in the previous discussion created the list almost immediately after the rescue tag got deleted in what would seem to be a blatant case of WP:IDHT. That discussion was closed by you, an involved admin (having commented at listing there before going to vote keep in the AfD I started), within five hours based on the MfD result.
      I asked another admin how I should proceed given your involvement and he said the close was premature, but suggested that if I have a specific case to mention I should start a new ANI thread about it and so I did. The result was that more editors came in and several expressed serious concerns about the list and the way it was being used by the editors in question. However, several editors insisted the MfD settled the matter and when that ANI discussion got closed within 17 hours, not including the repeated disruptive closings by involved editors, based on "no consensus for action" (not claiming that there were no legitimate issues as some are insisting) I decided to move the discussion to the MfD. An hour after it was re-opened, before I could even leave my delete vote, an admin stepped in and closed the discussion after a single hour based on there not being a delete vote. So, I asked the admin to re-open, but the admin did not wish to reverse the action and suggested I could put it up for review, which I did.
      This ANI discussion is about someone closing that discussion inappropriately even as more votes were coming in favoring relisting. How exactly could this editor know there would not be more editors who might take an interest and see cause for relisting? Why did this editor not consider the fact that a significant portion of the votes were from members of the project whose page was up for deletion and were not actually providing reasons against relisting? Did this editor intend, as he seems to state, on closing it as having been endorsed either way and just waited until it had a little more input so as to avoid making it look premature? So, you see, it is not about me raising the same issue over and over. Only my call for the closing admin to re-open the MfD and the DRV was trying to restart an old discussion, a discussion that I myself think was initiated prematurely before more people could be drawn to the issue at ANI so that it wouldn't essentially just get ARS members and people who frequent the list voting to keep their beloved page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Devil's Advocate, "complaints about ARS members (loosely defined)" is an incomplete citation: notice the second part, "as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined)" (that should be amended to "in regard to"). You are free to complain about any one of those people, including me (hell, I'll sign up with the ARS if that makes it easier for you to pigeonhole me), Northamerica1000, Dream Focus, the Colonel, Milowent, S Marshall, Spartaz...(let's paint with a broad brush), but not in their activities as ARS members--that is, related to that list or templates or whatever. And I'm not saying you're going after the ARS for no discernible reason: I think there probably are a couple of reasons, but that's not relevant here. Finally, a deletion review may have been the proper step, formally speaking, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do. You have been told, time and again, that the horse is dead. S Marshall is only the last one of a couple of editors who tried to put it out of its misery. I want to prevent further animal carcass abuse.

      I got nothing against you, and I have had few interactions with you outside of those ARS discussions. You were trolled, for instance, and I offered what little help I could give you. Others have complained on your talk page about endless discussions and your tenaciously holding on to sticks (well, straws, probably), and that won't make you any more friends. But I'm focused on this one. I hope you have other things to do beside what appears to be a vendetta against the ARS; I can assure you that those things are probably more likely to be rewarding to you as a Wikipedia editor. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support, for reasons I detailed almost immediately above this section. Kevin (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support He doesn't seem to be likely to give up, no matter how many people try to reason with him. No sense having the same exact discussion every few days from the same determined editor. Dream Focus 08:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support TDA's editing here is becoming disruptive and a time-sink. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. The Devil's Advocate needs to go do something else for a while. 28bytes (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I was doing something else before Marshall's closure brought me right back into it. Even if the only the result of my efforts was the MfD going from keep to no consensus I would be satisified, because it would at least not be presented as a consensus in favor of what ARS is doing (something that I think should go without saying). The funny thing is, I was once more dragged into the ARS stuff because I was trying to cool off from another topic area by going on recent change patrol only to step into this shit again while doing that without even trying. Should you want to make this about conduct, I say you stow this talk of banning me from discussing this and let us all have a broader discussion about ARS in general that isn't going to get closed every few hours. I can provide more than enough evidence of disruptive behavior by more than "a few" editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Then do so. Your constant nebulous hints about "having evidence I could provide" are weakening your position and making it seem more like you have an anti-ARS WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. (And a preemptive caution with regards to WP:CIVIL might not be amiss.) - The Bushranger One ping only 12:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Nobody Ent 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Sadly to be sure. Noting that the ban does not prevent you from !voting on any issues - just that you need to take a break from being Sisyphus yourself, as a minimum. Note: "bring up" should be "initiate", and change the "ANI or any other noticeboard" to "any page in projectspace" as being clearer and slightlyy more encompassing, and thus removing the stuff about "deletion review" etc. as it is covered as being in "projectspace".
          • User:The Devil's Advocate may not initiate anything on any page in projectspace directly or indirectly referring to the Article Rescue Squad.
        • Hoping this is pretty clear. Collect (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Collect, thank you for rephrasing. As I said to Nobody Ent on my talk page (they kindly left me a note about having moved the section here and retitled it), I was tired when I wrote this up but I wanted to get it started. As for Nobody Ent's move, I've seen such topic ban discussions on ANI and thought it best to keep it in the ANI section that spawned it, but I have no problems with it being moved or edited. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, tendentious and disruptive crusading. postdlf (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, support. User needs help to drop the stick and leave the deceased equine in peace.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes please, and I'm most definitely not aligned with ARS... Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. If there's evidence in the future of the type of behavior that TDA believes he's witnessing, then someone else will bring it to wider attention. TDA's recent contributions on this topic are rapidly approaching disruptive, and a topic ban will allow him to keep contributing elsewhere, unlike a full block for disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • support — Ched :  ?  14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Not that I necessarily agree with Advocate's arguments, but this isn't the way to fix the problem. Shutting an editor up with a topic ban is more likely to frustrate that editor and cause him to quit the project than it is to make him see the errors of his ways. I see no reason why these concerns can't be resolved through normal means, i.e. allow his DRV to last the full 7 days, and when it closes the way we all know it will, then Advocate will have no further place from which to argue. Forcibly suppressing the good faith complaints of an editor is very "un-wiki", and should only be considered in extreme cases. —SW— comment 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, all I want is to have a discussion that actually lasts for a reasonable duration and is reviewed fairly by someone who doesn't have some sort of bias on the outcome (whatever the bias might be). So far the only discussion that has made it past a day was the deletion review.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Scotty, I think we are dealing with an extreme situation here. And if The Devil's Advocate is the only one to bring up these issues, then maybe that means it isn't much of an issue. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree that it is extreme enough that we have to tell Advocate the equivalent of "Just shut up already!" Advocate is being reasonable in his communication, he's not being uncivil, and he's not asking for unreasonable things (it's not uncommon for someone to complain about an early snow closure when the votes aren't unanimous). Unless I'm unaware of the full history of the situation (in which case, please enlighten me), a topic ban to prevent an editor from even expressing his opinions about a protected class of editors seems pretty extreme. Banning someone from starting ANI threads on a particular topic is one thing, but restricting someone from even mentioning certain editors is overly authoritarian. —SW— spill the beans 17:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want him to shut up. I am not proposing a topic ban that would disallow him from expressing an opinion. The topic ban is to disallow him to start ANI threads, deletion reviews, etc (think TfD, for instance) about the ARS. "Restricting someone from even mentioning certain editors"--that's not what I said. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)Oppose pretty much per ScottyWong; I think that there has been quite enough discussion already about the various Arstefacts, but clearly The Devil's Advocate disagrees. It is difficult to know the best way to proceed with a such a dedicated horse-percussionist, but if the substance of his current complaint is that discussion is being stifled, it makes little sense to stifle it further. pablo 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Drmies, I am the one starting the ANI discussions, but definitely not the only one who has concerns. The ANI discussion several weeks ago clearly revealed a lot of disapproval towards the Article Rescue Squadron as a whole. CrossMR and Mbisanz are two I can think of most readily who raised objections about the list this time around.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, but there has always been disagreement with the ARS. Their rescue template is gone now, which I'm sure has appeased a lot of people. (For the record, I don't disagree with the deletion, but I was always more bothered by its injudicious application, which all of a sudden became a topic due to one single editor's activities). But how those threads evolved and were closed reveals a greater impatience with the complaint on the part of the community than it does disagreement with the ARS and how it operates. And here we are again, caught up in yet another discussion. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Further note, look at all the delete votes in the TfD over the rescue tag. Most of those editors I have not seen comment on this recent issue at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahem. I believe I commented on a thread involving the ARS list that it looked open to collusion and maybe they were trending in that direction, but my comments were refuted and the broader community didn't care; so I dropped it. I then supported the quick closure of the MFD on that topic at DRV as procedurally proper. I haven't been the one starting these discussions or filling walls of text in them. MBisanz talk 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak support, mostly because, whether he's right or wrong about the ARS, it ought to be clear to TDA that his threads about it are not gaining traction on ANI, and aren't likely to. The Devil's Advocate, if you feel that the ARS or its members are being disruptive, you need to take it to an RfC at this point, rather than continually tilting at windmills here on the admin noticeboards. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Can't exactly take it to an RfC if I am banned from bringing it up altogether. Honestly, if editors here committed to having an RfC on this general issue of the Article Rescue Squadron I would have no issue accepting a ban from mentioning this at places like ANI for some fixed duration of time so long as there is allowance that I be able to contribute to that RfC discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hm. I think the wording that's up there now is not the wording I saw when I made my initial comment here, or else I wasn't totally awake when I read it. In any case, I'll specify now so I make more sense: I would support TDA being prohibited from opening new AN, ANI, VPP, etc threads about the ARS, to encourage him to use an RfC as the next step in dispute resolution. I very strongly oppose a comprehensive topic ban that prevents him from participating in discussions with or about the ARS, or nominating articles under their protection for deletion and the like. The objective here is to funnel the dispute into proper dispute resolution procedures, not to protect the ARS from criticism. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fluffernutter, my proposal (or Collect's rewording) does not prevent, I hope, DA from participating in discussions. Please check to see if your phrasing, TDA [is] prohibited from opening new AN, ANI, VPP, etc threads about the ARS, agrees with my (poorly written) proposal or Collect's proposition. I think it does. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The wording "This includes [...] complaints about ARS members (loosely defined) as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined)" is the sticking point in your proposal, Drmies. It would prohibit him from following dispute resolution procedures or, quite frankly, ever criticising ARS members' activities, anywhere, no matter who started the discussion or where it was. Basically, I'm on board with "don't do this here," but I can't support "and also, you may not express a negative opinion about this protected class of people or their club, period." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I want them to not initiate such complaints about the ARS or about editorsinregardtotheirARSactivities, so to speak. My concern is that complaints will be filed about individual members that turn out to be, in a more or less direct way as the case may be, about the ARS as a whole--such as the very existence of a list of articles that are brought to the attention of the ARS. But I will leave this to the community. What about Collect's short and sweet sentence? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Collect's sentence ("User:The Devil's Advocate may not initiate anything on any page in projectspace directly or indirectly referring to the Article Rescue Squad.") would also prevent TDA from pursuing dispute resolution via places like RfC entirely (and might, in effect, end up banning him from AfD and DRV, since creating anything in those spaces could be considered an indirect reference to the project that patrols them), so I also can't agree with that one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per fluff --Guerillero | My Talk 15:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I'm going to support this to try to help this area of the project calm down. MBisanz talk 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question - per sandwich, any chance on allowing him one RfC, on whatever this is? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Here are the relevant pages: first ANI discussion involving the list, second ANI discussion involving the list, and deletion review on the list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I see there seems to be a dispute about canvassing. I see allot of disputes about what is canvassing and what is notice, in allot of areas, so I don't know if you can be blamed for that. Perhaps, an RfC or mediation can help you guys out.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support: if for no other reason than that he's not exactly telling the truth about the timing of the DRV closure...it was closed less than 24 hrs. early according to the signature Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not true. I can only assume you misunderstood something. The discussion was placed in February 10, but I had actually posted it on February 11th so that may be the cause of your confusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion wasn't closed until February 16... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose The Devil's Advocate doesn't seem especially annoying and I don't see why he should be singled out when there are other editors with a longer history of such agitation: Snotty, Reyk, Tarc, &c. Warden (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Firstly, I want to say that Warden has shown a lot of maturity by the first part of his oppose and I just want to note that it has increased my respect for him. Secondly, although I strongly respect Drmies, I can't help but feel this is retaliation by the ARS. I don't mean to assume bad faith here and I know TDA's ANI threads have become a bit tedious, but trying to silence his concerns is inappropriate. The specific part I disagree with is "complaints about ARS members (loosely defined) as regards their activities as ARS members (loosely defined)." I would prefer a tighter definition, not a loose one.--v/r - TP 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I kinda agree with this. I think the best approach would be TDA pursuing an RFC at this point. He wants a broader discussion about the ARS, and he should be afforded the option of pursuing it rather than squelching him altogether. I don't think he really wants to continue piddling away with canvassing accusations around one specific AFD at a time. I do think the repeated ANI listings have become somewhat disruptive, so I support the nomination only insofar as it might prevent that practice from continuing, but I oppose it being so loosely-defined as to prevent TDA from pursuing the most valid avenue for his concerns: an RFC. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not opposed to a rewrite. I can live with Fluffernutter's TDA being prohibited from opening new AN, ANI, VPP, etc threads about the ARS. Tparis, I am not a member of the ARS; if I'm retaliating, it's not on their behalf. (I'm actually not sure if they have membership; I don't have their card or user box.) As for Colonel Warden, I began respecting him a lot more a few years ago already, though I make it a matter of principle to always disagree with him even when he's right. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose This seems like overkill. There are a lot of users with much more of a history of anti-ARS activism. AniMate 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support It's just gotta stop! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Start the RFC and have wider community involvement. But silencing an editor on a wiki-political topic through a ban? Wow. It was a silly DRV but that leads to this? Tellingly we don't see the laundry list of links to disruptive actions that we normally would in this instance. I'm a little stunned that this was even proposed. Shadowjams (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for closure at TFD

      Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Cleanup has been running for 16 days now. I suspect it hasn't been closed because almost everyone who's ever used this site is involved. I know this because the discussion is at over 21,000 words (not a typo) so far. If someone happens to be uninvolved, perhaps they'd consider the daunting close. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      On the "no consensus to unblock" conundrum

      Newyorkbrad has on several occasions drawn attention to the following conundrum:

      Admin:A blocks User:X. Admin:B thinks it's a bad block and takes the issue to AN. After a good discussion, half of those commenting believe A was justified and that X should stay blocked. The other half of those commenting believe A was unjustified and X should be unblocked. Both sides are making sound, reasonable arguments. Is the proper outcome of the discussion that X should stay blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block), or that X should be unblocked (because the default state of any user is unblocked and there is no consensus in favor of the block)?

      I would like to propose a way of dealing with this problem. My proposal is simple in outline, so I am airing it here to get a feeling for whether something like this is workable, not for an agreement on detail. My proposal is to take advantage of the fact that blocks have duration and to agree upon a minimum and maximum time for which a bad/contested/controversial/difficult/courageous short block would be tolerable, no matter one's viewpoint, in cases where there is no consensus on whether to overturn the block. This time period might on some occasions provide an opportunity for further thought and cooler heads to prevail (perhaps leading to a reblock with better reasoning and/or a more appropriate duration).

      Concretely (for example), if the minimum and maximum times were 24 and 48 hours respectively, then a specific proposal could be that for blocks contested at ANI where no consensus for blocking or unblocking is reached, the block should be procedurally reduced (if possible, and without prejudice concerning reblocking) to the longer of: 48 hours total or 24 hours from the application of the procedure (if this would not reduce the block, then it should be allowed to expire in the normal way).

      I won't add to the length this initial post extolling the virtues/benefits of such an approach, but encourage editors to think about whether something like this might have been helpful in past situations they are familiar with. There are obviously similar ways to deal with contested unblocks, but I think it would be simpler to focus on the contested block case first. Geometry guy 23:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=477270797"