Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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) Start a new discussion

"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.

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

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 48 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Riposte97: time sink

(Initiated 4 days ago on 22 June 2024) Obvious consensus has formed for a community imposed topic ban from "Indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed". Admin close required. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 79 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)

 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)

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

(Initiated 76 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 70 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)

 Done Sunrise (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 52 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 52 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 50 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 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)

Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

(Initiated 35 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 26 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	13	38	51
TfD	0	0	0	12	12
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	20	29
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 29 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)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 22 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)

Expewikiwriter

I'm a little worried that the user's contributions are a little advertisingish at times. [4]

Consider Joseph Lani, David Jerome (author), Stone Bridge Homes NW, and others, possibly. 86.** IP (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. What's up?Expewikiwriter (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stonebridge Homes is pure puff/advert. Non-notable awards as a show of notability? 6th place in a non-notable "competition" is somehow notable? The President is non-notable by any means. I'd swear the person is being paid to write adverts on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point. I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher) and asked me to consider writing one for this company. I probably tried a little too hard to make it fit Wikipedia's standard for notability. I will take this as a reminder to be more vigilant in the future. For that, I thank you. Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please help me to understand the problem with David Jerome (author); does the article not make clear his notability? Thanks.Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to separate out te threads in it, as it's covering two sides of the person, but a lot of it's sourced to his website, and it's not clear how notable some of the mentions are. Maybe I just don't understand what counts as notable for a humour writer, as notability is relative. Can someone else look? 86.** IP (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, 86. In the meantime, do you really think the article warrants a proposed deletion tag? Expewikiwriter (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Think you're right on that one. Could do with discussion first. However, note that just because you worked on an article doesn't mean you can't remove a tag, so, you know, do feel free. Also note that, if something is mistakenly deleted that way, the decision may be reversed simply by contesting the deletion. The procedure is meant as a sort of testing of the waters, to see if anyone has other views. 86.** IP (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was willing to give Expewikiwriter the benefit of the doubt until this happened. Not sure if this is trolling or socking or meatpuppeting, but it's weird. I'd be curious to hear an explanation for that edit. Valfontis (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Expewikiwriter also uploaded a logo that goes with this other user's draft. An SPI might be in order. Valfontis (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter. The choice of username is lighting up my spam radar in a big way. MER-C 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter - Looks like it's been confirmed. How incredibly unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged the socks but not the main account. I've got a list of over 40 articles that appear to have been created for promotion. What a mess. Regarding: "I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher)" it seems to me like a strange selection of articles for a retired teacher to write. I wonder how they got permission to use the photos. Valfontis (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the main account. I have little doubt that this is a professional spammer, but in any case it is a user who has gone to some efforts to be deceptive, and has abused several accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The blocked socks are now asking for help, one, right after, another. Can someone more patient than me explain things to "them"(?)? Valfontis (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they understand perfectly well, and are just playing their game beyond to the end. it's not even worth blocking talk p. access, though I wouldn't oppose it. All we need do is watch for whatever new socks there will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's all about the future socks. It's interesting that the socks are claiming to be students and the puppetmaster is a former schoolteacher. Hm. tedder (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a NY-based IP has protested the deletion of 2tor, Inc. created by Expewikiwriter. It was nice of "them" to reveal their location. Valfontis (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it's not possible for you to know the intent of any author. TheExpewikiwriter account has been deemed in violation of one or more Wikipedia policies and has been cancelled as punishment. But the articles written by the account holders (several authors contributed Wikipedia articles through this one account) should be judged on their own merits (is the article spam? is the article objectively written? is the article sufficiently supported by legitimate secondary sources?). It appears that a few expewikiwriter articles have been indiscriminately deleted or tagged for the purpose of rendering punishment on the account holder(s). Consider the following:

• Harold J. Morowitz - The subject is a leading, and internationally known, scientist. The author of this article is a published researcher and professional associate of a colleague of Dr. Morowitz. Judge for yourselves, but it would appear that the article meets all standards for a Wikipedia article on a living person, and should not be tagged.
• 2tor, Inc. - Covered extensively in the national press, this company is one of the most important players in online education. No less than 4 experienced Wikipedia authors collaborated on this article. Because it had been posted and removed once before (please see the record), all due care was taken to make sure that this article would meet Wikipedia standards. In particular, care was taken to write it OBJECTIVELY and NEUTRALLY, and to support EVERY fact and detail with a legitimate reference source. Review and decide whether this article should have been summarily removed - and consider re-establishing it in Wikipedia.
• Joseph Lani - After hearing Lani on national late night talk radio for the third or fourth time (he is a familiar radio guest to late night talk radio fans), the author of this article decided that Lani deserved a presence on Wikipedia. The author did research, found articles, and wrote the article.Whatsongisit4578 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

...You know, it's fairly obvious you're the same user. You aren't allowed to violate your block by creating a new account. 86.** IP (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Role accounts aren't allowed of course. Also please read WP:BOOMERANG, you just keep digging yourself in deeper, "Expewikiwriter". Valfontis (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for another sockpuppet check. Probably obvious, but keep getting new ones, so... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter 86.** IP (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, three new IPs have contested proposed deletions of four articles created by Expewikiwriter. 38.96.37.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.116.123.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 50.9.6.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Other new users voicing an opinion on the works of Expewikiwriter include Phage434 (talk · contribs) Peace2012now (talk · contribs), Davidlomax (talk · contribs), 209.177.103.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.207.154.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of pointless to delete prods while people are clearly paying attention? I mean, prods are at least reversible; AfDs aren't. 86.** IP (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the system worked the way it was supposed to, and people weren't !voting "delete" as a means of doling out punishment, at AfD at least an article has a chance of being kept if people actually !vote based on valid deletion criteria and look for sources before !voting. P.S. Here's a new IP also 173.73.144.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Note IP 209* is from clarkhuotcocoon and IP 38* is from budovideos. Valfontis (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one. Special:Contributions/TechnicsSL1200 (though he may have a point in that case) 86.** IP (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One more SPA: Molly Staples (talk · contribs) (NewOrleans.com) Valfontis (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Anarchangel

Anarchangel (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this user's admission here: [5], specifically,

So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to http://hippie.wikia.com/wiki/Mundane_astrology and should be reintroduced at a later time.

That's problematic, because Creative Commons requires the authors to be credited. If Anarchangel is taking articles offsite, claiming them as his or her own, then putting them back on Wikipedia later, without crediting the original authors, that's basically a massive copyfraud, and it needs dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to complain to the relevant people at Wikia, then, who can actually deal with it. 87.114.248.222 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's apparently bringing them back here, after some time, but without the names of the people who made the original, it's copyvio. 86.** IP (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In which case, any articles which he brings back should be examined by an admin to see if the article is a copyvio - if such is the case, the user should likely be barred from such acts. Collect (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What part of the {{WPN}} template did you fail to understand?

“ This article contains content from Wikipedia. An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundane astrology. Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article. ”

If someone else wishes to reintroduce material that was previously on Wikipedia, on my recommendation, then that is their business. I certainly never have personally, and I have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. However, if there is a policy that restricts that, then I should like to know right now, because it would be wrong and I should like to have my say about it. Anarchangel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just policy, it's a legal issue. If the article is deleted on Wikipedia, the history of edits is gone. By pating that work back into Wikipedia, you are re-introducing that material without the required attribution for all those edits. Thus, it violates the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see the rationale. However, this is also the same as reintroducing an article from Userpace, or reintroducing an article that was previously deleted. In both those cases, the edit history is available to administrators, yes? So since the edit history is still available, there is no licence violation, no? Anarchangel (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bit late to reply, had family matters to take care of. In the case of an article moved to Userspace, or deleted on Wikipedia, if it is moved back to article space and/or undeleted, the page history is there for all to see. However, if you just copy & paste the contents to a new article, none of that history is attached and, therefore, it has no attributions. And that's a license violation.

If you really want to recreate a deleted/userfied article, ask an admin to move it or go through WP:DRV to have it undeleted. However, if you republish the article's contents anywhere else (including a different Wikipedia article or new version of the previous article) you must include attribution for all the edits with the republished article. Otherwise, it's a violation of the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that the "What part of WPN" questions leads me to a serious concern that there may be a deep misunderstanding here. :/ "Wikipedia" does not own the copyright to that content; the individual contributors who contribute the material do. It is *they* who must be attributed. Providing a link to the article (not the AFD), so long as it is still alive, is regarded as sufficient attribution. If it is not still alive, you need a full list of authors. This is the reason why the content cannot be reintroduced to Wikipedia; without the history of the article, which includes the full list of authors, or a complete list using that content is a violation of the license granted by the contributors and hence of their copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

See my query, above. The edit history exists, somewhere, surely? Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, thank you for noting the distinction. If the answer is no, the edit history does not exist, then I will take care to note the names of the individual contributors, probably on the destination talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid. :) Attribution must be accessible to comply with the license. When material is introduced form userspace, there's no licensing issue as long as the user who is introducing is the author - you retain rights over your own material and don't have to attribute it. Articles should not be reintroduced after prior deletion; their history is supposed to be restored at the same time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you've copied content from articles that have now been deleted, I'd be happy to help you get a list of authors that can be put on the talk pages of the Wikia page. That would satisfy attribution requirements just as well as the link. I'm afraid I'd just need a list and - if the list is long- time. :)

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the 44 articles, all attributed as containing Wikipedia content, most have been redirected at AfD or kept, and thus have an edit history which not only exists, but is easily accessible. Some are originals. And then there are this seven, which were actually deleted after AfD. I gladly take you up on your kind offer of contributor lists. If you would prefer, just go ahead and ctrl-c; I'll do the parsing:

• Puget Trough prairie butterfly (moved to -flies, it says on the AfD), Nude & Breast Freedom Parade, Energy Art, High fibre composting, Northern California Solar Regatta, Virginia Good. Anarchangel (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• At your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, are you saying that it's illegal to copy content from Wikipedia?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. It is not only legal, but encouraged. :) However, the content has licensing requirements that must be met. wmf:Terms of Use explains these requirements; where possible, a hyperlink or URL to the article or a stable version of the article, with history, is sufficient attribution. Where this is not available, a list of all authors will do it. It may be illegal to copy content without meeting the terms of the license, considering all factors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that this is about deleted content though (...right?), so... if content has been deleted from here, then how can there still be licensing issues at all?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't disappear when content goes out of publication; if it did, there'd be a whole lot more material we could reproduce. : ) Under the US laws that govern Wikipedia, the term of copyright is 70 years after the death of the author or, where the author is unknown (as will often be the case with Wikipedia content), 95 years after publication/120 years after creation (on Wikipedia, it would be the 95, since this constitutes publication). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, agreed, but if the content has been deleted from here then how does anyone know who the author(s) was(were)? Does the WMF hold the copyright on the content of deleted articles, since it's not possible to determine who the contributors were? I somehow doubt that we're talking about content that is "out of publication" (how would that even be determined?), if it's been "destroyed".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content never actually goes away - it and its history are still visible to admins, and if it is ever to be used again its whole history can be restored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but how does that address the original issue here? As User:Moonriddengirl said above: "The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have much idea where you're going with this. :) So I'll just try to explain the way this works. John creates an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't give it to the WMF or even to Wikipedia; he owns the copyright. He licenses it liberally for modification and reuse, provided the terms of the licenses are met. The licenses require, among other things, that John receive attribution. Anyone - whether another Wikipedia contributor or a book publisher or a website owner - is free to reuse John's content, so long as they honor the license agreement. If they do not honor the license agreement, they may be infringing John's copyright (a matter for a court to determine, based on weighing a number of factors). The fact that some contributor or contributors on Wikipedia delete the article in which John originally placed the content doesn't change anything; there's nothing in our Terms of Use terminating licensing requirements upon article deletion. (WMF does not hold copyright on the content of deleted articles; the original contributors do...and always will, until copyright expires under the terms of US law.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is no copyright on Wikipedia. When we release anything we've created on Wikipedia, it's released as Creative Commons which isn't copyright, we're allowing free use of the material , it says so at the bottom of the page,

so copyright doesn't even figure into this discussion.

Creative Commons , simply put means :
We are free to:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to Remix—to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Further, we can't copyright our own work here, nor can we waive Creative Commons or revoke it. There's no copyright on Wikipedia, just creative commons, so the usual "life of the author...." doesn't apply. Just my two cents. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is, because American copyright law holds that copyright automatically exists when copyrightable material is created or published. Here that material has specifically not been released into the public domain, but has been licensed for use under the terms listed above, which does not change the status of the copyright -- which is, precisely, the right to determine how your material will be used. You can't license something if you don't own it, and each contributor owns the copyright on whatever they've created on Wikipedia, but has agreed to the licensing scheme by uploading it. The licensing terms exist only because the copyright exists, you can't have the one without the other. Once the copyright has run out, there's no longer anything to license, and the material falls into the public domain. (That will be interesting, 70 - 95 years from now, trying to unravel which words and punctuation date from when to determine which is p.d. and which is still copyrighted and licensed under CC.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with User:Beyond My Ken. So, I'll note, does Wikipedia:Copyrights: "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." Much if not most of the content on Wikipedia is under copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is a new issue surfacing; material that makes up a summary on one article cannot be the same text as the text of another article? I surely hope not; it seems to me absurd that one WP article could be a copyvio of another. However, User:Nyttend made the deletion of Libyan Ground Forces, bypassing the AfD process, with the summary : "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Unattributed copying of much of Libyan Army (1951–2011))" Is this browbeating, hoping for the chilling effect of copyright infringement accusation to push through a new operating standard, or just inept editing? Until there is a decision, WP:G12 cannot be and should not have been applied, as neither the original article nor the copied text was an "unambiguous" copyright violation. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reusing Wikipedia content

The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Reusing content at Wikia is particularly easy, as it has compatible CC-BY-SA licensing (for most of its wikis) and compatible MediaWiki software. Full page histories can be transferred using Special:Export/Special:Import. Histories of deleted articles can be requested at WP:Requests for undeletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer needed

To act as a single-issue mentor/advisor for DegenFarang (talk · contribs). I'm trying to work with this user to get them unblocked, they have agreed to a topic ban and have agreed that if/when they get into any sort of conflict they will consult with a third party for advice on how to proceed. That's the whole job, no elaborate mentoring program or anything, just the occasional bit of procedural advice on how to proceed in a disagreement since Degen has had repeated problems in that area. It would be best if it was an admin or other experienced user who has no previous dealings with this user. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

C'mon people, it's an easy job and you'd be helping a user not to repeat their own mistakes. It's a feel good task that just needs one previously uninvolved admin to make an occasional recommendation, not a babysitting gig. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as DegenFarang does in fact adhere to the topic ban, I'd be happy to mentor him should he make occasional requests for a second opinion on my talk page. — madman 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive233 § Topic ban

I propose that this editor be topic banned indefinitely from pages relating to Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). There was a similar proposal at AN which can be seen here but this was never agreed upon. Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) responded to the topic ban proposal by saying that "I have already indicated that I refrain from making contentious edits to the article, discussing them first, and as it is the community's wish, I am prepared to undertake not to mention the actual DoB at all. My other, undisputed, edits to the article have helped to improve the encyclopedia. "

On March 30th, Jimbo asked Andy not to further edit the article or interact on the talk page. Andy's reply on April 2nd was in the negative. Later on the same day Andy posted this addition to the article which appears to be true, verifiable, and well-sourced. Nevertheless it has provoked an unncessary, but entirely predictable, round of edit warring culminating in the article being fully protected for the duration of the current deletion review.

Andy has defended his article edits on the article's talk page and subsequent to the full protection has made an edit request to reinstate the removed material. to add further new material. (Assertion refactored after my mistake was pointed out. Apologies all round.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy asserts that he never makes contentious edits to the article, and I agree that from his own point of view they are entirely defensible; he can call on policy and precedent to do so. Nevertheless the fact that his edits are strictly correct does not mean they are not, in practice, disruptive to the activity of the encyclopaedia. I have asked Andy to consider a self-imposed withdrawal from the article and its talk page, but he is unwilling to do so and from his perspective cannot see that he has any responsibility for the disruption that has ensued. I don't think Andy is persuadable that he should leave this page alone. I reiterate that I make no criticism of the content of any recent edits he has made. It is the fact that he, Andy, has made them and the way he has done so that is disruptive and which the community now needs to put a stop to. I will inform him of this post now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why is this even still necessary? There already was consensus for this topic ban in the discussion the other day. I don't know why it slipped into the archive without being formally enacted. It clearly should have been. I blocked him the other day for continuing his activities on the article, and only unblocked him on the understanding that he would heed what was by then a clearly emergent consensus. I'm quite prepared to block him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. Andy needs to leave Jim Hawkins the hell alone. For him to continue editing Hawkins' bio after so many editors have raised concerns about him doing this (not to mention the fact that Hawkins himself feels harassed by Andy's continued focus on him) shows extremely poor judgment. It's disappointing he's chosen not to step away from this BLP on his own volition; I don't see any choice but to make it an official ban. 28bytes (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This cannot be allowed to continue, there is a certain amount of WP:GAME going on here, if it was not the date of birth or where he lives, it would be something else. Game over.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per 28bytes. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I refer my fellow editors to my full response to the previous suggestion, where contrary to above assertions there was no consensus for such a ban, and which is not quoted in full by Kim. I have not been involved in what Kim calls "unncessary, but entirely predictable, round of edit warring"; and Kim has said of the edits in question that "You have facts, precedent and logic on your side". Kim's allegation that I have tried "to reinstate the removed material" is untrue. FP withdrew his wholly unwarranted and out-of-process block after criticism of it from other editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you had reinstated the material Andy, I said you had made an edit request. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You said "made an edit request to reinstate the removed material". That is a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I'm not going to wikilawyer this one. I'll leave it to others to judge whether what I said was a fair representation of the situation. I realise that you believe you are in the right on this but I implore you to count the numbers of people supporting my proposal. Either we are all under a kind of mass hysteria, or you are the one who is isolated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)#

I'm not asking you to "wikilawyer this one"; I'm pointing out that your claim is a lie. Unequivocally so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Kim has now admitted that the quoted claim was false, and since it was nonetheless supported by a number of editors, his explanation of "a kind of mass hysteria" presumably applies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The substance of this Kafkaesque proposal appears to be that I have breached a non-existent topic ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per everything that was said at the previous AN discussion. This looks to me like a deliberate attempt to cause trouble. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I always think it's a good idea that people take a step back from editing when they become to heavily involved or emotionally invested in this issue. But I think this topic ban should also be extended to at least half a dozen other editors on both sides of the issue and should not just single one person out. There's a lot of hysteria and everyone needs to calm the fuck down. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't comment during the last topic ban discussion, because I assumed Pigsonthewing would voluntarily withdraw. But it seems he's determined to continue -- to the point of making edit requests even after page protection, and even though the subject has said he feels harassed by him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "making edit requests even after page protection" - That's how things are supposed to work. Furthermore, the page was protected due to an edit war, in which I was not a participant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support I'm sorry Andy, but even though I do not believe you intend it to be this way, your presence at this article is clearly disruptive. Since you won't voluntarily remove yourself from the topic area, it behooves us to force it. Resolute 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 23:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ...sorta. I basically agree with Gamaliel above. I've never seen this before just now, but this whole thing is weird (not least of all because I think that I actually agree with Malleus!). what I see is that some IP user has trolled a BLP article and several of the "usual suspects" on both "sides" have descended on the article to start sniping at each other with snarky comments. If Andy is "topic banned" here, then what about everyone else?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. V = IR may feel slightly uneasy about agreeing with me, but he points out an ineluctable truth. An IP who may or may not be Jim Hawkins has been trolling that subject's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if IPs can talk here. I don't understand this: Pigsonthewing adds the place where the guy lives, ostensibly. What's the problem? Lots of articles have it. Whether it's necessary or not is another matter (but he does that radio show, so I think there is some relevance to it), and next you know everyone is at war. If Pigsonthewing is to be topic-banned for this little edit, then Silver seren and Malleus Fatuorum should be banned also. Bunch of trolls! But the funnest thing here is that Pigsonthewing makes an edit request, which is answered by Tarc--whose only response is "weren't you topic-banned?" Reminds me of a joke. Guy goes to a bakery. "Can I have a loaf of bread?" "Wheat or white?" "Yes." "Yes WHAT?" "Yes Mr. Baker." There was no reason given on the talk page. As for that edit war, I don't know what got up John lilburne's butt, but I think it needs forceful removal. And the reported harassment on the talk page, that's laughable. A radio jock feels stalked because someone puts his verified county of residence in the article? Come on. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to talk here, IP. However, it appears that you are not making your decision on the full information, and that you are judging things on what you see on the talkpage. You'd have to look in the archives of the article, and click several of the links noted by Kim above to get a fuller picture, but suffice to say, for literally years, POTW has been poking the article's subject (by an adversarial approach, inflammatory talkpage headings[6], repeatedly trying to include information which has been determined inappropriate [7][8][9].) Other links to more recent edits that have since been deleted so you can't see them. Every single time, Hawkins has reacted and drama has ensued. Multiple, very experienced editors (including Jimbo[10], and Fae [11]who has supported POTW in the past, and others[12][13]) have asked POTW, for the good of the encyclopedia, to voluntarily agree to stop editing the article and the talkpage, and let other editors deal it. But he has refused. He is simply not helping the encyclopedia at this point and since he cannot apparently accept this at present, a topic ban is needed. --Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to open your eyes as well. This ban has been called for because the article included material published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it is being called for because after been asked very nicely by several people to stop editing the article and talkpage because it is causing more disruption than it is worth, he has refused to do so. As Kim says above, this has nothing to do with the content of these particular edits. Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That position is quite simply absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that if any other editor had added that publicly available information then it would have been retained? Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Slp, I am familiar with the history, including the last thread. It doesn't clarify anything, and Malleus's remark is quite pertinent. We're not talking about someone opening up a vault of family secrets. It's the county he inserted--not an address, not even the name of a town. Now how is that unacceptable? I conclude that it can only be because it came from Pigsonthewing. You gave some nice diffs--but they relate to this birthday issue, which isn't what was happening in the edit war that led to full protection. I can't disagree with Jimbo Wales asking Pigsonthewing to stop editing, but to enforce that goes too far. Not that I understand his fascination with the subject, mind you, which I think is a little OTT. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible to know, yes, I suspect that if an uninvolved editor had added the info, it would not have been removed. To repeat, this is not about the content but about an editor who despite strong advice that it is best for this encyclopedia if he is not the one to add it. --Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that it might be useful to review WP:Harassment here. Whenever Jim Hawkins pops up, a couple of editors also appear, making minor but irritating edits for no good reason. Jim Hawkins is a radio presenter with a wider off-wiki audience than almost anybody here, and pissing him off enough to start attacking Wikipedia publicly hurts the project a lot more than leaving out the information that a marginally notable person lives in the same county that he broadcasts from. --Pete (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"this is not about the content but about an editor" - the epitome of ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"...about an editor who despite strong advice that it is best for this encyclopedia if he is not the one to add it. " That's not ad hominem but a description of the problem with your tendentious editing of this article despite multiple requests that it would be better for all concerned if you withdrew. --Slp1 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support If he wouldn't leave voluntarily then a topic ban is the next step. -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Funny use of the word "voluntary". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Nice narrow motion here. Collect (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This article's existence has caused a lot of grief to the subject, and if the article is still retained (though I hope common sense will prevail at the DRV), then that grief would be largely mitigated by the removal of Pigsonthewing from it. He has been a resounding net negative there over a long period of time, bordering on obsesive. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The claim that the article's existence has caused any grief at all to the subject is unproven, and frankly unbelievable; the subject is clearly only concerned about the fact that his publicity is not exclusively under his own control. To label the inclusion of material published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine as "stalking" is ludicrous, and to call for a topic ban on that basis is hypocritical, dishonest, and cowardly. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Well thank you Professor Fatuorum for that penetrating insight into the mind and motivations of those who find fault with how the Wikipedia treats their biographies. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of unverified BLP information... Malleus is a professor? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mind and motivations"?? Another typical example of irresponsible reading and comment. Read it again. There's absolutely nothing said or even implied re "mind" or "motivation". Nothing. If a kid dropped his plate of potato salad and someone commented "Hmm ... you've made a mess on the floor", would that be an "insight into mind & motivation"?! Good grief - go back to school and learn to read. Hint: words have meaning. Not your ridiculous imagination. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I read it just fine, sport; Malleus thinks he knows better than the person himself about what his feelings on the article are. Pigsonthewing's actions on this page have been deplorable, and he needs to be removed promptly. Let me know if you need any more help figuring out what's going on here. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support POTW's edits have been disruptive on this article and to this encyclopedia, and since it appears that he can't accept the need to withdraw voluntarily, this needs to happen via a topic ban to the article and the talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral. Oppose. (vote changed after considering the comment by Tagishsimon, below) I think it would be a good thing if Andy were to step away from the article, but this has the feel of a show trial or a futile blood-sacrifice. At the end of the day, no-one has shown anything wrong with any of Andy's edits. It's just that the subject of the article wants him removed. In that circumstance it's fine to ask him to step away, but it's also OK for him not to do so, unless anyone knows of a policy that says otherwise. FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Checking your facts would be good. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Explaining what you mean by that would be excellent. FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. When an editor is either unwilling or unable to disengage from an issue in which their presence - whether intentionally or through good faith actions gone wrong or misinterpreted - causes problems, then it's time for the community to step in and force the editor to disengage. To those suggesting Andy is not the only problem editor in this topic area: if other editors are felt to need time-outs also, please propose topic bans (and provide evidence) for them elsewhere (a sub-section, perhaps?), but piggybacking additional suggested editors onto this proposal is likely to just muddy the issue what to do about Pigsonthewing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Question Andy is there a need for you to be the one to edit this page? Because it looks like, it's become personal, and if it has, you should just agree not to do it. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter, so long as the material can be attributed to reliable sources? Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Despite Hawkins' attempts to personalise the matter (with regular PAs both on- and off-wiki), I have resisted rising to such bait and have restricted myself to discussion of cited facts pertinent to his biography; and to raising his calls for vandalism on WP:ANI, as I have previously been advised to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It matters because there are many editors who can edit the article; its not going anywhere -- it's here to stay for the foreseeable future and if Andy is the issue than there is no reason for him to be so. On the other hand, if Mr. Hawkins' wants to encourage people to keep editing and taking about his article, it's going to be edited and talked about, with or without Andy. So, I'm leaning toward no formal bans at this point, until we find if it's Mr Hawkins or someone on his behalf that is involved. I still think Andy should refrain. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- why should we be topic banning Andy for adding information to the article that the subject himself supplied to a magazine for publication, including on the web? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- IMHO, the subject of the article, should have 'no say' over what should/shouldn't be in the article or who should or shouldn't be around it. To have such control would be a COI. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support two way ban There are two people involved here who have acted in an infantile manner that continues to disrupt the article. One is Andy, the other is Mr. Hawkins himself. I therefore would only support a restriction that removes both parties from the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. Fighting censorship of reliably-sourced information is something that should evoke praise, not punishment. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Andy shouldn't be subject to any sanctions unless Hawkins is subject to at least the same. It's clear that the behaviour of Hawkins has been considerably worse than that of Andy therefore his editing and off Wikipedia conduct should be addressed either first or simultaneously at the very least. I would support a two way ban with that of Hawkins being the longer.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? You are proposing to topic ban someone who'd rather not have an article about themselves on Wikipedia from posting on the talk page, because they are objecting to having an article about themselves on Wikipedia? Now, there's an interesting proposition... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. You're trying to ban someone who's enforcing site policy but opposing a ban of someone who's trying to censor something that he already put online himself. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when is it "enforcing site policy" to put whatever bit of information you can into a BLP as long as you can find a source for it? 28bytes (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. In addition, this is a piece of information that can only be found by manually trawling through 1000s of his tweets being into an WP article with a high googleranking. In any case, site policy is clearly and specifically against the inclusion of this info per WP:DOB, and thus POTW, who has year after year tried (and failed) to include the info has been doing the exact opposite of "enforcing site policy". --Slp1 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly not how I found it; nor how I found reference to it on Twitter. Why are you making things up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not referring to how you found it, but how somebody looking for info now would have search for it. But in any case this was not my main point.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That is till not the case; Hawkins DoB is findable without reference to Twitter; he has referred to it on the BBC website. As for your main point; I refuted that in my response the last time a topic ban was proposed (link above) and found no consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). PotW and MF need to be removed from this article, its talk page, and discussion of the article anywhere else on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, PotW appears to have demonstrated persistently vexatious behaviour and should have agreed to walk away from JH. A topic ban is now needed to speed up that process. Leaky Caldron 12:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence whatsoever to support your allegation of "vexatious behaviour". Indeed, even the poster of this asinine proposal says "I reiterate that I make no criticism of the content of any recent edits he has made". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Speaking as the one who made this asinine proposal, I concur that the content of Andy's comments appears unexceptional. It is the fact that he is the one who made them which I do, indeed, regard as being vexatious. It's a process issue, not a content issue. I'm sure Andy you won't like your edits being called vexatious, any more than I like mine being called asinine, but we must agree to differ on this and just see what our fellow editors think. If our criticism of one another becomes no harsher I can live with that! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Your criticism of me has already been much harsher; you're the author of this ridiculous topic ban proposal (having previously told me you would only do so if I discussed Hawkins' full date of birth). Asinine is a kind descripton. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much per Jimbo on the DRV. If the subject of a BLP does not want you to edit his article (whether rightly so or not) we should take that into consideration. And in this case I'd say it would be best for everyone if PotW would find other articles to edit. --Conti|✉ 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the best BLP-policy enforcers has edited within policy and worked to form consensus. Persons repeating bad arguments enough times are exhausting the patience of Wikipedia, and their broken-record advocacy has made weak-willed editors advocate unprincipled topic bans.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• support There's nothing about "carefully enforcing BLP policy" that requires one to continue poking the article's subject with a metaphorical stick. Walking away was an option that should have been taken. If AM won't take it himself, it's an appropriate time for a (pretty narrow and generally inconsequential) topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support; Hawkins has a fundamental problem with Wikipedia, and is unhappy in general. However Andy's actions on the article have been part of the main provocation on this issue for a couple of years - a provocation now largely ended and underlined. Except Andy refuses to step away from the article in a mature fashion and indeed insists he has done nothing wrong; refusing to empathise with the subject or even view the possibility that his actions have not been through-and-through positive. Through this he has demonstrated a troublesome attitude to BLP's; his refusal to maturely back away from the issue, and a stated intention to further harass the subject via Wikipedia, mean he needs to be actively limited from doing this. I don't entirely understand Hawkin's feeling of harassment or attack by Andy; however it is clear he feels this way and, as a mature adult, Andy should have been able to empathise and walk away. Not to do so reflect badly on his attitude and aims. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Withdrawn: I've made my point to Andy that I find his actions and attitude here highly objectionable, underhand and not in keeping with the high standard Wikipedians should hold - but he has rejected all of those comments. Nothing is served by persisting this debacle; I made my point, there is no need to now hound Andy. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Why are you making things up? Where has Andy said that he intends to "further harass the subject"? Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  You know; it's disappointing to see you making such a poor quality argument (i.e. inadequate claims of falsehood). He's consistently said he intends to continue editing the article. We can disagree over the term "harass", but in my book it counts - harassment takes many distinct forms (and I may be biased on this having suffered it myself). Hawkins claims the feeling of harassment from Andy (and others); even if we find it inexplicable (or reasonably consider it may be untruthful) there is a mature response; and that is to walk away. Otherwise we are persisting in harassment without any real obvious gain. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Untrue. Andy has clearly stated he is restricting himself to discussing cited facts. There is nothing inexplicable about Hawkins trying to get Andy banned from the article. He wants to control every bit of information about himself that is exposed to public view. Well BLP doesn't work like that here. Just because he cries "harassment" doesn't make it so, and it is foolish to accept his word on it. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's harassment, in my view. Disagree if you wish, but kindly sod off with the high-horse accusations of falsehood (because if we are going that route, Andy has demonstrated a lot of falsehood in his handling of this). The long term story of this article is that it was started in a good intentioned way but, and this is as much as I can dig up, Hawkins had an internet troll who followed him round and around, part of which included attacking his biography. I'm sure (or at least hope) you can imagine that causing stress and discomfort; indeed I can actively empathise with him, having suffered at the hands of a similar (though much darker) campaign of harassment. Since that was ironed out, Hawkins obviously retains a low opinion of Wikipedia and does not want an article. Then we come to the latest ~2 year fall out involving the date of birth - Andy persistently raised the issue and gained the ire of Hawkins for doing so. Hawkins views Andy as harassing him over this - and any continued editing of the biography of any sort is exacerbating the issue. As there is no real need for Andy to keep editing it the mature response is simply to walk away and let others do the work. I've done this, at least twice. A subject contacted us via OTRS and I tried to help them remove problematic material and generally clean up their bios - but ultimately couldn't go as far as they wanted. Eventually I became persona non-grata, and they asked me to leave them alone. Which I did, leaving the issue largely resolved. Andy, however, has refused to do this - and is insisting on persisting the issue. There may be some element of attempting to control the article content; and we should limit this. But Andy is clearly a sticking point in any dialogue; and rather than shrug our shoulders and resign ourselves to alienation Andy should walk away and forget about the article. I object to the idea we shouldn't care what a non-editor thinks. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Arguing that an editor is only adding a published date of birth or published location, and therefore it can't be harassment, is the online equivalent of someone being accused of real-life harassment, then deliberately walking past the target's house – while protesting "but I was only walking down the public highway!" Context is everything, and as anyone who has been harassed knows, senses are heightened by the experience, so the subject's perception has to be taken seriously, even if we don't share it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Your walking away may have been fine, but it was a voluntary action. Your forcing Andy to walk away is another matter entirely.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't agree; if Andy is unable to be mature over this issue then the community needs to take action. I don't want a witch hunt; I have my own personal, and strong, views on Andy's actions in this - and I've now made that point to him in the strongest way possible (there is no indication he noticed or cares), so that is fine. But I think he still needs to give the article space. Even if he had not gone near it for a few weeks this would have gone away and I wouldn't be supporting this - but he stepped back into that article knowing the context, knowing how Hawkins felt; the fallout here is at his feet. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Andy has demonstrated a lot of falsehood in his handling of this" - the only falsehood I have demonstrated has been that promulgated by others; like the lie in Kim's proposal, above, which a small, but nonetheless disappointing, number of editors unthinkingly endorse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Andy, sorry to be a pain but I know I wasn't lying because that's the utterance of a deliberate, knowing falsehood. I may have made a mistake, or I may have phrased something in a way that's open to misunderstanding. Can you be clear what it is in my proposal which is a lie? Maybe I can clear up the misunderstanding, or acknowledge my mistake. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think he's referring to your characterization of the edit request. You say that he requested that the information that he lived in Shropshire be reinstated, but the edit request actually requests that information about his column for Shropshire Life be added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I identified it clearly, above. You responded, but failed to remove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  What you did Andy was to jump on me and call me a liar while remaining extremely vague about what was incorrect. Assuming Sarek's helpful explanation is the problem, then I wish you had been as clear to me yesterday. Please assume incompetence in me before you jump to conclusions of malevolence; I try to be neither but the latter is much more objectionable to me. I will go back to my proposal and reword it. My apologies to you for getting this wrong. It does not however change my view that it would be a net gain all round if you no longer edited this article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I did no such thing (indeed, I quoted the lie in full); your new comment is therefore a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your generous acceptance of my apology. Or not. This disputatious, confrontational method you have of interacting is the problem Andy. I know from your contributions that you are a splendid editor and article writer but you have all the people skills and diplomacy of a {insert amusing comparison here}. That was my last attempt at temporising with you, I'll leave this discussion to run its course now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Bull. You keep poking him in the ribcage with a stick Kim, and when he says "Stop it!", you accuse him of being the source of the trouble and of having a bad attitude. Good one. It so sucks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  You declaimed, loudly, that you had not added the DOB to the article since 2010; certainly technically accurate, but even when challenged you refused to acknowledge raising the issue twice in the intervening time on the talk page. You consistently made this statement; apparently misleading people in the discussion. If anything this is the main reason I find your position untenable. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  I have never denied doing so; indeed, I have recently discussed my reasons for, and others' part in, that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Errant's claim that I have "stated intention to further harass the subject via Wikipedia" is a bare-faced lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal makes a complete mockery of "comment on the edit, not the editor" principle. Andy has stated above: "I ... have restricted myself to discussion of cited facts pertinent to his biography; and to raising his calls for vandalism on WP:ANI, as I have previously been advised to do", and while he maintains that self-imposed restriction, it is a complete over-reaction to attempt to silence him on this topic. None of those supporting would accept a proposal to topic ban them from an area where they were reasonably editing in the way that Andy has restricted himself to. If Andy were to breach his own restriction, then it would be time for this lynch mob to reconvene. In the meantime, there is no valid reason to ban Andy from "discussion of cited facts", unless we think it sensible to allow subjects of BLPs to dictate who can contribute to their articles. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Are we an objective information source or an MMORPG? The article subject can have no other reason for wanting to remove information about himself from a Wikipedia article other than for spite, or to prove he can do it, or to win some kind of battle/crusade. The information Andy wants to add to the article is available throughout the internet, including the subject's own official Twitter feed as well as the BBC. The deletion request is made in bad faith. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Beeblebrox's view, but in light of our inability to identify Mr. Hawkins, a ban on Pigsonthewing and his accompanying consistent disruption is needed. MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "…in light of our inability to identify Mr. Hawkins, a ban on Pigsonthewing… is needed" That beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've spent a half hour trying to figure out what this is all about. We seem to have a wholly innocuous, uncontroversial and anodyne article, an editor adding normal cited info to an article (including info released by the subject); and an article subject showing signs of mental distress and asserting that the article is the cause. Sorry as I am for the subject's distress, if there's an issue to be dealt with here it doesn't seem appropriate to personalise it to a single or pair of editors. Editors who edit according to policy deserve support not condemnation. Wikipedians might want to discuss elsewhere what to do in a situation in which an innocuous, uncontroversial and anodyne article apparently causes mental distress to its subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Let's see if I understand this: a claque wants an editor in good standing to go away, he declines, so on that basis they declare him disruptive and seek a topic ban? (Oh, sorry, wait a moment, the subject of an article wants him gone too, because the subject feels hard done by over the article.) Seriously? I can drive editors I don't like away from areas in which I edit as long as I can wrangle up a few supporters to pile onto a bandwagon? The subject of an article gets veto power over who is allowed to edit it or not? This is a terrible, shameful precedent to set. Ravenswing 03:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - This is a slightly unusual case here. The Wikipedia community wants the article kept, JH wants it deleted. Somwhere between the two we need to find a balance. Apart from post-2010 discussions on the talk page and elsewhere re JH's d.o.b., PotW's editing has been in accordance with policy. The topic ban, if enacted, should not be seen as something that has been done as a punishment, but something that has been done for the greater good of Wikipedia as a whole. Even though it means an individual editor making a sacrifice, and the subject of the article thinking that they have managed to achieve a little bit of control over the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure you expressed that well, topic banning some people for the "greater good" sounds like a formula for anyone to go on a campaign to eliminate minority points of view. If there is to be a topic ban here, then it must be argued based on the evidence of disruptive editing rather than perceptions or in response to external lobbying. Either evidence of disruptive editing, against policy, exists, or it does not. --Fæ (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is evidence of some editing against policy, and other editing that whilst it would be within policy normally, can be seen as being disruptive solely because of who made the edits. For these reasons, I'm supporting the proposed topic ban of PotW. As far as I can see, the only way the article is going to go is if it is done by an Office Action. Until then, the best we can do as Wikipedians is to keep the article fully compliant with BLP and do as little as we can to further antagonise the subject, event if that means some individual editors, such as myself and PotW, keeping off the article. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of JH having any control over the article any more than the rest of you. He doesn't, which is why the article is still here. Let him carry on with his off-Wiki crusade. By doing so, he isn't doing his cause any good at all. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Please reconsider your wording, we should never impose sanctions based on who you are, but on the actions we see you make. This feels like the thin edge of the wedge, the same argument could be made for someone thought to have a political agenda, someone who happens to have been in prison, or someone following a fringe religion. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"solely because of who made the edits" - More ad hominem bullshit, totally contrary to Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not "making a sacrifice"; but "being sacrificed". I'm not your sacrificial lamb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding SlimVirgin's comments above; I feel harassed. It's affecting my health and my ability to work. Can someone please ban her from discussing me or my edits? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If Idi Amin were alive I am sure he would start by editing his own page...he would then move onto lobbying Jimbo Wales...I'm sure he would eat some wikipedians...but I'm not convinced we would allow him to influence his wikipage by getting editors banned. Tom Pippens (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if editors want to change BLP policy then the appropriate way is to seek consensus for a change of policy, not to bully or topic ban editors who follow a policy that you'd like to see changed. I've no strong opinions as to whether or not this particular BLP should be deleted, but if consensus is to keep it then those who lost that debate should back off and not try to restrict other editors from making edits that are within policy. ϢereSpielChequers 11:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. We are dealing here with the atypical case of an article subject who has announced his distress because he cannot control the content of the Wikipedia article dealing with him. There is no sound reason to believe that the content of Andy's edits is what actually distresses Hawkins; instead, what disturbs him appears to be Andy's refusal to accept his direction. That is not a sufficient basis to limit Andy's editing of the article, absent specific evidence of misbehavior. To allow this carries the danger of deterring other editors from making accurate, well-sourced, useful edits against the wishes of article subjects, which is in important ways a conflict with the WMF's policies on BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Andy hasn't actually done anything wrong and followed policy to the letter. Furthermore, when consensus deemed certain info shouldn't be in the article, he followed this and no longer tried to have the info included. If the nominator and others feel that BLP should mean more than what it currently does, they are free to try and expand it, though I see that even the suggestion of this in another area is being rigorously opposed. So, since Andy hasn't broken any policies and has refrained from certain edits when a consensus was made against them, I see no reason for a topic ban. Especially considering the rules that were broken by his detractors (3RR, anyone?). Silverseren^C 00:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; Andy made a few edits that the subject didn't like. So if Charles Manson were to be angry at the people who posted the fact that he coordinated multiple murders, and demanded we ban the chief editors of that article, we'd accede to that? I don't think so; obviously that's not quite what happened here, but it's still pretty far out in terms of policy. And as is said above, once Andy was asked not to make certain edits he stopped doing it. Incidentally, do read Point 6 here, you may find some truth to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles Manson? Sheesh. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, due to persistent policy violations and per the wording of section Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_issues – even though it should be clear that this is a band aid and does not address the core issue. --JN466 06:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_issues applies (I dispute that it does) then it allows for the editor concerned to use an article's talk page; I'm being castigated for doing do and the proposal you support would prohibit me from doing do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Support.After the subject told Andy he didn't want his DoB in the article in 2009, Andy restored it four times. After someone pointed out WP:DOB on the talk page, Andy returned around two of the subject's birthdays, and argued on the article's talk page for the DoB's inclusion. You need to stay away from the article, Andy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to take a wild-ass guess here, that Andy thought it rather disingenuous of the subject to complain about his birth date being included in the article whilst twittering "It's my birthday" on his birthday on a feed which is linked to from his BBC Shropshire page - cf. [redacted]. It does not seem to me to be unreasonable to raise that apparent dichotomy on the talk page. The timing appears to arise out of Hawkin's announcement of his birthday. Isn't hashing out exactly how policy acts on an article one of the things that talk pages are for, not least in light of "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" at WP:DOB? Sure, you may well prefer WP:DOB's "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". But to argue that making a case for the first of these sentences is a cause for a topic ban seems to be dangerous nonsense. There is clearly something wrong with a complaint about birthdate from a complainant who publicises his birthdate. It is a valid subject for discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon, I'm not suggesting Andy was deliberately harassing the subject. His behaviour harassed the subject but that was incidental to Andy's purpose. He was defending content he believed should stand.

• 9 September 2009: An IP removes the first given name with the edit summary "Subject wants personal information removed. DOB and Real Name specifically. Subject would like this page to be removed, but if that won't happen then this will do."
• 12 September 2009: Andy adds to the body of the article, citing a blog comment by the subject, that his birthday fell on a particular day in the Christian calendar. It is quickly deleted, but quickly restored by Arthur Ruben.
• September 2009: User:Rms125a@hotmail.com adds the DoB to the infobox. Mjroots reverts with edit summary "RV per otrs 3648175 - see talk page" and adds <!-- do not change to (date) without a reference per otrs:3648175--> to the infobox, but leaves Andy's identification of JH's birthday as the first sentence of the body of the article.
• 22 September 2009: DJ Clayworth removes it.
• 22 September 2009: Andy restores it.
• 22 September 2009: DJ Clayworth removes it.
• 25 March 2010: Andy restores the date to the infobox and body citing a Hawkins tweet.
• 25 March 2010: An editor adds that Jim was once a woman named Kim, citing a Hawkins tweet.
• 25 March 2010: Andy removes it.
• 25 March 2010: After Andy calls JH a liar, JH says to Andy, "I never said you got my birthday wrong. I said it was none of your damn business."
• 25 March 2010: Slp1 removes DoB info from body and infobox.
• 12 April 2010: Andy adds dob to infobox and body, citing tweets.
• 12 April 2010: Slp1 reverts with "Per consensus and BLP. Do not restore"
• 12 April 2010: Slp1 links to WP:DOB on the article talk page in a conversation including Andy, and Andy ceased adding JH's DoB to the article.

WP:DOB addresses concerns about identity theft. It says, "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." (My emphasis). That's pretty clear to me. The subject complained, we should simply list the year. Simple.

But since then Andy has been agitating on the talk page for publication of the subject's DoB, citing an earlier part of the policy that is obviously modified by the quote above. I'm assuming Andy really believes that if he can solidly WP:V the DoB, it'll be fine to include it in the article, completely missing the point of WP:DOB.

The subject has made it very clear that he does not want his full name and DoB in the article. Andy has repeatedly restored it, despite the subject's wishes, and has been arguing on the talk page, for its inclusion. The subject says the situation is upsetting him. Some have responded with denial. Others accept that the behaviour may be upsetting him but assert that we at Wikipedia don't care about that touchy feely shit. Here's the news. Some of us do. This is a trivial article on a barely (I assert not) notable broadcaster. (This is not Phillip Adams or Melvyn Bragg.) The article's existence distresses the subject, so it should go. If it must for some perverse reason stay, despite it's utter worthlessness (most of the trivia it contains is on his BBC page), keep Andy and Malleus away from it. They've both insulted him. They're distressing an actual human. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that I have insulted Hawkins is false; as is your assumption about by beliefs. I have not added his DoB to the article since April 2010. I have already undertaken not to do so again. Concerns about identity theft are a red herring in this case, as the subject chooses to make his DoB known on both the BBC website and his publicly available, high-profile Twitter account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, I can't speak for others obviously, but from my perspective: It's not that I don't care about this guy's feelings, it's that I find all of this to be disingenuous, at best. I find it hard to believe that a public figure would be "distressed" about things that he's saying being repeated by others. This all has a hyperbolic character to it, which wouldn't even bee a big deal except for the fact that the hyperbole is seemingly intended to disrupt the project. Obviously he's having some success at disruption, as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tagishsimon, you appear to have unnecessarily added and drawn attention here to personal data in contravention of WP:DOB. Could you please either withdraw or re-word to be more generic and avoid the direct link to the date mentioned in the article history? It is for this reason I originally removed the talk page history but then replaced it on request, while the discussions were ongoing. I still hope that once this fracas has died down the history will be quietly removed again (by an independent admin) in order for us to be seen to be complying with WP:DOB. I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an open discussion of the issues here without needing to repeat the specific personal information that Jim Hawkins has been complaining about. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DOB doesn't say anything about discussing such things in places that are not articles. Yes, we're not allowed to discuss private information or out anyone or things like that, but as has been stated by many people, DOB in this case isn't private, but public. We are following the subject's wishes by not including it in the article, but we are fully allowed to discuss it and even say exactly what it is outside of articlespace. Silverseren^C 02:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, BLP applies to talk pages and that includes this noticeboard. DOB is part of BLP. The information should be removed from this page. --Fæ (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, BLP does, but DOB doesn't, unless the DOB is private. BLP says that you're not allowed to discuss private or defamatory information elsewhere on Wikipedia. It doesn't say anywhere that you're not allowed to discuss public information. Silverseren^C 03:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, BLP states "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. " that part of the policy applies to this noticeboard and this noticeboard is currently a violation of BLP due to Tagishsimon's additions. The information should be removed, now, not after a week of wikilawyering. --Fæ (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? The line before that in WP:DOB is discussing reliable sourcing for the info and the line after that is discussing what else shouldn't be used in articles DOB is talking about articles! Not about anything else. Silverseren^C 04:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• The top of the page on BLP states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Consequently BLP applies to this noticeboard. The handy shortcut DOB within BLP takes you to:

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

The only mention of "article" is under the "similar vein", just reading this as plain English, this is not in any way a restriction of all of this section of BLP to article space and the opening of the BLP policy is completely unambiguous that is applies to the whole of Wikipedia, including this noticeboard. Please consider this my final statement, I am not interested in wikilawyering this to death, and the BLP violation on this noticeboard must be removed now, not after Silver seren decides to get bored stretching this out by equivocating. --Fæ (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There's also mention about BLP being less restrictive outside of articles due to the need for discussion; BLP is meant to help protect article subjects from us, not from themselves, and if the subject talks about his birthday on the Internet then I really can't see the issue, because the subject himself put it there for everyone to see. Incidentally, I'm seriously beginning to agree with Ched Davis below me wrt the subject's true motives. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tagishsimon, Fae points to WP:DOB which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, states that the dob of birth of any BLP subjects must be omitted if the subject objects, no matter what the sourcing. This subject did object, as is his right. The issue was discussed in 2009, 2010 and 2011, and every year the strong consensus was that the date could not and should not be included. POTW was told to drop it by multiple editors and administrators. Yet he returned in 2012 to bring it up again and set off this shitstorm. Continuing every year to return to the talkpage to rehash the exact same argument, despite a strong consensus against it, is the epitome of I don't hear that tententious editing, and I am frankly appalled that so many editors are defending his actions. POTW has not done "nothing wrong and followed policy to the letter". Quite the contrary, in fact, as multiple editors and administrators have pointed out. --Slp1 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Should we then topic ban or block anyone who brings up a perennial proposal? Users are allowed to make discussions, but if consensus isn't with them, then it doesn't get enacted. In Andy's case, if no one responds to the proposal, then there is no consensus, easy as that. And if he's only bringing it up once or twice a year, I don't see the issue with it. People do that for a lot of different discussions, always to gauge consensus. Even if consensus has always been one way, it can change. It's happened before. Silverseren^C 03:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, we can and routinely do ban and block people, who after being told multiple times that their views are against policy and against consensus, continue to agitate for the same changes. Take a look at the history of any controversial article (Abortion, Eastern Europe, the Holocaust, Homeopathy, article names). And yes, you are right, that making perennial proposals doesn't have to be a particular problem if it doesn't bother anybody. But that's not the case here. Quite obviously. Year after year, POTW's perennial proposals caused a disruption to this encyclopedia, requiring the involvement of multiple editors, kilobytes of time and energy, and much acrimony. POTW has been told time after time to give it up, to leave things alone, including very politely by Jimbo, and Fae who has otherwise been supportive POTW , yet he won't agree to withdraw, because he has done nothing wrong. Indeed his response to these requests was to make more edits to the article and the talkpage. It's plainly disruptive to the smooth functioning to the encyclopedia. I can accept that POTW (and others) truly believe that there is nothing wrong with his edits per se. But that is not the point. To continue to make them when you know that after several discussions you don't have consensus and when others tell you it is best for the encyclopedia that you gracefully move on to other things, is the problem. It's a question of rights versus responsibilities. Smokers may be within their rights to smoke in public spaces, but it is best and kindest if they focus on their responsibilities to others in the community by butting out when they are asked by others to do so. --Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neither Jimbo nor Fae have "told [me] to give it up, to leave things alone"; once again a falsehood is promulgated to add bogus weight to a featherweight argument. Acrimony, not least yours, is far from required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? What about? "I just wanted to pop by and ask you, as a favor, that you not edit or interact on the talk page of this article.... it'd probably be best all around if you just avoided the topic" "But I beg you to rise above it. Walk away with dignity." "I think you've been annoying towards him, and that a topic ban would be entirely warranted. I also think it would be better if you just stepped back with dignity."(all Jimbo) and "I can see you have started making small amendments to the Hawkins article. Please take a step back and reconsider your approach... Many eyes are on the article and we should be able to trust the community to make good decisions about how to handle improvement or policy compliance."(Fae). [14]. These are clear requests for you to step back and away from the article. --Slp1 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Really. Most of us learn to tell the difference between "tell" and "ask" in pre-school years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I get your point now. Yes, you are correct that Jimbo's and Fae's posts were indeed polite requests rather than "tellings". But the change doesn't diminish the point; you have been requested many times, by many editors and administrators, for the good of the encyclopedia, to step away, and yet you refuse. --Slp1 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a problem with that ("you have been requested many times...") though: it seems as though the big thing driving the "requested many times" is the fact that Jimbo kicked it off, and it looks like a big part of this is a reaction to Andy not listening to Jimbo. I respect Jimbo and all of that, and I know that he has the good of the encyclopedia at heart, but, Jimbo also has responsibilities beyond the community. I'm a bit suspicious that most of his motivation over this comes from a "I'd like to get this guy (Hawkins) to quit bitching at me" kind of place. I don't know that, and he hasn't actually said anything about it, but... something about what he's said about Hawkins gives me that impression, for whatever reason.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I made similar recommendations for Andy before Jimbo stepped in, both on-wiki and by email. I don't disagree or agree with Jimbo for the sake of it. I would be quite happy to support any editor against Jimbo's viewpoint, if I thought that editor was clearly in the right and in support of our shared values. It may look like I was simply supporting Jimbo's opinion, but that was not my intention and I hope people are aware that I'm more of an independent thinker than that. --Fæ (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Fae, that you had been giving this kind of advice before, as well as discretely off-wiki. You did indeed. Ohm's law, I didn't mean to imply that Jimbo kicked off these requests to withdraw. In fact, his intervention came late in the day, though his requests are in keeping with many other editors over the years. Just a quick selection from the article archives, ranging from Jonasthunder "It's time to move on" from the birthday discussion in April 2010, to Fences and Windows "Drop it Andy" in April 2011, to Beeblebrox's March 2012 suggestion that POTW take off the costume and climb down, to Kim Dent-Brown, Future Perfect, Fae and my interventions on POTW's talkpage quite recently, all well before Jimbo got involved. There is no slavish following of Jimbo here. Finally, I don't think speculating on Jimbo's motives are appropriate. I don't read his interventions like that at all. --Slp1 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The issue was discussed in 2009, 2010 and 2011…" - where in that discussion was it suggested that citing the subject's own refernces to his DoB on a talk page was against policy? You yourself participated in those dicussions, without saysing so, or removing the quotes. No other editor saw fit to remove those quotes. Nobody suggested such a breach on WP:AN until this year. I have already undertaken not to do so again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was remiss not to spot that issue. But I didn't (and haven't) given your mentioning the date (per se) in my posts as the problem. Instead, my point is that you have brought the inclusion of birthday issue over and over again against consensus, policy and recommendations, that has been extremely disruptive. As this very thread, the AFD, and the DR shows. --Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Andy has shown an appropriate level of restraint in the face of this situation. It's obvious that Andy brought up the birth date issue in the past at points in time when the subject was advertising it himself though the media. That, combined with the obviously revisionist history that is being offered here ("I was remiss not to spot that issue."), gives this the appearance of a lynch mob rather than a well reasoned and legitimate concern about another editor's behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I don't agree. Do you really think that responding to other people's tweets counts as "advertising"? It's not like he put in on his profile or anywhere that is easily searcheable. In any case, and this is key, he has repeatedly stated, that he does not want the date in his WP article, and he is backed up by WP's policy in this. To bring up with issue again and again, when the relevant policy has been pointed out and remains in effect, when you have acheived no consensus in the past and told to stop bringing up the subject is quite the opposite of "an appropriate level of restraint". It is a entirely legitimate concern. I'm sorry that you feel there is an "obviously revisionist history", but you are missing the point I was trying to make: that I have been entirely consistent. In the past I did not critique his birthdate discussion for violating WP:DOB on the talkpage, and thus I do and have not critique him for this now. Both of us made this mistake. --Slp1 (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• The subject's DoB hasn't been added to the article since April 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Steering clear of the article is good advice, but not following a sound bit of advice is not sufficient for a block or a ban. This is the worst case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I've ever come across. It seems clear to me that the subject of the article doesn't like Wikipedia as a project for reasons that escape me, and is intent on disrupting it and attacking it. In such cases we should stick up for ourselves and not allow such disruption to take place. Adding verified, reliably sourced, cited information to an article is what we're all about. The moment we start punishing editors for doing that because of one person's point of view is the moment the whole project starts to violate it's own core principles, setting a precedent that can only lead to the project going belly-up. Respecting privacy is one thing, but using our privacy protection measures to game the system is something else entirely, and it's the latter that's happening here. waggers (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as too severe. It is enough to note that edits to the article will be watched, and if actions seem rude, then report to WP:WQT to be logged for long-term focus. If he had called him an "idiot" or other outrageous insult, that would be different. A topic ban is a severe measure, too severe in this case. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the user seriously has a strong involvement with the article and should not be involved - he is unable to back off voluntarily and is there at the talkpage as we speak - . Youreallycan 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There being no topic ban currently in place (as the author of this asinine proposal has made clear), not to mention no clear consensus for one here (repeating what happened when one was last proposed), the fact that I'm "there at the talk page as we speak" is evidence only that I'm continuing to improve the encyclopedia. Do feel free to point out if you have found any of my edits there to be contrary to policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, this edit certainly suggests you don't know what "NPoV" means. 28bytes (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Quite the opposite; but as I said; do feel free to point out if you have found any of my edits there to be contrary to policy. Rather than clutching at straws, I mean. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Limited Support - do and will support ban on POTW, from mentioning or discussing anywhere on Wikipedia, subjects DOB, subject to appeal, after the usual time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - POTW has done nothing wrong. Topic banning several of the chronic anti-BLP single interest warriors trying to hang POTW by his toes for no reason makes better sense to me. Carrite (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Other involved editors

Any topic ban should be extended to User:Malleus Fatuorum, who has taken to calling Jim Hawkins an idiot on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not actually true, but I did call Hawkins a pratt elsewhere. Twice I think. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Malleus Fatuorum - for (a) calling Hawkins an 'idiot', and a 'pratt' (US contributors might like to look that one up in a dictionary), and for not being able to read a link that clearly shows him doing the former. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  No surprises there then. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Has MF been blocked for his violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? If he hasn't been blocked, why? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're... new around here, aren't you? Doc talk 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

140, you are well aware of the situation. No need for rhetorical questions. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

must be one of the other people who use this computer. there are many. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Malleus Fatuorum 06:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Loki may have used his mind-control mojo on the purple archer, Hawkeye. Ãvengers Assemble!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that this is an absolutely brilliant idea. Let's take an already highly polarized issue, pick out a couple of the high profile folks on one side of the conflict, and try to get them topic banned. What an awesome idea!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to explain why an article on a vaguely-notable radio broadcaster has become a "highly polarized issue" in the first place? Nothing to do with the idiotic soapboxing that has gone on by the 'WP:NOTCENSORED - we can fill articles with any old crap' crowd? The simple facts are that what should have been a minor dispute over what is reasonable content in an article about someone that few have heard of, has instead become a magnet for the most ridiculous point-scoring, ludicrous waffle, and outright trolling, as one could possibly imagine. Of course Hawkins is pissed off - who wouldn't be, seeing such infantile behaviour. If we are going to have heated debates involving personal attacks, rent-a-mob editing, and general mayhem, let's at least find something that actually matters to do it over... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That may actually be compelling, except for the fact that at least half of the "infantile behaviour" is coming from Hawkins himself (if you believe that it actually is Hawkins here; but even if you don't he's on YouTube and apparently local and UK national radio screaming about what a hardship it is to have a Wikipedia article about himself in existence). Hell, at this point at least part of the reason that he's notable appears to be related to his anti-Wikipedia screeds! Apparently everyone can publish whatever they like about the guy as long as it's not repeated on Wikipedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. More reliable sources to back up his notability with this will be interesting when forthcoming. Folks: if you want to be in the public eye for a living, expect the unexpected. It's an occupational hazard. Doc talk 05:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. BLP isn't an excuse to run roughshod over our site's policies and guidelines; we've banned people for trying to do that before (before my time, but Don Murphy is one such example; there are others). How is it that we demand COI editors give us a shrubbery before daring to contest information about their band/creation/product, but people obstruct any attempt to prevent semi-coherent, unfounded bitching from subjects in these situations? I would wholeheartedly support banning Hawkins from the article to prevent his trolling the talkpage with vague complaints any further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). PotW and MF need to be removed from this article, its talk page, and discussion of the article anywhere else on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Strained reasoning to leap to barring MF here -- as "search" times out in counting the number of times "idiot" appears on article talk pages. We ought not get carried away. (Note I !voted "delete" on the article) Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Persons who faint when they hear disagreement can host tea parties in Stockholm. Some discussions and debates take time to resolve, and free discussion is better than more authoritarianism. Wikipedia has enough apparently authoritarian personalities clamoring for topic bans and blocks whenever there is conflict, and they should be repudiated.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; Malleus did some trash talk on the AFD. But doesn't seem to have a stated intention to continue to poke at the subject (via the article). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  On a point of order, I have never "poked" at the subject. Sure, I think he's a self-important pratt who needs to rein in his neck, but that's life. But no doubt I'm not on his Christmas card list either. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Is it still April 1st? --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - If people can't stand Malleus' forthright and accurate condemnation of "hypocritical, dishonest, and cowardly" behaviour, then they need to seriously consider finding a more tranquil hobby. I'd suggest crochet may be suitable. Calling a pratt a pratt is not sanctionable. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Utterly absurd. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ridiculous melodrama. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree on the absurdity of this action. Ravenswing 03:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Belatedly, oppose. No cogent justiication has been put forward. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. Are we going to let Malleus edit this BLP and its talk page after publicly calling the subject an idiot and a pratt, with no apology, no retraction? Is that the kind of people we are? Is that the kind of place this is? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Your position is both illogical and dishonest; would you equally topic ban anyone from editing the article on Adolf Hitler who expressed the view that they disagreed with Hitler's position on the treatment of Jews? Have you even the slightest scrap of evidence to support your implication that my personal view of Hawkins has coloured anything I've written in his article? No, of course you don't; your position disgusts me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  First, Godwin's law. Second, Hitler's dead. Third, per WP:BLP, "Individuals involved in a significant legal – or personal – dispute with the subject of any article covered by this policy are strongly discouraged from editing such articles, and are advised to use the article talk page or an appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard if they wish to raise concerns." If you are trading insults with the BLP subject, you are in a personal dispute with them and are not the one person out of tens of thousands of WP editors who should be editing his biography. There's about 600,000 other BLPs, so what's so important about this one? --JN466 06:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Godwin's law, as usual, is irrelevant, as is the fact that Hitler is dead. How many times do you suppose that George Bush has been called an idiot (and worse) here on Wikipedia? Have you called for every one of those editors to be topic banned? No, of course you haven't, because this is simply a display of your animosity towards me. What leads you to the conclusion that I have any intention of editing Hawkins' article anyway? He's a minor figure and there's really nothing more to say about him than has already been said. So put away your stick, it doesn't scare me and I'm unimpressed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's a civility thing. And it's about paying respect—not deference, respect, due recognition to our subjects as living, feeling humans, worthy of our concern. Of course you shouldn't have a hand in editing his article while peppering him with humiliating adjectives off the article. It's not about the quality of your work on the article. It's about the nature of your behaviour and its probable impact on the subject. People have feelings, Malleus. The rude things you say to and about them can hurt them. The things you have said about the subject disqualify you from any further dealings with him here. Go and do something else. It's one article where you're not wanted. There are 3+ million others where your universally admired talent and wit are most welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Where is the Wikipedia policy saying that editors must be fawning on talk pages towards the subjects of articles they work on? And if I'm to be banned from editing the articles of all those I consider to be idiots, that'll be a pretty big list. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Mmmm. If you equate respect and recognition with fawning, we're in two different universes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  We're clearly in two different universes whether I do or not. But to restate the question in a way that won't allow you to avoid answering it so easily, which is the Wikipedia policy that forbids an editor from editing any article on a subject he or she considers to be an idiot, or in some other way distasteful? Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  There is none. That's an odd question. I had assumed it was rhetorical as, it's so, well, silly. Do you think the other editors can only pull you into line if some policy says you can't be a particular kind of arse hole here? Do you think policy lists, or should list somewhere all the different kinds of arse holy things a person is not allowed to do here? Strange. You can think what you like about people, Malleus, but when you call them an idiot and a pratt, you don't get to edit their article. Actually, maybe you do. This is after all Lord of the Flies. I't'll be instructive whichever way this goes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  The question isn't even half as odd as your answer. Why don't I get to edit someone's article whatever I may or may not have said about them? No policy has been broken, there is no threat of any policy being broken, yet here you are arguing for a ban on ... what grounds exactly? That you don't like me? Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  If consensus develops here that you should stay away from that article, you'll be banned from it, per Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban #1. And I love you, Malleus. I am so pleased you're here. You bring wit and style to this often very dry place. I admire ninty eight percent of you enormously. But that 2% is very problematical. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  I shall do as I please whatever consensus develops here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's why I adore you so. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Lolz, Nazis, surely this is the end of the discussion? By the way, the word is most commonly spelled as prat, the "pratt" variation is normally used for surnames and places, so the relatives of Boris Karloff might get upset if you keep using it that way. --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Really? That's not what the OED says. Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Ban MF from discussion of Hawkins in all namespaces. To refer to a public figure, multiple times, as an "idiot" or "prat" is unacceptable, and encouraging that only adds evidence for people to think badly of Wikipedia and its editors. Ban ASAP. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Interesting to see all the usual suspects gathering here. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unlike Pigsonthewing, there's no long-running pattern of harassment of the subject on MF's part. Lone intemperate comments are not sufficient grounds for a topic ban. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Collect and Tarc (along with others).Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Accept that MF is not interested in editing the article. Would request that he refrain from discussing the article's subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

Those calling for JH to be topic banned from his article and its talk page would do well to consider that doing just that would give him more ammunition in his crusade against the article. Sometimes it is better to allow people such as this room to vent, rather than banning them from an article which they are the subject of. Hopefully, with MF and PotW topic banned, a reasonable number of watchers and semi-protection in place (this could be raised to permanant full protection as I recently proposed), this article can then settle down to its relative obscurity in a dark corner of Wikipedia. JH has been told a number of times how to get any inaccuracies in the article corrected, something he adamantly refuses to do. All info in the article checks out, there is nothing negative about him in the article. You can lead a horse to water... Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Question re: .. with MF and PotW topic banned, - are you declaring a consensus or making a unilateral decision? .. or just speculating on solution? I'm asking because my perception is honestly unclear on how that sentence was intended. I certainly don't see any consensus for MF being topic banned from that at this point. I'm even somewhat questioning if PotW has firmly been placed under that restriction. — Ched :  ?  12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been - though some people appear to believe that I've breached a de facto ban by editing after being given the option to withdraw voluntarily. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as Andy says there is no formal, informal, voluntary, obligatory or de facto ban currently in place. Hence this discussion to implement a formal, obligatory ban which as far as I can see is not over. Until it is, no ban exists (and of course none may exist even then, depending on the closing admin's reading of consensus). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I was looking into a crystal ball there, speculating what may happen if a set of circumstances was in place. It was not ny intent to present my comments as my imposing the topic bans currently under discussion on the editors in question. It is for the closer to determine whether or not the proposed topic bans should, or should not, be enacted.

PoTW, you seem to be missing the point of Jimbo's "request". IMHO, he wasn't asking you to stay away from the article, he was telling you to (I'm open to correction by Jimbo here if I've got it wrong). The way I read it was "I'm asking you very nicely to stay off the article; but, if you don't, there will be repercussions". This proposed topic ban is a direct result of your declining to accede to Jimbo's request.

(edit conflict) Thank you for the clarification, and ...

comment: I'm somewhat confused, and more than a little suspicious of this entire ordeal. First, if a person chooses a profession within the public eye, then I often think of the phrase "even bad publicity is better than no publicity" quote. Meaning that Mr. Hawkins appears to be more a local voice than a internationally known celebrity. As such I would think that he would be grateful for an article on a site with the exposure that WP has; especially as it is not inflammatory or derogatory. The article even attempts to document facts he himself has offered into public evidence. That he (JH or an accomplice) would raise such a fuss over PotW's efforts to document the article to me reeks of some sort of attempt to manipulate WP as a tool in a publicity stunt enacted in order to embiggen his popularity or fan-base. On that note, I'm more inclined to ignore the whole thing and let the article drift back to (as Mjroots says) some "dark corner" of obscurity. Cynical perhaps, but just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ched, the nub of it is that JH, like Sally Boazman and others, doesn't get to control what goes into, and what is kept out of, the article and doesn't like it. Both have tried to get their articles deleted and failed. No doubt there are others. If the situation was reversed, and a non-notable person was trying to get an article kept on Wikipedia, I'd be doing my best to ensure it was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite all there is to it. He's also unhappy that he has to go in and revert stupid shit that anonymous lulzers put in there about him. Not everyone thinks that having an article about them on Wikipedia is a blessing that they should be grateful to us for bestowing upon them. Not everyone feels honored that the number-one Google hit for their name is a biographical article on an open wiki that any idiot can add hateful comments to. Especially when we then turn around and insult the article subject for daring to be bothered by it. Don't think people aren't cataloging the various occasions Wikipedia editors have insulted the guy. Right here on this thread admins are calling him a troll and calling his complaints "semi-coherent, unfounded bitching." You think that reflects well on us? It does not. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What reflects poorly on us is this pusillanimous kow-towing to someone whose complaints amount to "semi-coherent, unfounded bitching". We should have a bit of backbone and topic ban Hawkins. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not condoning any edits to the article that were in breach of BLP, the fact is that JH does not have to remove stupid shit from his article. There are plenty of other editors about who can do this. With the number of watchers of the article now, I would expect that any future vandalism of that sort would be quickly dealt with. Of course, long-term full protection of the article would prevent any vandalism in the first place, as I've said before.

JH should drop the Off-Wiki bashing of us Wikipedians. His continual sniping at us on Twitter is not doing his cause any good. Seems to me that he is still flogging a dead horse with the continual attempts to get the article deleted. In return, we, as Wikipedians need to ensure that the article remains fully compliant with WP:BLP. As Jimbo has said, it would be better if certain editors were kept away from the article as part of our side of the bargain, hence the two discussions above. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be fair it's not "admins" who are saying that, it's me. His actions strongly resemble those of a banned user regarding his article; one can only make vague accusations for so long before it moves from a concerned subject to someone trying to troll his way into getting his demands; I think we passed that point a while ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way is the county he publicly acknowledges living in "stupid shit" any more than the county he was born in? And Mjroots, if Jimbo told you to jump off a cliff would you do that as well? Jimbo's opinion is irrelevant, or at least no more relevant than anyone else's. It's high time that Hawkins was topic banned from his article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a chip for you to bargain with. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

When discussing "stupid shit that anonymous lulzers put in there about him", remember that Hawkins has asked his Twitter followers to enter falsehoods into Wikipedia, and specifically into our article about him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with "[if] a non-notable person was trying to get an article kept on Wikipedia, I'd be doing my best to ensure it was deleted.", because that draws a false equality between the two situations. A non-notable person is non-notable, and should be excluded. A notable person (even a marginally notable person, and nearly anyone who regularly goes onto the public airwaves has at least some notability) can always have an article, if it's warranted. This person is living in the public eye at least part of the time, so there should be no reason that documenting his public persona would be a real problem. The fact that he doesn't like Wikipedia and publicly speaks out about it on the air only increases his profile (bumping his notability up slightly), since he's using this site as a bit of a hot button topic. He's certainly not "world renowned", but he has enough of a public profile that at least some people be looking him up. Judgement can vary about how much interest is enough interest for Wikipedia to have an article on the person, but it seems as though that decision has already been made here several times.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Instead of engaging in off-wiki organized vandalism campaigns, why doesn't the subject go through the normal channels to find satisfaction for his complaints? This is an issue for OTRS, or perhaps the Foundation. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He's been doing precisely that for six years. Nothing happens, The only good result is that at last all the crap is out of his article, but as we see, certain editors still want to harass him with trivial edits that are in themselves wikilegal, but have the effect of upsetting him even further. He's not one of us, he doesn't understand how all this stuff works and from his point of view we're all a wunch of bankers. --Pete (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That works both ways of course. And nobody in their right mind could possibly call the inclusion of a simple fact published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine as "harassment". Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does. --Pete (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I did say "in their right mind". BTW, I don't believe that link says what you imply it does. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just to respond briefly to the notion that this only adds more ammunition for Hawkins' crusade against WP: Who cares? It is screamingly obvious he is making a big deal about his birthday not because he doesn't want it published, but because he hates Wikipedia. Whether we publish this already well-known information or not he will continue to hate Wikipedia. The only concern we should be worrying about here is disruption of the project, not some half-baked obstructionist nonsense from a person who will obviously continue to bad-mouth this project no matter what we do. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yea, exactly. I really don't understand this desire to bend over backwards to appease this person... as far as I can tell, there's never even been anything embarrassing or really untrue in the article, he just doesn't want an article here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  When I first met him in 2006, I got the impression he considered Wikipedia a useful project. Since then, the way he has been treated by a few editors and the community as a whole has changed his attitude. The article was the focus of some very personal and untrue statements, it caused a stir then, being proposed for deletion twice and retained because he is, after all, a notable person, albeit marginally so. Since then he has had no joy out of it, and if you look back over the article history and the talk pages you'll see why. You'd understand things better if you could see the sections that have been removed entirely. It's not just wanting the article gone, it's wanting not to be harassed any more. I can't blame him for feeling upset, considering the way he has been treated and the things said about him. If we keep the article, then we should make sure that it isn't used as a vehicle for fresh attacks. Having said that, I do wish that he had been a little more temperate in his comments. But given the example set, he probably thought it was the way things are done here. --Pete (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  What he thinks is immaterial. How much of any nonsense that was added to the article did he himself encourage? Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  He didn't always seem to hate the article, unless he hated it enough to add his personal interests. Assuming this actually was him, of course. It could have been an imposter. Doc talk 07:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  He was opposed to the article, and Wikipedia, in 2006. I didn't edit the article until 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well said, Beeblebrox, and you beat me to it - since when are we in the business of giving a tinker's damn what a subject thinks about Wikipedia? Our obligation begins and ends with presenting a NPOV, well-sourced article in which no information is given undue weight. There are thousands of living subjects who I'm sure would love to censor information they don't like out of their articles, and no doubt many would love to have veto power over who is and is not allowed to edit them. If anyone merits a topic ban here, it's Hawkins. Ravenswing 03:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• question ... ummmm .. so we are sure that this "IP" is Mr. Hawkins? Boy-howdy what hot time in the ole town tonight eh? So ummm .. has anyone pointed Mr. IP/Hawkins to the omnipresent WP:COI, WP:AUTO, etc, etc., etc., stuff? Don't mind me ya'all .. just a dumb ole American clod here wonderin why we're still feeding this stuff. — Ched :  ?  06:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • IIRC, I did so in 2009/2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban This IP who may or may not be JH has been continually insulting editors who have been trying to work with him and doesn't appear to be trying to actually improve his article at all. Considering that it seems quite clear that the article is going to be kept and IP/JH is not going to be editing constructively in regards to the article, per past behavior, I believe a topic ban is in order. Silverseren^C 00:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is not much doubt that the IP is Jim Hawkins, and this edit comes from a BBC IP address. I have asked Jim Hawkins to WP:DENY, but this goes hand in hand with Pigs and Malleus staying away from the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does not, and as Andy said earlier about himself, I'm not a bargaining chip either. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Calling for Hawkins himself to be banned is about as nauseating an example of bad faith and bad common sense as one can find in this project. We let the likes of Malleus or Keifer Wolfowitz...or hell, myself...play fast and loose with civility around here, and some want to ban a guy because he's being a bit too brusque for your newly-discovered Victorian sensibilities. To invoke an 80's-ism, fuck that noise. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  What has "faith" got to do with anything? Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Way to cherry-pick there, bro, but I think we should take into account the fact that Hawkins is only editing here at all in an attempt to defend himself from what he sees as abuse. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Only started editing here, you mean? The reasons to remain editing here may be open to other interpretations - but there you get into that "faith" question, don't you? Franamax (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Well, you show me the abuse and I might start to take your position seriously. I don't for instance, remember calling Hawkins a "nerd, loser, robot ... [or] coward". His claimed knowledge of someone he's never met and knows nothing about is quite astonishing, or at least it would be if he was even close to being accurate, and there's absolutely nothing in his article that's inaccurate or could in any way be considered negative. To give in to that kind of bullying would be the worst kind of cowardice, fuelled by laziness. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not unless the subject has repeated, his alleged request for vandalism, since the one time (or recently)Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All three

Much as I love Jim Hawkins as a person, I do look at his comments on Wikipedia and they are full of anger and frustration. He's personally involved in this, so of course emotion comes into it, but he really has not helped his case with intemperate language, understandable though it may be in his frustration and stress.

Exactly the same goes for the two experienced editors named above, who really should know better, especially as Jimbo asked them very nicely to stay away from the article.

In the interests of peace and constructive editing, I'd like to see all three topic banned here, as none of the three can keep from picking at the others. I'd like to encourage Jim to register an(other) account and contribute to other articles, for he has a wealth of knowledge on local and arcane subjects, and if he could learn some of the procedures and the jargon, he might cease bad-mouthing Wikipedia as a whole and help fill in some of the gaps in our coverage. I think in the various forums of discussion over this issue it has emerged that different editors have different views, often firmly held and forcibly expressed, and we are not all nerd clones out to get him. Or saint him.

Wikipedia is made up of many people, with different skills and knowledges and temperaments. It is amazing that it works at all, let alone that we have all together constructed a grand and useful resource. But work it does and if it is sometimes rough around the edges, we work on those edges.

If any of the three editors feel that they need to edit the article, they may request it through others, but I'm hoping that this article at least can remain free from controversy and unhappiness. And may I thank all for contributing. This has been an instructive exercise for me at least, to learn of the diverse views held by diverse editors. --Pete (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"full of anger and frustration... personally involved... emotion comes into it... intemperate language... Exactly the same goes for the two experienced editors named above" - That's simply untrue; I've not used any intemperate language, for a start. And since you've already written about a gift you've received from, and time you've spent with, Hawkins, it would appear to be you who is "personally involved in this". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Others may judge your involvement in this. I don't, and if I have offended you, I apologise. I say what is past is past and we should look to a future where we can all contribute. I think it would be best if all three of you stay clear of the article because it has produced very little in the way of useful encyclopaedic information, but pages and pages of wrangling over trivia. Time to move on, surely? --Pete (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim to have been offended by you; I pointed out that your assertions about me - where you do pass judgement on me - are false; and that you have a CoI. It is indeed time to move on: your false comments above help to prevent that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly did Jimbo ask me to do anything in reference to this article? Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

On your talk page. You responded thusly. 28bytes (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread the question. I asked where did Jimbo ever ask me to do anything in reference to this article? Added to which Pete quite clearly claimed right at the start of this thread that Jimbo had asked me to stay away from the article, but that's not true, is it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks like I did misread it, my apologies. Jimbo made a request regarding the article subject, but not the article itself as far as I can tell. 28bytes (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. What Pete posts for this proposal echoes nicely what has and is happening here. Jim Hawkins has, on his facebook page labled us: "Nerds, losers, robots and worst of all cowards. That's who I've been dealing with for the last couple of days #Wikipedia". I am none of those, nor are any other editors/admins here. This makes us objects in little negative boxes and as Pete iterates above, we are all multi-faceted. I so much fit into none of those categories that Mr. Hawkins would be amazed at who I am in real liife. It is a priviledge to remain anonymous here; not mandatory, of course...but I take advantage of it because I desire to just come here and make my gnomish edits and stay out of controversy and chaos. I promise to keep Mr Hawkins' article on my watchlist for as long as I remain (hopefully for many years). Regards, Fylbecatulous talk 15:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Of the three editors mentioned here Hawkins' behaviour has been by far the worse, and is apparently continuing. Time for him to go. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As noted above; yes to Pigs, no to the other 2. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the existence of this section Bad Skyring, no restarting ongoing topic ban discussions under a new guise! Just because you're clumping them together doesn't make it alright. This is already being discussed above. Silverseren^C 16:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Good point about process, but it looks like the ideal solution, allowing everybody to get on with other, more important things. Some people, and I'm as guilty as anyone, just like arguing over increasingly trivial and inconsequential details. I see very few editors join the discussion with anything like a full view of the situation. Given all the blankings and archivings, you've really got to have been looking at the thing for years, otherwise you get people coming in and saying, "What's the problem? The article looks fine!". Do we really want BBC personality Jim Hawkins, who is reading all this with absolute disgust, pull out his own files stretching back years and go off to have a long chat with some BBC crony to sink the boot into us? Because I've been looking at what people have said here and elsewhere and there are some comments that none of would be happy to have read out on air or worse, highlighted on screen. I don't go along with everything Jim says in his anguish over this sorry affair, but he does land home some very pertinent observations. To which people in this discussion have all but replied, "So what if you get raped when you go out and ask for it? You should enjoy it!" I realize that some editors have zero empathy with other human beings, but there is a lot of human interest in this thing, and if presented in that delightful way that journalists have of one-eyed outrage, we're going to be fighting a tsunami of unstoppable moral condemnation where it will do us no good to point out wikirules and process in our defence. Not that we foot soldiers would be fighting. It would be Jimbo and a few others taking the heat. --Pete (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  For pity's sake. No-one has been raped in this saga. Obviously. FormerIP (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'm getting rather tired of being called names ("I realize that some editors have zero empathy with other human beings") for refusing to just give in to the unreasonable demands of this guy. I realize that you're his friend, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'm getting rather tired of that as well. Perhaps any topic ban should be extended to include Hawkins' fan club. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• comment I could likely be convinced that JH should stay off the article and confine his requests to the talk page. I don't however see enough to convince me that either PotW or Malleus have acted in a way to justify a ban from the article. — Ched :  ?  17:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It's one thing to ban a couple of editors from the article, the subject is another thing altogether. Though I'd reconsider if his editing becomes problematical. I've looked at all of his article edits and many of his talk page contributions, and don't see this rising to that degree of seriousness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  Judged by the same standard I don't see that any editing anyone has done warrants a ban, so why are we still discussing this? Because a vocal minority want to try and appease Hawkins by offering him a couple of sacrificial lambs? Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference is you're just some editor; he's the subject of the article. If he were just some editor, and had called the subject of an article—what was it, a loser, nerd, coward, robot?—he'd have no business editing that article; not because he couldn't be trusted to do a balanced job, but because it's inappropriate, it's grossly insulting and humiliating. A mature, humane community wouldn't allow it. I am of the opinion this community has some growing up to do, so you're probably safe from an article ban. Sacrificial lamb? Naughty or thoughtless brats being told to go and play in another sandbox was the metaphor I had in mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? I've yet to see any convincing evidence that you have a mind, or that if you do you've actually ever used it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of peace and constructive editing the editors should "de-escalate". Blocking effectively amends my previous sentence to shall "de-escalate". Both "should" and "shall" can achieve peace and harmony. It would be better if everyone just walked away for a bit. Can the idea of blocks...discuss the wider issues...amend BLP etc. Tom Pippens (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All three editors have engaged in excessive wikidrama, and have fallen well short of the standards they would usually uphold. As the subject of the article, Hawkins is entitled to express concerns about his privacy, but the way he has gone about this has done no good to either him or the article. Similarly, the response of the two established editors has deteriorated below the threshold of acceptability.
  The 3 protagonists have simply become too heated, so without wanting to cast any slur on any of the people involved, it seems best for everyone that the community now requires all of them to walk away from such a heated topic. Hopefully that enforced break from this topic will enable all 3 to resume the good work which they do elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to ask for a close?

This proposal has been up for a few days now and I wonder if we are near exhausting the arguments? I'm not sure there's much purpose to be served by keeping going, and there is a danger that arguments simply get repeated and there's more opportunity for tempers to fray. As the OP I feel my proposal has had a run for its money and been given a fair analysis by all sides; I would have no objection to an uninvolved editor closing this now. Of course if others feel there's more to say, let's hear it, but if not shall we call it a day? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's definitely time to close this, especially since you yourself are saying that it's probably time (which I for one can appreciate, so thanks!). Based on today's activity here, it seems obvious that anything left to talk about is going to be nothing but interpersonal sniping.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Incompatible with building an encyclopedia?

Collect (talk · contribs) states here that "and most of [8000 articles mentioning abortion] have a far clearer connection to "abortion" than this article has". "This article" is Pro-life feminism. As its relation to abortion is inherent in the title/subject of the article, this statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note the place where the comment is made, and the fact that it was in response to an editor asserting that any article which mentions abortion is under the abortion decision from arbcom. I have made zero edits asserting any personal position about abortion or evincing any personal interest in the topic at all. Also note that the actual statement I made is

I would also point out that "abortion" appears in on the order of 8,000 article spots (search raw count) on Wikipedia, and most of them have a far clearer connection to "abortion" than this article has.

Which is a verifiable statement of fact not connected in any way to any POV about abortion in any way whatsoever. In short, this complaint is ill-founded. Cheers. Now let's get on with actually writing the encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I would also suggest that statements made on an Arbitration Committee page should stand - if the Arbitrators find the statement distasteful, it is their venue, and this is a remarkably inapt venue to decry what they regard as an acceptable statement. Cheers. @DV -- the !vote was in accord with those of many others. Trying to raise your view of an AfD discussion here is, IMO, irrelevant. Collect (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And note that while I asked Arbcom if the 1RR restriction was superseded, Collect has been throwing walls of text at the page trying to make the question "is this article related to abortion", which is not the question I asked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Responses to inapt "charges" is not "throwing walls of text" anywhere. Rather I note that you had started that discussion before ArbCom, and almost immediately also started this simultaneously running discussion - which is an interesting tactic at best. Lastly, I have repeatedly stated my position that my queries about procedure (and not about whether ArbCom had removed decisions, which was not the question I asked at all) were the reason I posted there. I think you are now getting a teensy bit "involved" at this point, especially with a ludicrous assertion that my queries represent in any way POV pushing. Now can we let this WP:DEADHORSE rest in peace now that Roscelese amended the article in line with the BLP/N disucssion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Arbcom clarification request: 14:44, 3 April 2012
• Starting this discussion: 22:05, 3 April 2012

"Almost immediately", huh? And what does WP:INVOLVED have to do with starting noticeboard discussions, pray tell?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I, too, was taken aback by Collect's argument, as it is "creative", to out it mildly. He also made a "creative" AfD vote today here: [[15]], in which he considers three separate unrelated articles on three sepearate unrelated events in the same newspaper is proof that a "single source" makes a meaningful connection between them. It's difficult not to see "creative" arguments like this as motivated by anything else than POV-pushing. I'm trying, but straining. His off-the-mark answer above is not encouraging, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The page in question is already a "judicial" location (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification), so why refer anything for action here? Sarek shows poor judgement in raising the matter in another forum. Surely speech has to be free in approaching ArbCom, at least. What next: thought police? I sometimes disagree with Collect's editing; but there is nothing that requires action in this situation.

Noetica^Tea? 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The clarification I requested is whether the 1RR restriction the community placed was superseded by Arbcom's discretionary sanctions. Collect's edits are not in question at that page, so raising this issue here is not forumshopping.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment appeared to have been made in order to deflect a (justified) 1RR warning that Collect had been given, which is problematic, but as a comment, I don't really think it's actionable...? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• What administrative action is being requested here? Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, when an administrator posts something like this on the administrator's noticeboard - instead of ANI where we go for immediate administrative action - they're usually looking for discussion amongst admins for the best way forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is that nothing remotely approaching any infraction of any sort occurred, the edit basically sought by me was supported at BLP/N and made by Roscelese, and no "POV" was remotely connected to any of the edits or discussions engaged in by me. The aside by someone upset at the likely AfD outcome on an absolutely unrelated article is just that - totally unrelated and out of nowhere. The ArbCom page discussion, from my point of view, was strictly a series of queries about process, needlessly muddied by this aside here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

...and that's exactly why it's here. SoV was verifying with his colleagues that either no additional action was required, or at least bringing a concern to people's attention. That is, after all, what AN is supposed to be for - it's not ANI. God forbid admins restrict themselves to IRC for discussions like this, there would be lynchings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An interesting concept, but the "incompatible" comment did appear from this vantage point to be a personal criticism of this editor, and one sans any rational foundation, and occurring during a discussion on an ArbCom board. But it is fine if it was entirely an intellectual exercuise on his part not designed in any way to discuss me, not to insinuate in any way any improper acts or position on my part, as your post appears to assert. Though I am curious as to why IRC is related to this - I would regard such "discussion" on IRC to be a splendid rationale to bar IRC discussions entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. We'll alert him right away. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Need someone to close RfC: Template:Cleanup - Should the reason parameter be made mandatory?

Resolved

Can someone please close the following RfC?[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No need for this. Consensus has been determined to make the reason parameter mandatory. The request to the fully protected page to remove the warning has already been made. Please discuss before making unilateral requests for administrative closures. Administrative closure is not required.Curb Chain (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If consensus has been determined, then the RfC should be closed. Why is it still open? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If the RfC has reached a consensus, and it has run for at least 30 days, why not close it? What purpose is served by leaving it open any longer? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain is the only one wanting to keep this open. Someone please close it so we can move forward. AIRcorn (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Curb Chain's comment; no requests to require the warning have been fulfilled, and the last time the template was edited was this pair of edits by Rich Farmbrough to tidy the code. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to preface this with the understanding that I have no clue about what's really going on with Curb Chain (I'm not trying to accuse, here). That being said, it appears that he's attempting to obstruct the process here for as long as possible. He makes no secret about his opposition to this or related changes (I'm including the last couple of deletion nominations here, in "related changes"), which should be apparent to most by looking at his statements in either the current discussion or in the most recent tfd discussions. I don't think that this is really an issue at this point, and likely won't be an issue as long as the RFC actually is closed and an edit is made to the template after we figure out exactly what changes should be made. It bears some watching of course, but... in my (admittedly limited) interactions with Curb Chain, he seems to be someone that can be worked with after it's obvious what the consensus actually is. He simply wants to ensure that his viewpoint is heard, as far as I can tell. If someone could close the discussion (which, Aircorn has already provided some significant work towards accomplishing), then I'm all but certain that things could move along here without further administrative assistance (outside of someone fulfilling an edit request eventually, of course).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Y I closed the RfC.  Sandstein  15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing with old account after user name change?

Okay, I'm confused... I ran across a spam-only account, User:X179396828, doing the typical WoW gold spam thing. When I searched for additional links on the spammed domain, I found the same links on the user and talk page of Landfish7 (talk · contribs) in the typical spammer format. I deleted them and then realized I made a big mistake as Landfish7 is not the spammer account. (I restored everything and deservedly should get a thwap for deleting without looking.) The spammer account is really Anfish (talk · contribs). And here is where I'm confused. Back in 2009, Anfish was renamed to Landfish7. Yet the logs show that the account Anfish was created just a few days ago. Perhaps I just don't quite understand how the user name change works. I thought that the old account gets locked out, but apparently it does not and somebody can create a new account with the old name? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that when an account gets renamed, the old username gets "freed up" as though it didn't exist, and so anyone could come along to create it. Whether that is a bug or a feature is up to the beholder to decide, but AFAIK, that's how the system works. --Jayron32 05:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the way it works is that, if the old account has an SUL, then it cannot be recreated except by the SUL owner, so it's effective "locked out", but if it is not, then it's up for grabs. T. Canens (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Learned something new. Thanks. I blocked the Anfish account for spamming. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the way it works. I don't think we had $wgCentralAuthAutoNew for CentralAuth in use then.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  01:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

CFD Backlog

There is a backlog of about 50 unclosed CfD discussions, going back to 9 March. The backlog seems to be growing. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure.

Please can some uninvolved admin help by closing some of them?

Some of the backlog involves complex debates, but most of it seems quite straightforward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just closed a bunch of them, and other admins have been at work too ... but there are still 28 open discussions, going back to CfD 2012 March 14. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute with editor

I have a serious complaint about one of the editors: the user name is Srleffler which quite blatantly break the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia". Frankly, if abuse of this nature cannot be dealt with effectively the credibility of Wikipedia is in serious doubt.

I made an edit to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation This page contains the following comment, which is not backed up by any citation and which is contradicted by many hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals:

"For low-frequency radiation (radio waves to visible light) most if not all effects are thought to be due to radiation power alone, acting through the effect of simple heating when the radiation is absorbed by the cell."

I corrected this mistake and added references to peer-reviewed research. Mr Srleffler, who - according to his profile - has no training or expertise at all in this field - deleted my corrections. None of his explanations makes any sense: it is clear that he has not read or even accessed any of the research papers (nor would he have the expertise to understand them if he did). Either he works for a telecommunications company and has a vested interest in this research being suppressed or else he deleted my comments out of spite.

Biological effects of Electromagnetic radiation

Srleffler's comments:

Hi. I undid your changes to Electromagnetic radiation. The changes you made seem likely to be controversial. Wikipedia requires that information can be backed up by a citation to a "reliable source". It does not appear to me that the BioInitiative Report website qualifies as such, so I have reverted the article to its former state.--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[The Biointiative Report I refer to is a collection of reviews of the literature. I have no idea why he thinks that this is not a "reliable source".]

I have a PhD in biophysics from the University of Cambridge and have a fairly detailed understanding of the literature. Whoever wrote the original text had apparently not read a single one of the many hundreds of papers covering the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.

You have no relevant background in this field, so it is not clear why you believe that you are in a position to judge research which you have not read and which is, in any case, far outside your field of expertise or training. I suggest that a little humility might be appropriate here.

In any case, since you have destroyed my previous comments I have re-written them in more detail: they now include references to specific research.

This time, please have the professional integrity to actually check these before passing judgment on them. You will notice that my analysis, unlike most of the rest of the page, is based on peer-reviewed research. In particular, the original comment that the health effects of EMF are somehow caused by "heating" - which I have removed - was a personal opinion which was not backed up by any citation and which was contradicted by the last twenty years of research in this field.

I will be more than happy to take this matter to arbitration if necessary. It is extraordinarily important for people to be aware of the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. I strongly believe that Wikipedia - which I use constantly - should be a source of reliable, accurate information, rather than simply reflect the prejudices of a few editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 April 2012‎

Srleffler's comments:

Please see Electromagnetic radiation and health where the material you are adding would belong rather than on the general article. I've removed your addition as it was supported by two primary research articles and a rather dated 1979 article, please carefully read WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[He has removed my comments because they were supported by peer-reviewed research - he removed my previous one because it was supported by a review of the literature. Something is wrong here.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a cause for administrative action. You've already posted at WP:DR: please confine the discussion to that, more appropriate venue, and please avoid attacks on other editors. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What we need here is WP:CIVIL discussion based on the pillars from all sides, not hyperbole about the credibility of the whole WP project or speaking from personal authority. I don't see any admin action required at this time--you have just started the WP:DR thread on this topic, which is the proper way to draw other editors into the discussion. It's quite possible the original content is problematic (either a mis-analysis or simply not up-to-date with more recent sources), but likewise it's possible that a website that collects reviews might have its own agenda or somehow else have selection bias in its content. All of those issues are easily in the scope of normal dispute resolution discussion processes rather than trying to trump all with administrative intervention yet. Fact is, your changes were controversial even if they wind up being correct after others have had a chance to hear more about it, and the previous content is cited even if you have additional information or evidence on the topic. DMacks (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Electromagnetic radiation is the place. DMacks (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Hi all - just to let you know, there's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - if anyone has time to clear it, it would be most appreciated. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban appeal from User:Claritas

In 2010, after a few thousand productive edits, I focused my energies on removing hoaxes from Wikipedia. Foolishly, I made a sockpuppet in order to see what would happen if a partially hoaxed article was created. This was an abuse of the trust of the Wikipedia community, and I regret it. I did, however, make sure that all the false information was eventually removed, and the end product was an article on an individual who otherwise may not have been covered.

When this activity was discovered, I foolishly started editing from another account, with the misplaced conviction that if all my edits were constructive, I would not be found out.

I am committed to improving Wikipedia, not disrupting it, and I regret my occasional outbursts. If you care to consult the contributions of my last sock, He to Hecuba, you'll see high quality mainspace contributions, such as the GAs on Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria. I feel it's unfair that my sockpuppets are blocked not because I'm doing anything wrong but simply due to my past misdeeds. I was banned for block evasion, not disruptive editing.

If unbanned, I will never use an alternate account again. I will focus my contributions to article space. I'd obey a 1RR across namespaces and assist in work against open proxies and sockpuppetry, which I have significant experience with.

I am a teenager, and I feel I've matured a lot in the past two years. I recognize the problems with my past editing patterns, and I hope the community will offer me a second chance. I'm willing to wait out whatever time the community wills me to.--Claritas § 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Was originally posted on the user's talk page, copied here by me as the user is blocked, will notify the user of this thread. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Original ban decision and discussion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Last November he sent an e-mail to an admin from a sock account saying that he intended to continue socking [17]. And as recently as last December he posted to his talk page saying that he had admins making proxy edits for him. Constructive or not, banned is banned and not only should those admins be admonished but as far as I'm concerned the requirements of WP:OFFER hasn't been fulfilled due to the proxy editing. Come back when you've stayed away entirely for 6 months straight without getting people to proxy for you or trying to get people to chat with you on your talk page. Really, the kind of favoritism to certain people around here is sad and that administrators would proxy for a banned user is even more sad. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 02:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Well, no. Not when the user has been disruptively socking as recently as a month ago. 28bytes (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Claritas seems to have been unrepentent until recently. Some more time needs to pass for him to reach a maturity level where this misbehavior will be a thing of the distant past, instead of the recent past. Looking at his talk page, he has been getting people to proxy edit for him several times in the past few months; this suggests a lack of respect on his part over the fact that he is banned at this time. If he wants to come back, he needs to let it rest for a while and stop trying to get involved here while banned. Let's examine the standard offer from one year after the point of his last misbehavior - give him some time to think about how he got to this point, and learn from his mistakes. BOZ (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know... I think that at least a trial unblock/unban might be in order here. I guess maybe I like to think the best of people, but the "until recently" aspect of all of this gives me reason to pause. If he's being generally constructive, even if he is socking, then the continuation of a block/ban seems more punitive than preventative. Maybe there's (much?) more to this then I'm willing to look for (and I'm perfectly able to admit that I'm not willing to look far), but the "disruptive socking" that 28bytes points to above doesn't really seem all that disruptive (I was expecting to see some sort of personal attack, or something similar; what's apparent in the linked to contribs is more like begging to be given a second chance than disruption).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I'm seeing some good content-creation work in the contribution history of this editor. I'll serve as a mentor for this editor if the ban is ended and if they make good on their promise not to make use of an alternate account ever again. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(The following reply copied from Claritas's talk page, by request. See User talk:Claritas#Hi there for more detail -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC))

That's terribly kind of you to offer to mentor me.

I was thinking about an intermediate solution, wonder what you think about this. My content contributions are good. My ban evasion is a problem, but people seem surprisingly positive about a return in like three months.

I'm happy to wait it out. Would it be possible for me to have a proxying system agreed ? I could have a workspace at the bottom of my talk page, and copy articles there to improve them. Without having anywhere else to edit, my contributions could be completely supervised and it would probably result in a few more good articles for Wikipedia which simply wouldn't be created otherwise. I understand that BOZ thinks my proxying requests are a sign of immaturity, but I think they should be understood as an attempt to help Wikipedia out. --Claritas § 08:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• - Its a decent request and with a mentor it may well be a good deal, The recent socking in March is a bit of a crux, three months no socking and no requesting proxy edits and I would support - user is a self declared teenager and maturing fast as this well meant request expresses. Youreallycan 07:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "well-meant request"? I'm having a little trouble understanding your post-hyphen sentence. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the request and offer from the user to edit at 1rr and only from one account seems sincere to me and I would take his word on that. Youreallycan 14:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ask again in three months- at which point I will most likely support. I don't have a problem with the proxy editing but the recent socking is just a bit concerning. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As recent as three weeks ago Claritas showed an inclination to sock. As such it would take a little more than 5 months until WP:OFFER can be considered. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support but won't lose sleep if the opposers win the day. I was very surprised when the Claritas case came up, as I associated the name with sound work. I feel he/she wants to contribute, and with a mentor like Carrite could go straight. First proven sock, block again for three months. Any socking during block, ban. If they can edit legitimately, there should be no need for them to sock. Teenagers do change rapidly, and for a lot of them three months ago IS the distant past. If a 'not yet' decision is reached here, I would have no objection to a proxy edit section on their talkpage to help them prove themselves (themself?) as a valuable editor. I would see that as a halfway stage to mentoring. Peridon (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think reinstatement on the terms stated by Peridon. If he's serious, we get good contributions, if he's not, he's easily dealt with. Keep in mind teenage enthusiasms don't last forever.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose User "does not know why their sockpuppets are blocked". Really? A key component of WP:GAB is to acknowledge what led to the block. It's also key to STAY AWAY from this project while blocked. So far: massive fail. Reset the clock to a new 6 months for wasting the community's time with their inability to follow simple instructions. Proxy editing is not permitted - WP:OFFER says they go prove themselves on another Wikimedia project, and they have a lot of proving to do (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have updated this to "strong oppose" based on his latest shenanigans: filing a "helpme" request on his talkpage to ask someone to badger me about my !vote above. No need for further proof that this editor is not ready for Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• (The following reply copied from Claritas's talk page, by request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC))
• Please assume good faith. I know it's not easy in my case, but my intention was not to badger you about your !vote. If you explain why the edits from He to Hecuba were problematic (outside of the block evasion) I'll better understand how I should behave once I'm unblocked. --Claritas § 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• On the fence. 28bytes and YRC make valid points about how recent the last sock was. However, others have noted good efforts by the user as well, and I'm almost always in favor of bringing people in rather than keeping them out. Some stipulations could go a long way towards making this work I'd think - and we do have more than enough folks hovering over the block button. If they are here to edit constructively, then I wish them all the best. — Ched :  ?  12:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per the socking issues. However, the proxy editing section is a good idea: when someone is blocked for socking and wants to make what are obviously positive contributions in a way that doesn't attempt to get around the block, we should encourage it. Saddhiyama's comment goes too far: when you decide not to do something prohibited because you know that it will have negative consequences, that's a good thing. Please come back with a new request after a few months without socking and I'll support your request unless major new problems surface. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment didn't go too far, on the contrary Claritas din in fact sock on the very date that the user "cba to sock". And proposing socking as a viable alternative at all, regardless of the editor in that specific instance "cba", does not in any way show signs of a user maturing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Saddhiyama points to the inclination to sock as late as three weeks ago, and both Saddhiyama and 28bytes connect this inclination to actual socking on the same day. Why not wait until this person is out of his teens and re-examine the issue at that time? Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Per Burpelson, Saddhiyama, and BWilkins. I can't believe that Claritas has hired admins to proxy edit for him and he's threatened to continue socking - and did it using a sock no less. That lengthy ban appeal is a foolishly (right back at you!) stupid thing to do. I stopped reading halfway - nothing more than self-praise at having supposedly reformed his ways. That "does not know why their sockpuppets are blocked" act is common among other infamous banned editors who are still in denial at what they've done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  This editor is not "blocked for socking", this editor is banned.  New sock created less than three weeks ago was used to unarchive a closed AN discussion.[18] The discussion itself was started by another Claritas sock, editing as an IP address.  The most recent post is a new round of bounds testing.  This editor has a long history of using project space to commandeer the time of other volunteers.  In this diff, I report on 45 AfD nominations in the space of five weeks by another Claritas sock, with 25% being 2nd, 3rd, or 4th noms.  Yes, I think the article Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Adamah deserves a better fate, but Claritas is not the only person in the world that can improve Adamah, and there is no deadline at Wikipedia.  IMO this should not be discussed again until at least four-six months have passed without any contact from Claritas, because proxy editing does not encourage behavior change.  At that time, more attention needs to be given to the maximum-2-pages-edited-in-a-rolling-24-hour-period editor constraint, as well as assigning a mentor/monitor.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  I just took a look at the AN/I discussion which ostensibly "banned" Claritas (which look like a handful of editors rushing to judge a puppetmaster, to me), which is making me think that all of this is more about process wonkery and "you'll listen to me" power grabbing than anything else. The requests for three months or six months of "good behavior" lend even more weight to that, in my view (let alone adding a "process wonkery" aspect to all of this). Look, if someone, anyone, can point to recent article content disruption, from any of the socks, then I'll climb on board the opposition here. In thee meantime, the solution here seems really straightforward: unblock with a stern warning not to sock any longer and to stay away from the admin side of Wikipedia for a good long while. Why we would want to turn away editors who are apparently eager to be constructive is beyond me. I'm not looking to be confrontational about this (my level of caring about what happens to Claritas is nearly nonexistant, to be honest), and i hope that no one takes what I'm saying here personally, but... there it is.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  For me, it's not a matter of requiring the editor "do time" of an arbitrary 6-month "sentence" to show they respect our authoritah, it's that I simply don't trust them to follow our policies, given that they were uninterested in doing so so recently. Would I trust them a couple of months from now? Quite possibly. I don't necessarily think it has to be 6 months, but I'm just not comfortable supporting the return of an editor who so brazenly evaded their ban just a couple of weeks ago and, from what I can see in their ban appeal, is not even owning up to doing so. I was a bit surprised to see that they'd not acknowledged this latest sock in their unban/unblock request. (If indeed it is the latest... is it? Or are they editing with another one right now?) Rebuilding trust takes time. Maybe not 6 months, but I don't think one month is too much to ask for. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  I could agree with that (I'm fairly certain that I have agreed with that in the past), but... as far as I can tell, everything that's been problematic with this editor has to do with interactions with others in the Wikipedia space. I have yet to see anyone say anything negative about actual content, which is why we're all here after all (at least, that's why we're supposed to be here...). I don't see my position here as "forgiving and forgetting", but more along the lines of: let's make the punishment fit the crime; along with a hefty dose of remaining focused on article space.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - in the strongest possible terms. Socking to get around a ban? No unblock for you. Period. → ROUX ₪ 17:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - once a sock-master, always a sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)