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. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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 seven 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, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"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/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 30 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 20 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 100 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 59 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Your health always comes first. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I fear I gave the wrong impression. My health is in no jeopardy whatsoever, I just have intractable problems with fatigue and focus that frequently keep me from doing the things I want and intend. I appreciate your concern, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 50 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 40 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

(Initiated 32 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This one was obvious enough that no formal closure was needed, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 14 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	16	16
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	5	29	34
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Administrator recall

(Initiated 8 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Pre-1876 life peers

(Initiated 8 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 306 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to move on

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

---

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pjc747 a different kind of case came up. Editor was blocked for VOA a while back, which he claims was a compromised account. Edits before that were fine. Original account was User:Pjc747 and it was blocked 3 December 2010. He started a new account User:Spartan7W the next month in January 2011 and spot checking his edits, I didn't see anything problematic. The only reason he was discovered is he used the old name in his current signature, so he wasn't trying to hide anything, he just wasn't aware of the policy, which is plausible. Technically, it is socking now, meaning he should log in to the old account, request unblock, or wait 6 months for a WP:STANDARDOFFER but he would rather use this established account. Forcing standard process seems overly bureaucratic in this one particular case. A unilateral decision by me seems inappropriate in this circumstance so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. This is one of those rare cases where I think Wikipedia is better served if we ignore the rules as a community.

I propose we move on, let him edit unrestricted, and build an encyclopedia.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - "Rules" or bureaucracy should never be allowed to prevent improvements to the project. He's currently editing constructively, and should be allowed to continue doing so. I am much more convinced of an editor's "rehabilitation" by months of constructive editing than I am by six months of nothing followed by a standard offer. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Of course NE Ent 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Accounts sometimes are genuinely compromised, and starting a clean account seems a reasonable solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Salvidrim. Peridon (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Dennis Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sensible applicationg of IAR. Blackmane (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I can't say that I'm overly convinced by the account offered at the SPI (this situation seems more like the actions of a youngish editor who got caught vandalising and then made a clean start, but I am pretty cynical), but Pjc747's edits seem of a good quality so there's no reason for such an old block to be enforced. Most VOA blocks are (I suspect) imposed on young people, and so it would be pretty silly to put any weight on them after more than a few months in most circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  I completely understand the skepticism, and share the belief that it is moot anyway. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Nick-D --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a reasonable idea, community support, etc. for doing this. I believe there's consensus. However, I have notified blocking admin Dreadstar on his talk page of the situation and discussion and invited him to comment prior to acting. If he objects prior to tomorrow morning I will hold off until discussion converges again. If he does not I intend to unblock and resolve this discussion tomorrow morning ish. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Had the block been more recent or more contentious (or memorable) than a routine VOA, I would have notified at the start. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor would prefer to use the new account, so I don't think the unblock is required, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There'd better be a permanent linkage between the accounts, if that's the case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and changed the block on the master, noting the linkage, and added a note on that editors talk page, too. Dreadstar isn't around but I'm confident he would have no objection if he were here, so I've just implemented what is an obvious conclusion, including closing the SPI report and notifying User:Spartan7W. Thanks to everyone for having an open mind, I expected as much but it is always good to see it from the community. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry I ended up away for an extra day there. Thumbs up. 128.107.239.233 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• A little late, but I support this. Good job Dennis!  :) Dreadstar ☥ 03:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses

Relevent discussions before I get into details:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.215.10.7

At the reference desks, there has been what appears to be recently uncovered someone who is, for all intents and purposes, violating the spirit of WP:SOCK by using multiple personal identifiers including the following:

• Wickwack
• Ratbone
• Keit
• Floda

None of these is a registered account, but they all edit from the same Australian service provider (Telstra) with a highly dynamic IP address, and they always sign their posts using one of those monikers, though they have never formally registered an account, they have clearly represented themselves as four distinct personalities. There is some compelling evidence, however, based on the style and overlap of editing, the fact that they all edit from the same geographic area, all sign their posts in the same manner (though they use different names, the way they sign their name to their IP posts is the same), and that they frequently show up to support the others when a conflict arises is quite disturbing. There are even instances where more than one of the "personalities" will edit in quick succession from the exact same IP address. Not everyone in the above discussions is fully convinced of the connection, but a decent case based on diffs and other evidence has been built by User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Modocc. I'd rather not copy the entirety of their evidence here, as that would take this post into WP:TLDR territory (If I'm not there already), but I'd like to ask that as many people as possible review that evidence, and then vote on the following ban proposal. If you either a) disagree that the evidence is compelling enough or b) agree that the evidence is clear, but still do not support the ban proposed below, please feel free to oppose it. If, however, you think this type of WP:GAME behavior is disruptive and dishonest and should be stopped, please consider supporting it. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I know I am supposed to notify the user in question, but they edit from a very dynamic range of IP addresses, changing randomly. I have no idea what the most recent IP address they have used is, but they do actively monitor WT:RD and other parts of the reference desk, so I have left a notice there hoping they will see it. Any other suggestions as to how to meet the notification requirements are much obliged, I have every desire to hear this person's side of the story, but I am at a loss as to how to more efficiently notify them than I have already done, so any help in this department would be appreciated. --Jayron32 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I put a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.178.49.220 --Modocc (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of IP editor known as Wickwack and other aliases

The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages.

• Support as nom. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support due to manipulative use of "alias". -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Having been gamed, I'm inclined to delve into the archives to see what other misconduct might have occurred that might warrant a full site ban. -Modocc (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Unless the editor is willing to register an account and provide some rationale/alternative for their behaviour.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm generally a supporter of a lot of things WickWack says, but Jayron has convinced me that his pretty obvious messing around with aliases is a big breach of at least the spirit of what we're on about here. He says some very constructive stuff on the Ref Desks, and he has a ready solution if he wants to stay with us. Register. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support But without enforcement until after he has posted on WT:RD or W:RD, and had a chance to have his say (if he doesn't, then the lack of a ban makes no difference, but he should have the chance to comment to stop it coming into effect, rather than to remove it). MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

But do you see the problem? He is not registered. His IP address changes frequently. (Not his fault. It's how his ISP operates.) So how can we communicate with him? (Personally, I think we should force editors in such situations to register, precisely to avoid the problem we have here.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that there should not be a presumption of guilt until it can be reasonably assumed that he has at least seen the argument. When he posts on WT:RD (or on W:RD, which will probably cause someone to point him here), we can safely presume he has seen it. If he doesn't post on either, then the topic ban makes no difference anyway. In practice, it makes little difference, I'm just more comfortable with him defending the ban before it comes in than trying to revoke it once it is in force. MChesterMC (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support but conditional on not registering; i.e. he (?) should be allowed to register an account and no longer be bothered by this, but looking at the evidence allowing the continuation of the ip socking outweighs the benefits of their frequently useful answer on the RD.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question/(Non-administrator comment) I'm curious, if this editor is unregistered and has a dynamic enough IP address that it is causing an issue confirming that they have received notification that there is an issue with their style of contributing, how is a topic ban going to help in protecting the community? Short of blocking the wide range of IPs the editor edits from, what is going to stop them? I see such a wide IP range-block as doing more harm than good keeping out multiple other good editors that follow all the rules in an attempt to stop one stick in the mud. Forcing everyone to register goes against what the spirit of Wikipedia is, and I would never support it (as I'm sure most others wouldn't as well). I am simply at a loss for words and ideas that might actually prove useful to prevent this kind of damage. Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume this is why the ban is "enforceable by reverting their contributions". Mind you, if he stops signing his name(s), we open up a whole different can of worms when we try and decide if a post is Wickwacky enough to revert (or should that just be whacky?) MChesterMC (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack signs his posts because he wants people to know that he posted them - despite an every-changing IP. Forcing him to be truly anonymous and to gain no credit for his work would be a genuine punishment that would hurt him. He could pick another name to attach to his IP posts - but as soon as we realize that this is another sock - he'd have to change it and start over with building a good reputation. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last Chance I'd prefer they be given a final chance to pick one identity and register it. If they refuse am not against a ban. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I could accept that. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The IP-hopping creates additional difficulty for us in monitoring his activities. He is not compelled to IP-hop, and there is no reason for us to view that as extenuating. If he creates an account and stops pretending to be multiple people then he can ask to have this ban reviewed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't read the thread properly, have you? It's his ISP, the biggest in Australia, that does the changing of the IP addresses. It's not the editor's choice. While I too support sanctions, I get cross with posts that are poorly informed, apparently by choice. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's going to be tough to impose a punishment that will stick - but doing nothing at all just gives permission to any malcontent with a rapidly cycling DHCP address to run riot through our encyclopedia. If Wickwack (et al) is handed a block - then we can at least delete contributions that are identified by that set of monikers on sight. Since these activities seem most common on the Ref Desks - where a small community of editors is easily able to monitor all posts - that's not an unreasonable consequence. I get a sense that Wickwack takes pleasure from being credited with his posts - which is why he signs them - and I doubt that he'll become a totally anonymous IP poster...so a seemingly symbolic punishment might have more teeth than one might at first suspect. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Last chance per Medeis, ie unless he commits to an identity and stops socking. His contributions were often good; his chosen format was a pain but within the rules. I fully support the principle of IP editing, but a topic ban doesn't force him to register to edit any area where he has no problematic history. If he's genuine, he'll appreciate why this is required in view of the diffs. If it turns into Whack-a-Wickwack, at least we'll know where we stand. I really hope he registers. - Karenjc 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Like everyone else, I am tired of this editor's antics . Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Partial oppose. I haven't heard compelling evidence, and I know sometimes Wickwack gives good answers. The proposed remedy is that we delete his stuff on sight, but since we might not know for sure who it is that could mean discarding good content by a new volunteer. I would suggest we simply give ourselves broad latitude to remove comments by him we think are abusive, but also the freedom to leave anything that seems helpful. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Medeis is showing human feelings for the first time, so, we could do that too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the smoking gun I am copying it from the Ref Desk Talk Page linked to above and archiving it since it's a quote and to make it stand out. Another bold inset format would be fine if someone wants to edit it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

TenOfAllTrades' smoking gun evidnece of gaming the system copied from the Ref Desk Talk Page}}

---

By themselves, those instances might be explained away as (admittedly rather implausible) coincidence. Damning, however, is that while editing from the IP address 121.215.10.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wickwack/Ratbone appears to have inadvertently slipped up, first editing this talk page and signing as Ratbone, then about half a day later, posting a rather mean-spirited comment on WP:RD/Sci while signing as Wickwack. Either he forgot to reset his router between posts, or Telstra left his IP static for a lot longer than usual.

If Wickwack/Ratbone just liked to use different names from time to time, it might be no more than a mildly-irritating eccentricity. Pretending to be two or more separate individuals to try to win arguments on the Ref Desk, or to try to protect himself from sanctions on this talk page rises to the level of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And here are a few more. A very quick search through the archives finds

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 25#Why can't LCDs be made capable of displaying interlaced video?, where 'Keit' disagrees with SteveBaker; they go back and forth for a bit, and in a thread with no other participants to that point, 'Ratbone' suddenly shows up to announce "I agree with Keit..... One suspects that if Steve was actually a researcher in Philips Display and Television Group, then from the misinformed nonsense he wrote, he was probably in cabinet design or something."
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 5#Does drinking water right after a meal makes us fatter? is interesting, as it introduces another pseudonym: Floda. 'Wickwack' offers a response, Alterprise demurs, and then 'Floda' (another Telstra IP) pops in with "It would appear that Wickwack is correct..." before Wickwack returns to further agree with himself.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 6#turning flourescent lights off and on features 'Wickwack', 'Floda', and 'Keit'. They don't appear to be up to no good, but it's just plain weird to run through three aliases just answering a question about fluorescent tubes.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 18#Seismic morse code starts with responses by 'Ratbone' (among others); 'Ratbone' becomes increasingly vexed by disagreement with another IP. After three 'Ratbone' posts, 'Keit' appears to lend support: "Didn't you read anything that Ratbone and SteveBaker wrote? Information theory, as both have outlined, is a well established branch of science...". 'Ratbone' then returns to make another five or so comments in the discussion.

...and I'm losing interest in looking for more. If you do a Wikipedia-namespace search for pairwise combinations of Ratbone, Keit, Wickwack, and Floda, anyone can find dozens of Ref Desk pages where they show up together, often to offer mutual support and endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just to ping someone reading; this has been open for a few days now, at least 2 have gone by without any further comment. Can we get an uninvolved admin to evaluate the discussion? --Jayron32 03:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• It looks as if the 'Supports' have it, but there is strong consensus too for a last chance. However, rather than giving him more incentive to game the system, I would suggest simply deleting their posts (with edit summary 'IP sock') very quickly each time until he gets fed up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. Just do it already, if we have another Jarlaxleartemis/Colourwolf/Bambifan101/Kagome85 or anything even remotely like that again I'll probably chalk it up to a "another attempt at being a Jedi Sock Master." 173.58.58.122 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think the intent of the Last Chance votes is to effectively ban the user now, with the condition that if he registers there'll be no problem with that use under good (i.e., non-sock) behavior. In other words, a ban wouldn't extend to a registered account unless the other behaviors continued. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless this person registers, per Medeis’s Last Chance, and shows some understanding of WP:SOCK.—Odysseus1479 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional evidence: The IP 120.145.145.21 signed as Wickwack [1], Floda[2] and Keit[3]. Modocc (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues with relisting (and, occasionally, closing) AfDs

This is to other admins who use the closeafd.js script to help them close and relist AfDs. I've noticed recently that apparently, when relisting a discussion, the 'View log' link on the AfD does not update to link to the log the discussion is relisted to anymore - it remains pointing to the original log that the discussion is no longer in, even after multiple relistings. In addition, on occasion (although not regularly) it fails to remove the AfD template from the article when closing, so please check the article after closing to be sure it did (Anomie's linkclassifier helps with this). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The script still seems to be working fine.[4][5][6] (Note: I am using User:Timotheus Canens/closeAFD.js, which is Mr.Z-man's script with a few tweaks.) The issue you describe usually happens when you try and relist a whole load of AfD discussions in a short time period. The script doesn't have any edit conflict detection, and if it encounters an edit conflict it just doesn't make the edit to the log. This is a pretty common occurrence, as the daily log pages are huge and take a long time to save. The answer is either for admins to wait until one discussion has finished relisting before starting the script on the next one, or for someone to write a batch relist tool that can do a whole load of relists at once. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding, life got hectic. Well, I understand that, but that's not quite the issue I'm referring to. I've experienced the "not removing/adding to the log" thing just like that, and resolved it the same way, but what I'm referring to is the 'View Log' link on the individual AfD discussion page. See for instance this AfD; originally listed May 17, it's been relisted on May 24 and June 1, but 'View Log' still points to May 17th's log. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have just observed this too, and I was not relisting a batch, only a single AfD. I had to update the "Log" link by hand. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RFPP unprotect requests

User:Webclient101 added 26 requests to the unprotect section of WP:RFPP. I looked at a few of them, and they are all related. In 2011, User:Dabomb87 semi-protected the articles indefinitely because the pending changes trial was over. Webclient101 wants to reenable pending changes. Dabomb87 hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of last year, so they can't be consulted.

My recommendation is we unprotect the pages without pending changes. Indefinite anything needs to be justified, and it's not clear to me why these articles have been semi-protected for two years, or why we should continue it, even with a lower level of protection. Obviously, if editing becomes disruptive on any article, it can be taken back to RFPP and an admin can evaluate whether protection is warranted.

If there's agreement with my recommendation, I will go through all of them, insure they fall within the same pattern, and unprotect them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of prudence, I would say change SPP to PC1 for the BLPs, and unprotect the others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Salvidrim here. As this would in line with the request, it wouldn't be contentious to do so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Template:2c Some of these were semi'd before the trial for BLP violations. In my opinion, those should remain as-is. As for the rest, they should probably be unprotected. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinite PC1?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I will admit a bias that says all BLPs should have indef PC1 at a minimum, so that would be agreeable with me, yes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was unaware of that bias. I'll wait for more comments, but if there's a consensus to keep some sort of protection on the BLP articles, that's fine, but I wouldn't take the laboring oar to implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Salvidrim. However, pages like toast and sound will always be a popular target for vandalism. Why shouldn't those pages have pending changes enabled? Webclient101^talk 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're subjected to a large amount of vandalism, they will be protected as needed. Looking at the page history, neither of them have been vandalized for over 6 months, so protecting them is a solution waiting for a problem. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Six months from when? They've been semi-protected for two years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are the diffs I am referring to...although I should have said "one year". [7] [8] WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Both edits were (obviously) done by auto-confirmed accounts, so their significance is marginal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but both accounts were autoconfirmed through the vandalism. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PC for high-traffic pages rarely works out well. We cannot know if they would be frequently edited by non-(auto)confirmed editors due to the two years of SPP. If, once unprotected, vandalism becomes too much to reasonably handle with reverts, it is never too late to apply protection again; at least, then, we'll know for sure that it is absolutely needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

While I tend to prefer, as Dennis, the idea of some level of PC for BLPs, I'm not sure that some of the BLPs wouldn't be best unprotected. As one example Michael Hastings (journalist)'s moment in controversy has probably passed us by, he very well might do fine unprotected. In the general case, the PC mechanism we have now functions more poorly if too many articles are put onto it, and/or if high-volume articles are put onto it. Obviously Michael isn't a problem there either way, but I think there's some argument for being selective about the use of PC. For the non-BLPs, I'd unprotect most of them, but each should still be assessed individually, there's some odd history to Wheely Willy, for example. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note above that the lack of recent vandalism lately doesn't show that protection isn't needed, only that protection has worked, since they have been protected. I think it is clear from reading above that each article will likely have to be decided on its own merits, and likely a blanket level for all of them won't be optimal. I am still of the idea that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs, but that doesn't mean they all must be protected as a rule, as the consensus doesn't support that, yet. I would say just use your best judgement for each individually. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For history, the articles were indefinitely semi-protected because of an Arbcom overstep. When the PC1 trial was over, I was actually blocked and taken to Arbcom for exercising judgement in the removal of PC1. The mandate from Arbcom was to replaced all PC1 protections with semi-protection of equal length. The result is that many articles wound up with indefinite semi-protection when no protection at all was actually justified.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Any level of "protection" is a deviation from the intended design, done only because of abuse. When people don't know what the status of an article should be, the default choice should always be to make it fully accessible, then watch what happens. It should further be stressed that Pending Changes has become a mechanism whereby articles are less accessible to edits than semi-protected articles, thanks to a long-planned and ostensibly unintended "feature" that editors with accounts can still have their contributions held up behind an IP. Many people are not going to put up with this and just not do anything to the article, and since articles still usually improve, that is worse for the "LP" than if we allow open editing. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Support unprotection per Bbb23's original post and Wnt. NE Ent 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wnt focuses too much on the "anyone can edit" part and misses the part that matters, the fact that we are an encyclopedia. We have a duty and missikon to get things right. If we focused on the "anyone can edit" issue, we wouldn't have any type of protection, pending changes, or blocks/bans. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If there has been no recent problems and no solid reason to believe there are Huns at the gates, I'd say unprotect. Pretty much per Kww and our actual policies on such things WP:PROTECT. And SirFozzie, your statement is what scares a lot of us about pending changes. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If the fact that we're an encyclopedia and have a duty and mission not to harm others willy nilly scares a lot of people, then I'd suggest the people realigning their priorities. SirFozzie (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • We've been that for a long time. We've gotten there by people editing articles. It has largely worked. If folks want to create a spin-off of Wikipedia that is more restrictive to people editing, I honestly think that's a good idea. But we've always been the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and changing that shouldn't be something that happens at a place like AN, it should be a site-wide discussion. In all seriousness, I have thought about having two levels of Wikipedia. One that has been highly vetted and only has "important" topics (whatever that means) and has a very small set (100s?) of folks who can edit, and one more wild-and-free. The serious one could draw from the good/featured articles of the other... I think it would work. And harm to others would be lessened because the "serious" one would be (more?) commonly used. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposed

I would like to propose an interaction ban between User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz on the one hand, and User:GiantSnowman and User:Demiurge1000 on the other hand.

Things like this have been proposed recently in a non-binding manner, e.g. here and here, following a long history of problematic interactions (often involving other users as well, but these three seem to be the more constant factors in this). Earlier problems have lead to blocks (e.g. my block of Kiefer Wolfowitz on 6 May 2013, explained here and discussed over the next few days).

Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2, with another rather uncivil discussion between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Giant Snowman, and with Demiurge discussing Kiefer at User talk:Lukeno94, which lead to a rather problematic reply by Kiefer Wolfowitz.

Without going into who is to blame, who is right or wrong, or how this all started (it goes back at least two years, probably longer, but I don't want to start discussing old history again; examples can be found in e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring), I think it is time we put an end to this, preferably without further blocks or too much drama.

Therefor, I propose an interaction ban between Demiurge and Giant Snowman on the one hand, and Kiefer Wolfowitz on the other hand; no discussing one another, no linking to statements made by the other, no replying to each other, no nominations of each others articles for deletion, no participation in a GA or FA discussion where the other is one of the main contributors of the article, ... The only allowable interactions would be normal forms of dispute resolution about each other (one may start an RfC or ArbCom case about the other; they shouldn't start discussing in a third-party process though). They would still be allowed to all !vote in discussions like RfA, but without replying to each other or referencing each other's !vote. Fram (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Woah woah woah, Kiefer and I have a difference of opinion (which is pretty much all it is, as far as I am concerned at least) at a RFA talk page and suddenly there's call for an interaction ban between us? Jesus. Let me go further - while Kiefer and I may have had a few disagreements at various noticeboards over the past few months, I for one do not feel the need for an interaction ban. It seems to be making a mountain our of a molehill, finding an issue where there isn't one. We edit in completely different topic areas and our paths rarely cross; when they do, sometimes we disagree and sometimes we don't. I think/hope Kiefer is of a similar opinion. Sometimes things get heated, sometimes they get a bit uncivil, but we both have thick enough skin not to let it bother us. GiantSnowman 13:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

When this was suggested by Fetchcomms c. my RfC/U, I accepted the proposal, and I remain agreeable to an interaction ban including GiantSnowman, who was baiting me on my talk page recently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, please can you provide diffs to comments of mine that you feel have been 'baiting'? GiantSnowman 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)GiantSnowman, this is hardly the first such "difference of opinion" you two have. E.g. from early May, a link I gave above as well; [9], move up a few sections to "personal attacks". And it goes back a long way, I also already gave Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring. Perhaps you don't need an interaction ban, I may be wrong with the whole proposal or by including you, but acting as if this is only about one recent discussion is not really the most convincing way to make your case. Fram (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to make a case in my defence; and as far as I am aware Kiefer has not requested this interaction ban either. Why have you taken it upon yourself to police our relationship? GiantSnowman 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this is an overreaction. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation, going back for years, which has lead to blocks, bad blood, and recurring disruption? We can give more and/or longer blocks, but is that really the best way to treat these editors and to improve Wikipedia? Having this interaction ban won't suddenly solve all problems, but isn't it worth a shot? Fram (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • What problematic situation? How has Kiefer and I's interaction been "going back for years"? Where is the "recurring disruption"? As far as I recall the first interaction we had, positive or negative, was when Kiefer actually supported my RFA back in February 2012! Nothing until the ANI in October 2012 (8 months ago, we both acted poorly) and then a disagreement at his talk page in May, and a further run-in on the talk page of a RFA earlier this week. Using talk pages to discuss matters? My word, indef us both! GiantSnowman 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The situation has been going back for years. Your involvement with it seems to be more recent and may have been less frequent than it at first appeared (and may have been colored in my meomory by other things like this February 2013 comment by Kiefer Wolfowitz[10]). If others agree with you that I have unfairly included you in this interaction ban, I'll remove you from it and restrict the discussion to a interaction ban between Demiurge and Kiefer Wolfowitz only. But I'll wait for more input first, these kind of things are rather complicated and it is hard to get a correct view of the whole image sometimes. Fram (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Fram, you say "the situation has been going back for years" yet you have not provided any evidence. Note that I am talking exclusively about the proposed IBAN between myself and Kiefer. Do I feel I have been unfairly included? Absolutely. As WormTT says, other users have had more run-ins with Kiefer than I have - yourself included Fram! GiantSnowman 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to come here by Fram as my talkpage was mentioned. I can't really give a vote due to the fact that I get on quite well with GiantSnowman, and find Kiefer infuriating, although Demiurge and Kiefer possibly should have an interaction ban, as that pairing is, to my mind, more problematic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose a formal interaction ban between GiantSnowman and Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I don't see the bad blood, or a long running dispute which would require an interaction ban. Indeed, I believe I have had more unpleasant interactions with KW than GiantSnowman has, so unless we fancy handing them out very liberally I think it's a poor idea. Regarding the other interaction ban, Demiurge1000 and Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I support it in principle, but I don't think it is the solution. The long term bad blood has spread off-wiki, to a certain forum and to IRC. The only way it will work is if both parties genuinely agree to the interaction ban and take it to heart - quitting all discussion of the other. I do not expect this to happen on either side, making the entire sanction redundant. Furthermore, I'm not keen on the formation of the interaction ban - I'd prefer a more simple text. Worm^TT(talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)I no longer support a two way interaction ban even in principle, it will do no good. Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So far, only WTT has raised a concern about an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself, and he supports a ban. Is there consensus for a standard interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Patience! The discussion should stay open for at least 24 hours and have some more participants (e.g. giving Demiurge a chance to respond may be a good idea). Fram (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, most kind! I do understand the annoyance you may feel here; you block one disputant having previously blocked the other, another admin unblocks them without discussing it with you, that disputant then repeats the problematic behaviour, the other disputant then comes to your talk page moaning about it, and so on and so on. Having said that, though, if you do choose to get involved in "policing" particular people (as GS puts it), you shouldn't be too put out when the people being policed keep turning up at your police station's front desk questioning one thing or another. And, more to the point, if Dennis had not overturned your 6th May block without discussing it with you, then the disruption at the RfA would not have happened, nor would KW's comments aimed at The Rambling Man and Luke, nor would my informing Luke of the existence of the earlier RfC/U, nor would KW's questionable comments after that. So, you ask, "how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation", the answer is that you had it right the first time, and you were over-ruled! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we established below that the issue was GiantSnowman's choice of words and he has admitted as much, not KW's participation. Even if someone didn't like his !vote, it should have just been overlooked. To assign all the drama of the last few days with my unblocking of KW some time back stretched credulity to the breaking point. I forgot to add, I do believe that I unblocked you once after Fram blocked you, but you didn't complain about an early unblock there.  ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The block was set to run until a couple of days from now, I think. If you had not overturned it, the comment would not have been made, and, more to the point, the following problematic behaviour would not have happened either. We're here because you overturned the block in the belief that the behaviour would not repeat; you were wrong. You may feel the !vote should have been overlooked, but others don't agree; it's not at all unreasonable for other editors to reply to a comment that belittles the efforts of an editor just because of their choice of topic area. (This sort of attitude was mentioned right back in 2011 at the RFC/U - KW agreed to try to fix it - has he?) Yes, GS did not make that reply in the right manner, and has apologised for it; but he was certainly not the only one to share that concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [11] [12]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?).

Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had anything to do with me - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to cause drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise.

I also Oppose the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• (redacted comment by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, is this some kind of accusation of grooming Wikipedia editors? "his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia".... This needs serious intervention now, as KW's wild accusations have crossed the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a horrendous accusation and needs to be oversighted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's worse than horrendous, KW should be blocked for accusations of this nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• (redacted comment by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I read it that KW is saying that User:Demiurge1000 is taking advantage of the editors inexperience to recruit them into some conflict with others. There is no sexual implication in the comment. John lilburne (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• What the actual fuck did I just read? Apart from the sheer idiocy of Kiefer assuming that I am in any way affiliated with Demiurge (I am not, and never have been), and the fact I've used the IRC here about 3 times, all when the servers are down, that has to be one of the most disgraceful accusations I've ever seen, regardless of any sexual nature (or lack of) in the comment. Kiefer should be blocked, and blocked for a while, for that comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quite. Anyone that empathises with KW's grooming comments needs close inspection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I will note here that Luke has never attempted to contact me in any way ; and my only contact with Luke has been my one post currently visible on his talk page, the purpose of which I describe in detail above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm also going to note that Lilburne is here after KW canvassed multiple times at an off-wiki forum (including, now, complaining about being indefinitely blocked there), where KW did indeed use the g word, and where he also had some more-than-unpleasant comments to make about Luke. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh sweetheart, this page has been on my watchlist for a long long time. I just don't normally comment here unless something really dumb happens. And the only one that has used the word grooming here is The Rambling Man. John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Spirited, emphatic exchanges don't violate any policy. NE Ent 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

GS and KW

• Does anybody think that GiantSnowman's behavior at this RfA meets the standard of an administrator? Or satisfies the civility and NPA expectations of all editors? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kiefer, please provide diffs from the RFA of my failings as an Administrator (impossible, I didn't use any tools), as well as examples of my incivility and personal attacks? GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to say, without having a horse in this particular race, that the notion of an Administrator not using tools and therefore not having failed as an Administrator is a non-sequitur. Any Admin involved in any dispute uses judgement, the entire basis on which they were selected as an Admin. Just because tools are left at the door in a dispute does not mean that Admins cannot fail in using judgement and that, in any situation - tools or not - is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is refreshing to read your responses. Perhaps a word with another administrator with hyperactive behavior at this RfA might be in order? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• User:Stfg seems to have issue, per his comment at the RfA and I agree. The comment "Pure snobbery" was unnecessarily combative. Once it was explained that Giantsnowman was mistaken in how he interpreted the "Andy Capp" comment, instead of leaving well enough alone, his excuse was "As for AGF, I'm afraid it only goes so far with KW." I think Giantsnowman has lost his objectivity here. I'm normally against interaction bans in general, and have never supported one with an admin involved, but an air gap is likely the best solution. As for using the tools, it doesn't matter here. WP:NOTPERFECT states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. " It seems you have some animosity towards KW and I think it is clouding your judgement here. I'm not saying it is actionable, but GSM's actions were far from exemplary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• When you put it that way, I admit that some of my comments at the RFA talk page were not my finest and for that I apologise to all involved, especially Kiefer. I should not have described his attitude as "snobbery" and I should have tried harder to AGF. I would like to assure you that I do not have any animosity towards Kiefer; regardless of the outcome of this discussion (and I hope no formal IBAN is implemented, as I do not see the need for one) I will work on what has been raised. GiantSnowman 15:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is a good thing. What you and I must remember is that when we push the limits on civility, most editors are afraid to speak out because of our "admin power". No matter how unimpressive it might be to you and I, others are intimidated by it to different degrees and many are unwilling to speak out. This is why you and I are both held to the higher standard and have to go the extra mile to insure we stay neutral, else we make bystanders feel powerless and unable to speak out. You have to reach back and remember how you felt well as a new user, before getting the bit. Of course, we are human, and we screw up like anyone else, and forgiveness should come just as easily for these kinds of things. Even without the interaction ban, I would still recommend keeping that air gap between the two of you, let time heal some wounds. Even if you don't feel them, I'm pretty sure KW does. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• My attempt to bury the hatchet with Kiefer was immediately reverted. Make of that what you will. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is why I think the air gap is needed. From my experience, KW is not one who wants to discuss or engage after an "event", so it isn't about you personally, it would be the same (and has been) in any disagreement. My experience with KW started at my RfA and has been checkered at times, but my experience has been that you just need to step away, as his wounds tend to heal on their own timetable. You and I are probably the opposite of KW in this respect, and would rather quickly bury the hatchet, but we are not universal in this. I recommend overlooking it and moving on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Dennis,

  How quickly do adults change personality or behavior? How credible is GS's sudden change, after months of complaints (from me and others)? His "wasn't my best" still falls short of accepting responsibility for his behavior. I have known too many nurses and social workers to engage in enabling behavior.

  I recently was pleased to accept an apology from another editor, whom I had previously criticized for "copping out"---i.e., that is, falling short of taking responsibility, on 2 occasions. That editor wrote his apology fully, quickly, and on his own volition. Nobody needed to push him to make a minimum apology, and he wrote a very generous and gracious note, indeed. Let him be an example to us all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but wouldn't read too much into the reversion. It is KW, after all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Watch Carlito's Way and consider whether Benny was a hero. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen it. Doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but it has decent ratings, so maybe someday.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sound advice from you both. As stated at the very beginning, interaction between Kiefer and myself is actually minimal as we edit in completely different areas, so letting "time heal all wounds" should not be a problem. Up and Atom! GiantSnowman 15:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis has done a fine job of representing my POV, and I thank him for it. As almost always, I agree with everything he has written in this section. I don't know enough about the background to comment on whether an IBAN is a good idea, except to point out that IBANs don't work very well. They are too easy to game -- actually, they are an invitation to gaming. The current RfA and its talk page are grotesque, and this is a big problem, because when RfAs turn into slugfests like that, it disenfranchises the nice people by chasing them away. People shouldn't have to jump into a fire to have their say on who gets mops. From his comments above, I'm sure GiantSnowman understands this and won't rise to the bait again at RfA (I don't care what happens on their own talk pages). Does Kiefer understand the problem, and does he plan to change anything to help solve it? If not, I think the only way for it to get solved is for the community to impose a solution, unfortunately. --Stfg (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Have you made any other predictions, that would let us evaluate the worth of your surety? We would like to be able to pretend that it was better than your accuracy in recognizing baiting....

  Again, talk is cheap. GS has not struck through any of the inappropriate remarks at RfA, which he claims and you endorse to be now beneath him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't understand a word of that, but never mind. --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

KW blocked

Lots of good blocks that can be used to make cool things.

I have indefinitely blocked KW for this edit, which goes far beyond the bounds of acceptability, and really should be oversighted, or at least revdel'd (the edit summary is also a personal attack). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and I am not averse to the block being reduced in time (in fact, I will support a fixed length of time, once community consensus arrives at an appropriate length. This entire discussion has been acrimonious, but that is so heinous that someone who is not involved needed to step in. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. How many times do we have to play his game before we and/or he figures it out. Go Phightins! 21:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Idiotic. But not surprising. Intothatdarkness 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Comment I'm referring to the block. Don't want anyone confused. Intothatdarkness 21:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Kiefer's repeated ridicule of younger people has grown tiresome. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block to me and that should be over-sighted immediately as it looks to be an attempt to out the other user based on unverifiable opinion or some such ridiculousness. Technical 13 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:OS is this covered under? --Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The one that is suppose to protect people's sexual preference. The comment and it's edit summary imply that the user it is directed at is a pedophile or at very least homosexual. I honestly do not care if that user is homosexual or not, but declaring that the user is would fall under 1.Removal of non-public personal information, 2. Removal of potentially libelous information, and 5. Removal of vandalism I would suspect... Wouldn't you agree? Technical 13 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Why are you talking about sexual preferences and pedophiles? John lilburne (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I seem to have read the comment strangely and missed the paedo angle. I agree this should be removed from public view --Guerillero | My Talk 22:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Too many people have been way too tolerant of this type of incivility from this user. It's disruptive and discourages a collaborative environment. I propose at least a three month block, which will give KW a chance to reflect on how he might contribute here without stirring up drama and attacking other editors. - MrX 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• KW didn't open this thread up. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• How is that relevant? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's appropriate to categorize someone dragged to AN as "stirring up drama." NE Ent 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• You had to know that I was not merely referring to today's drama. - MrX 00:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure how it counts as outing. Whilst admittedly it is easily mis-read in the way @The Rambling Man: describes, reading it more carefully I can plausibly believe that Kiefer meant absolutely nothing of the sort, and was simply commenting on the "political" methods allegedly used by Demiurge. Whilst undeniably a personal attack (especially the last bit) it is not block-worthy certainly not indef-block-worthy.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on the rest of this, but you're saying that personal attacks are no longer block-worthy? --Rschen7754 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There's never been a consensus that they were -- see failed proposal Wikipedia:Incivility blocks NE Ent 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:NPA - especially the first paragraph. --Rschen7754 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I'll call your WP:NPA and raise you an arbcom finding. NE Ent 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That's a red herring - there is a distinction between "blockworthy" and whether the editor actually gets blocked for it. --Rschen7754 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I meant "indef-block-worthy".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - I'm not exactly sure where I fall on this one. --Rschen7754 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, "'political' method"? What "political method" is being described there? Is there a political method that deals with "recruiting inexperienced young men or boys" and " involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia" and "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men" ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The "political method" could come from the rest of the bit you quoted, which reads "to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games." Intothatdarkness 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • What do those games have to do with "boys and young men"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Their naïvety in being manipulated on WP and on IRC to argue with KW etc. and stoke up bad blood between them.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
          • What does their gender have to do with it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, mainly because all the editors named are both relatively young and male. To be honest, when I first read it I saw that as an analogy to the way young men were manipulated (hence the use of "footsoldiers") into going to war in the First World War, but maybe that's just me.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Ah. OK Thanks. I appreciate now understanding where you were coming from with "political". I see the board is in agreement that, whatever it was, it was PA and that would be an over-the-top PA. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• I can't see the comment because that's restricted to admins only and I cannot be trusted with such awesome power but it seems like the comment has been taken out of context. I do think the indefinate block is definately not appropriate. This was not a good reason to indef an established user. I also think this little support no support is not necessary. Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If it's been oversighted then admins (lotsapeople) can't see it; only oversighters (lots less people) can. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It was revdeled, but has been restored. I can see it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. That was extremely out of line. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What was out of line? John lilburne (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

KW's comment. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. Which comment? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The one he was blocked for. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to be taken for a fool stop acting like one. John lilburne (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How am I acting like a fool? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

John, it's the first link in this section. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that, and people are reading far more into it than what was actually said, are they not? John lilburne (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you interpret "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd read it in its context and interpret the above to be asking whether it is appropriate for a seasoned editor to recruit young and inexperienced editors to participate in a drama war against one's opponents. Now the question is whether D is doing that or not. I don't participate on IRC or the other hangouts so don't have an opinion. Though I do have the impression that when young editors appear on the drama boards with fully fledged opinions about editor X or Y. that D is somewhere near at hand. But that is only an impression, I may be wrong. John lilburne (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Overreaction to statement by politically correct Americans reading sexual innuendo into a statement. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Take out the Americans, please. I understood what he meant. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Color me American but I can't see how that was an appropriate statement. I like KW - he's the last man standing on readable RfA opposes - but this is not acceptable. If cultural differences are behind all this, then an explanation is in order before an unblock. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Colour me British. Colour me 'not impressed by KW'. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Color me unimpressed by the majority of this. Blocking was likely inevitable in any case. Doesn't mean it smells any better. Intothatdarkness 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block - I understood what he meant as well, he meant to wp:game the system and wp:bait any who would fall prey to his malfeasance.--My76Strat (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good Block. The only goal in that comment was to be as inflammatory as possible. Resolute 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think the use of "young men and boys" rather than the more obvious "young editors" makes it clear that KW's edit was intended to be read as an allegation of something other than interference. I support a block, but I'd make it 24 hours. Prodego ^talk 22:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • But he came off a block that lasted for 2 weeks just last month... --Rschen7754 22:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If the block is not just for this particular edit, but rather a pattern of incivility, then longer or indef may be justified. I'm not familiar enough to make that judgement, I was just basing my response on the justification given at the top of this section ("for this edit"). Prodego ^talk 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Very good block. The specific wordings he used has VERY negative connotations, and as such, I would not support an unblock until they apologize for the comment, and publicly undertake a commitment NOT to stray down these bounds again. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• comment; it's very early days, here, but given the overwhelming consensus I'd strongly suggest nobody unblock unless they want to get thwapped. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block, largely per SirFozzie. I find myself agreeing with him on occasion, but I've been dismayed at his aggressive nature lately, and this can't continue, one way or another. --Rschen7754 22:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that your second sentence is discussing KW and not SirFozzie, but you might want to clarify just to be safe. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is correct. --Rschen7754 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block If this were the sole disruptive incident in his career I'd have said this was over the top, and have favored a more limited block, but given the long history of stirring up trouble for trouble's sake, this seems like the right move. Also, the egregious nature of these comments, carefully crafted to be provocative to the point of offensiveness, and yet deliberately containing enough circumlocution to give him some wiggle-room of deniability shows that he knew exactly the kind of effect he was going for in his comments, and that sort of deliberate manipulation isn't something we need at a place where our primary goal should be the building of knowledge. Any contributions lost from Keifer will be more than made up by other people who now won't be driven away from the project by behavior such as this. --Jayron32 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the block and forward to the OS team. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block - the blocked for statements appear to be deliberately cruel. Note also, the personal attack apparently was not aimed only at one editor but other named editors, partly on account of alleged personal characteristics (age and gender). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Exceedingly bad block, as per NE Ent. Colour me British, but I'm also exceedingly unimpressed by the behaviour and attitudes of Ironholds. Eric Corbett 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block - I've seen a lot of nasty personal attacks here on WP, but not at all subtely insinuating that a fellow editor is a child molester takes the cake. Far, far beyond the pale, and totally inexcusable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sound block. Deliberately inflammatory choice of language, of a sort usually used to describe extremely grave misconduct. Not explicitly calling someone a criminal or moral degenerate doesn't give one a free pass to use terminology so often (and almost exclusively) found in that context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• If the use of gender-specific language was not intended to imply any gender-specific immorality, then its use was stupid as well as being uncivil and a personal attack. At this point, my interpretation is that the blocked editor is trying to game the system by claiming that a gender-specific insult was not meant to be gender-specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• He was being a bit of a meanie and should apologize for any untoward implications, but can we please stop with all this "good block" silliness?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Given that the point of this thread is at least partly to get consensus on the block, how is it silliness for those who agree with the block to say so? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Because the block was silly? Surely nobody in their right mind believes the "an indefinite block isn't infinite" bollocks? Indefinite blocks are used as cudgels to force apologies and repentance for perceived sins, and as such are to be abhored. Eric Corbett 23:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see them prohibited.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well it is not going to work because I am not apologizing for a thing.--My76Strat (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• The silliness is with the "good block" phrasing and the whole rush to affirm the random admin action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Your credibility is diminished by such a statement!--My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good Block -- This user is extremely abusive and the edit in question is without question insulting. Looking over his edit history, he is skilled at talking his way out of blocks, which is rather unfortunate. Please keep him blocked, for the betterment of the project.Lettik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• It took someone else implying the sexual angle to get even my internet-polluted brain to read the comment in that fashion. Seems an overreaction to me. Arkon (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from blocking admin: One thing really needs to be addressed, because more than a few people don't seem to get why I dropped the hammer on KW. This whole kerfuffle (the most recent one, not the festering carbuncle which contributes to this whole sordid affair) was started by KW's comments on a specific editor's writing ability at that editor's RFA. Make no mistake--KW is an exceptional writer. In fact, he is far too good a writer for his specific choices of words in the edit for which I blocked him to be mere happenstance. He deliberately chose phraseology and verbiage which would imply that the specific editors whom he named in the post were involved in something more unsavory than simple votestacking. He chose the most inflammatory phrases possible, and worked them into his post in a way which (barely) provided some sort of cover. Were he a less proficient writer, one whose editing history was not littered with incidents of personalizing arguments in a nasty fashion, I might have decided to issue a warning or a limited-duration block. But when the last block issued (for similar incivility) was for a duration of 1 month, and it stood for 18 days before being lifted (with a promise that he wouldn't do it again [13]), I felt that a block was needed, and decided that the community was better suited to determining the duration than a single admin. As I noted above, I didn't intend this to be a permanent block, only one whose length was not yet defined. My personal opinion is that anything more than 2 months is too long, but if the consensus is that he should be unblocked immediately or that he should remain blocked permanently, I will not object. I don't think that either choice is the optimum decision, but of course, YMMV. Horologium (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  That seems very reasonable and fair to me... I tend to agree that long blocks don't necessarily work well. Based on your comments alone, I would say that 6 weeks would be fair. It is a little more than the 2.5 weeks his block actually lasted out of a 4.5 week block. Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Given that in theory blocks aren't meant to be punitive, I just don't get this block-length argument at all. Why six weeks rather than four or five? What harm was being prevented anyway? Eric Corbett 01:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Blocks may not be punitive, but they can be corrective. They also protect the project from disruption and, in this case, may prevent other editors from leaving the project because they tire of being insulted, mocked, berated, ridiculed and accused of all manner of ill deeds. His last unblock was a failure of process, in my opinion. He talked his way out of the block using the same types of arguments that are advised against, full of equivocation and blame. We have a principle of escalating block lengths for good reasons. If someone can't get some clue after 10 blocks in a year and a half, then I doubt that shorter blocks will have an enduring positive effect for the project. - MrX 02:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  How can blocks be "corrective" if they're not also punitive? I take it that you're familiar with basic learning theory? I recently became acquainted with a parrot whose behaviour had been "corrected" by having the metal floor of the cage he lived in being electrocuted every time he bit. Is that what's going on here? Eric Corbett 02:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  First, thanks for letting me know how startled you are. Second, please see Operant conditioning. Correction does not only result from punishment. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology. Eric Corbett 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  And just remind me, what harm has KW caused to the project? One might even argue that disrupting RfA is of some benefit to the project, in that it might make some dinosaurs rethink their position on that ridiculous and dishonest process. Eric Corbett 02:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  All the time that is wasted on these notice boards and talk pages dealing with bad behavior would be better spent collaborating to improve articles, tools, bots, help pages, and helping new users. Do you really think that treating our fellow editors like shit is helpful to the project? How many editors simply walk away from the project in disgust because of an insulting edit summary? I don't think that disrupting RfAs make them better. I think open discussion, compelling arguments and seeking common ground are a good start though. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  How much of any of that stuff do you do? Eric Corbett 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  What KW's behavior does is to drive away editors who would rather not be called paedophiles for disagreeing with him. As I noted above, the world is filled with people who will replace his potential future contributions, but won't be abuse fellow editors in the manner he has done here. --Jayron32 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot. Eric Corbett 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  I love you too. --Jayron32 04:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. Per Jayron. KW does not seem to have learned from previous blocks and apparently has no intention of improving his attitude within the collaborate spirit of this project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block- Agree with most of the above. KW's seemed to spend a lot of time griefing and insulting people, punctuated by bouts of ultra-defensive hysterical screaming. This sneaky accusation of pedophilia is the last straw. Reyk _YO! 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block - I called for it, and to be perfectly honest, that edit should be oversighted. Utterly disgusting behaviour, a massive smear against myself and several editors (regardless of any sexual nature) and just the latest in a long line of bollocks from that user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In my opinion since it's been repeated in whole or in part so many times, oversighting it is moot. --Rschen7754 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• I find it implausible, given the context, that the choice of words was anything other than intentional and there isn't an option to casually "strike the offending phrase" when it comes to such a blatant personal attack. I also don't find any reasonable excuse in dismissing it as a matter of "political correctness" or cultural differences... "Young boys" is not a synonym for "new editors." user:j (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block per Jayron 32's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block clearly was meant to be inflammatory. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block. While KW's comment could definitely have been worded better, it doesn't have to be interpreted in a sexual way. Inflammatory, yes. Worthy of an indefinite-block? No. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Understandable, but incorrect block. I quite realise that I am in the minority here, but there's a much bigger issue than KW's behaviour here, much as he appears to be trying to earn himself an indef block by testing the boundaries. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The much bigger issue is? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the original title of this section (before KW got himself blocked) will provide you with the answers you need, as will my comment below. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

They don't indicate big issues, so no. But perhaps your directions were misunderstood.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bad block which should be overturned. Dirty minds think dirty. Optimom (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Let's call it what it is - an obvious attempt to smear an editor as a paedophile, which is quite honestly disgusting. But since he's from Wikipediocracy, I can't really say I'm surprised, that's just the way they operate over there. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you're gonna block KW for this perceived personal attack then obviously Prioryman's above personal attack (But since he's from Wikipediocracy, I can't really say I'm surprised, that's just the way they operate over there.) and assholish slander qualifies as well? So where is his block? Fucking hypocrites. THIS is exactly why most people who edit Wikipedia think "opportunistic cowardly scum" when they see the word "admin".Volunteer Marek 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Most people who edit Wikipedia" or more people from Wikipediocracy? Regardless, it's unclear how insulting a website fulfils the personal aspect of NPA Jebus989^✰ 09:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• He's obviously not just insulting a website but also insulting Kiefer. But ok, fine. I'll keep that in mind. Next time I want to let some schmucko have it and let them know what I really think I'll just refer to some place or nebulous thing they're vaguely associated with. Most admins are still hypocrites and cowards. Why would anyone want to become one at this point is beyond me. Just the stench associated with it alone should drive most decent people away.Volunteer Marek 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bad block People are reading more into this comment than appears to be there, if one assumes good faith that is, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, as in assuming that the poster actually meant a personal attack, and that is what was written? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What is written is an accusation saying that Demiurge1000 is doing some politicking and manipulating people to his own ends on wikipedia. Personally I have no idea whether that is true or not and I doubt most of the others chipping in do either, but calling that egregious personal attack worthy of an indefinite block (whether or not it is true) is nonsensical. Blocking someone out of hand for making a claim that is conceivably true, rather than asking him to substantiate or retract it does not make sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What is written is what was quoted above about someone and the personal charcteristics of other someones and being up to bad things in relation to them. Those are personal attacks on multiple people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What do we do when someone makes a personal attack? We ask them to retract it. What did people do in this instance? An indefinite block out of hand. Kiefer subsequently asked for the statement to be striked. When are indefinite blocks for personal attacks justified? According to Wikipedia:NPA#Consequences_of_personal_attacks: "Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor." Are you comparing this comment to the severity of a death threat? Are you claiming that this comment "severely disrupts the project"? If someone had simply requested a refactor or a reconsideration the issues could have been resolved. He offered to strike his comment and thus it does not seem very likely that the editor will continue with this personal attack, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What do we do when someone makes personal attacks? Sometimes we block them. Yes, it severely disrupts the project when people are attacked on the basis of personal charateristics. The comment for most people crosses the line. Are you saying, well gosh, people who make personal attacks based on the personal charcteristics of others should never get blocked? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The unsupported claim that Kiefer made is that Demiurge1000 recruits inexperienced editors and uses them to further his own agenda on wiki. That has nothing to do with personal characteristics. I can not answer the question of whether "people who make personal attacks based on the personal characteristics of others should never get blocked?" as we appear to disagree on what a personal characteristic is exactly. In general I now think (I have changed my position with time, like all people) that a block without prior discussion is always unwarranted except for the case of death threats or other similarly serious issues. I also have the advantage of being in line with policy (as I quoted) in this regard, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The personal charcteristics are age and gender. No one disagrees on that. And yes such attacks are often read as serious disruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[citation needed], IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA says that such age and gender remarks may lead to blocks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Remarks about age and gender? sorry you've lost me again. I see no personal attack against people of a specific age and gender in that diff. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"recruiting inexperienced young men or boys" and " involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia" and "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men[?]" and some named, one of whom certainly does not lack experience on the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The people happen to be young, because he appears to be giving an example of inexperienced people. Young people are more susceptible to manipulation, I don't think that is particularly controversial. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not controversial? Perhaps if you reread this page and those "young men and boy" comments, you will agree that it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• While I havehad some pleasant, even amusing conversations with Keifer I have also been the subject of his attacks and condescention. When he is challenged, even if you point out evidence of a mistake, he will simply try to "unsay" what he said or try to suggest you are too stupid to understand him rather than own up to his own mistakes. That is what he did when he attacked me, and it is what he is doing right now. For someone who makes such a pretentious show at having skill with words it ddefies reason to think the innuendo in that remark was anything but very deliberate. And this suggests he has been doing it for a very long time and that blocks of short duration have no effect in curbing the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Core problems addressed?

Guys, are you sure these proposed interaction bans and recent blocks are addressing the core problem, or just the symptoms? Are there any behavioral problems by the three parties involved that need to be addressed besides imposing interaction bans? Is there any merit to the allegations being leveled by the parties against each other? Don't know? Then why don't you administrators do your jobs, investigate this situation total, and come to a conclusion instead of just trying to put a band aid over it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Because that would involve a little bit of work? Eric Corbett 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I have some real reservations on this. Admittedly I don't have time to research it all, but looking at the link provided by the blocking admin. ... could someone PLEASE tell me how "sex" was introduced into this topic? I'm not seeing it in the link provided by the block log. As much as I'm all in favor of "political correctness" .. I think some folks are really reaching on this. Could ya'all go back and revisit what was typed and rethink this please? — Ched :  ?  02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that there is a zero tolerance policy when you put sex, men, and boys into a sentence. If that had happened Kiefer would already be banned and locked. So obviously there's no solid allegation that it did. The first person to mention "sex" at all was John lilburne, a supporter of Kiefer, when he said "There is no sexual implication in the comment" at 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC). That may have started a diversion, but it started there! My comment after an edit conflict was it was gaming and baiting, and it was. I hope that helps with your question.--My76Strat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My statement was in response to The Rambling Man cherry picking a phrase from KWs post and preceding it with 'grooming', then adding "worse than horrendous" and Darkness Shines calling for oversight. take this advice skip don't try to invoke me in your perverted reading sessions - OK. John lilburne (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC)::Ched's comments aside, I think Cla68 was getting at the elephant in the room, that the substance of his comments is being overlooked in favour of jumping on the fact he made them & what they could be interpreted to mean etc. Ignoring the speculation on what KW was implying, if what he was referring to is accurate, it needs to be addressed *somewhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And what was the "substance of his comments"? They had no substance beyond the offensive suggestions as far as I can see. Paul B (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC

Well thats rather the point, you (and others) find what you think he was suggesting offensive, and are ignoring what (he says) he was saying. Which while probably inappropriate should not be totally ignored. Although if the consensus here is 'KW is blocked, lets forget all about it' fine. Need a big rug to hide that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He isn't saying anything with any content at all. It's all smoke and mirrors. "Ooh, I wonder what they're getting up to...". But it's palpably designed to be suggestive and offensive, and that is, in practice, threatening behaviour, because if frightens editors off disagreeing with him, as Luke has already pointed out. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Only someone completely obtuse can miss the "grooming" implications of KW's comments, and it is ridiculous beyond words to act as though they were in any way innocent. The fact that he deliberately phrased them to be as derogatory as possible while leaving himself a "get out" makes the matter worse, not better. A simple naive outburst would be easier to forgive. It was one of the most obnxious examples of bullying I've ever seen, even from Mr Wolfowitz. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What "grooming" implications are you talking about? Eh? John lilburne (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we have people here who are not familiar with either espionage or police tradecraft or language. "Grooming" in that context is often used in the context of preparing an informant or source, especially if it's a false flag recruitment. What we actually have is a horde who sees a nice provocation they can use to get rid of an editor they disagree with or dislike. That's it. Nothing more to see. If the whole "driving people off" thing (which has been tossed out by some people) was applied across the board, there are quite a few people who would no longer be here, including some of those who are calling for KW's head. So just drop the hypocritical ranting and get on with it. Intothatdarkness 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What we have are laughable pretences to innocence, which are bad enough from Mr. W himself. But now we have disingenuousness piling up in layers. Your first sentence seems to derive from a fantasy world. You have a long familiarity with "espionage" do you? Is the Green Cow Flying Tonight? Paul B (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Simply pointing out that there are other uses for the term. Just because you haven't heard of that doesn't make it fantasy. But then again shame on me for trying to discuss with the mob. Carry on. I'm sure there are plenty of pitchforks and torches to go around. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course I've heard of them, perhaps you will be showing me a helpful picture of a horse-grooming combs next. Apparently you are the one ignorant of the fact that the word "grooming" was not used in the post in question (though it was used by KW in another post with the same obvious insinuation). What the post did say, transparently piled up language to generate suggestions of sexual misconduct. This point has been made repeatedly with by many editors. I expect you know it yourselfe. Further furrowed-browed professions of mystification will serve no purpose. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

According to many here this headline is intended to have us believe that some young fellow is about to be molested by his father. And presumably this fellow is about to be asked to get his kit off for the bankers. John lilburne (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's obviously wrong, and it still doesn't explain KW's obsession with/tacit allegation of "[his] involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia". Not something we need here. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A fundamental breakdown

I want to follow on from comments made to User:Ched above. The above threaded discussion has gone completely awry of the WMF's zero tolerance policy. Just as Kiefer would be banned if he had cast aspersions of pedophilia, it is as intolerable to make accusations against Kiefer that he did make such statements, if he didn't. I've seen a lot of very direct allegations that somewhere along the line, need to be corrected. I supported the block because I observed the disruptive behavior. And I observed that Kiefer did not cross that line into violations of "child protection" policy and zero tolerance. So how do we reconcile this?--My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would hope by recognizing that KW likely didn't intend the aspersion. Folk with artistic temperaments often combine the ability to produce beautiful work with a tendency for thoughtless outbursts when they get emotional. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Although having never interacted with KW, I've read a lot of his contribs to various boards and he does have a tendency to get somewhat excessive in some comments. Colour me British/Australian/whatever but writing it the way he did was distinctly suspicious, given the climate of the world these days. Just the use of "young men and boys" would have many people sucking through their teeth and asking what he was alluding to. "New editors" would have put what he meant beyond doubt, but he didn't use it. And it especially didn't help when John Lilburne cast his "sexual" comment into the fray. Blackmane (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have little doubt that KW intended the aspersion. Likewise, I have little doubt that his phrasing was specifically chosen to be inflammatory for this exact reason, while trying to create enough wiggle room for his supporters to try and weasel him out of the block. Resolute 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, possibly he meant a multilayered aspersion in the double or triple entendre manner. It's a risk one runs when in casting aspersions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reconcile? Probably has to do with narrowly construing a perma-ban policy but skating the edges is still bad form -- it can still be hurtful and it can still be damaging (plus in view of some reasonable observers one may have gone over the edge). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Block duration for KW

The blocking admin has asked us to comment specifically on the appropriate duration to see where consensus lies so I will start that process below and hope others will comment as well.

• 2 weeks block Considering the rationale provided below I have stricken my suggestion of 2 weeks in favor of maintaining the indefinite block.--My76Strat (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indef, with the understanding that this is not necessarily infinite. Reyk _YO! 07:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• 2 weeks block, + a 3 year topic ban from RFA. The comment was so provocative it clearly demanded a block. If he manipulatively intended the innuendo, it warrants a permaban. But it seems much more likely it was driven by thoughtless passion, not intent to bait. KW has an inflexible but very strong sense of right and wrong, and that's why he often kicks off. It's only when KW is in a calm frame of mind that he's a brilliant writer. On the other hand, can't agree with comments above that the world is filled with folk who'd be just as good at building the encyclopaedia. In reality KW would be close to irreplaceable. Not 1 in a 100 have the scholarship to write like KW. And only a tiny fraction have the fortitude for sustained editing. Even as a big fan of KW, I admit his RFA contributions often seem to be inflammatory and even nonsensical. So lets try a solution that gets us the best of both worlds. Please lets not lose him from the rest of the encyclopaedia, where he's a huge net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• 2 week block sounds fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As the possibility of future disruption is high a two way interaction ban with Demiurge1000 and a topic ban from RfA also seem appropriate. I'm still not convinced he has cooled down enough yet, so a least a week to let the anger dissipate.--Salix (talk): 08:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• 2 week block iff KW agrees to be more cooperative with others from now on. Otherwise, count this as an indefinite block vote. --Rschen7754 07:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Modifying this to indefinite as I doubt we will get satisfactory assurances that this will not happen again. --Rschen7754 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• 3.143328932323 month block! Where the hey are you guys coming up with this crap? Can I get access to the relevant numerical table? There's really only three possible rationales here:

  1. You're someone who wants Kiefer to edit Wikipedia. So you say "time served" and let's get on with it.

  2. You're someone who doesn't want Kiefer to edit Wikipedia to ever again so you either come right out and say it with the "indef" (wrong, but honest, ok) or you bullshit with this "three month block" or whatever crap which you think makes you look like a reasonable person. It doesn't. You're just the bigger creep.

  3. You're a sadistic asshole (and there's a lot of you here) who likes to watch people "suffer on the internet", you're the PvP game player, you treat Wikipedia like some freakin' MMPORG, so you make demands for him to humiliate himself and dangle the promise of an unblock only to snatch it away.

• Look you monkeys. Either his comment was not actionable, so unblock, or it was bad and he retracted so unblock, or you're just engaging in a lot of unseemly schadenfreude. There are soooooo many people who have commented in this discussion that should be simply ashamed of themselves.

• This is the fucking Wikipedia community these days and that's why Wikipedia is circling the drain. Volunteer Marek 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Some might also view your first option of the three, as ending up having the effect of milking a few more "good edits" out of KW, only for him to be blocked again (with another dramafest) when he repeats the behaviour a few weeks or months down the line, as happens every time. Do you genuinely believe that is in his own interests, quite apart from the interests of the encyclopedia? Do you think he enjoys it or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm reminded that this isn't the first time that KW has used the word "grooming" in this manner. Pretty much every accusation KW has levelled at Demiurge1000, can be levelled at me - indeed he has in the past. A large number of the editors I have adopted were below the age of majority and the adoption program naturally attracts younger editors with the mentality of a teaching model for learning how to edit. In the same manner, the adoption process attracts those editors who naturally enjoy teaching. I've worked with Demiurge in the past and have never once found his behaviour towards these editors to be untoward or manipulative, and therefore find the accusations reprehensible. Therefore, I support an indefinite block from the encyclopedia until such time that KW shows understanding that these sort of accusations are unacceptable. I also agree with FeydHuxtable that an RfA topic ban would be a good idea. Worm^TT(talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have only actually seen him abusive on talk pages, but on article space he's one of the best editors we have. Two week block is plenty; it's a long topic ban I want to see - at least until he writes a featured article from scratch, or fixed length like a year or so. Perhaps our standard offer may apply?--Launchballer 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Support extended RfA topic ban as he is very disruptive there. I'll take no view on block duration. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep indefinite for now but allow unblock appeal at 2 weeks, which should probably be accepted unless KW acts out of line during his appeal. I also support an indefinite RfA topic ban from a cost-benefit standpoint: the risk of losing or significantly alienating a user is higher than the value of KW's opinion at RfA. I would like to reiterate that he is an excellent content contributor, but he should know when he's stepped beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Concurring again with another admin's comments, I think Worm sums it up well. Indef is the only solution here, because KW never takes his blocks seriously and regularly seems to find himself in the midst of drama - sometimes where his intervention may not necessarily have been needed and used as an opportunity to take more swipes at other users. The new discussion (which isn't the first one) probably won't advance either the situation, or change the consensus(es) reached here at AN - it will only prolong the drama. If nothing else happens but a topic ban from RfA, not only will the 'RfA Deformers' appreciate his absence from that area, but also a few future candidates of the right calibre may be more willing to come forward. There's also the fact that it's finally time to put an end to the traditional immunity from sanctions for good content contributors.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• 1 month block, with appeal allowed after two weeks and indefinite topic ban of RfA excluding !votes (i.e. allowed to vote, but not to take part in threaded discussion). Whilst I can plausibly believe that the "implications" of the comment were not intended, it was still an unacceptable comment and personal attack.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, KW's comments off-wiki make absolutely clear what implications he intended. He posted to a discussion of this incident saying "If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?" (emphasis added). He offered involvement in Wikipedia:Teahouse as his first suggestion. Classy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  That's an obviously deliberate misrepresentation of what he actually said, and goes a long way to support the idea that you are the one who should be blocked from interacting with him. I believe that he has already agreed to an interaction ban between the two of of you? And to perfectly honest I'd also be prepared to agree to a similar interaction ban, as I find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick I'd prefer never have to deal with again. Eric Corbett 00:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  What he actually said is what I've actually quoted. Not much room for misunderstanding there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do not underestimate Kiefer. This sequence of events was utterly predictable, intentional and carefully crafted by Kiefer himself to generate this exact response. Kiefer carefully contorted his words to fool the minds eye so he could later point out we foolish we all are for misinterpreting them. Not all of us were fooled. He intentionally created disruption using the English language as a weapon, although not as cleverly as he thought, and he has been hoist by his own petard. More than anyone else I have given him every benefit of the doubt, often to the chagrin of others, but this attempt was so tediously obvious, so arrogant that it removes all doubt as to its intent. Whether you call it WP:POINTy, "suicide by admin" or simply self-destructive the result is the same. What Kiefer needs is an epiphany. Unfortunately, I know of no fixed period of time can ensure that happens. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• From my understanding, he actually was blocked for 2.5 weeks out of his last 1 month block. I think enforcing anything less than 1 month is rewarding him for bad behavior. I also agree with the blocker that anything more than two months would be too much because on the whole, as I understand it, he is typically a good editor. So, I'll stick to my original suggestion above of six weeks, but I'll add the option to appeal after a month. After reading the above discussions I also feel that some kind of topic ban on RfA and probably RfB discussions is probably in order. I would think that three months would be reasonable at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Zero seconds block. Shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. The fact that mediocre writers here are seriously considering blocking KW for months (and thus depriving Wikipedia of his significant contributions) just because he used the words "Young boys" is laughable. --5.144.173.122 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (Open proxy now blocked; has made no contribs other than here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC))
• All options are wrong. On the one hand, KW is agreed to be an excellent editor in mainspace. On the other hand, KW has a long history of personal attacks and incivility, and it is unrealistic to think that he will learn from this block when he has not learned from previous blocks, and the diatribe that led to this block was malicious, clearly meant to have sexual implications (why else did he refer only to male editors as pawns) but to be capable of being denied as a sexual insult. All options are wrong, because there isn't a mechanism for banning him from talk pages and keeping him in mainspace (and an agreed community ban from talk pages will be violated and we will be right back here again). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Three Months - An indefinite block (unless he is also site-banned, which no one has suggested) just provides an opportunity for him to request unblock. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite, per Worm That Turned. As an aside, I find this kind of discussion utterly fragmenting and frankly a guarantee of no useful outcome to a blocking discussion. By saying "pick a number between 1 second and infinity" we pretty much ensure that it's impossible to get consensus on a time. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite per Worm That Turned and Kudpung. Kiefer has unfortunately had issues with several policies, especially with his history of incivility and personal attacks. To quote the immortal words of Wehwalt, "There are too many people here that think contributions excuse conduct, and that clever language, so desired in articles, is to be applauded on talk pages even if insulting regardless of the effect on the recipient. That is wrong." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite per my reasoning a few sections back; user has a history of tendentious behavior which has not gone away despite other attempts at less drastic measures. As a second choice, if this block is to be of a limited duration, then it should go along with an indefinite topic ban from RFA and all RFA-related discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, given that RFA seems to be the locus of the disruption. If KW is a good content contributor and we want to keep him around for that reason, then it makes sense to limit his participation from those areas that cause problems, but still allow him to help the encyclopedia. Still, my first choice is an indefinite ban given that he's demonstrated that he's not willing to change the way he interacts with others given prior opportunities to do so. --Jayron32 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite as the disruption has been piling up for long enough. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite, the comment is among the worst I've seen in my time here and shows that the user is not fit to be editing here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite Long enough history to justify it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Month at most - I think a month is the max. Lets remember that KW was not the only one that was an issue here and the problem included at least one admin, who as far as I can tell, hasn't been affected. So if you want to block KW that's fine but someone needs to also address tha other problem children in this debacle including the admin that was clearly baiting KW her and on his talk page. If you just going to block the editor, then your just being hypocritical. I also think this long wall of backpatting and editors voting for and against the block is nonsense. An indef block is clearly innapropriate but who cares right. Its just an editor. And people say I am crazy saying there is no us and them mentality. Its clearly visible right here in this very long discussion. And you people say I am unworthy for adminship. Many of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that KW was blocked for the edit in which he made unsavoury implications about Demiurge, not because of the prior slanging match with GS. It's already been pointed out that GS's behaviour wasn't great and I don't think anyone is disputing that, but it's not worthy of a block anymore than KW's comments in that argument were worthy of a block. It was his comments here that got KW into this position. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree the comment wasn't appropriate. I couldn't see it but someone sent it to me via Email. After reading it in context with the conversation though I think it was taken out of context and although not appropriate, wasn't IMO as bad as is being made out to be. I think there are some folks who are using this as an excuse to block KW. As such and since no one else bothered to do the right damn thing I left a note on GS's talk page myself. Of course I am just a lowly editor and not worthy to scold an amdin but I did it anyway because no one here had the moral courage to call him out on his clearly innappropriate behavior because their too busy jumping on the indef block KW bandwagon here. Kumioko (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko - you say (at my talk page) "I think your actions were especially bad", but what exactly have I done that is worthy of your comments? Saying one of his comments was "pure snobbery"? I've already apologised for that comment and my general attitude towards Kiefer at this RFA talk page, so I have no idea what good you think it will do any of us by raising it all again. PS you'll note I have deliberately stayed away from all the fresh drama here, so many thanks for dragging me back in so ungraciously. Your implication that my actions/comments got Kiefer blocked, or that I have baited him in any way in order to get him blocked are false and offensive and I would appreciate you revisiting/retracting them. GiantSnowman 15:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's fair enough. GS has already indicated that he's going to reflect on this and I'm sure he'll take your criticism constructively. As for KW...

Not sure who made the comment above. There's no signature but to clarify. You acted innapropriately (as did other users) causing Fram to feel like an interaction ban was needed. Then before anythign can really be said about your activity in the mess, KW makes some inappropriate comments and gets blocked distracting the heat away from you. So, I made a comment on your talk page calling attention to the problem and calling you out on it. And you want me to apologize for scolding you? I do not feel that I need to apologize for telling you to act more like a trustworthy admin and less like a punk kid trying to get another editor in trouble. An apology just ain't gonna happen, because I am not the one who did something wrong even if you don't like the way I said it. Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It was Basalisk. You 'called me out' on something I had been already called out on over 24 hours previously. I apologized. You trying to shit-stir or whatever has served zero purpose whatsoever other than making me feel a bit worse and yourself a bit better. Kudos. GiantSnowman 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think the length of time is fairly arbitrary, as fixed-period blocks have proven to be pretty much ineffective in the past. I agree with Dennis in that what KW really needs is an epiphany. I think the most constructive thing we can decide at this board is on a) the interaction ban discussed above and b) a topic ban for Kiefer relating to RfA. I'm not sure what wording would be best, but perhaps a restriction to simple, one-sentence !votes would be appropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• A 2 week block would be appropriate only if this was the first incident. It's not. It's the latest in a long line of abusive behaviour from Kiefer. The last block was a month long - why should this be shorter? This user is not going to change their ways any time soon, and they're clearly going to try and worm out of the block with a dodgy unblock request or couple anyway. Based on the user's history, it can only be an indefinite block. Anything shorter isn't going to cut the ice. Again, it's utterly irrelevant whether there were any sexual connotations or not: it's a gross personal attack and one of a long history of them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  There seems to be some confusion in your mind: the mantra is "indefinite != infinite", so why are you apparently suggesting that indefinite is longer than a month? And if there were no sexual connotations, which there weren't, in what way was KW's comment a "gross personal attack"? Eric Corbett 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is no confusion in my mind. The block needs to be indefinite, because it needs to last until Kiefer is convincing enough about any changes to their actions - which is going to be a heck of a long time. As to it being a gross personal attack - it casts completely bullshit aspersions about the motives and actions of several editors, in a way that was designed to be as highly controversial as possible (remember, we're dealing with someone who claims to be a scholar here) and anything that flies this close to suggesting pedophilia (whether it actually crossed the line or not) is just wrong. And it's not just this attack, it's the hundreds that the user has sent out during their time here. There were enough PAs or close-to-PAs during the RfA thread alone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite. There is obviously broad consensus that the tact and direction of KW's comment was decidedly inflammatory and intended to push readers in a specific direction. For as much as people like John and Eric try to argue there was no malicious implication in his statement, the very fact that so many saw it that way underminds their argument, and KW is not so stupid as to not be aware that people were going to think that. Consequently, until KW acknowledges this and agrees that the casting of such aspersions is significantly beyond the pale, he should remain blocked. In my view, the length is up to KW, and it is his decision whether to be unblocked today, tomorrow or never. Resolute 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite: If this were a clueless newbie with an otherwise clean record, not familar with how things are done here on WP, I might be inclined to let it go with a slap on the wrist. But KW is not a newbie, and he has a long history of being disruptive. Nor can it be argued that he did not know how this comment would be taken here on WP. Sorry, but whatever benefit might be gained by giving him some more rope is very unlikely to offset the harm that he will do to the project. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this leopard just ain't going to change his spots. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000. Whilst this was an understandable block, I don't think it was a good one. It is ludicrous to say "well, if you say something like that, of course it's going to be taken in a certain way". How about taking it exactly as it's written? No, it wasn't wise, but it certainly wasn't worth an indef. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's less than his previous block for personal attacks. Which makes it utterly pointless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Preventative, not punitive. Sometimes a large amount of editors (or, it appears, pretty much everyone) forgets that. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see much point in kicking people off Wikipedia or banning them from RfA. I'd say - give KW the opportunity to apologize and clearly state that he'll be more careful with his words down the road and, once he's done that, unblock him. If he doesn't do that, then too bad. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Time served If we're going to start blocking people based on how badly their statements may be read or their intent inferred by those who either can't or won't understand either plain English or the principle of charity then we're going to have to block everyone who invokes WP:DICK in response to someone else's actions. I offer myself as a test case by hereby noting that I am justifying my argument against those who would keep KW blocked by invoking WP:DICK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite - For reasons best articulated by Jayron32 two sections up, Dennis Brown in this section and several others commenters. KW has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded our core standards of civility, in spite of multiple blocks, warnings, and attempts to coach him about how to interact with the rest of us mere mortals. Initially, I thought that a longish block might be appropriate, but after reviewing more of his interaction history and the way he craftily wiggles out of the hot seat whenever he's called to account, it's clear to me that a GAME is afoot. Dennis absolutely nailed it. While he may be a good editor, his ultimate goal seems to be to go out in a blaze of glory, leaving as many bodies in his wake as possible, and then kvetching about it at that other website. I also note, with disappointment, that there are some enablers here who find his behaviour excusable, or even laudable, but I suppose that's the nature of this social experiment. - MrX 20:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite the comment in question was way, way beyond the pale, and was certainly block-worthy. If it was an isolated incident I might be prepared to let it go with a block of a few weeks, but this editor has a long history of incivility. Given this, KW should not be unblocked unless he can persuade us that he is going to change his ways, and not until the block has stood for at least a few months. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but the burden should be on the blocked editor to demonstrate that they will behave if unblocked, not on the community to demonstrate that they should remain blocked. Hut 8.5 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite for exactly the reasons Dennis Brown points out. KW outsmarted himself. Net negative, as is evidenced by this thread.Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite as Pedro notes, KW has hoisted himself by his own petard. Net negative indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  The "net negatives" are those who seem to live in this Hell-hole of vindictiveness. Eric Corbett 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  What, Hertfordshire? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  I've decided not to poison the well by adding diffs from my early interaction with KW, so I'm stating an opinion, honestly held. Nothing more. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - To anyone stating that this should be anything less than a two week block (or even shouldn't be a block at all): look at Kiefer's comments over at Wikipediocracy. I'm not going to link the thread here, but the more you read of it, the more you begin to think that he did genuinely imply this sexual connotation, or certainly something incredibly shady. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also interesting to note they've made an attempt at outing me there as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting is what sense? Doesn't seem particularly interesting to me. Eric Corbett 21:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting because he has his real name on his user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

offtopic by blocked editor. -db
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't blame Luke, he is just a child. But when teenagers like himself start thinking they are center of the world, and being condescending to more experienced editors such as KW, they can truly become an annoyance. Luke has now established himself as an "admin puppy" who always sides with the admins, and who seems to enjoy calling for the block of other editors. I sense we will see him asking to be an admin soon. We will see. --Diogotome (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Fiddlesticks. KW has been treating others with condescension for a long time now. People like KW are "admin pitbulls" who go around looking for a reason to try taking a bite out of the nearest admin they can find. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Automatic, we will see you asking to be an admin too, aren't we? You have a dog in this fight. ~ Diogotome (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC) No, you won't and I don't have a dog in this fight (nice pun). AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm quite sure we will. If you can read minds then so can I. Eric Corbett 22:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) In that case, neither of us can. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, I don't know. I see a number of admins, myself included, who aren't taking Luke's side. I've no idea whether he wishes to run for RfA, but as a number of young hopefuls have found before, being regulars at AN/ANI have had the opposite effect at RfA than they expect. Don't you think? Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Is this really all about Luke? I'm beginning to lose track. Eric Corbett 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, don't worry, I lost track in about 1987. No, it's not about Luke or anyone else for that matter, I'm just getting the impression that certain issues aren't being dealt with even-handedly here. Keifer isn't exactly helping himself, but that shouldn't be the point. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer isn't helping himself, I agree, but there's a disconcerting degree of asymmetry here, which I'd be inclined to summarise as "I've never liked him and this is a good opportunity to get him blocked forever". Eric Corbett 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the need to respond to the criticism of myself, and make a few more comments. 1: I am not an "admin puppy". If I was, I would support all administrative actions. I don't, and it would be daft to suggest that I was. 2: I am not a "child", so please stop making that statement; 18 year olds are legally adults, and tarring me as a child doesn't help your argument anyway. 3: I put my full real name on my page after I was "outed" by Wikipediocracy (which won't have taken much effort, given that this is a username I use almost everywhere) - before that I had left all bar the first letter of my surname out. I had, however, been moving towards naming myself. 4: I'd love to know whom "Diogotome" was. 5: I publicly stated a few months ago that I was not interested in adminship at this present time; that has not changed. I am too aware of my shortcomings to make that move. 6: I do not think I am the "center of the world", far from it. 7: Age should be utterly irrelevant on Wikipedia, assuming you are competent to contribute; I hope that I am indeed that competent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a parent, there is nothing in this world less convincing than someone who is only eighteen saying that age is irrelevant. In doing so you only proclaim, all the more loudly, how entirely relevant your relative lack of adult experience is. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• One week This appears to be at the low end of the range of those who expressed a specific time (which isn't many). My impression, and I could very well be wrong, is that KW wasn't intending to make the charge implied by the careful wording, but intending to skirt close to the edge, to see how the community would react. Those types of posts often deserve trouts rather than blocks, but the history means it ought to be more than a trout. There's a bit too much hand-wringing over the implications.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite. I don't see any other reasonable alternative when taking this intentional personal attack with the lengthy history of disruption evident from their block log. I don't believe allowing an unblock request any sooner than two months from now would be acceptable, given how quickly this incident followed his most recent block, which was for a month (and he was unblocked early, just a few days shy of three weeks ago). Incivility, targeted attacks, and disruption like this do significant long-term damage to the community and, as a result, the project. user:j (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Which "community" would that be? The faux Ku Klux Klan who frequent boards such as this one in search of someone to lynch? Eric Corbett 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  I don't know this editor personally, I don't know his viewpoints. I do know he has a lengthy history of being blocked for disruption and civility, and I do know the personal attack he crafted in this case was particularly nasty. I really don't know what to think about your position that other editors taking issue with his behaviour is akin to Klan activity and your view that an indefinite block supported by community consensus is best described as a "lynching." But I don't think you're doing him any favours in your arguments, frankly. user:j (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  Seems to be a great deal you don't know then. Eric Corbett 00:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite: This user has definitely not learned his lesson from his other indef-blocks. His attitude towards others at recent RfA's was atrocious. He harassed others, including me that did not have the same opinion as him. Maybe K.W can come back in 10-12 months showing better, but with many restrictions, but otherwise, KW should remain blocked. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite please. His history of being plain disruptive is ridiculously long, and why he's still unblocked even more ridiculous. If he'd been a new editor, he would probably have been indefinite blocked more than a couple dozen times (Without unblock, I mean). Being a prolific editor must not come in the way of completely decimating and showing an utter disrespect for one of our pillars. No more editors running away because of incivility please. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  Which editors have "run away because of incivility"? That's a cheap shot I think you'll find very hard to back up. Eric Corbett 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite based on the clear signs that KW has not changed and will not change. If we're going to imagine an epiphany will somehow happen in a few weeks based on a finite block, then the starting point would be two months, as the previous block for this was one month. KW has already demonstrated an ability to wait out moderately lengthy blocks and then return to the exact same pattern of behaviour. I would also support those above who have called for a RfA topic ban consecutive with the block. Not only would such a topic ban avoid the problem of his behaviour there "disenfranchising the nice people by chasing them away", but it would also assist KW in not getting blocked again, because at least half of his problems seem to start at RfAs. There was a time in 2009 and 2010 when KW participated little or not at all at RfA, and in those years there was an absence of this cycle of personal attacks and blocks for him as well. (Perhaps RfA is not just hideously broken but also has deleterious effects on participants.) In a theoretical future where KW is unblocked and contributing constructively, it would be best - for him, for everyone else, and for the encyclopedia - to keep it that way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite ~ that is with no fixed termination point but a clear intimation that it will end. That end must be precipitated by KW making a realistic and believable (i.e., not just a form of words) request which acknowledges that, if he didn't intend the outrageous implication, his words were extremely poorly chosen or, if he did he was absolutely wrong to do so. Either way, he has to refrain from such comments in the future. This WP is a two pronged project and, while KW may be brilliant at the one, presenting the knowledge of the world to the world, he certainly at times sucks at the other, working as part of a viable self-regulating community to do the first. Once he is willing to work at both, why would we leave him blocked? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• At the risk of being called an elitist, I think this section would be a lot shorter and a lot easier to read if people took the A in AN more seriously. I see editors with a couple of thousand edits and no specific knowledge commenting here, throwing their "votes" in the mix here, as if those comments were called for or appreciated. So I'm not surprised that some comment on a lynch mob mentality. As a reminder: this is not the court of public opinion, and AN is not experiencing a lack of opinions. Lest we forget, no matter what you think KW deserves or doesn't deserve, the fact is that he thinks he has work to do here and he has invested in our project. A decision to ban or block him indefinitely should not be taken lightly. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Presumably not taking the decision lightly is why it's useful for a very broad spectrum of the community (including, yes, people with "only" a few thousand edits!) to comment. Deciding that the consensus of the community is meaningful only when it favors decisions of which you approve, is never going to work I'm afraid. For "administrator consensus" WP:AE should be your choice of forum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems the two of you can't even agree on rules governing who should participate in the evaluative discussion at AN. (Maybe if there were some rules to go by it would reduce some of the chaos?! [But said chaos is a beloved part of this WP venue, right?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• AN is a community noticeboard -- even the elected elitists say so Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions. NE Ent 12:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• This particular discussion is more like a feeding frenzy (still, thank you for the link, Ent) and I suspect a couple of ulterior motives--one, the "let's jump on the editor we hate" mindset, and the other of treating AN(I) as the proverbial springboard to RfA. Demiurge, you don't know what decision I approve of. I may very well not have an opinion, and it would be courteous of you to not presume to be able to read my mind. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for that Drmies, your combination of "I suspect a couple of ulterior motives" and "it would be courteous of you to not presume to be able to read my mind" all in one paragraph really brightened up my day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000 per BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Who is "BK" here? Black Kite has not offered any reasoning as to why an interaction ban would be justified, useful, or solve the problem that we're seeing here. Who is the other "BK" editor to whom you're referring? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant Black Kite, and the reason I support an IBAN between you and Kiefer would be I think rather obvious. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all. I'm just one of a number of people at whom he has chosen to direct personal attacks on more than one occasion. What that has to do with an IBAN remains unclear. He's been blocked for this multiple times when I was completely uninvolved, just as I was completely uninvolved with the RfA nonsense that started this incident off - I did not comment there at all, on either page, or even on TRM's talk page when the argument moved there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Time served Granted, KW's comment was quite snarky. But this grew out of KW being badgered at an RFA for an oppose that looks to me to have been intended to improve the encyclopedia. 1) Indeffing people for things they say after having been badgered, while ignoring those who badgered them, is not a good idea. 2) The block is based on something KW didn't actually say. As alf laylah wa laylah remarked above, blocking editors for things they didn't say, on the grounds that it is their fault that someone was able to misinterpret their words, is also not a great idea. 3) Many of KW's previous blocks, which are being used to justify his indeffing, also grew out his being badgered for good faith opposes at RFA. Driving a person off Wikipedia largely for making thoughtful opposes at RFAs is really not a good idea. So, if this indeffing of KW stands, it will set three troublesome precedents simultaneously. Cardamon (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your logic doesn't hang together at all. How does KW being criticised at RfA by GiantSnowman and TRM, justify him making a comment of this nature about me, when I didn't comment at the RfA at all, and didn't even offer an opinion on his behaviour there? You seem to be making an argument for a topic ban from RfA, if what you're saying is that the mere stress of his !vote being questioned there causes him to lash out at uninvolved parties in completely different fora. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You were encouraging someone who he was currently having 'issues' with to open an RFC on him. Its naive to not expect a response. Granted the response was a bit extreme. But dont poke a badger with a stick and you wont get bitten. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was informing someone who had asked about raising an RFC that there had already been one, and advising him that another one might result in some problematic responses. Far from encouragement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Its a good thing we dont respond to people based on what we *think* they are implying rather than what they actually say then isnt it? Oh wait... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) First, his comment wasn't at all justified; in this non-admin's opinion it's worth a block of a day. Maybe two days. Also, it looks like this may have grown out of the RFA. You gave advice on taking KW to process at the talk page of an editor who had clashed with KW at the RFA a few hours earlier. Then KW showed up and made a comment similar to, but milder than, the one he later got blocked for. Cardamon (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Demiurge most certainly did not egg me on; "And although I was unaware of the previous RFC/U, looking at the close, that sums up the major reason why I don't want to file one at this time - Kiefer disrupted it so much, drawing in the other parties to do the same, that nothing happened. Which is exactly what is happening at the RfA thread." is a quote of my response to him. Demiurge isn't a saint, but please, when evidence one way or another is this easy to find, use it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Time Served With an admonition to keep accusations of inappropriate behavior to himself or forward to an appropriate authority (arbcom/wmf) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Time served + Apology, unless you start showing some consistency and block people like Demiurge and Prioryman for far worse personal attacks.Volunteer Marek 07:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• And note: from the above discussion it doesn't even look like the original block has consensus so why the hey are you asking for duration? That seems like some new fangled way of forum shopping (ask for legitimacy of a block, when it starts to look like no consensus start a new discussion about length...). Just overturn the damn thing already.Volunteer Marek 07:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  I presume you are saying time served and the blocking admin should appoligize to Kiefer?--My76Strat (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  I noticed the same thing. It is a manipulative argumentative technique. ("How long should the block be?" presupposes the block was/is valid in the first place, and hops over that Q. [Another: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"]) Good for you, VMarek. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  You guys really need to come up for some fresh air every now and then!--My76Strat (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, the question of validity was answered a couple sections above. The validity of the block has alrady been widely endorsed. Resolute 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  No, no it hasn't. Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek 17:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  And it's been widely criticized, too. (Too many assumptions. The process is unclear. Are you suggesting each individual editor s/b "closing crat" re that decision? What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  It's not just a manipulative argumentative technique it's a sneaky way of falsely legitimizing a block that has no legitimacy to begin with by quickly moving the goal post while no one's paying attention. It's actually quite disruptive in fact and whoever opened this thread should be warned about using such underhanded tactics.Volunteer Marek 17:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, administrators are not required to establish consensus before placing a block, particularly in egregious cases like this one. And in this instance, the blocking administrator specifically asked for community feedback on the length of the block. So the person opening the thread was acting entirely appropriately. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• 1 week We're being asked for a specific figure to replace the provisional placeholder of indefinite. To continue to say indefinite therefore doesn't answer the question. Given that the context was a discussion about an interaction ban, then it is to be expected that there will be hostile comments about editors' behaviour and motives. A duration of 1 week seems an appropriate period for tempers to cool, without us forgetting the point of the discussion. Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Time served It was a stupid, provocative post. I'm "special" cause I appear to be the only editor here without sufficient ESP to know exactly what KW meant by the post. The mature response would have been to say Hey, that kind of reads like you're accusing an editor of being a pedophile ... is that what you really mean? Instead we get a whole lot of overreaction -- please take a healthy dose of Wikidryl -- unblock and move on. NE Ent 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Time served: unblock We already known there is an acrimonious dispute between Kiefer and Demiurge, that is why the interaction ban was proposed. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, just enable the interaction ban and this pointlessness goes away. Blocking such a good contributor when we can solve the issue boggles the mind, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Those above who say whenever the User provides redress and agrees not to do it again have the tenor of the discussion for the blocking admin. As to an interaction ban, no problem is "solved" by saying you have insulted your way into penalties against others, it just regularly heaps more problems upon it, and the problems become systematic rather than limited. As to RfA ban, well, it looks like that needs its own discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock Hope KW's statement below puts and end to this. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite per Demiurge1000, Kudpung and Worm That Turned. I believe that this is only necessary because if an unblock occurred, based on previous matters, Kiefer would continue with the behaviour that he showed in the comment directed at Demiurge1000. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He retracted the specific sentence at issue. If you think there is a long term issue deal with that through an RFCU. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no good reason not to deal with this here, as we have done in the past. I see no benefit from repeating this at another venue when the well-documented long term issues can be addressed here and now. The pseudo-retraction doesn't cut it for me and it doesn't prevent a reccurrence of the same types of comments and ensuing disruption. - MrX 16:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And that's why this whole "indefinite is not infinite" mantra is such bullshit. What happens in these 'two minutes of hate' is that the blocked user is required to humiliate themselves by "retracting" and "apologizing" and when they do that, assholes people like you come around and smirk "that's not enough humiliation for me, more please". Disgusting. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented what I said and flavored it with your own brand of 'two minutes of hate'. Do you have anything constructive to add? - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a really, really good reason not to deal with this here and now. KW was indeffed for a remark. He apologized and would have struck it had he been able to, so he ought to be unblocked. The fact that a bunch of other people started throwing out examples of his other putative sins and shortcomings in random order without his being able to participate in the disorganized shouting match at all makes this an incredibly inappropriate forum for sanctioning him for anything other than the one comment for which he was blocked, if that. If there are long-term problems with KW's behavior then have an RFC/U or at least a thread here that's organized for that specific purpose and in which he can participate fully. This current process is sketchy enough given what it's actually about. If it's meant to represent a reasonable process for indeffing KW for a bunch of other reasons it's a sham and a farce. Try to maintain some dignity, for God's sake. I won't waste space asking you to have empathy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He was indeffed for a completely over-the-line remark, one in a long history of such remarks. While I agree that this process is near-useless, I do think it is better than starting over in RFC/U. I also agree that he should be able to comment in this discussion and please don't assume that I don't have empathy for him. - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is precisely that it has not been documented. Where is the collection of diffs showing a long term behaviour? Rather everyone is making big assertions with no evidence to back it up. At an RFCU the long term evidence can be laid out, and we can get closer to the truth rather than just lynching the editor over claims of long term issues. There are times when long term issues can be dealt with at AN, but they generally involve diffs of clear issues like clear POV pushing etc. I'll ignore the stupidity of thinking the comment (that lead to the block) was about sexual grooming; what if his allegation about politicking and manipulation was true? It is your opinion that we should block editors who make any sort of allegation out of hand, rather than give them the opportunity to substantiate it or retract it? Often AN/ANI are more about rhetoric and the superficial appearance of having a valid argument than substance, which is why it should be hashed out elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The only stupidity here is not recognizing the obvious innuendo, but that's not at the core of the long-term issue. And, no, I do think we should give editors a chance to retract unfortunate statements with their agreement not to keep repeating the same disruptive behaviours, again and again. If you remember, we kicked StillStanding-247 off the island for making a joke in poor taste because of how it was perceived. Let's at least be consistent. - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No he wasn't, he was blocked for his continuous disruption and as a final straw the blocking admin interpreted his comment as a threat to violence [14]: "Massive battleground mentality, assuming bad faith, and worst of all, threatening violence. Enough is enough.". Read the actual ANI thread again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. He was a tendentious editor. I have not heard anyone claiming that Kiefer is a tendentious editor, or in fact problematic with edits in any capacity. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, color me astounded that you can interpret this as an editor threatening violence at the hand of Adjwilley but you can't see how this might be interpreted as accusing another editor of paedophilia. - MrX 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You misread my comment. I suggest you read it again rather than constructing straw men. Let me quote ANI which I linked to, "Fully agree, there is enough other things to justify the block (such as falling off the WP:CLUETRAIN and the incivility etc), but interpreting [38] as a threat of violence isn't one of them." IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You're correct. I apologize. I misinterpreted your words. - MrX 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Time served (or short cooling down period) + promise to work on civility: I interpreted the blocking statement as intending sexual implications, but the statement does not make an unambiguous claim and I’m not a mind reader and neither is anyone else here. I also found Kiefer’s statements in AfD insulting to the candidate. My gut reaction is to indefinite block, but the larger goal here is to build an encyclopedia and from what I can see, this is what Kiefer does well. At any age, an indication of maturity is the ability not to react to every little thing that we interpret as a slight. Nobody is perfect here and there is usually a grain of truth in all sides of a dispute, but mature people at any age find ways of not reacting and escalating disputes. If Kiefer promises to work on this, I think he should be given another chance.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock immediately As far as I can see, the statement below from KW acknowledges that he wanted to withdraw the statement as soon as he realized it was being misinterpreted. I'm willing to AGF that he didn't mean anything sexual (and the reference to IRC does support that benign interpretation). Therefore, there really is no non-punitive reason for him to stay blocked. --regentspark (comment) 17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I would accept an immediate unblock based on one condition: that a RFC/U is immediately filed by the unblocking admin into Kiefer's conduct generally. If people want to investigate Demiurge1000 in the same RFC/U, I wouldn't have a problem with that. And we need to have a promise from all parties that this RFC/U won't go the way of the previous one (ie, being heavily disrupted), else it'll probably end up having to go to ARBCOM. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You, or another interested editor, would need to file the RFCU because it 1. needs to be accompanied by evidence 2. the basis of the dispute needs to be certified by 2 other editors Wikipedia:RFC/U#Minimum_requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why the RFC/U couldn't be filed by the closing admin, even if they had to rope in two other editors (hypothetically, let's state Dennis closes this, files the RFC/U, along with two other admins). At the very least, the RFC/U should be filed promptly after any unblock, although I'm not sure who will do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you think there should be an RFC then you should start one. Why are you trying to get other editors to do something you're evidently not willing to do yourself?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am willing to do so; however, I would rather not as I would prefer someone more experienced with Kiefer (and/or more level headed) to do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you're not experienced with Kiefer then why do you think there should be an RfC/U about him?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented in this discussion for a discussion about a supposed long term issue. Pointing at someone's block log does not constitute evidence. The uninvolved admin closing this discussion would then need to collect the evidence themselves for the RFCU and then write a summary of the long term issues showing how they tried to resolve the issues. Considering this block discussion is about short term issues, it is non-trivial for an uninvolved person to file an RFCU. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC/U providing detailed documentation of these issues (and a couple of others) has already been done. Years ago. In fact, my merely pointing that out to someone who was unaware of it, rose to the level of being compared to "poking a badger with a stick". Strange - RFC/U's are not much use if you can be accused of baiting just for daring to mention one's existence. The block log is all subsequent to the RFC/U. Have the issues been dealt with? No. Has any apparent attempt to deal with the issues been made? No, actually it's been getting steadily worse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: This block is being discussed at Wikipediocracy, which may explain the current votes. 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.6.169 (talk)
  • That is an amazing show of bad faith and explains why you posted as an IP, whoever you are. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Many of those who complain loudly about the block of Kiefer, who is in Wikipediocracy, are themselves members, like Hillbillyholiday81, Volunteer Marek, IRWolfie, et cetera. Kiefer announced his blocking discussion in Wikipediocracy, and that may obviously be changing the outcome. Don't shoot the messenger, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.6.169 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
      • IRWolfie isn't part of that particular groupthink, as far as I know. There are a few others who've posted here with similar views that are, but one could AGF-assume that most of them would have arrived here under their own steam anyway. That said, KW posted for support at Wikipediocracy almost immediately, and there ended up being two ongoing discussions about this, one of which he's been updating throughout the day; the other contains suggestions that my real life identity should be hunted down so that my hand "can be firmly held to the stove" (I assume that's a metaphor for something or other). Pretty much par for the course. (Last time I looked, they'd concluded I'm a sinister right-handed libertarian atheist Christian conservative communist from Wisconsin, born in 1908, employed in rocketry, and spending my leisure time badger-baiting. Or... something like that? )--Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a member of a free to register forum that discusses wikipedia does not imply any sort of conformity of views on this issue (or in fact any issue despite what I once thought, just browse some of the threads, there is no uniformity of views), nor does it mean someone reads all threads (many of which are very boring to me). Worm is also a member for example, yet he voted for indef. Just because someone is a member of the forum does not mean they came to the discussion that way either. I came to this discussion because I left a comment (an apology) on Kiefer's page before the incident and was reading the reply, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• • An incredibly poor attempt to poison the well. In the interests of fairness and balance (for all that it matters), discussion (of sorts) has been doing the rounds on IRC - I've seen administrators being harassed over the refusal to revision delete KW's initial comment (the one that is the root cause for all of this) and there has been various attempts to influence various people to vote for an indefinite block. The issue, of course, is that both venues (Wikipediocracy and the WP IRC channels) are used by people who are perfectly entitled to have an opinion, those who use Wikipediocracy are, by and large, Wikipedia editors with the same rights and privileges every other WP editor has. Nick (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Put down the matches and step away from the pyre. Time served seems reasonable. There may be an RFC/U, but that's a different question isn't it? Intothatdarkness 19:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• 1 month should be enough. Clearly we need to ban these editors from interacting with eachother or thel will get blocked again. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• 3 months Last block was one month and didn't seem to do the trick, make this 3, the next 6, and so on. Either KW will realize that he needs to change the way he interacts or he won't, and if he won't then the longer blocks will eventually remove him from the community. I'm not sure why we have to get into these protracted debates anytime KW or certain other editors cross the line - just treat them like they are anyone else in the community: escalate block duration and move forward. Sædon^talk 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about the escalating blocks concept here. There are many users who believe that interpersonal disputes are somewhat different than, say, vandalism or whatnot and so shouldn't be treated the same. There's also a bit of a weird double standard where long-time users (or those with "more valuable edits") are given more leniency than new contributors. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Not really weird, quite normal actually. Makes perfect sense to tolerate more from good content writers. Happens everywhere and in every profession. Good pilots, hot shot traders, rainmakers, superstar professors, etc. are all allowed more than their fair share of eccentricities because they're good at what matters. --regentspark (comment) 23:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• 3-6 months. His block log—and the ridiculous backpedaling (on the part of administrators) that accompanies almost every entry—is literally laughable. Having not seen his page since I blocked him almost a year ago, I actually did laugh when I saw it. "Indefinite" is too wishy-washy, unless you're talking infinite, which we are not. So set something concrete and stick with it. Based on the previous blocks, all of which are for the same thing, a matter of months seems reasonable. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  What will have changed in 3–6 months? This notion of escalating punishments is quite simply absurd. Eric Corbett 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, don't get me wrong - I have not the slightest notion that anything will improve here. It's not about punishing him, or teaching him a lesson, since he is obviously quite beyond that. It's about lengthening the time between episodes like this that take away time from good editors. Blocks aren't for teaching people lessons, they're for preventing disruption. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, right. Eric Corbett 02:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Time served per regentspark and NE Ent. Andreas JN466 04:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by KW

copied from the editor's talk page

I have stated my concern with a long-term mostly low-intensity conflict in which high-intensity conflicts happen, often because Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors. Because of WP demographics and because of the obvious, such naive editors tend to be young men, perhaps boys. When somebody complained about the sentence, I first clarified my intention and asked that somebody strike it for me, because I had been immediately blocked and could not remove it myself.

Evidence or retraction requested

KW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors".

I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable.

So, where's the evidence?

(And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

KW is the one who made the statement. You should perhaps make the request on his talk page since he can't reply here. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He is indeed the one who made the statement, so he should have provided his evidence when doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

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

---

Some editors are offering the IVote Indefinite. Does this mean a Site-Ban by the community, or does this mean to keep him hanging until some unspecified criterion is met? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You've been here how long and don't know the diff between a block and a ban?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Who said the criterion was unspecified? I specified one above "until such time that KW shows understanding that these sort of accusations are unacceptable". Dennis Brown mentioned an "epiphany". There are many comments from KW that would lead me to supporting his unblock, but at the moment he's making things worse for himself - I don't believe that a time-limited block will change his attitude, but when his attitude changes he should be unblocked. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A ban is a policy decision. A block is a technical action which can be used to enforce a ban. When editors argue for an indefinite block, they may be using terminology loosely and asking for a ban, or they may be asking for an unspecified block until he apologizes. The former is clear enough as to intent, even if a sloppy use of terminology. My question about an indefinite block until he apologizes or has an "epiphany" is that he has apologized in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Under no circumstance should any of this be taken as even considering a site ban. A ban discussion would be wholly inappropriate. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• • See: Wikipedia:Banning policy, and WP:INDEF. Blocking should not be confused with banning, a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, are likely to be blocked to enforce the ban.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User Talk page protected

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

---

The combative discussions continued on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz so I've given it a days full protection. I've had a couple of requests to unprotect at User talk:Salix alba#KW talk page and Kiefer has emailed for it to be unprotected. I'm inclined to let to protection run its course, but if any admin want to change it that fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I support this action. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to your administrative decision, just curious as to why you protected the page instead of revoking his access to it? Technical 13 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, so that other people don't continue the argument while he stands around helplessly unable to respond. T13 - you were asked to self-impose an AN/ANI topic-ban ... this question could have been asked directly to the protector (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Partially also so that I didn't have to change the main block. I didn't want an indefinite block on the talk page just a short one to diffuse the situation. You can't have different part of a block running for different times.--Salix (talk): 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins is exactly correct. It was the best possible solution in a situation with no good options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

KW does not have email enabled...if he's blocked can he still enable it? Just asking since I don't know...and since his talkpage is protected.--MONGO 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that preferences are not affected by a block. We don't know when he disabled email, but I don't think it has always been disabled. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have revdel'd KW's original comment. Regardless of what it explicitly said, consensus is fairly clear that it contained a deliberate implication by Kiefer. If any admin disagrees with this, feel free to revert it; I won't take offence. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it was required. I maintain the primary issue was intentionally crafting the words to be easily misunderstood for the purpose of causing drama, rather than the words themselves. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree, and I very strongly object to the revdel of all edits made to the page between 20:39 UTC yesterday and 17:05 UTC today, inclusive. This revdel even removed postings to completely different top-level sections of WP:AN, as well as many posts in which members of the community expressed their views on the duration of the ban and suggestions concerning a proposed topic ban from RfA. --Stfg (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
      • All of those posts have been restored, with the comment from KW excised. Nothing else is missing, but to revdel an older post, all subsequent edits have to be briefly removed as well. Horologium (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see, thanks. The diffs still cannot be obtained from the history file, nor from editors' contributions pages. I do object to what has been done, and wasn't it wheel warring? --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Based on my familiarity with Basalisk, I don't think it was wheel warring, just misplaced enthusiasm. I have no issue with the comment being removed from the page, but I think they should all be in the edit history, as they don't fit the criteria to RevDel. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Would you care to undo it then Dennis Brown? Prodego ^talk 18:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
              • It looks like Horologium said he already has. Wheel warring requires intent, and this is just a mix up, no one is trying to step on anyone, no need for feathers to get ruffled here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When I read KW original post, it set my mind racing about Demiurge's conduct on IRC. I realised that that's not ok, as what KW said was baseless. We shouldn't leave those kinds of posts lying around to place suggestive images in people's minds. Stfg - thanks for raising it on my talk page. I didn't realise the post had already been removed and restored, and wouldn't have removed it again had I realised. I skimmed through the discussion here and in all fairness the only mention of it was from Darkness Shines. I meant what I said in my previous post - I did this because I felt it was the right thing to do, but if someone thinks this is a bad decision then go ahead and revert it; it's relatively easy to undo. I won't mind. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I disagree with the revdel, too, and I'll undo it, if there are no strong objections. There's nothing explicitly requiring revdel in the edits, and given that KW was blocked for what boils down to his choice of words (intentional or otherwise), it doesn't seem fair to him to remove them from public view, where they can't be accurately judged. (FWIW, Horologium appears to have restored parts of the removed text but nto actually undone the revdel.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Trout, self-served by db

Ok, part of this was my fault and I may have given Basalisk some bad info in an email. But it is just a misunderstanding, of which I will share in the blame. Writ, if you will do the honors (I've never UNrevdel'ed before) I would be in your debt. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That isn't true, Dennis didn't offer me bad info. I simply didn't know about the previous discussion, which was my oversight. I've apologised to Prodego. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I should have caught it in the email and I didn't, so that is my fault. Too many distractions at work today and the internet isn't working right and a technician is on the way. Had I caught that, this wouldn't have happened. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, the edit history is restored. I've left the comments redacted in the live version of the page (without prejudice as to whether they should be restored on the live page, too), as I don't feel as strongly about that as I did the revdel; his comments can be seen in the edit history at least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Basalisk, I apologise for rasing wheel warring. I skimmed WP:WW, but didn't grok that it requires intent. I've never doubted your good intent. --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Eric Corbett

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

---

• "I find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick..."[15]
• "Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot."[16]
• "Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology."[17]

Is this his attempt at humour? Other editors really shouldn't have to accept a constant undercurrent of incivility from a small group of editors just to try to improve Wikipedia. I think he's trying to make a case for User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz by being even more incivil and by lodging new personal attacks to distract from the original... user:j (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you certain you've been thinking at all? Eric Corbett 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think enough drama has happened for one day. Eric, that wasn't your best phraseology at work, even if tempers are running high. I suggest we move along and not make this any larger than it needs to be. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  I get really pissed off with these childish reports to mommy because someone said something I don't like. It's about time WP grew up. Eric Corbett 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what Eric Corbett's age is, but it is about time that you, Eric, grew up. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So you have no idea what you're talking about then. QED. Eric Corbett 01:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about, tempers are high, everyone needs to just go edit articles or have a tea. There is more context than meets the eye here, and jockeying for the last word isn't helping. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Witless comments of this sort are typical of the kind of people who want to be friends of bullies because they like and envy the power that bullies have: enfeebled attempts to do the same thing that amount to little more than a kid saying "you smell". KW's history of personal attacks eptomised clever and witty bullying of the kind designed to belittle and humiliate others, all the more obnoxious because it was so skillful. The repeated sarcastic remarks of this editor combined with the desperate desire to assert claims to intellectual authority represent the problem that emerges when editors like KW's acquire cheer-leaders. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved Paul B's comment to its chronological position, as its previous insertion made it appear that Dennis's comment was a reply to Paul rather than to Eric. --Stfg (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your username is a letter. Your argument is invalid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• And it's not even a vowel, for cryin' out loud... pft! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on the edits, not the editor's username! :P Seriously, though, I appreciate the levity, but there's an editor having a meltdown, calling other editors "pricks" and "idiots." And his response to this thread makes it clear he doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that behaviour. user:j (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is a lot of background which makes this different from standard "that editor was uncivil" cases. No one is going to be sanctioned for the above diffs, and so long as there is no provocation there will be no unpleasant commentary. There is no meltdown. This is an admin noticeboard and plenty of people have noticed this thread and would comment if they felt it would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest this section be hatted. It's not about KW, and if anyone has any gripes with Eric they should take it elsewhere - otherwise this is just creating diversion and more stupid drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've fixed the problem of it being a subsection. And I agree with J (The Devil's Advocate's attempts to divert the discussion notwithstanding) that those comments are extremely inappropriate. The sad thing is, if he made those comments in real life, Eric would have long since been kicked out of his job or out of any sort of organization. Silverseren^C 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why Malleus was granted a user name changein an effort to clear his block log is beyond me, and why people tolerate him is also beyond me. What's it going to take to get him to be blocked and actually stay blocked? It really doesn't matter what a wonderful content contributor he is: his demeanour should have resulted in a ban years ago, and the change in username has done nothing to clean it up.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kww, suggesting that MF got a new name to hide his block log is...well, let me not say what I think of it. Why he changed user names is a matter of record, and what you're doing is insinuating, and I thought that you would be above that. The kind of passive-aggressive BS civility complaining we see all over the current page is far more destructive to the project than Malleus/Eric's incivility. I don't think his commentary in the section above is very helpful, but your dramatizing (and SilverSeren's) is even less helpful. Do you want to know why I tolerate him, and why I think that he's an asset to the project? Because, in the end, we should be producing well-written and well-researched material. The rest is secondary. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently actually changed to using his real name. I agree that deportment is secondary, but there's a big difference between secondary and inconsequential.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

When his cost to the wiki is a number of people leaving the project, I think it outweighs any amount of material he could produce. Silverseren^C 05:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd better start targetting me, then, Silver. I suspect that a lot of people have left due to things I have said or done. Or, instead, you could start thinking in terms of net positives. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are any net positives when an editor is making the editing environment toxic for everyone else. Silverseren^C 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Eric's intentions at Wikipedia are not up for discussion here and this subsection is out of order. One more comment and I'll hat it and start throwing some warnings around for disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's why I tried making it an actual section and not a sub-section, so it could be a separate discussion. Why are his personal attacks not up for discussion? Silverseren^C 07:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Because no admin will block him based on civility anymore (despite it still being a pillar) because they know another admin will come and undo it in 5 minutes time. Its a waste of everyone's time and effort discussing it, so the best option is just for everyone to shut up and let him curse and call people names all he wants. Blah blah content creator blah blah special flower blah. The best option is to either ignore him, unless you have to work with him, in which case bear in mind he will be able to call you all the names under the sun but you cannot respond. With the implication you probably deserve it and should just grow a thicker skin. This is the state we are currently at. I will add the Kudpungs comments above are part of the reason why the general impression is that Eric enjoys special protection. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowing down to the unblockables isn't the proper response. Silverseren^C 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Seren, the man said drop it.Volunteer Marek 08:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No. And nice to see you too, Marek. Silverseren^C 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I could consider myself a victim of Eric's attacks, but I don't. This whole sordid affair has got tempers running high on all sides, and unfortunately Eric is one of those who hasn't held it. I don't hold any grudges, and I know they're a very good editor from what I've seen with the Sunbeam Tiger article. I've clearly overstepped the mark at times in the RfA, as most of us on that talk page did. I suggest this particular section is closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring. Please support new policy proposal.

A bored spotlight-seeker trolling for attention with ambiguous wording is blocked and there's a gratifying storm of response. This whole thread about one of our favourite incivility stars covers 67% of the Administrators' noticeboard right now, by my simple measurement. (It's 34,5 screenfuls on my good big monitor.) Meanwhile in another part of the galaxy (ANI), there's a dry-as-dust attempt to defend the integrity of Wikipedia articles by topic-banning a long-running manifestation of a self-promoting sock/meat-puppeteer. Old arbitration case about it is here, ANI thread about the topic ban here, with its currently three comments (which is about — starting to count — losing my place — oh — it's currently about one fiftieth of the number of comments made above on the block length alone), which is hardly enough for a topic ban, at least I don't think it would be proper to institute a ban on such a "consensus". The contrast got me thinking about making "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring" policy, as it already is our practice, and I'm just floating it here in the hope of a good start-up discussion before I create the RFC.

• Proposal: "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring" should be policy. Please comment below, stating: a) Support, b) Oppose, c) No, just stick it in MastCell's Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, d) Why is Wikipedia is an MMORPG tagged as {{humor}}? e) No, I think I'll just go contribute to the ANI topic ban discussion, f) other. (Don't in any case bother to tell me it's moot because topic bans ought to be posted on AN in the first place, not ANI. So they ought, but sometimes, as in the sock/meat-puppet case, they arise from an ANI discussion and stay there. And we all know ANI, other things being equal, gets more attention than AN anyway.) Bishonen | talk 10:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

Page move assistance

I need help moving Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer born 1977) to Andy Gray (footballer, born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer, born 1977) and fix Andrew Gray accordingly per Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Birth_date_format_conformity_.28second_round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Bad move, it should never have been requested and should never have been granted. The new naming guidelines are controversial - as Tony full well knows - and there have been issues raised with the RFC process on the talk page. GiantSnowman 08:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Redirect

Hello, Is it possible to make the following wikipedia page redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Soltz to http://www.bloomu.edu/president . Bloomsburg is an accredited university and it's more relevant to link to the external presidents about page as it's more up to date + relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow82x (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia pages can't redirect to external sources. If Mr Soltz is indeed notable and passes our notability policies for his own Wikipedia page then that link could be included in the article, however. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Black Kite mentions two different reasons, not one, that we can't do this. Our participants generally agree on the qualifications for getting an article. At the same time, even if 100% of participants agreed with your proposal, it wouldn't happen because the software will throw a fit and be unable to understand it. We could create a page whose contents were just the link (but again, please don't do this, because we've decided that such pages can be removed quickly and without discussion), but it's not possible to set up URL redirection from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Soltz to http://www.bloomu.edu/president. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP might have been asking to replace the former red link to Soltz in the Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania infobox with an external link to his bio. That's not a great solution either per MOS, but it is done sometimes. In any case, I've created a viable stub for David L. Soltz. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow request and Beeblebrox premature closure request.

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

---

Begoon, there was no need for vulgarity despite the fact that it was reverted for being against the rules of posting to a closed discussion. Anyways... All I wanted to say here is thank you to everyone that participated in the discussion. I found your input in someways enlightening. I'll be honest, I don't get sarcasm very well, and I don't understand asking the asking of questions that you don't want an answer to. I'm pretty sure there was a pillar I read somewhere that said it is always best to try and be as clear and concise as possible while remaining civil. I've made a note and apology on Beeblbrox's user page, as I really was not trying to attack him and I actually had an edit page open to send him the AN-notice template but everything happened so fast and I'm dealing with a baby trying to pull her playcenter over on herself (she's in her high chair eating lunch right now) that I didn't get a chance to submit and turned it into an apology instead. Anyways, thank you all again. TheShadowCrow and I will be back at some point to request a full ban lift, and it will be within a reasonable amount of time. I will likely be back in here much sooner with my (Non-administrator comment) and Template:Cue on other matters, and I hope that you will AGF and at least consider my future comments with neutrality. Happy editing all! Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your well-intentioned, but poorly-executed thread above shows that you do not yet understand enough about Wikipedia's core policies and processes to make too many nao's and cue's for awhile yet. You're best to watch and learn for awhile before opening threads or commenting. This very thread alone shows you don't get it yet! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Looking for a few good admins

It's that ole pain in the ass Beeblebrox with his giant policy RFCs again, looking for some volunteers to get on board to administrate and eventually close Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC, which has just opened. Potential benefits include harassment, trolling, and the near certainty that no matter how you close it you will be accused of some sort of wrongdoing. Sounds great, right?

Actually I'm not sure this one will be so bad, its bound to be a cakewalk compared to the pending changes rfcs. I need somewhere between two and four admins or other experienced users to keep things under control and determine where consensus has led us when it is all over. I'd like to get that locked in now while we are still pretty early in the process, it's only been open for about a half an hour. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to be a part of the conclusion of this RfC if you're not opposed to me wanting to help. Technical 13 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You voted in the RFC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I did vote after I made this offer, but am not participating in any discussions or really arguing for any of the possible outcomes as I really don't care. If that vote excludes me from helping tally up and determine the consensus, that is not a big deal to me and I have no problem being excluded from that task. As a side note, there seems to be too many options available and it is heavily diluting the voting pool and consensus may be difficult to pull out of it. I believe it is going to end up being that two or three options will be left standing out of the eight ten options and will those will need a second RfC to allow the people who supported one of the other seven or eight to refine their position. I know that is probably blatantly obvious to some, but sometimes seeing the obvious spelled out is useful. Technical 13 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am not an admin, but I do consider myself part of the "experienced users" group. I also have absolutely no predisposition towards any outcome, as the ref desk isn't an area I've ever spent any time at. I have experience doing difficult closes over at Wikidata (or at least, as difficult as they get over there), and I'd be willing to be a closer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help close but not moderate. I have experience doing this - I was one of the three closers of the Muhammad images RfC and am assigned to close the Jerusalem RfC. I don't have any strong opinions about the refdesk or any other COI. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• So far the only proposal getting significant support is "status quo", so this might not actually be all that difficult to close :-). Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If I don't participate, I'll help out. Can't be as bad as the last one I closed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well finding volunteers certainly isn't seeming as hard as it has sometimes been in the past. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to pick and choose who does what myself, if you all want to organize a team of closers that would be great, but it might be good to have at least one person willing to keep an eye on the rfc and the talk page while it is underway as there is already some personal acrimony seen there. (and of course me and my motivations are being attacked, but I fully expected that so don't worry about it.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

More admin help needed at ITN

A few days after I posted a request for admin assessment at ITN, there is another item with what appears to have fairly obvious consensus to post (but take that assessment with a grain of salt since I nominated the item) left languishing for >24 hours. It seems to be happening a lot lately with even the most obvious items sticking around 12+ hours, so I am thinking we need more admin help at ITN in general. There are several admins who often participate in discussions (which naturally makes us ineligible to post a given item). A couple admins who rarely discuss but often post haven't been around much recently, so more people willing to pop in once in a while and assess items would be helpful.

The particular item in question is "FC Bayern Munich treble" found here. No special knowledge of the ITN process is required, just the ability to assess consensus. However, if desired, the general guidelines on ITN can be found at Wikipedia:In the news. In response to a question asked last time, ITN has a "normalish" standard of consensus - by the numbers, items are usually (unless support arguments are weak) posted when above the 60-65% level, and are occasionally posted even below 50% if support arguments are stronger than opposition. When potentially posting an item (i.e. when consensus is there), you also need to make sure the article is of adequate quality (no orange tag) and updated (usually at least a couple sentences on the news item). We don't usually close items before they go stale (are older than the oldest item on the template) unless they are hopeless and/or the discussion gets unnecessarily contentious.

Posting instructions are available here. Note: we routinely post stories that are 2-3 days old if immediately consensus wasn't clear. Stories are sorted on the template by date, so a new item can be added to the middle, for example. If you are interested and have any questions on ITN, let me know (reply here or my talk). There may be an award to any "new" ITN admin who assesses/posts a couple items within the next week. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've posted the Bayern blurb. I'll keep an eye on this this week (you'll have to keep an eye on me to make sure I don't break anything). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Free Given Rollback??

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

---

Hi User:WorldTraveller101, a new user on Wikipedia has received rollback privileges after being declined several times as seen here: [18]. Though declined he managed to get rollback privileges later without requesting. Even if this is Okay or not, he has been blocked 4 times for; Sockpuppetry, Hounding, Baiting, and Good Hand-Bad hand sockpuppetry. He has also made many mistakes using twinkle often reverting the good edits made by innocent I.P's. Most of his 2000 edits are on talk pages and user pages. --PrabashWhat? 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this, he cannot identify vandalism correctly. 3 Examples here: [19] [20] [21] of me informing of this, also many others users have told him about the exact same issue, some but not all include [22] [23]. It goes without saying to an admin the ability to identify vandalism is crucial when using rollback. A quick look through his talk page shows he isn't ready for a tool like this. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I do not see where WorldTraveller101 was notified of this discussion, a required element of opening a thread! User:PBASH607, please correct this right away.--My76Strat (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He was informed right away, here --JetBlast (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Note: I notified the granting administrator, User:Graeme Bartlett, of this thread. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have looked more closely than I did! I didn't notice that WorldTraveller101 was using an overflow parameter on the table of contents and failed to scroll its entirety. As they often say, "haste makes waste" and it certainly did in this example. Best regards.--My76Strat (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have time this very minute to read all this but wanted to make all aware of User:WorldTraveller101/CVUA and make sure that Nerdfighter was notified of this thread as well... Technical 13 (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Listen guys, I know you guys are unhappy about this, but it is what it is. It is why I'm doing CVUA and adoption. Anyway, I only plan to use it for editors who have made multiple edits of clear-cut vandalism. I know JetBlast, especially has concerns about it, but I promise that I'll be using it wisely, and that Vigyani, AutomaticStrikeout, Nerdfighter, and others will be. Thanks guys. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I requested reviewer, but the admin looking at it thought that rollback would be appropriate. Also, I'm not going to use it a ton (except for as stated above), until I've passed CVUA and perhaps, adoption. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Admin really should have checked the history of the user before, and the comments by WT101 are quite concerning. --Rschen7754 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why did (apparently) nobody attempt to first discuss this with the admin that granted rollback? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout I didn't discuss the issue with the admin, but I did ask if I were eligible for rollback, she told me I have room for improvements, but shockingly WT101 gets rollback for free from that admin? was this even justified? Thanks --PrabashWhat? 23:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, just do what's necessary, if consensus is for no rollback, then give me a few more weeks, 300-500 good edits and then try again? Whatever consensus is is fine by me. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly did you mean by "I know you guys are unhappy about this, but it is what it is"? Prodego ^talk 23:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Um...what else would I mean? I e-mailed Vigyani and was hoping to address any possible concerns. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Usually "it is how it is" means that something is bad, but it cannot be changed. I do not understand how that fits in with what you were saying. Prodego ^talk 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at his declined requests (some of which I declined) he was practically begging to have the right. Not exactly inspiring and borderline hatcollectorish. --Rschen7754 23:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, that is why I tried to show how I wanted to help. Maybe I'm not ready yet, but maybe just having it now and not using it much until the end of my CVUA and/or adoption sounds reasonable, right? I'm not compromising, I'm just curious. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's textbook hat collecting. Wikimedia sites don't give out rights until you show that you need them and know how to use them. --Rschen7754 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rollback is pretty useless, so why all this fuss? If it wasn't useless the admins would have kept it to themselves. Eric Corbett 23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is true. Prodego ^talk 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as reverting multiple edits is useful, it is pretty true. I'm going to talk to him. There is clear consensus that another 3-5 weeks of no warnings and 250-500 good edits until then. Let me open up a thread at his talk if no one else already has. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He has already been invited to the discussion here so keep the discussion here please. --PrabashWhat? 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed rollback rights from WT101. I'm not exactly thrilled with the way WT101, PBASH, or JetBlast have conducted themselves here. It seems to be a hat collecting competition between them. In particular the 'It is how it is' comment is not helpful. It is this response to the concerns raised here, not the concerns themselves, that I removed rollback. Prodego ^talk 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WT101, 3 months and 1200+ good edits with zero warnings, there might be a chance that you actually earn the tool. Until then, keep your nose clean (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Having just declined a previous application a few days previously, I was surprised about the according of the right. However, I generally assume GF on the part of admins and hence did not raise an issue over it. That said, this thread is a storm in a teacup and a lot of unnecessary intereference by inexperienced editors whose business it it not. I've mildly warned some of them for PA and refactoring other users' comments. There is far too much silly witch hunting going on against admins - even Eric Corbett is not worried in this instance. Absolutely no admin action needed here and this can be closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Can I just do an NAC for this one, since no admin action is needed? WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You've been asked many times to keep away from admin/meta areas until you have demonstrated that you can edit with appropriate maturity and completed your adoption course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WT, you may. This is a discussion board for everyone Kudpung, so WT is welcome to contribute here. It may not be the best area for new editors to contribute, but if he wants to, he may. All editors are welcome to contribute almost everywhere. Prodego ^talk 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

what's with Category:container categories??

this category, Category:15th-century_Ottoman_people, is NOT a container category!!!!!

who decided to add hundreds of categories to Category:container categories which are NOT container categories???!!

Container categories are only supposed to contain other categories, not pages!!!!

who decided to add all of these??? not only does it make "container categories too unwieldy to use, it is not accurate!!!

just wanted to let you know. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• The {{container category}} template was added in THIS DIFF by Takabeg at 06:43 on August 30, 2011.

Question: well, ok. i am going to try to rectify this somewhat. let me know any thoughts. do you agree it is okay to remove {{container category}} from categories such as this one? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was not part of the creation of that template and do not entirely care of it's purpose. I do believe that this excludes me from making any decisions or offering any advice as to what you should or shouldn't do on this regard except to say that you should probably be BOLD and if you get REVERTED, I would suggest pointing to this discussion on the talk page for the category and DISCUSS it with whomever reverted your edit. It should be evident pretty quickly if you are going to find some middle ground or not and I would probably request a 3O sooner than later in this case. Anyways... Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, as an after thought, I should probably note here that I'm not an administrator, in case you are not aware. Technical 13 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's okay User:Technical 13, not to worry. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

History of Gibraltar has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article on 13 July to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Utrecht. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Akuri repeated unblock request

• Akuri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Background. This user has made very few content edits and has been blocked by NuclearWarfare, with the block confirmed by AGK. Previous IP ranges were blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timotheus Canens. Salvio Giuliano has also commented on the account. The editing is similar to the arbcom-blocked accounts Zeromus1 and Mors Martell, both of which have too many on-wiki similarities with the editing of the site-banned user Captain Occam and his friends. The concentration on wiki-litigation and engaging with previously unknown administrators, often targets of Captain Occam, indicate that Akuri is another account like Zeromus1 and Mors Martell. There have been many inconsistencies in his explanations of why he has edited using VPNs, webhosting services and open proxies, but Zeromus1 and Mors Martell were no different. His cumulative edits share many characteristics, including familiarity with arcane wikipedia processes and a back knowledge of history stretching back to 2010. He has engaged in gamesmanship and a single purpose pursuit of wiki-litigation of exactly the same kind as Captain Occam, his friends and enablers.

Unblock request. Akuri has made yet another unblock request. In that request he has engaged in the same type of checkuser-related wikilawyering that Ferahgo the Assassin attempted during the WP:ARBR&I review in April-May 2012. There she tried to wikilawyer based on an edit of Captain Occam to his user talk page. Now Akuri is trying to use recent edits by Captain Occam for similar purposes to wikilawyer against the judgement of checkusers/arbitrators. I added a brief comment after Akuri's unblock request (as I did following similar requests by Echigo mole socks), but Akuri, in full wikilawyering mode, decided to ban me from his talk page. As a suspected sockpuppet or meatpuppet his account is clearly not in "good standing." On his talk page he has invented unsupported claims of pre-existing disputes just as Captain Occam, his friends and enablers did. From the moment it was registered, Akuri's account has been disruption-only. If as before his unblock request is declined, please could his talk page access also be revoked? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin locations

Is there a list anywhere of admins on en.wp by self-declared location? I'm curious about what the distribution is for those who have said where they are. — Scott • talk 10:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)