Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:58, 23 October 2011

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

RfCs close requests – October 2011

Consolidation of unclosed RfCs

Cunard (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you, Happy-melon (talk · contribs), for closing many of the discussions. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Consolidated to #RfCs close requests – October 2011. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closures needed on citation-related discussions

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Consolidated to #RfCs close requests – October 2011. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at WP:SFD

Can some admins please come and help out at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion? The backlog there is out of controll again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would admins close the following SfD discussions:

~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub~~ - already handled
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates - Needs action, see below~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport- Needs action, see below~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies- Needs action, see below~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub- Needs action, see below~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28~~ - already handled
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2~~ - already handled
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6~~ - already handled
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories~~ - already handled
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories~~ - already handled
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/9#Several new English football stub types
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Ivory Coast sport templates~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Template:China-road-stub~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Category:Pakistan rail stubs~~
~~Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/15#American football offensive lineman, pre-1900 birth stubs~~
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/16#'Pre-' category maintenance
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/22#rail station -> railway station
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/23#Portugal geography by District/Region categories

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, but left unactioned as I didn't know what to do :3 Stop by my TP if you can tell me what specific action is needed. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Agathoclea (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing many of the discussions listed above. I've added several more SfDs, which have become overdue. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did all the new categories and templates for the rail transport but found a few categories and templates that were not nominated at that I recorded at User:Agathoclea/AWB#strays Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nabla (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Category:Pakistan rail stubs. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp removed because there is no longer a backlog. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump (proposals) closures needed

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Closed the Account creation one also, changed timestamp to today. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DQ, for closing and summarizing this lengthy debate. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla request to enact the consensus found in this closure

Would an admin or editor who is experienced with Bugzilla file a request to enact the consensus found in this closure? Please provide a link to the Bugzilla request at the Village Pump as a postscript to DQ's closure. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another merger requires an uninvolved party

Merge proposal regarding "2005 Ahvaz unrest" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close an outdated discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored unresolved request from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock and mentoring of TreasuryTag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am closing this due to a request for closure at WP:ANI. Having reviewed the discussion, my conclusion is that the request to unblock must be denied at this point. Several of the supporters and proposers of the unblock request have acknowledged that TreasuryTag is "beyond the last chance" since the conduct which brought about the current indefinite block has been a problem for a long time. To unblock someone shortly after the "last chance" has been exhausted would require something resembling a consensus, and in this case there is not even a majority supporting the unblock conditions. (About 60% opposed.) A few of the unblock supporters have also expressed serious reservations about whether the proposed mentorship is likely to end well. The main issue cited by the opposers is TreasuryTag's lack of acknowledgement that the block was caused by his own conduct, and that it is therefore likely that he will revert back to the former behavior. Several supporters point out that an unblock will be under rather strict conditions, where a block can be rapidly reimposed, but even those reblockings can be contentious, for instance, there may be disagreement about whether a controversial action or edit was merely controversial or actually disruptive, and those reblock discussions can generate more ill-will. At this point a lack of consensus for unblocking means that the indefinite block remains in place for the time being. There is a general agreement in the discussion that both Worm That Turned and Fastily should be commended for their generous offer and attempts to find a satisfactory outcome, and that the rejection of their request is in no way due to a lack of confidence in these two editors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks. I come to you today to talk about an editor who I'm sure you've heard of - User:TreasuryTag. Recently, TreasuryTag has been, shall we say, slightly at odds with the community. However, he has been on Wikipedia for many years and has done an awful lot of good work on here. Towards the beginning of this month, an attempt to mentor TreasuryTag failed as TT refused to accept any restrictions that User:Dweller put forward. This lead to TT being blocked and a topic ban being enacted.

I have been in communication with TreasuryTag over the past week and have managed to agree some restrictions that he would be held to whilst being mentored. The details can be found here. More than this, an editor I highly respect, User:Fastily, has also offered to be part of the mentorship team.

I therefore request that the community agrees to the unblocking of TreasuryTag, under our mentorship. I can give details of my mentorship styles, my past mentorships and any other details, should there be any questions. Finally, I know there is a contingent who believes that TreasuryTag should spend a little longer away from the community - however since blocks are designed to be preventative and re-blocks are easy to do, I do ask people to consider what a longer block would prevent that the mentoring wouldn't. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look through the previous content on Treasury Tag I don't believe he has been specifically given a final chance over this - at least not recently - in which case I would be happy to accept an unblock under the conditions of mentoring, with any violations leading to an immediate indefinite block or a timed block of at least a month.

I would also be inclined to say that he should stay away for at least a month (which would be appropriate as per HJ Mitchell's unblock conditions). Poorly behaving popular users often seem to get lots of short blocks before eventually getting indefinitely blocked after too much effort - its not fair to anyone for the block terms to never appropriately escalate.

If we are going to do escalating blocks they need to start at a minimum duration of one month - this should not be treated as an excuse to go back to square one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Those restrictions seem like they have a reasonable chance for facilitating effective work here. Agree to unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
- ~~Switch to oppose per 28bytes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Switch back to support per Worm's post.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Eraserhead. TT should chill out for at least a month before trying to come back. By which I mean this request, though well-intentioned, is highly premature. → ROUX ₪ 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC) edited to add: TParis makes an excellent point. → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now TT has had restrictions and blocked in the immediate weeks leading up to his block. I can't support when attempts were made to help him, he ignored them, he got blocked, he made agreements for unblock, he violated the agreements, he got blocked, agreed to mentoring, ignored his mentor, got blocked.--v/r - T P 17:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TParis. User will likely break another agreement. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from TT's talk page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)): I'd like to thank Fastily (talk · contribs) and especially Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) for putting such dedicated work into the negotiation and agreement of the proposed mentorship conditions. I would like to point out that, should I stick to those conditions, plus the topic-ban, it will be literally impossible for me to cause any of the troubles that others have accused me of. And if I don't stick to them, I'm sure that there are plenty of admins around who will be more than happy to take the appropriate action. I would therefore support the proposal (obviously) and ask others to extend me the credit and the benefit of the doubt by doing the same. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support giving it a shot. Per the blocking policy, blocks are not for punishment, nor are they for WP:COOLDOWN. It would only be unfair to unblock him without making him sit through a certain duration of block if the block is supposed to be a punishment. I trust Worm That Turned will monitor him closely and reblock if TreasuryTag returns to disruption. Monty₈₄₅ 17:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That policy is a lie, and the sooner people stop paying lipservice to it, the more honest Wikipedia will be. → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Until the policy is changed, we should at least try to respect it; but I would certainly support changing the policy to reflect reality. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I've been bold and removed the line about punishment - if people object I'm happy to discuss on the blocking policies talk page and legitimate issues should be covered by the other points. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started as discussion here and invited wider community input here. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history, especially the circumstances that led to the last indef block I oppose an unblock at this point. I would support the block being reduced to 1 month, followed by mentoring. Yoenit (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this now as the risk seems minimal; departure from the terms would be swiftly followed by a longer block and the time served so far seems appropriate to me. I have to say, looking at TT's block log I am not in fact optimistic that we have seen the last entry there. But he CAN be a positive contributor and I would love him to prove me wrong... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Changed to oppose per clarification of context in links below. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will it? According to the conditions agreed between TT and HJ Mitchell at the beginning of September this block is supposed to be for a month. So I don't think its obvious that a longer block will necessarily swiftly follow - and that's part of the problem. TT needs to understand that he will be removed from the project if he is disruptive, and making sure this block isn't reversed until a month has passed is an important part of that - and one which will make future disruptive behaviour less likely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been trying and failing to find the conditions agreed between TT and HJ Mitchell at the beginning of September. If indeed they specified a month as the next block then I'd agree, that needs to be the time period. Could someone link that agreement as I think it would be helpful context here? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the diff and here's the page at the time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for those links, they make it very clear that the original agreement from September was that blocks should escalate from one week to one month. We are now on a one month block and I can see no reason to reverse what was originally signed up to. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, x3)Begin timed block of one to four months Not enough time has passed for behavior change. Unscintillating (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock - This unblocking will not require community babysitting nor further ANI drama. Worm and Fastily are the best mentorship team a user could get, and neither will hesitate in reblocking him if need be. We don't impose blocks for users who need to "chill out", and blocks are not punitive— and even if you feel that's a lie in practice, I would hope our administrators would be supportive in principle of this longstanding concept. If this user's mentors are confident in an unblock now, then to hell with HJ's conditions (and I say that with nothing but respect to HJ :P). Let's not prolong this drama. Let Worm and Fastily give it one last shot. Swarm 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the drama prolonged by waiting another two weeks? Currently there doesn't seem to be any drama at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: I don't feel an unblock in two weeks will yield any advantages whatsoever over an unblock now. Swarm 21:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Let's give it a go, should be amusing. 86.135.48.148 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC) <=== That was me Egg Centric 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, anything good he may do is offset by all the drama he causes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant but strong oppose. I negotiated a list of fairly lenient restrictions with TT a few weeks ago in return for his unlock. Since then, he has made no discernible effort to stick to the terms of the agreement except to dictate to other admins how long he can be blocked for violating them. That's why he's indef'd. Again. Therefore I have no confidence that he will honestly attempt to stick to any new restrictions proposed, and, frankly, TT has been around long enough to know how to play the game—he doesn't need a mentor, he needs to follow the rules that all the rest of us have to follow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support If it turns out not to work, the block can be enforced again. But if we don't try it, we will never know if it works. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HJ Mitchell and others. WP:NOTTHERAPY applies to this editor as much as anyone that I have observed here in six years. MarnetteD | Talk 21:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see TT return to editing here, but what dissuades me from supporting this proposal is TT's implication above that he has been blocked for stuff "others have accused [him] of" rather than stuff he did. 28bytes (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed this. Beyond the parameters I've already specified I oppose until TT takes responsibility for his own actions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would like a an extra super strong civility agreement as well. Arkon (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HJ Mitchell. It doesn't seem that the last set of unblock restrictions had any effect and I see no evidence that this set will be any different. Hut 8.5 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I am doubtful (no offense Worm) that TT will cooperate even with the slightest restrictions. Look at how Dweller's reasonable mentoring went. If he hasn't done it before even though they've tried, there's no chance at all, and I'm not sure TT would be willing to stop his involvement in Doctor Who articles, regardless of restrictions. HurricaneFan 25 21:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If editors like Worm and Fastily are willing to mentor, I can't see why anyone here would not be prepared to rely on them to do so, They may or may not be effective, but certainly they can be trusted to o re-block if there was insufficient cooperation. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-mentor with Worm. Anyone willing to improve and better themselves deserves another chance. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose mentoring really isn't for long time users. He either plays well with others or he isn't here. Currently he doesn't and he isn't here.--Crossmr (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weakest of supports as a mentoring experiment, given that we have two (2) mentors and a dedicated mentoring board. However I very nearly voted oppose as this is most likely a waste of time and has been for months, and agree with the oppose comments. I am curious to see how mentoring with two mentors goes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per HJ Mitchell. At some point enough is enough. T. Canens (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support, per Casliber. I hold out very little hope that this time will be any different, especially per TT's "accused of" comments above, but if both mentors are willing to be fastidious about blocking at the first sign of out-of-control-ness, I'm willing to accept the possibility that TT might go off the rails in exchange for trying to give a useful contributor another chance, in the spirit of AGFing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, how many chances is this guy going to get? This isn't so much to you as the support in general, but this sums up in a nutshell why there are so many problems on wikipedia. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can think of a couple users who have far outpaced TT, doesn't mean he should be given another, but the community's propensity to enable problem users shouldn't come as a shock at this point.--Crossmr (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I have been quite strong at opposing this. We need to stop enabling problem users. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that I'm not at all happy about having !voted as I did, because I, too, feel that he's been given a million "last" chances and I'm sick of it, especially as he seems to have come to believe that blocks simply can't stick to him. However, tight mentoring with Worm and Fastily has just enough chance of not ending in disaster that I can't quite bring myself to fully oppose an unblock with those conditions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Much too soon, given TT's history of disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now Once an editor gets the wrong message (along the lines of "blocks are not punitive, so just climb down a little way and we'll carry you") there is no motivation for the editor to change. An unblock now is too early and will do TT no favors since it sends the wrong message as (I think) there is no public acknowledgment from TT that any conditions are accepted or that any previous behaviors were unacceptable. If unblocked, what would happen if a situation like that which arose at this talk page be handled? Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'll be adding a 1RR to the restrictions. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support per DGG though personally I think the month block should stay because A) we said it would and B) I think TT has had some kind of recent issues and being away a for a bit might actually help. Hobit (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was actually unaware of TT's recent blocks, as a number of unpleasant exchanges between him and I have led me to adopt the "minimize conflict by consciously avoiding the other party" tactic. However the fact that I have had to adopt that tactic, something that I've only ever considered necessary once before, is an indication of just how bad every experience I have had with this editor has gone. That such a large swath of the community is expressing that they have had similarly bad interactions indicates to me that TT, regardless of any other contributions he has made, is doing more harm than good by his participation here. While personal experience ranks low on the hierarchy of convincing arguments, my own experience and judgement tell me that there is no way that an unblock could end well here. I have great respect for Fastily, who I've worked with a great deal, and my experiences with Worm have been positive, but I respectfully disagree with the idea mentorship here. Mentorship is something that needed to be done months ago, it is too late now, too much damage has been done. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. If he has lots of good contributions then let him come back. I understand there are a few he hasn't been able to get along with. In tht case, he is to agree not to communicate with those people. –BuickCentury Driver 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. TreasuryTag is a drain on our resources and should not be unblocked, especially so soon after the failure of an exhaustive attempt at mentorship. AGK [•] 11:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until TT stops deflecting responsibility for his blocks onto others, any mentoring is less than pointless. → ROUX ₪ 10:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional and hard thought-through support I'm a big believer that leopards can change their spots. But they do need to be leopards that want to change their spots and understand that their spots need changing. TT previously successfully managed to get through a period of my mentoring and returned from a long block. What worries me is that he backslid then and might backslide again. I think the mentors need to take a good look at what has gone wrong subsequently and the recent-ish editor review provides a wealth of material, not mention the alphabettyspaghetti of AN and ANI threads about TT. I do think that some of the above editors have it right, that TT's attitude to his current status is unhelpful. His response to my offer of mentoring was combative. I'm not sure he has the right approach, which, in my opinion, should be as follows: I have a lot to offer, I seem to be upsetting a lot of people, sorry for the problems I've caused, I'd like to stop doing this, please help me. Until we see evidence that he feels that way, as opposed to just wanting to edit Wikipedia once more, mentoring would seem to be a waste of time. If he does give such evidence, I think a topic ban from any deletion discussions (including listing for XfD, prod and speedy) would help remove TT from many of the catalysts of his style of disruption. And I'd recommend that that ban be permanent. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That editor review may be recent-ish, but he's been blocked 6 or 7 times since. Considering his volatility, I think that a month is the minimum amount of cooling-off time he needs before he is unblocked. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conditional support If TT gives a statement to the effect that he is aware that his own conduct and not that of others caused the block then I will support per the reasons given by DWeller.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unless whoever unblocks and mentors him will also take responsibility and block themselves for assisting in any disruption he creates. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that your suggestion is reasonable. We might disagree with them on the desirability of mentorship, but they are doing what the believe to be the right thing. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your right, no one's going to take responsibility in that way so its an unreasonable suggestion. I struck my vote/comment. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblocking him He wasn't around being perfectly civil and doing only good work for years, before suddenly deciding to act up. The block was a long time coming. Those who have never had to interact with him, or seen his work over a period of time, may not be aware of the true nature of this person. Dream Focus 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No progress, per HJ Mitchell's comment. I also agree with Roux's first comment in the section below. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dealing just with this narrow issue: mentoring is a suitable remedy for new users only. Experienced users who have received considerable input from the community, and who can be presumed to understand Wikipedia policies and procedures, are not suitable candidates for mentoring. A better remedy for cases like this would be the standard offer: go work on a sister project and demonstrate an ability to work constructively without the problematic behaviors which led to the ban. Will Beback talk 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support He will be on such a tight leash that it doesn't matter. It will either end in a quick block or in a reformed editor. Either way good for the pedia. I'd rather see the TT show himself one way or another than not giving him that chance. Agathoclea (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This editor, whatever his faults, has produced over 46,000 edits. I'm sure the great majority of them were constructive. This body of work deserves some additional leniency IMO, even in the form of stretching/contorting agf and giving him the dignity of one last last last etc. chance. After this last chance expires I'm not sure if we can still agf, but let's give him this one at least. Finally I don't buy the argument that experienced users don't need mentoring because they are supposed to know the rules. This is not so IMO. Someone who knows the rules only too well might interpret them in a unique way. His interpretation of policy may differ from other people's, depending on how strictly or narrowly he wants to adhere to the letter of the policy. The people who disagree with him may view the policy less strictly and adhere to its spirit rather than its letter. But that doesn't make TT's perspective on policy automatically wrong. In TT's case the challenge of the mentoring would be to reprogram him to at least accept the majority view and perhaps persuade him not to adhere to his sometimes strict interpretation of policy. Or at least TT should be assisted to see the writing on the wall whenever it appears. Finally it wouldn't hurt if any sarcastic comments on TT's part during discussions were kept at a minimum. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be so sure of the quality of TT's 22,000+ article edits (53% of his total) without actually looking at them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer you on many levels: First are you seriously telling me to check all 22,000 edits one by one? Second: Why only pick the 22,000 article edits and not the rest from the over 46,000? Third: I did not vouch for the quality of TT's contributions, I just assumed the majority were constructive. Do you seriously doubt that? I wouldn't. Fourth: How are you so sure I haven't looked at a reasonable sample? Fifth: Don't you think that if TT had made thousands of mistakes/bad faith edits he would have been caught by now, especially in an open editing environment? It only takes a few vandal edits out of the 46,000 for TT to be discredited. So far, noone, including his detractors, hasn't found any sign of unconstructive/vandal edits. That says something, does it not? Sixth: Would Worm That Turned, Fastily and others try to save TT by mentoring him if they had not examined TT's non-controversial contributions? Seventh: As I stated, sure or not, this was my opinion. If you disagree with it is fine. I just don't appreciate the presumptuous tone of your question. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not suggesting that you look at all of TT's article edits one by one, but if you're not familiar with his editing, then there's little weight behind your statement that the "great majority of them were constructive". I don't know that one way or the other, and neither do you, so it's pretty irrelevent here -- even more so because TT's disruptiveness, as far as I am aware of it, comes in his talk page interactions. The only persumption here is yours - you are presuming that TT's article edits are good, and presenting that as a reason to give him another chance. I, on the other had, presume nothing about the quality of his article edits, but instead base my !vote on my direct knowledge of the disruptivness of his talk page interactions, which is significant and ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no presumption on my part. It only takes a few vandal edits out of the 46,000 for TT to be discredited. So far, noone, including his detractors, has found any sign of unconstructive/vandal edits. That says something. I agf on that and that is it as they say. Anyway I can see where you are coming from and considering your criteria your !vote is understandable. The criteria I based my opinion on are simply different from yours. And by the way I am somehow familiar with his editing. I have seen him around, opposed him a few times, became a target of his comments in the past, but that didn't stop me from gauging his grasp of deletion policy as high, although narrow and sometimes unyielding. So yes, I am reasonably familiar with his style. In fact now that I remember it was quite a story back then. What with all the ANIs and heated discussions involving many editors. Quite an event. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TT's article edits have never been a cause for concern, and that no one (as far as I am aware) has ever accused him of vandalism, the issue has always been the disruptiveness of his editing on talk pages and in Wikipedia space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen TT in action, so to speak, at a past AfD and elsewhere I completely understand your point. It is simply a judgment call that I made here by supporting the unblock, a last chance type of deal. On the other hand you have an equally valid point to support your opinion. I respect that. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of unconstructive article edits, helpfully supplied by the editor themself, removing easily citable and/or plainly obvious facts. This edit in particular is almost laughably bad. Yes, it's not vandalism, vandals understand tyhat they are damaging the articles. Franamax (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last diff is pretty horrible, and it wasn't that long ago. This diff is even worse, after a source was provided. Hmm... I may rethink my vote if an editor who's been here this long makes edits like that. Doc talk 09:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but, of course, TT did revert that edit within the same minute, so had presumably recognised the error. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. As I said, in an open editing environment this information is bound to come up if it exists. This causes some concern. Technically speaking my statement above about the majority of his edits being constructive still stands, since obviously these edits are just a handful of bad edits and nowhere near a statistically significant number. But it does show potentially concerning trends. As I also said before I am still willing to contort AGF but this stretching is indeed approaching its upper bound. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Wizardman and others. Simply, a net negative and not worth all the DRAMA. Chzz ► 04:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd support mentorship, but in this case I'm not so sure that will work. I'd like to see a little bit of work on other wikis before I could support something like this. Perhaps a modified version of the standard offer, say three months editing at another wiki, where we can see TreasuryTag do positive work elsewhere, will put to ease some of our concerns. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - TT seems to want to dictate his own terms than agree to long-standing policies that the majority of the community respects. Why should there be exceptions to this degree? If there have to be "terms" against the norm, which require many admin man hours to uphold, Wiki loses out. And why does he keep score of his blocks and critics if he is not amused by attempts to kerb his attitude? Quite the little Napoleon, in his superior attitude. Time would be better served mentoring others with more promise, than trying to make an omelette out of one bad egg. Leave him blocked - 46,000 contribs mean nothing - when good intentions turn sour, and remain sour despite attempts to improve his attitude, he deserves to lose his privileges indefinitely - making blocking a justified sanction, not a punishment. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too soon, in my opinion. TreasuryTag has been issued with many, many blocks in a catalogue that stretches back years (including three indefinite blocks within the last two months alone). I believe that any mentorship programme, no matter how well structured, is far too premature at this stage, and that the standard offer is the only realistic solution. Moreover, as others have pointed out, mentorship is geared primarily towards users with a relatively short editing history - TreasuryTag is not one of those users. Super Mario Man 12:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt (again), although I have concerns and reservations regarding it. It needs to be clarified whether or not the mentors, both of them sysops, can block/unblock/both/neither TT. Also, the mentoring conditions and topic ban need to be red lines; with any violation resulting in an immediate block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. TT also needs to show a genuine attitude change here. Wikilawyering/scorekeeping cannot be tolerated. I'd like to see him delete some of his "particular achievements" from his userpage. N419 BH 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TT produces More heat than light --Guerillero | My Talk 05:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If they are willing to live under the microscope and continue on, knowing it's sink or swim at this point, with a ton of watchers scrutinizing: good luck. I agree that mentoring is pointless for editors that are "well-seasoned", but this could be considered a last chance in the face of so much opposition to unblocking. Doc talk 07:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have completely lost faith in in TT's ability to interact collaboratively in the Wikipedia environment. I cannot imagine a scenario where the mentoring will result in anything positive and I have no desire to be back here tomorrow, next week, or next month when the inevitable failure of the mentorship of an editor who has no desire to be mentored, and who essentially dictates the parameters of their mentorship, occurs. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per a lot of supporters, but especially DGG. My main nagging concerns is that the resources of Worm and Fastily are finite, and it isn't perfectly clear this is the best use of those recourses, but if they are willing, it is worth a try.--SPhilbrick T 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to some opposers

I hope people don't mind me putting up a section break to reply to the opposes which largely run along a few themes.

28bytes points out that TT appears to believe that his blocks were the product of others, not himself. I agree, it is a very large issue, and it will be a focus of a large part of the mentoring, especially in the early stages. As you can see from the "mentoring board" (a term I quite liked), one section is discussing "what went wrong". It is certainly an issue with TT, but it is one that I believe mentoring can tackle
There are a few suggestions that TT has had enough chances. This isn't really a chance for self reform, as many of his last ones were - including HJ Mitchell's. There is a very large difference between being allowed to edit unmonitored with a few restrictions that most people will forget and what we're suggesting here. The restrictions are harsh, considering what TT edits and he has two mentors who are both experienced admins (admittedly, the other one is more experienced), and are both willing to block if he steps out of line.
Some people believe he hasn't been blocked for long enough. Well, my view is similar to that of Swarm, I don't see that if he was blocked for 2-3 weeks more, anything extra would be achieved. The mentoring should prevent anything that the block is currently preventing. However, if we want to use this block as a punishment (which I think TT will just ride out and not learn anything from), then so be it.
A few people have stated they don't trust TT not to break the conditions. That's understandable, he's hardly given them a reason to. However, if he does - what happens - his "beyond the last" chance dies. No one will unblock him. What's more, there's little that he can do that cannot be undone...

Overall - I have no idea if TT will stick to the restrictions or not. If he doesn't, and I see him breaking them - I will block him. And I will be watching. What's more, if he doesn't actually improve - and just bumbles along within the restrictions, I will block him. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who isn't trying to improve. I've done it before, it was one of the hardest things I've had to do on here, but I know when to say enough is enough. Worm^TT · (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless and until TT stops deflecting responsibility for his blocks onto others, any mentoring is less than pointless. → ROUX ₪ 10:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catch-22, almost. As I say in my first point - this is specifically something that would be tackled. Expecting it to be fixed before we start is a bit difficult. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, TT's clear understanding of who is to blame must be a necessary precondition before unblocking should even be considered. Otherwise he's just going to wikilawyer around it. → ROUX ₪ 16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second point, you raise an interesting point which is in and of itself a double edged sword. On the one hand, yes this time there would be dedicated admins actively monitoring the problem user, meaning that problems are likely to be snuffed out quickly. On the other hand, the very same active monitoring of which we speak is an, in my opinion, unnecessary waste of resources (i.e. the monitoring admins' time.) To me, you're making the argument that TT should be taken from the level of consuming an inappropriately large quantity of the community's time to consuming an inappropriately large quantity of two admins' time. The status quo, i.e. the block, consumes an inappropriately large quantity of no one's time, thus making it, from a resource use prospective, the best option. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a double edged sword, but I (and Fastily, who I almost feel guilty speaking for!) are willing to spend that time. Yes, keeping him blocked would mean zero time from us, but that time doesn't automatically turn into doing something else. For example, I manage my time well enough to file an RfC/U, work out this mentorship of TT, offer mentorship to someone else, review a few people for RfA and all those other little WP bits. Dropping one won't make me take on more, but equally keeping that one on won't make me drop others. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm: I think that the comments concerning TT not having been blocked long enough are not about whether he has been "punished" sufficiently for his past disruptions, but are, instead, made vcout of concern that the only real chance that mentoring will work is if TT really wants it to work, and that he's more likely to reach that conclusion if he's been deprived of the privilege of editing for enough time to make him aware that editing Wikipedia is something he really does want to do, and is worth pursuing changes in his behavior. His past history with short blocks has indicated that these do not bring about the necessary change in attitude, and a longer block is certainly not guaranteed to do so, but it does seem like the only reasonable pathway to get his attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting way of looking at things - and certainly one that makes sense, if he was unblocked after 1 months with the same restrictions. However, since this is a different situation, there are tight restrictions, which if violated would have consequenses and crucially would be monitored. From my view, he rejected mentorship and said he'd be able to cope alone and the community disagreed, hence his current predicament. I would hope that the community's view was sufficient to make him understand how stuck he is and I don't see that 2 weeks will change that. I think I'm in the minority on that viewpoint though - which is fair enough. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, you said that expecting TT to show improvement in behavior or to take responsibility for his actions while is blocked is something of a catch-22; I'm afraid I can't agree. While I don't endorse or expect any sort of 'demonstration of remorse', 'acts of contrition', 'ritual abasement', or other general humiliation, when an individual has been blocked as many times as TT has (under this account and his previous accounts) the community does tend to be leery of "just give me another chance", because we've tried that, and it hasn't resulted in sufficient improvement. Just telling us that it will be different because he's being watched isn't quite sufficient; he's been watched before.

What TT and his mentors should be doing during his block is not make repeated requests on this board and attempt to negotiate an immediate return. The community has pretty clearly spoken on this issue—they see TT as a net negative for the project, and the fact that it's taking such an elaborate monitoring regime for a return to be even considered speaks volumes. Frankly, a good portion of the community probably sees this extended discussion as an ill-considered further waste of resources, and wants to know why we can't get just a few weeks of peace and quiet. Instead, you three should be spending the time in quiet, reflective – and probably private, off-wiki – consultation with TT. The three of you need to be able to clearly elucidate how TT returning to the project will be a substantial and significant net benefit to Wikipedia. Figure out specific areas where he has contributions to make. Clearly identify past problems, and how those will be avoided or addressed. Your page User:Worm That Turned/TreasuryTag is a start, but the "What went wrong" and "Suggested tasks" sections are devoid of content. You've suggested editing restrictions, but they don't flow from a clearly-stated understanding of where they arose or why they are needed. The proposal tells us what TT won't be allowed to do, but it doesn't tell us what he plans to do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TenOfAllTrades. I prefer my mentoring to be on wiki for a number of reasons - I don't have sufficient access to off-wiki forms of communication (due to where and when I have time to spend on this) to mentor off wiki. I would rather there was transparency in my discussions, which allows the community to see how much the mentee has participated in the mentorship. Finally, as a mentorship team - on wiki mentorship works best.

The sections you mention are currently empty because the actual asking of the questions is an important part of the mentorship process. It makes it more of a discussion, so I'm not telling him what went wrong, and am including his perceptions in with it. What he will do, I cannot yet tell you. I can steer him in positive directions, but no more. The editing restrictions were based on my immediate understanding of the issues. They were based on Dweller's restrictions, but tweaked to my style.

As to waiting, I don't mind. I have mentored a few blocked editors and generally when I suggest it, the block was soon overturned. I didn't expect this to be different, and it says a lot for the challenge that will be faced. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you come back in a few weeks and TT is prepared to take responsibility for his actions I'm sure you'll get a consensus to unblock. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two major concerns with putting everything on-wiki are that a) all of the participants are are aware that the page is widely watched, and frankness may be discarded in favor of 'playing to the crowd'; and b) third parties may be tempted to involve themselves into the process (either directly, or even through comment and actions taken elsewhere on Wikipedia) in ways that may inflame disputes or have counterproductive outcomes.

If you are resolved to do everything on wiki, it's not clear to me why you can't carry out 'the asking of the questions' on TT's talk page (or transfer his responses to your userspace, or some similar compromise). It strikes me that knowing what went wrong in the past, and what steps will be taken in the future, are issues best cleared up before an unblock, instead of after. Leisurely discussion at TT's convenience is unlikely to ever actually reach a conclusion.

Finally – and I don't mean to be too brutal with you, since have no doubt you are acting here in good faith – I find it worrisome that you weren't able to anticipate the level of concern and resistance a request to unblock TT might encounter. It suggests that you haven't yet acquired a comprehensive understanding of the situation that faces TT, and you risk doing a disservice to TT, the community, and yourself when you act without a full grasp of that context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was well aware that this was a possible, if not likely outcome. What's more, when it was mentioned at AN last week, there was a large contingent who voiced the exact concerns. I knew this was contentious, and that's why I didn't unblock straight off, but instead came to the community. I did think, and still think this was worth putting my neck out for. I guess "expect" was the wrong word - "hope" would be a better one.

I've been watching TT for quite a while, and have commented on a few of the discussions regarding his behaviour. I even turned down an unblock request from him about a month ago. I do understand the problems with doing things on-wiki, but I think it's worth it. If TT does 'play to the crowd', he'll come unstuck if he goes the other way. If he genuinely improves, people will see it. Likewise if he tries to get on without changing.

Indeed, the initial parts of TT's mentoring can take place whilst he was blocked. However, on a sub page, the majority of people won't watch - just people who are interested and certainly not the 275 people watching his talk page. On his talk page, I'd have less control, you never know who's going to turn up and interject into a thread.

To me, it still hangs on the one question - do I trust TT not to bugger this up? I'm willing to put that as a yes. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that TT needs to convince more than just you that he isn't going to bugger this up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt TT could convince me either way. This isn't about what he says, it's about what changes he actually makes. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, you said 'That's understandable, he's hardly given them a reason to. However, if he does - what happens - his "beyond the last" chance dies'. Isn't this fundamentally what was said on "the last" chance as well? But we're here, discussing a "beyond the last" chance. Given we're already past "the last" chance here, how can you say confidently that there won't be a "beyond the beyond the last" chance, or a "beyond the beyond the beyond the last chance"? Fundamentally, the last chance is the last chance. There shouldn't be a "beyond the last chance" if that idea is to have any meaning. If TT was told this was his last chance and he still screwed up, that's it. That's what "the last chance" means. If he was serious about improving his behaviour, he would have done it then, not now and not later. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think that 'last chance' is a phrase which is too often thrown around. My reasoning is that if this fails, there would be no one left to bring him back, making this a geniunely final chance. I've been told many times that I have an almost inexhaustable amount of good faith - I don't think there are many users who would try where even I have given up. Is it arrogance to state something like that, even when such a quality has such negative consequences, I wonder.Worm^TT · (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Disappointing

It's disappointing to see the lack of faith the community has shown towards both Worm and me. We have already put in a lot of time and effort in volunteering to perform community service that nobody wants to take part in. With our combined experience (Worm as an expert mediator, me as a tenured admin familiar with TreasuryTag), I believe we can successfully mentor TT. I assure you all that TT will be carefully monitored and that any infarctions shall be, and will be remedied with swift rebuke. I understand that many of you have had negative experiences with TreasuryTag and do not wish for his return. This is perfectly logical and is quite normal. I know it is a big favor to ask, especially from those of you who have been offended by him, to allow for his return to editing. I ask you however, to please look beyond your own self interests and candidly consider all the good TT can do for the project: he is an excellent content contributor and is knowledgeable in the media file namespace, which, as many of you know, is drearily understaffed. While content contributions and policy knowledge certainly do not outweigh past offenses, I am happy to announce that TT has has expressed a desire to reform before a return to editing. His return as a reformed editor would be undeniably beneficial to the project. TT is aware that he has exhausted the community's patience and will do his best to meet everyone's expectations. I humbly ask you to allow him this final opportunity to prove himself. I cannot say in certainty that we will be successful with TT, but I do believe he deserves one last chance to prove himself. As I see it, "you lose 100% of the chances you never take". Thanks, and sincerely, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, I do not think this is in any way a reflection of you. I would suggest that it's TT's fantastic history at the root of the issue. I may have successfully raised a dog from a puppy, but that does not mean I'll be successful at walking into a den of hungry wolves, and turn them into Alpo-eating lapdogs. There's an old joke: how many social workers does it take to change a lightbulb - one, but the lightbulb has to want to change. TT shows no signs of wanting to change. He shows no desire to do anything but Wikilawyer. Neither of these reflect on you, they reflect on him - it takes balls to want to walk amongst the wolf pack, but none of us trust the wolf right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bwilkins; please don't take this as a slight on you, but instead that the community feels your time and effort would be better spent with other, more motivated editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I was surprised at the number of opposers, and my first inclination was to think it reflected a lack of faith in Worm and Fastily, but as I thought through my own decision to support, I reached a similar conclusion as BWilkins. Indeed, even if it is a success, if it does so at the expense of consuming all of the onwiki time of both, it will be a net loss for the project. While I came down on the side of support, my hesitance should be interpreted as a measure of respect for what both do.--SPhilbrick T 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Wait; if someone doesn't think this is a good idea, it demonstrates a "lack of faith...towards Worm and [you]"? Let's not get carried away.
I do have a question, though. If TT does something disruptive, is it your intention that any admin would be able to re-block him indefinitely on their own initiative (like we would do with anyone else with a long history of being disruptive), or that the admin should defer to one of you, or must gain your agreement, or that we should have yet another community discussion about whether the mentoring failed or not? I'm worried that this will end up being an unwarranted level of protection against being blocked. If I see TT being disruptive again, and there is any obstacle whatsoever against me blocking him, then I would oppose this. If there are no obstacles, then ... not because I think it's wise, but as a favor to you and Worm ... I'd support. (if this question has been addressed above, my apologies, it's a long thread and I have a short attention span.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After speaking with Worm and your statement above, Fastily, I'll support this proposal, on the condition that if TT fails to comply with any of the terms of his mentorship, consciously violates any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines or fails to show respect for the essential principles of civility and collegiality, that he is given an indefinite block as a matter of due process, without dragging the matter once more through what is clearly a community very weary of dealing with this issue. As is the criteria in any unblock, TT needs to acknowledge and understand why he was blocked (hint: it wasn't because other people complained); this is an essential first step to reform and I don't believe mentorship can succeed without it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support per TechnoSymbiosis' conditions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I find it rather disappointing that when not getting your way you took it upon yourself to create a new sub-section just to lament your fellow editors. I'd say I definitely made the right call above. Not really the kind of behaviour I'd want displayed by a mentor.--Crossmr (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily your one of the admins that I trust the most here; however I can't see TT's return being a net positive for the project at the moment based on Bobrayner's Law of Mentoring:

Mentoring is a bad investment decision when: $(P^{reform}.W^{lc})-(W^{supervision}+W^{mentor})<-W^{RBI}$ , where:

- $P^{reform}$ is the likelihood that mentoring actually works,
- $W^{lc}$ is the future good work done by [the person],
- $W^{supervision}$ is the time that people still spend looking over the reformed editor's shoulder,
- $W^{mentor}$ is the effort by the mentor, and
- $W^{RBI}$ is the ongoing effort of RBI in the no-change scenario. (And we treat the latter three Ws as negatives; they're time that good editors could spend doing something else instead) --Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, I also agree that the opposers don't show a lack of good faith in you and worm. I think the opposes here are an expression of just how much community patience TT has exhausted. He's done so much damage and alienated so many people that at the present time the majority of the community sees his contributions as a net negative and feels he needs to remain blocked to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Considering all the drama that he's recently caused, it's a view that has a good deal of merit. Perhaps you and Worm need to consider mentoring TT off wiki or in his userspace so the main issue the opposers have raised, TT's attitude, can be addressed. When he's demonstrated a genuine behavior change perhaps the community at large will be more inclined to give the topic ban and mentoring a shot. N419 BH 06:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, I'm fairly certain I've made my respect for you abundantly clear and I am not sure of many folks on here who don't have similar respect. My opposition is based on TT's behavior only and is not a reflection at all on the great respect and admiration I have for both you and Worm as administrators, editors, and just people.--v/r - T P 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own reluctance to indicate a preference at all was based on the "we have negotiated" wording of the mentorship proposal, and the yawning empty spaces here, at the "What went wrong" and "Suggested tasks" sections. The community problem with TT is the endless denial of having done anything wrong, using deep wikilawyer skills; and most recently the refusal to do anything in response to Dweller's proposed mentorship arrangement other than reject all proposals and call for an acceptable proposal. Nowhere did TT make their own offer, and it's not clear at all that you obtained that either. There is simply no substantive basis to judge what will happen. I disagree with any notion that the community has decided that your own (Worm and Fastily) time is better spent elsewhere, it's a volunteer site, so knock yourself out - but other members of the community will have to deal with the fallout if (/when) your bet goes wrong, right up to the minute before you (or another admin(?), another thing not made clear) decide to reblock. Given the lack of detail or actual comment from TT themself, there's simply no way to judge how much trouble could occur. I certainly don't doubt your good faith here, but yeah, I do think it relies a little too much on too many unknowns. Franamax (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily/Worm. I think quite highly of both of you (even if we butt heads), but I think there is little reflection on either of you. This is an issue with TT, not you personally. Buffs (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those above. Worm and Fastily are good folks, and the intention is good to try and recover the aspects of TT's editing which everyone (I think) agrees were positive. But fundamentally, mentoring is about taking someone who has problems understanding problems or has problems avoiding problems and helping them understand and avoid. Someone who rejects the premise that their behavior is the root cause - and TT did, and has in ongoing public statments done so - is not ready for mentoring. I agree with the concept of TT not being beyond redemption, but being willing to accept some responsibility for things in depth has to be a precondition. If you want to start mentoring him, the first step should be to get him to agree to admission of responsibility in such a way that he establishes credibly to the community that there's basis for success going forwards. That mentoring doesn't require an unblock. I don't know the private conversations so far, but the public ones haven't given me hope on this point yet. That can change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a phrase about "one sinner repented" and since, like every other editor, we choose what we to do with our time so I support the mentoring. That said, I understand that should the mentoring fail to work the magic or for other reasons the net benefit of permitting TreasuryTag to edit again is negative then the community may need to act promptly - and so long as the terms of reinstatement of editing privileges are clear that should be not be much of an issue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll on extending ArbCom resolution for two years and two other RfCs

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll on extending ArbCom resolution for two years, Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Nominating articles with unreliable sources for BLPPROD, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Content dispute resolution?

For the Ireland discussion, participants requested a closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Closure. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll to see if people want to retain the status quo. appears to be a related discussion that should probably be considered and closed by the admin who assesses the "extending ArbCom resolution" discussion.

All three discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and archived to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland is

Done. I'd rather not do the other two, one of which I've been involved in as a discussion participant some months or years ago. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mkativerata, for closing this difficult debate. Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated to #RfCs close requests – October 2011. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current pages for un-protection/ Conflict of interest notice board.

Has something been changed recently on the Current pages for un-protection on the page protection notice board. Because I have now tried to submit 2 pages for un-protection reports using twinkle. Twinkle is currently giving an error message off when attempting to use the tool to submit unprotect requests and is not posting at all to the page. Also I was wondering if someone when they get chance can have a look at the COI report board as I have had a report sitting on that board since the 19th October without any response. If I have submitted this on the wrong board as I did not know where to put it can someone move it please.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure what (if anything) threw off Twinkle, but would recommend you take that issue to WT:TW (FYI I'm seeing the same error). Swarm ^X 01:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I have re-posted the information about the twinkle error on the page you suggested. So I will await a response on that pages about this. Only thing here now is if someone can check out the COI board when they get chance then this can be closed off on this page (Ruth-2013 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Twinkle should be working, now (longer explanation at WT:TW). – Luna Santin (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on here is now sorted if someone want to close it off(Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed community ban for JAT6634

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Community ban enacted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a community site ban for user:JAT6634, a fifteen-year-old persistent nuisance who creates several new socks a week, the total now over 200, mostly for fantasy football pages. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JAT6634 for details. Most of his hoaxes are on user pages, but he also creates articles; a ban would make clear that these can be deleted at sight, and might also help in possible action via his ISP by the Abuse Response team. JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's been a long time coming. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I generally don't like ban proposals for indef-blocked sockers, since we shouldn't sanction someone for 3RR with someone like this (we don't need the bureaucracy generally), but contacting the ISP is a good reason for the formal ban. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. we shouldn't sanction someone for 3RR if they're edit warring for the sole purpose of reverting socks of blocked users. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An editor who is so deliberately wasteful of other editors time over such an extended period has closed the door on themselves. RashersTierney (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above.--v/r - T P 14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with the above comments. Also per the ever-expanding size of this page. —DoRD (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope this behaviour will change when he gets older, but right now this is out of order. Minima © (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyone with a Long-term abuse report should be banned automatically. If they've reached that level, there's no other viable option for handling the situation. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support banning all serial sockpupeteers. When they are this crazy and persistent WP:RBI is the only effective approach, a full siteban makes things very simple in that regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not an admin here and don't know if its out of line commenting here but anyone who is a serial sockpupeteers should never be unblocked. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Support, per the obvious reasons expressed above. Swarm ^X 17:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a no-brainer, contacted school 2 times even. Ain't goin' to stop. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs • 10:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a list of the socks.

All reported sockpuppets of JAT6634

JAT6634 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

JAT0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT374 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT5555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JATXXX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cheesepants28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.22.19.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Zig Zag48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Puerto Rico3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ruby102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.22.160.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Jerbo14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Robbie19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Timmo4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cheesebobbrownpants6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ting Tong88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tin Tin41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ulio41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ding Dong64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.20.38.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.21.235.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Yong Ping34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Toys41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jiggy Joggy62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.1.40.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Inter600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter846 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter1100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter1300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter3200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter6432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter7000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter9000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter9200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter9400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter9540 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter9670 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter9752 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.11.0.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Inter2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter4672 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter846 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter8700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JAT RULE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tinie6421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.11.4.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.8.101.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Inter9700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter9900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brap61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sony404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lesbians400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Npower664 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lesbians475 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nick6442 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rubbish944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JamesH7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Casino500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CherylK1.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CherylK600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RyanW600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SexyGirl644 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Raquel999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CherylK1.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Albion600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DeskBabes600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jazza60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wigan100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wigan400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wigan600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wigan900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NeYo300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RoyalCB721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zero644 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TT673 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TP700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
VV700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hearts450 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
South700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pilot65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rocky700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ping76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Waves-Truth-Drama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vividz65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Burton Eagles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bisharp76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SoulSilver00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shotz600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notebook65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Crash764 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hunana60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Funtendo Zii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rakai00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Crowdz99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Level99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BrightLights00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brewers76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brewers8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brewers476 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Item800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JJR654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rumon64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Friggle671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bottle64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter664 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter675 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Babe844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.4.50.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Time7984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BurtonAlbion784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Axis653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Babe844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xavron83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Point74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Spite704 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time7984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BurtonAlbion784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Axis653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inter675 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Babe844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xavron83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Point74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Spite704 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TioresCC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Magicz541 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Replay804 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stoke674 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hitzz683 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lovvvv4848 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blubba6656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Uliobfjeghf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CalvinZola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Friggle671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Item800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JJR654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Oooglu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Oooglu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Oooglu14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blaze74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GOLLLLXXX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Grabit3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GrabIt34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Qwertyuiopasdfghjkhlzxcvbnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brewers88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brewers8899 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zizou63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zizou630 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tottenham3-0Liverpool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Killer7884 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blubba767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YoHo64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JATGirlsAloud181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blob802101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheFutureJAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.16.122.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Taiwo661 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YoPi61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yayer802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Huhooo671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LMFAO202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tyywidjhkdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tooo8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gyro Ball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jii63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Giiiiggl783 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BurtonAlbion20202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Laugh202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Range67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blubby2067041289 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TwoohTwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
More7779 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jujss7741 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Group215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
VitalMovie26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Burton Albion 12-1 Coaville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YourBestiofiddilio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Griggi673 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jiano Da 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ploddgp466742 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Giiiinnjhgjkf77102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lol2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zillabong66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Portsmouth 7-4 Reading (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lazzahyuhg84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bluhh674 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Myth200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jiano74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IPod74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Munil774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Georgeiiu437 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YouKnowWhat004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Royal Challengers Bangalore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs • 12:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple issues

Resolved

– KestevenBullet blocked indefinitely as yet another abusive sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Richard Daft. Moondyne (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which admin board to use as I have multiple issues with the person currently posting as User:KestevenBullet. His early contributions make clear that he is the banned User:Richard Daft and if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive you will see a long list of problems caused by him. I would particularly draw your attention to recent malicious attacks on User:AssociateAffiliate using a number of IP addresses which are listed in the SPI archive. In one of these IP sessions he identified himself as KB. Although the SPI admin rightly pointed out that the KB ID had been stale, it is now very much in use again and he is effectively edit-warring on the following articles, both as KB and also as the IP address 86.149.110.193:

You will note that I reverted his initial edits for the reasons stated in the edit summaries and on one of the talk pages. He has responded to this by commencing an edit war, to which I have not reacted, and by conducting personal attacks on my talk page and on WT:CRIC where he is trying to justify a book of which I and at least one other member of WP:CRIC have not heard. It may be a good book, as he says, but part of the problem is the incoherent and destructive way he edits the articles to try and make his point. I should add that a Google search for the book's author Ian Waun is totally unproductive with Google suggesting a redirect to the footballer Ian Woan. Until some experienced and competent editor can verify the book's worth, I believe we should cite the established sources.

Can an admin please investigate and take appropriate action? If you would like me to raise the matter at WP:SPI or on another board, please let me know. Could you also please decide which versions of the five cricket articles should stand and apply accordingly? Thank you. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KestevenBullet (talk · contribs) cannot be tied by technical evidence to Richard Daft (talk · contribs) at this point. Behavioral evidence is obvious between the two users. KestevenBullet is not abusing any other registered account. When it comes to the IP complaint, the quacking is obvious. I'll leave it to another admin to process blocks as they see fit. Keegan (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment, Keegan, as we only have the WP:DUCK to go on and the continuous thread that runs through all Daft's memberships, the changes of userid always being seamless in terms of what he has to say and how he says it. I should add that, after reading the advice at the top of this page, I've taken the matter to WP:SPI as well although there are additional issues here such as the edit-warring, destructive edits (i.e., removing content without explanation or good cause), disruptive posts on the project talk page, wanton abuse (admittedly via IP in the main) and deliberate flouting of WP policies and guidelines. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An admin for closing a "let's just try again and again until they get tired" RfC

A very lenghty RfC was closed saying that a nude image should be used in Pregnancy. A few editors didn't like it, so they started yet another RfC, asking the exact same thing. The people supporting the nude image have refused to participate because they feel this is gaming the system. another RfC was already closed because it was asking the same question in a different manner. This is just gaming the system, and it shouldn't be tolerated. Please close the RfC as an attempt of gaming the system by asking the same question again and again until the argument is won. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the same argument is being repeated over and over it sounds like a conduct issue. Possibly arbcom is the right venue? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the characterization made by Enric Naval is unfair. What happened is that the lenghty RfC was originally closed as consensus to change the image for several reasons, one of which that it was unclear whether there was consent. The closer later changed his close to no consensus when the consent issue was resolved, reverting to the original image. A new RFC was then started to see whether there was truly no consensus now one of the major issues has been resolved. Yoenit (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take any action here because I think I've taken enough action on this issue. I agree to some extent with Yoenit: the close was not "that a nude image should be used in Pregnancy"; it was (or is now), that there is no consensus for either of the proposed images. A "no consensus" outcome is ordinarily an invitation for further discussion to resolve the issue. It is not a "win" for the side that wants to retain the status quo; the status quo is retained only be default. Having said all of that, I'm not sure this required a new RfC so soon and I can understand the dissatisfaction of editors who are being asked to contribute to another discussion almost immediately after the last one was closed. Consensus can change, but it doesn't change in two weeks. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my close undone? I believe I am an uninvolved admin who can decline this request. If I'm wrong, please point out why. Also point out where a "no consensus" means a new RFC is inappropriate.--v/r - T P 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't close this TP, you're involved in the discussion.[1]; and, more importantly, I don't think you understand what consensus is.[2]. This is a perfectly valid question, and it should be answered. Just how many identical RFCs in a row are we supposed to participate in? There was no consensus for a change in the just-ended over a month-long RFC, now the person who didn't get his way can immediately open another identical RFC...and another one after that if this one doesn't go his way? That's ludicrious. Dreadstar ☥ 02:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're in the middle of a discussion. Enric Naval has, in good faith, raised a valid issue that warrants wider input. Your posts on my talk page demonstrate that you aren't fully abreast of that issue, so dealing with it unilaterally and prematurely is inappropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you've avoided answering my question. I'll ask again in another way, how does a previous no consensus result in hatting of a new discussion? As Enric Naval pointed out "The people supporting the nude image have refused to participate", that is not reason to close the discussion. I'd laugh if I was told that because the "keep !voters in an AFD refuse to participate, it should be closed." That's the silliest argument I've ever heard and I think that warrents this discussion being closed; hence my closure.--v/r - T P 22:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is more relevant to ask why they have refused to participate, understand their point of view, and consider objectively whether their position is reasonable. I express no view on that other than I think there is more to it than you assert. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is probably not. When I last took part in that discussion there were all kinds of insults being hurled around by those wanting to keep it and they were extremely short on providing an actual justification beyond "WP:ILIKEBOOBS" as to what a single image of nude breasts academically conveyed about pregnancy, even when specifically and directly asked to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were perfectly good justifications given for keeping the image, no one at all even came close to giving your interpretation of "ILIKEBOOBS", that's insulting. And, believe me, the insults were just as scathing from the 'replace the image' crowd, who mostly voted on the "Oh, she's naked, we certainly can't have that" platform. Dreadstar ☥ 02:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After having to repeatedly and directly ask hilo to explain what the educational value of the image was (after them claiming hordes of evidence) all they gave was "the whole woman is pregnant" which is tantamount to "ILIKEBOOBS". By the same logic every article about just about every disease should have full nude images in them as quite often the "whole person" is sick. In fact why don't we have full nude pictures in articles about anything relating to people? I mean John Travolta isn't his clothes, the whole person is him right? After having to drag that answer out of the keep crowd and suffering the insults despite having just shown up to the discussion, I walked away as it was clear those who wanted to keep the article couldn't provide any genuine reason to keep it beyond false policy waving (not censored only covers issues in which its necessary, not a license to put nudes everywhere).--Crossmr (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which image use policy are you quoting when you ask for "educational value"? The current image is a perfect examples of the subject of the article, a pregnant woman. Dreadstar ☥ 04:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the discussion at the time which was weighing the educational value of one image vs the other. Those arguing to keep the image were harping up and down about the educational value of image and yet even when repeatedly pressed to provide what that educational value was, that was all they could say. That is where I draw my current position from. At the time I was part of the discussion the argument to keep amounted to two points: "Not Censored", and that the nudity had some kind of educational value. After repeatedly being pressed that's all the educational value that could be provided and thus it invalidated the two main arguments for being kept, and amounted to nothing more than "ILIKEBOOBS". Not Censored requires that if nudity or other objectionable images are used, they must be used out of necessity, not just because someone feels like it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those trying to close this are wikilawyering in an attempt to overturn a 2/3rd majority. It appears this is nothing more than a concern that now that the copyright issue is resolved we will get a clear consensus rather than "no consensus" and it will not be in their favor. Some seriously need to get more WP:CIVIL, edit warring to stop discussion as done here by User:Dreadstar is very poor form.[3]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James, stop fabricating. The RfC was closed by an uninvolved admin. The admin stated the decision would revert to no consensus if permission for an image was granted. It was. Result :No consensus. You neglected to mention, you were edit warring. The image is not the issue for me. This kind of fabrication and manipulation of process by this admin is.(olive (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"Doc", way to try to poison the well, except you leave out your own edit warring against the RFC findings, and your continued attempts to remove or replace the lead image by RFC after RFC. Don't blame it all on me. What I did may not have been right, but I certainly suggest you look to your own edit warring against consensus: [4] [5] [6]. Dreadstar ☥ 04:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is exactly what's happening, Doc James disagrees with the results of the recently closed RFC, so he immediately opened another RFC after failing to edit war his preferred non-consensus version into place. It's just one RFC after another, and the participants shouldn't have to be subjected to that. The new RFC should be closed and allow things to settle down. Or Doc just gets his way because no one wants to ivote in RFC after RFC, continually fighting this one editor. Dreadstar ☥ 04:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Resolved

– Is being discussed already in the proper venue. Please don't WP:FORUMSHOP. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. 13 screens of quotes from WP:FRINGE-proponents, with the only attempt at balance being a one-paragraph presentation of a very small part of the mainstream view, poorly summarised, not including any of the reasons scientists believe the conclusions stated, and conveniently leaving out all information on how the mainstream has dealt with the supposed challenges to it.

It's probably the worst article on Wikipedia. It's nothing but a WP:POVPUSHing WP:COATRACK. Every single one of the arguments presented in it as if they were unanswerable is discussed in context in Global warming controversy, explaining the mainstream challenges to it. It has WP:BLP and other issues, since it's nothing but WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and all of this based on WP:Primary sources, very few of which rise to the level of reliable sources.

Something needs done. Or do Wikipedia's core policies not actually matter? 86.** IP (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is being actively discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 19 AND the article's talk page, which you are well-aware of. It isn't even as if the editors who are commenting on that talk page are single-purpose climate change denialists; you have well-respected administrators (e.g. Dragons flight, who is a physicist who does geoscience work) and editors there. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement is available if you believe that any of the enforceable matters in WP:ARBCC have been breached. (Also, could someone either close this or move this to ANI) NW (Talk) 02:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of false text and/or false source or citation by user WLRoss

On two articles, Forrest River massacre & Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission, WLRoss has made unsupported claims about a source, tagging it as "unreliable source". He seems determined to prevent material from this source being included in the articles or to minimise its use. Another user 180.149.192.132 suggested that it required more than a personal opinion, that he should cite a reliable source for the claim that the Moran book was an unreliable source. When WLRoss continued with this conduct on the Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission, I removed his unsupported claims and seconded 180.149.192.132's request that he cite a reliable source.

He has responded by using what is clearly a false citation for an article allegedly by a Sylvia Hallam in the Australian Aboriginal Studies journal which appeared to support him. I say it is clearly a false citation as the text that WLRoss has based on this alleged source is clearly false. The Hallam article allegedly refers statements in the preface of the book Hallam was allegedly reviewing; these statements do not exist. I have removed this falsely cited material and am referring this on. One thing that Wikipedia cannot afford to tolerate is the use of false sources.

Should WLRoss be blocked for this kind of conduct?121.208.25.30 (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"he should cite a reliable source for the claim that the Moran book was an unreliable source". Umm, no. Without going into the details of this particular case (I've not looked at it yet), this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works - if you want to include something, and someone questions the reliability of the source, it is for you to show that it is reliable, rather than the other way round. The correct approach would have been to ask about the source at WP:RSN, rather than insisting on proof that it isn't. As for the rest of this, you don't provide the necessary information. What 'false source' is WLRoss supposedly citing? And what is he citing it for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source he is citing is Hallam, Sylvia (2004) who apparently reviewed "Sex, Maiming and Murder: Seven Case Studies into the Reliability of Reverend ERB Gribble, Superintendent, Forrest River Mission 1913-1928, as a Witness of the Truth" in Australian Aboriginal Studies 1: 111-112. which I have just found out is apparently a genuine source but one making a fraudulent claim. WLRoss's revised text (he took out an error) includes "Sylvia Hallam states that Moran's preface throws some doubts on his claims of impartiality. He also explicitly states that he is following the methods of fringe historian Keith Windschuttle". Moran doesn't state anything of the kind. The only mention of Windschuttle that I can find anywhere in the book is in Professor Geoffrey Bolton's introduction where he writes that Moran has been bracketed with the Windschuttle school of controversy but that Moran comes at the issue from a different perspective, i.e. that it is unfair to brand people as murderers when there is no credible evidence that anyone was killed (and the chief accuser was a pathological liar). Where does Wikipedia stand where someone can cite as a source a review by someone who has made obviously false claims. As for the reliability of Moran's work; he's been mentioned favourably by Professor Geoffrey Bolton (historian) who agreed to write the introduction, he's been cited favourably by Josephine Flood who is an archaeologist and author of number of books on aboriginal history and Professor David Day has incorporated changes to the latest edition of his book Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia based on Moran's research. And yet someone can use a grossly inaccurate review to try and discredit him? 121.208.25.30 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make several points, the Hallam article is peer reviewed so we should accept that it is reliable. Moran is on the revisionist side of the History wars and is considered fringe by academia so WP:UNDUE comes into play, especially as his books are self published. I originally deleted User:180.149.192.132's edit as undue in the FR massacre article where it definitely is. Despite Moran having far too much mention in the FR Royal Commission article per WP:UNDUE, a point made by several other editors, I accepted it in this article but deleted a quote by jurist Sir Francis Burt; "I would not have thought that anyone looking at the evidence or lack of it relative to the so-called Forrest River massacre could possibly believe that it took place. No one has ever claimed beyond reasonable doubt evidence, The Royal Commission made it's findings on the balance of probabilities and the acceptance of a lack of evidence by academia is already mentioned several times in the article. The accusations of using a fraudulent citation without doing any research to verify the cite did or did not exist is not assuming good faith. I note that User: 121.208.25.30, edits from Canberra but outside of working hours while his supporter User:180.149.192.132 is editing from a government building in Canberra during working hours, considering their vehement support of, and grammatical similarity to, each other in promotion of fringe theory, can they clarify their relationship? If my asking is innapropriate I apologise. Wayne (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jediforce and copyright problems

I wasn't sure whether to call this an incident or not, as this editor has been inactive since November 2010, but I think it's worth showing just in case.

Recently I received an e-mail from new user DeBelne stating that the article John Bell (bishop) had plenty of text copied from his work (In which I have been received an attachment showing all his published text). I soon found out that the suspect who added this material was Jediforce. This editor has a large history involving copyright concerns, not just involving text but images too. I have given him a strict notice on the derivative work that he added. As this editor doesn't seem to understand much about copyright I would prefer if his editing privileges would be suspended, although on second thought he has been inactive, and might not edit ever again. Minima © (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked; with copyright concerns, we can't risk it, inactivity or not. Have you posted it at CCI? Ironholds (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TfD on Template:World_Series_Year

Any thoughts on completely disabling transclusion of the {{TfD}} template on Template:World_Series_Year, given its inherently high visibility until ~~Monday~~ edit: the 27th or 28th? I set it to tiny, but it's still fairly disruptive in things like Template:World Series or in paragraphs like the lead of Boston Red Sox and many of the other pages in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:World_Series_Year. As of this writing, the TfD's leaning toward keep, but I don't wanna IAR the TfD, itself. So yeah... thoughts? --slakr^\ talk / 05:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin so take this with a grain of salt, I don't know what all the details are for TFD discussions, but I'd say hide that note if possible until the end of the series, explain on the talk page that you've done so, and invite continued discussion on the talk page as if the TFD notice is still there. Pine^talk 05:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 'noinclude' tags around the tfd notice,[7] as it was disrupting highly visible articles. The discussion is snowballing anyway. Swarm ^X 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC close review

Category:Anti-abortion violence (talk|edit|history|logs|links) (NPOVN|RfC)

Mike Selinker (talk · contribs)'s closure of Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory^{[Note 1]} as do not subcategorize Category talk:Anti-abortion violence to Category:Christian terrorism was contested by Roscelese (talk · contribs).

Note:

^ Note: When Mike Selinker closed the RfC, he considered the arguments at the earlier discussion, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence.

They agreed to bring the closure to the administrators' noticeboard for community review using the following review format (adapted from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Commenting in a deletion review):

In the RfC closure review discussion, users should opt to:

Endorse the original closing decision to disallow subcategorizing; or
Reopen the RfC for further discussion; or
Overturn the original decision and allow subcategorizing.

Remember that the closure review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

Admins and non-admins are allowed to participate in this review process.

After seven days of discussion, this RfC review will be assessed by an uninvolved admin. If the closing admin determines that there is no consensus to overturn the closure, it is endorsed by default.

Nomination statement

While I appreciate Mike's stepping up to close an RFC that had been languishing for a while, I do not believe that his close was a correct reading of the discussion, even taking into account previous discussion at NPOVN. It's generally acknowledged that the role of a closing admin is not merely to count heads, and that a close must also take into account the strength and policy basis of arguments presented. In this discussion, we saw:

four "categorize" editors who all pointed out that many reliable sources categorize the topic this way.
a "don't categorize" editor who claimed that he had many sources which said it was not Christian terrorism, but refused to provide even a single source after being asked to do so repeatedly.
a commenting editor who said that there might be anti-abortion terrorists of other religions that are not mentioned in any sources.
a "don't categorize" editor who argued that domestic violence and government penalties for abortion, unlike anti-abortion terrorism, were not always religiously motivated - never mind that the article does not cover either of those things and that there will never, ever be consensus to conflate the three topics - and subsequently explained that he opposed the categorization because he believes it is wrong for pro-choice activists to say that anti-abortion activists are trying to press their religion on others.
a "don't categorize" editor whose (incorrect) argument was that the topic was not mentioned in the Christian terrorism article.
a "don't categorize" editor whose argument was that clinic protesters have many different motivations and that Islam, unlike Christianity, is evil.
two other "categorize" editors and one more "don't categorize" editor (I'm lazy)
several editors whose opinions were ambiguous (eg. requesting sources, but not returning to comment or !vote once said sources were provided) and who should perhaps be asked to clarify, or who otherwise commented without making a clear preference known.

Going by numbers alone (and setting aside the ambiguous !votes), there's no consensus, which makes the close iffy to begin with. But looking at the actual arguments, it's clear that most or all of the "do not categorize" !votes are JDLIs that have little to do with the topic and nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and the closing admin simply failed to weigh these !votes appropriately. One side presented a large number of sources, as consistent with policy, and the other, when it offered relevant arguments at all, engaged in original research about what anti-abortion terrorists might exist without being mentioned in any sources and what might be in their heads in contradiction to sources. And the latter is the argument Mike went along with, writing in his closing rationale that "just because [anti-abortion violence] is primarily perpetrated by [Christians] is not a statement that others cannot join in the act" and "there are many possible reasons to oppose abortion, and many possible reasons to murder," again ignoring the fact that, as the "categorize" side pointed out, reliable sources trump speculations about what's going on in people's brains or about what might happen in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Overturn [reasoning]

The categorize arguments were better founded in policy. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse [reasoning]
- endorse POV pushing by categories. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not the RFC; the discussion is about whether the closing admin read the discussion correctly, not about your own opinion of whether the category belongs. If you want to be able to vote in a currently closed RFC, the solution would be to suggest re-opening it. Then, if it was re-opened, you would be able to provide your opinion on the category, which opinion has no place here. (And when you do, why not produce some sources or make a policy-compliant argument, since the whole point of this review is that the closing admin gave too much weight to non-policy !votes?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History-merge needed

Resolved

– Move-log entries deleted, edit summaries deleted, user blocked, page-move articles deleted, etc. HurricaneFan 25

Page-move vandalism's been going on at 2011 Van earthquake, so the history needs to be merged with KurdistanForEver and FreeKurdistan. Thanks! HurricaneFan 25 19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can my userpage be deleted, my talk page deleted and then restored without the page move? Thanks. HurricaneFan 25 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to look at my talk page's history (hint...) HurricaneFan 25 19:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zzzuuuzz. (I'm not sure how many z's are in your username :P) HurricaneFan 25 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can the move log entries be deleted? Thanks. HurricaneFan 25 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close RfC/U

Could an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz, before he says something that has unintended consequences. I don't mind if he calls me a [Norwegian Hun], but I think it's a sign that productive interaction has ceased, and we plainly can't agree how to close it ourselves. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Note: When Mike Selinker closed the RfC, he considered the arguments at the earlier discussion, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence.

[Note 1]

@@ Line 692: / Line 692: @@
 :::Thanks Zzzuuuzz. (I'm not sure how many z's are in your username :P) '''[[User:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">HurricaneFan</span>]][[User talk:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">25</span>]]''' 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 ::::Also, can the [[Special:Log/move|move log entries]] be deleted? Thanks. '''[[User:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">HurricaneFan</span>]][[User talk:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">25</span>]]''' 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
+== Request to close RfC/U ==
+Could an uninvolved admin please close [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz]], before he says something that has unintended consequences.  I don't mind if he calls me a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz&curid=33384776&diff=457029126&oldid=457028733 Norwegian Hun]], but I think it's a sign that productive interaction has ceased, and we plainly can't agree how to close it ourselves. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards