Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 99 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 96 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 96 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 32 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 29 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	32	35
TfD	0	0	6	1	7
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	75	28	103
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 254 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 74 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 72 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily

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

• User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:Frietjes#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_66#Templates

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

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

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

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

Indeed; the arguments for keeping the NY mayors template amounted to "It's useful" (without actually specifying how) and "You didn't nominate all these other templates at the same time". Fastily was perfectly justified in analyzing the quality of the arguments rather than just counting numbers. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I nominated the NY mayors template for deletion.) Powers ^T 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of templates is that they're useful. WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, but it's the only valid reason for having templates such as {{Pp-meta}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:USEFUL again, Nyttend. It says that being useful can be a valid reason for keeping (whether article or not), but it has to be explained rather than simply asserted. Powers ^T 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, navboxes are pretty much always useful for navigating from article to article within related topics, which these are. It's definitely on those advocating deletion to explain why a specific example of such a common type of template is an aberration from the common pattern. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make a simple declaration of "it's useful" in any way a valid argument for keeping. Powers ^T 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

It is hard to disagree with what a closer says if he won't say anything and hard to take it to DRV when the first step is to talk with the closer when the closer won't say anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well DRV will in fact hear it in cases like this; and it frequently does get the occasion to hear it, because Fastily does not explain his closes at the time he makes them, and often not on his talk p. either. Considering that a reasonable number of his closes have been overturned there, I don't think his continuing this way is constructive behavior for an admin. For everyone who take s the matter to DRv, there are probably ten who are not willing to undergo the further bureaucracy. Since many of these are people who would be making their first contribution here, closing discussions in this way, let alone avoiding discussing them, is has the effect of discouraging new contributors, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage them (Most of his closes are good, of course, but an editor, especially a new editor, deserves an explanation--a good explanation of why something must be deleted will often keep the editor. Some of this should be dealt with by a rule requiring meaningful rational for non-unanimous XfD closings, but changing deletion process in practice seems to require unanimous consent. In the meantime, we can strongly urge Fastily to change his work habits in this respect. Yes, he wouldn't be able to do as many closes, but there are a few hundred other good administrators. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I proposed just that a couple of years ago. It was shot down in flames by other admins circling the wagons to defend their own laziness and highhandedness: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 5#Closing rationales - optional or not?. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dare I suggest that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Fastily may be in order? If this is a long term, widespread problem then that would seem the next logical step. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• AFAIK, this is appears to be a personal vendetta of Tony's. Awhile back, he contested one of my TfD closes on my talk page. I informed him that I would userfy the templates and that I was busy in RL and would provide my reasoning shortly, but he immediately dismissed it as fallacious. Annoyed by the lack of collegiality and respect I was being shown, I asked a participant in the TfD to comment in the meantime. Somehow, Tony perceived this as an attack, and literally accused me of canvassing and conspiracy. At any rate, User:Frietjes was able to work out a compromise, and the templates were moved back to the mainspace. I had believed the matter to be resolved, and so did not feel it necessary to provide rationale, granted that the concern was moot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I will always provide rationale for my closures when they involve contentious and/or complicated matters. I do not provide rationales when the result of the discussion is, IMO, unambiguous; nonetheless, I have never had any issues with explaining my closes/correcting errors (with and without publicly stated reasons) when requested. If that approach is so wrong, my god, we'd better start RfCs on some 20 other-odd admins who follow similar procedures. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You are in some twisted universe where when I note your consistent efforts to close discussions regarding templates I have created as delete, when normal closing procedure would be to either keep or no consensus close them as my personal vendetta. All I am doing is noting your apparent vendetta to close my TFDs as delete even when to do so is non-sensical. You sound like someone explaining to the police officer that the victim's face was in front of my fist as I innocently moved my arm forward repeatedly at high velocity. Then, he went on a vendetta of screaming about how I was abusing him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Lol, if you're determined to resort to personal attacks, my job is done here. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Is that a personal attack? I was making an analogy. You have no reason to be running around deleting my templates in contravention of procedures and then claiming I am on a vendetta for pointing out your actions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, because I hold Fastily in high esteem, but his talk page has been on my watchlist for a couple of years, and Beeblebrox is right. This is a regular issue—whether it's files, articles, or templates, somebody seems to dispute Fastily's deletion of something every few days.

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

  • Not only deletions, keeps as well of course. I haven't asked for an explanation of his close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata, but a TfD with that many comments, and with rather divided and lengthy opinions, could do with an argued close (e.g. indicating why it isn't closed as a no consensus instead of a keep, and what the opinion, if any, was about the other elements in the nomination) instead of a simple "keep". I'm planning to start an RfC on this template anyway, so it won't make a huge difference probably, but I felt that the close of that TfD was rather disappointing, not because of the actual result, but the manner it was presented. Fram (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @HJ Mitchell, I agree with this sentiment. Just yesterday I had an unclear deletion of an image and Fastily gave an unsatisfactory explanation of the deletion reason and the process followed. I asked for further clarification and I'm still waiting. We can't require everybody to devote time to Wikipedia, but administrators should be held to a higher standard since their actions can't be reversed by us entry-level editors. Great power, great responsibility; if Fastily is not willing to explain his actions in detail then s/he should refrain from closing controversial discussions. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I cannot comment on any long-term trends, but in this specific case, I think it's clear Tony was being unreasonable in demanding immediate explanations, to the point of checking Fastily's contributions log to see when Fastily had been editing most recently. Can we agree, at least, that if better explanations are required, that they at least be requested in a calm and civil manner? Powers ^T 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Did I say anything uncivil? I was using the contributions log to get an understanding of the likelihood that he was ducking me. He has yet to give any explanation why he considered three keep votes and one delete vote consensus to delete. I continue to await an explanation by anyone who might be able to expalain that one. We may never know since we worked out a compromise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The discussion on Fastily's talk page looked to me like you were badgering Fastily (due, apparently to your own admitted "impatience"). Furthermore, you jumped immediately to the conclusion that Fastily was "ducking" you rather than acknowledging that Fastily might be busy and is volunteering his/her time to this project. Powers ^T 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment I'm noticing a trend here. But as it is, I've repeatedly seen Fastily's name come up over disputed deletions and other related matters, and it's beginning to give me a sense of deja vu. There comes a point where we have to stop saying "it's every body else" maybe there is a problem with the way this user is going about things and their process should be improved. I've found him a little quick on the trigger when a cursory examination of something might solve the problem. This comes across as a binary mindset that has gotten other editors in conflicts in the past, often over similar issues.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • [1], [2], [3] here he seems to jump into a situation he just isn't really informed on and revert a bunch of stuff that doesn't need it, [4] while old, this is simply to show that it's an on-going and long-term issue for him, etc. I don't have time right now to paw through the AN/I archives for all the times I've seen his name come up over questionable behaviour, or deletions just my opinion based on the interactions I've had with him and the discussions I've seen come up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, all of these are extremely old, resolved, and irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not fair, we won't get our dose of wikidrama now. Diego (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

December 2011 is "extremely" old? You have a rather interesting definition of "extremely". The concerns were not just about closing discussions. [5] This is talking about deletions, so I can't see how this makes anything moot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• There may be an issue here that goes beyond closing deletion discussions. I have no particular memory of previously interacting with Fastily, but for what it's worth, I am semi-regularly editing DRV and I remember closing (or commenting in) an uncommonly high number of review requests that concerned an clearly mistaken speedy deletion by Fastily.  Sandstein  07:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Is it appropriate to ask that Fastily explain his reasoning for the two closes that caused me to initiate this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fastily thankfully deletes a whole lot of things - templates, images, etc. So much so that he has a simple page that describes his reasonings. Typically, if you approach them, they point you there and if you want more info, simply ask for a follow-up ... usually, unless the question is already answered the first time, Fastily is more-than-willing to give some extra explanation. By sheer ratio, I would actually bet that the number of just fine deletions to questionable is better than most of us. Just like the average American has heard of more problems with Plymouth Sunfire automobiles than Jaguar XJC's, it's a matter of quantity for the most part (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in coping with the large number of inquiries about deletion, the boilerplate responses may come off badly with good faith editors who recognise the general concern, but don't understand the specifics as to what was wrong with their article. I understand that this is a wider issue, especially with over-use of warning templates, and I don't necessarily think that Fastly should be specifically highlighted here, but it does seem to cause issues. Otherwise there is no question that Fastly does lots of great work, and the one time I raised a problem it was fixed quickly and without any hassles at all. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I support the suggestion of an RfC/U on Fastily per the comments here by Beeblebrox and Sandstein above; there have been related problems raised on ANI and with his bot Fbot. In all cases administrative tasks were performed in a mechanized manner without the need to provide careful justification either at the time or later when queried. Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I was troubled by this recent (4 days ago) section at ANI. Article is deleted as G11, the editor asks if they can have a copy, Fastily's response is a link to G11 that ignores the clear request for a userfied version (and then another admin cleans up after Fastily at ANI). If Fastily has enough time to delete a hundred articles, but not enough time to adequately communicate with the users he affects, then Fastily doesn't have enough time to delete a hundred articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• In fairness to Fastily, he has done over 170,000 deletions, so this instance and those cited above represent a vanishingly small percentage of his actions and I suspect are in-line on a percentage-basis with all other administrators. He's just doing more work, so more people notice any mistakes. MBisanz ^talk 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Block Review

I'm asking for a block review. Yesterday, Balloonman asked for some attention at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ. He requested a neutral admin review a long list of "personal attacks" that User:Cla68 had posted. To be clear, these were "personal attacks" by others and Cla68 had collected the diffs from about a dozen people. I hatted the discussion because the "attacks" were not attacks at all or so weak that a reasonable person would not constitute them as attacks. Cla68 didn't unhat the discussion, but felt it necessary to summarize what was in the hat and repeated his attacks. I hated the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

Cla68 alledged that although I am "previously uninvolved, that I have now taken a side and so my action was dishonest. I pointed him to WP:INVOLVED. I then suggested several times that if he has a problem with it then he come here and seek wider review of my actions. Cla68 summarized again, I undid. I left a final warning not to return the attacks. This morning he sumarized again, and I wrapped the hat around it. I then blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. Please review.--v/r - TP 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Given that you edit-warred with Cla68 over his leaving a summary of the discussion you hatted [6][7][8][9][10], I would say it wasn't your call to block Cla68. --JN466 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So you suggest that next time I should block at the first incident rather than WP:AGF that the editor will heed warnings from an uninvolved admin?--v/r - TP 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't ask for a review of your actions if you're going to be snarky with people who respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No. (edit conflict)What I mean is that you're not the only admin able to assess and deal with the situation. Once you'd engaged in an edit war – you reverted Cla68's summary three times, I think – you had become involved IMO, and would have been better off at that point taking a step back and letting another admin look at it. Just my two cents; perhaps others will see it differently. --JN466 14:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was considering just waiting to let someone else respond but suggested an uninvolved admin cannot block because they took admin actions to enforce a policy and gave the user ample opportunity to stop their behavior before a block just seems completely unreasonable. But maybe I've completely mistook WP:INVOLVED.--v/r - TP 14:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was collecting those diffs in good faith from what I can see - it is a personal attack to allege someone is a homophobe and there was plenty of that going on - there is no way that user Delicious Carbunkle is homophobic or he should be called a homophobe by people here. User:Cla68 should be proud for being blocked for pointing that out and presenting the diffs of it happening and for asking the users that did it to retract. Youreallycan 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me how the following are personal attacks:

• Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable.
• The "only way out" is to support Fae here. If you "compromise" and leave him under a cloud, you're not ending anything. The exact same Inquisition will be in session tomorrow, with someone else in its sights. Besides, what kind of jury works on the basis that you compromise and say "guilty" on some counts just to get along?
• I hate that I'm signing on to this view, but I think I must. The focus on Fæ and his past incarnations does in fact feel a little homophobic
• The stated context for this RfC is disingenuous, the primary motivation is harassment.
• This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing
• I have not verified everything in this statement, but I verified enough to confirm that Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues.

These are just some of the shorter edits being cited. The point is that according to Cla, if you disagree with Cla/DC, if you think the dispute feels a "little homophobic", if you question the motives of the rfc---then it is a personal attack. According to Cla's reasoning, we have to fully accept the motives of the people who brought forth the RfC and to do otherwise is a violation of civil. In 5 years of editing WP, I've never seen the bar for civility set so low as to what Cla is claiming it should be here. Per Cla's reasoning, my opening the ANI report yesterday is a breach of civility.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Really, really bad block (disclaimer: I'm involved in the RfC, though I have not expressed any opinions regarding the thread or the personal attacks against Cla or others). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I am not a big fan of civility blocks, but when the civility issue in question appears to have the effect of squelching discussion or intimidation, then that changes matters. Cla started a list of people who have made "personal attacks during the RfC" and used examples consisting of the flimsiest examples I've seen labelled as personal attacks and violations of civility in a long time. The list was strictly those people who disagreed with Cla or DC. Most of them were not attacks at all, but rather comments and opinions. I don't want to accuse Cla of intentionally attempting to squelch dialog, but by compiling a list of trivial complaints it had that perception. So I brought it to ANI. Two admins reviewed it and both agreed, it was inappropriate---TP and Atama. TParis appropriately hatted the section. Cla unhatted. TParis, as an uninvolved admin, gave Cla a final warning. Tryptofish warned him that Cla should "drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good". To which Cla responded, "There is a method to my madness." User_talk:Cla68#Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ. Cla's collection of edits are not personal attacks. For example, this is one of the so-called violaitons Cla cites, "Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." If that is a personal attack violation of civil then we are doomed. By claiming that that edit and similar edits by other users is a personal attack, Cla's edits have the effect of squelching discourse. (I will note that as of the last time I checked I have not been included in his list of people who have made personal attacks.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just so I understand: if I want to, I could come to this thread right here, say "as an uninvolved admin, I declare this thread is a personal attack" and close it, and if someone disagrees with me I can then edit war with them, warn them, and block them myself because I was previously uninvolved? See, that's why the idea of having admins more vigorously patrol ANI is a well-intentioned but bad idea. There are too many admins who think they have good judgement, when they don't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - well said - this block was not a resolving solution, it was and still is a punitive part of the problem. Youreallycan 15:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I think the point of being uninvolved is that I don't know Fae or DC or Cla68 at all and the turnout of the RFC has no impact on me. I'm as unbiased as it comes. I reviewed the diffs, could not see how many of them were personal attacks at all and others were so weak that the term attack couldn't convey their actual meaning, and hated the discussion. Cla68, directly involved, felt differently. Do the involved see things more clearly than the uninvolved? If you, reasonably, feel this thread is a personal attack, then I strongly encourage you to do what you must to enforce WP:NPA. (After conflict) Youreallycan: If stopping the unhatting of those attacks is not preventative, then I missed the redefinition of the word.--v/r - TP 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If an uninvolved admin takes action as an admin that you disagree with, you don't edit war with them. You bring it to AN/ANI for review. You appeal the situation--especially when people on WP:AN, your talk page, and the admin's talk page all agree with the admins actions.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support <non-admin> editing warring with someone when they are taking an admin action is certainly blockable. I personally don't think hatting was needed, but that's a different issue. If Cla68 felt the hatting was inappropriate, they could have come to AN for a discussion. 24 hours feels about right to me. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm involved in the RfC too. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support If an editor is given a "last warning" by an admin and they respond by immediately repeating the exact action that they've been warned about then they should be blocked. Exok (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hated[sic] the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

  "hatting" a discussion is not an admin action. Admin actions are blocks, bans, deletions and undeletions. Any neutral person could have been asked to give an opinion of the links. Admins are no more special than other users, except for a (rebuttable) presumption that they are level-headed and sensible. You got into a pissing contest with Cla68 because he disagreed with your "admin action". Cla68 was also being a bit of a dick, as far as I can tell on short examination. The real question is, what was Cla trying to prove by posting that collection of links. He doesn't state a motive but he must have had one. Is it that there is a double standard regarding personal attacks and enforcement? Or something else? That's what you need to focus on, not a pissing contest over a collection of third party statements.Thatcher 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said to JN466, hatting is in the toolbox. I could've taken a more direct admin action such as blocking right away but I opted to WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What "toolbox"? Hatting is a function available to every editor. Are you referring to some automated script? If so, realize any editor can "hat" an article manually. The biggest source of unforced errors by admins is admins who think they have more power than they do, deciding to prove it on some "upstart" who doesn't respect authority. If you even have 2 seconds of consideration that blocking Cla68 outright before discussing the issue might have been reasonable, then you have no business being an admin, at least not on the Wikipedia that I originally joined. The first thing to do is to find out why he posted the links, what he was really up to, and seeing if there wasn't some better place to have that discussion. Thatcher 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you aware of the discussion at WP:AN/I#unnecessary section in an RFC? Prioryman (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The admin also opened threads on Cla68's user talk page, and it continued to the admin's talk page. The block didn't occur out-of-the-blue without prior discussion.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • For the record the extensive discussion before the block, in which Cla68 was involved, is at User talk:TParis#Hatting.
• Overturn. Inappropriate block. Everyking (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Wholly appropriate. Balloonman's comments are spot on; this is not the first time that Cla68 has compiled lists of this sort. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - I'm starting to become really concerned that in this case as well as couple of other recent controversies, a person who is the subject of personal attacks or slurs or who brings these to the attention of the community is quickly silenced through one means or another under the excuse that pointing out the errors in the behavior of others is a "personal attack" itself. And of course, all of this takes place in an environment where advocacy, grudges, and "involvedness" are rampant, which is why none of these have much support. And yes, hatting other people's comments is neither an admin-exclusive privilege-that-must-not-be-messed-with, nor is it a particularly collegial thing to do (in most cases, one's own talk page aside, it's simply obnoxious and overbearing).VolunteerMarek 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm way, way too involved to express an opinion here, but as I said at the RfC, it is not a "personal attack" to say that somebody has been subjected to homophobia or harassment. It would be a personal attack to make an unfounded allegation of such homophobia or harassment against a particular editor or group of editors, but very little of that is evidenced in Cla68's diffs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oy come on, while nobody was stupid enough (most of these folks have been around long enough, under one username or another, to know how to make personal attacks without "making personal attacks") to come right out and say "so-and-so is a homophobe", the insinuation that DC and others are homophobic is pervasive in some of the comments. Particularly Prioryman's. I do think Cla included some folks in there that probably were not making personal attacks, but that's farther down the list.VolunteerMarek 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

VM---I will ask you again to explain to me how those examples I cited above are personal attacks? How are we to have reasonable discourse if people can't express what they think/feel? I mean the entirety of an edit that is deemed a personal attack is, "This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing" Or another one where a person says that it "does in fact feel a little homophobic"---not that it is. Or the person who says that they don't buy the anti-gay agenda, but finds the "harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." Sorry, if the examples used by Cla are personal attacks, then 90% of the posts on ANI are personal attacks. Citing differences of opinion as personal attacks is a personal attack which appears designed to quell dissent--to which I'm more concerned about than the actual civility issues of making such allegations.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• • HJ Mitchell, for better or worse accusations without evidence are prohibited by WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." The alleged evidence in this case was REVDELETED by functionary Fred Bauer. I think that perhaps something akin to OTRS tickets should be developed for these situations. E.g., someone should be able to say on-wiki "I have off-wiki evidence that Editor:XXX has engaged in homophobic attacks against YYY. Evidence is available in ArbCom ticket 123." I'm actually going to float this ticket proposal to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. These edits are typical of the battleground behavior for which Cla68 has been guilty of in the past.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock. With all due respect to TParis (who is a good admin), my concerns are more about the general notion that admins can hat discussions and remove posts when it suits them, and no one else can challenge those decisions. I'm not speaking of this case specifically, but all too often we see abusive admins close off discussions that shouldn't be closed off-- in ways that escalate disputes-- and the hatting or closure often should be challenged and reversed. I don't want to see the idea that admins can control the flow of information in the form of evidence take hold (I've been on the short end of that stick many times at ANI, where abusive admins can prevent the accused from speaking, even in their own defense, even when the accuser gives no diffs, even when the accused responds with a query and with diffs). If TParis closed, Cla re-opened, then TParis hatted again, he is reverting to his own preferred version, hence is involved, and should not block. And please, let's stop this notion that admins can stifle evidence that is taking over ANI. Yes, it's a circus and some controls are needed there, but the accused have the right to speak. I don't think Cla's block is right. I realize this occurred at an RFC-- not ANI-- but it's the idea that admins can control the presentation of evidence at either place that is worrying me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sandy, did you actually look at the "personal attacks" Cla has cited? The personal attacks that Cla has cited are along the lines of "I think this RfC is harrassment." While I am not a big fan of Civility/NPA blocks, Cla's allegations of NPA appears to be nothing more than an attempt to stiffle discussion at the RfC by accusing anybody who has called out Cla/DC as making a personal attack. Cla's level of civility would have every editor involved in the civility case cited for NPA/Civil attacks.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of it is indeed like you say, but other stuff is far more direct, e.g. 2nd diff in Cla's list:

    • == Harrassment by Delicious Carbuncle == This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already.
      — User:Russavia 23:36, 26 January 2012

    • Apropos of nothing (if I may lead with a phrase favored by Arbitrators): Some people have become experts at poisoning the well with insinuations while introducing just enough conditionals in their phrasing so that it can be technically disqualified as an attack on a specific person. One such expert has recently received a one year enforced vacation from Wikipedia, thanks to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • IF Cla had listed Russivia and possibly even Prioryman, then this would never have reached this point. Whether you agree or disagree with their edits being personal attacks, one can see that there is animosity there that predates this rfc. (Just as one can see animosity between Cla/DC and Fae that predates this rfc.) The problem is that Cla didn't leave it at the low hanging fruit or the people with whom there is a history, instead he decided to attack everybody who questions the motives or perspectives provided by Cla/DC/the RfC. By casting such a broad net with such a low bar for inclusion, it shifts from a reasonable discussion to what appears to be an effort to squelch disagreement. "Can't say that it feels like homophobia because then Cla will include me in his NPA violation lists." By only highlighting those people who disagree with him, he is not listing people who have made personal attacks. Hell, reading the RfC, you can find a lot more vicious and straight forward attacks against Fae---but Cla doesn't include those. As for the people who are questioning the motives of the RfC... that is common practice. I suspect that 4 out 5 RfCs which generate discussion have people challenging the motives of the people who are engaged in them. Standard rhethoric seen on every level from RfC to presidential debate. (Again, I'm not that worried about Cla's personal attacks as I am about the apparent affect of trying ot stiffle dialog.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It's worth pointing out that I've not even participated in the RfC, so listing me under "personal attacks during this RfC" is complete bullshit. I also have to point out that Fae has unquestionably been the target of homophobic attacks prompted by the discussions of him on WR - you have only to look at the top of his user talk page for evidence of that (much more has been revdel'ed). DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes. So in short, Russavia's comments are entirely factual. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm not neutral here, because apparently I've been accused of making personal attacks. At no point did Cla68 approach me to discuss this, and frankly reading over what I wrote at the RfC, I don't see any personal attacks either. I've never even interacted with Cla68, except for agreeing with several other editors above that he should stop his crusade to get Will Beback to answer three questions whose answers were obvious. AniMate 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If this block was intended to show that "the admins" will indeed circle the wagons to protect "whatever it is admins are protecting", it does a darn good job of it. OTOH the wording of the unblock request completes the circle of silliness. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Noting that accumulation of evidence is a protected activity on Wikipedia for use in dispute resolution, that claims without sourcing about other editors is found in abundance from other editors on that RFC/U and that there is a reasonable likelihood that such evidence might be used in a future ArbCom proceding, the block is improper. Improper blocks do not gain propriety by being supported by BATTLEGROUND protagonists against the person blocked. Collect (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong meh. I wish people voluntarily stopped making a drama out of a genuine Catch 22 policy issue involving accusations that cannot be backed up by evidence without violating Wikipedia policies like BLP and WP:PRIVACY. I was so annoyed by the feud around that issue that I even added a view to the RfC/U about it. I don't know what else to say besides repeating my sincere request that everyone involved in that drop the WP:STICK on-wiki and pursue whatever needs pursuing in that respect through the private ArbCom channels set out in policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn for the reasons set out by Flo, Sandy, and Collect. Totally agree with ASCII. Appreciate that the admin brought this here, it must be said. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, I've submitted a proposal to ArbCom for introducing a system of tickets for private evidence that they may be referred to on wiki without violating BLP/PRIVACY policies, while allowing precise references to concrete evidence instead of vague remarks which are sometimes perceived as mere insinuations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk)
• Although not a clear consensus, the majority of responders here appear to agree that the block was incorrect. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 has resumed his "naming and shaming" campaign.[11] Mathsci (talk)

• So let's summarise. He posts a list of so-called "personal attacks" which uninvolved admins say are clearly nothing of the sort. The list includes comments which have nothing to do with the RfC - as in my case, since I've not participated in it. He posts them to the RfC, even though it contributes nothing to the discussion. Predictable drama ensures - in fact, I would suggest that Cla68 is aiming to provoke drama. Uninvolved admins review and hat it. He unhats it. It's hatted again. He reposts a summary outside the hat. It's hatted yet again and he's warned. He's advised by someone else to drop it but replies "There is a method to my madness" - in other words, I think he wanted to get blocked so that he could cause more drama. He reposts it again and he's blocked. Drama ensues on AN/I and AN. As soon as he's unblocked, he reposts it again. And so the drama continues. In short, drama and disruption isn't a byproduct, it's being caused deliberately. It speaks volumes about what kind of editor he is. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, you might should check the diffs again. I didn't unhat the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Ballonman implicitly requested admin intervention, so in a sense Cla was edit warring against an Admin action. More than 1 day would have been heavy handed, Tparis got it just right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that that is more tenable in retrospect than it would have been at the time. Barring an existing consensus that "hatting" was (or could be) an admin action, it's not reasonable to have expected Cla to have seen it as such. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - In trying to prove that the first diff of mine he cited was unfounded, I blundered into violating WP:Linking to external harassment. There wasn't really any way I could have disputed what he said without adding fuel to the fire, but I regret distressing Fae by taking the bait. While it is true that this is just one of a variety of policy-based ad hominem impeachments flying back and forth among RfC/U participants, this one was particularly irrelevant to Fae's situation. Hatting the thread (more importantly, formally discounting its relevance) was justified. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors

Following the expiry of his block, Cla68 is continuing the disruption by posting "warnings" to various editors relating to his bogus claims of personal attacks (see e.g. [12], [13], [14]). This is a rather obvious escalation of what Balloonman has rightly described as intimidatory tactics aimed at stifling discussion. This can only cause further drama and disruption. Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's actions seem comical but their underlying intent is divisive and intimidatory. She clearly has little interest in the ideas or opinions of her fellow editors and has openly flouted the guidance and sanctions of an administrator. It's time for a clear line to be drawn. Exok (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 is not and never has been an administrator. Prioryman (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the three editors Cla68 have warned have enough sense to just ignore it.--v/r - TP 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 warned 8 editors at one time (10 if you count Russavia and Prioryman), out of 13 people who he attacked in his enemies list. These "warnings", spammed across multiple namespaces, are nothing but intimidatory tactics designed to stifle dissent at the RfC/U. I stand by my comments, and I stand against intimidation. To any user on the fence about the allegations against Fae: this is what happens when the community allows a user to be harassed by an external website. They are only emboldened and expand their targets. Shrigley (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, are you trying to disrupt attempts by an editor to engage in the dispute resolution process? Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, why didn't you notify me of this discussion on my talk page? I haven't banned you from my talk page as you have me from yours. You are free to post there whenever you like. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Not too bothered about Cla, they're no worse than the other WR accounts. Wouldnt want them blocked as have a feeling they honestly believe they're doing whats best the encylopedia. Do wish someone would delete the RfC. Everytime a reasonable editor makes a point the accounts seem to treat it as an excuse to say even more hurtful things about the subject. As they often repeat his real name, the inevtiable result of prolonging the discussion seems to be even more real world damage to one of our most productive volunteers. Doesnt seem to be a plus side either. The common sense free walls of text from the swarming WR accounts make it useless as a consensus forming exercise, has to be the worst RfC/U ever, which is saying something. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think that either WP:CANVASS should be repealed in its entirety, or else it should be applied to the recruitment from WR. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 posted on my talk page. I responded to him there. I have nothing to add to this discussion which has not already been said. Thanks everyone for participating in this talk; I am satisfied with the things I see. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is utterly ridiculous, Blue's edit for which he is getting a warning is for declaring in an RfC on Fae, that ""Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues". That is it. Cla's bar for personal attacks is so utterly ridiculous (and self selective) that it litterally stiffles discussion. Cla cited another user for saying that while he didn't buy the anti-gay agenda, that the attacks "feel a little homophobic", another editor for saying Fae was being "harrassed", and other editor for calling the RfC "cyber poofery". Most of the "attacks" are not "personal attacks" but rather perspectives on what is going on---he just doesn't like the idea that people are questioning the motives. Cla was recently blocked (in a disputable block) but his actions appear to be nothing more than acts of intimidation. (Note, I haven't been cited as making personal attacks. But I am surprised that I haven't because I'm calling his actions acts of intimidation.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To be completely honest, as an editor who has expressed his opinion on Fae's handling of his clean start and RfA, I find claims that the RfC is just "cyber poofter bashing" slightly annoying. That too is an attempt at stifling the discussion. Granted, it's nothing particularly serious; after reading, I logged out and forgot all about it, but other editors have been singled out in a more insidious way. I don't think that what Cla is doing is useful in any way and is only likely to generate drama, as we're seeing here, and not every diff he has collected actually contained personal attacks, but it is undeniable that people who have criticised Fae have been described as a bunch of homofobes. That should not be overlooked when reprehending Cla's reaction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyber Poofery---Annoying? Yes. Childish? Yes. A violation of civil/npa warranting an warning or to be highlighted as such? No. There are sooooooo many other comments made here and there that are much more deserving of being labelled violations that if we kowtow to accepting this as such, then we are in trouble as a community. And BTW, you should now be getting a warning from Cla for making a personal attack, because this is the exact type of comment that Cla targets.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see that saying something seems "a little bit homophobic" differs significantly from saying something seems "a little bit racist" or a "little bit sexist". Conversations in to which such phrases are dropped tend to degenerate into shouting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't, but is it a personal attack to say that something "feels a little bit racist/sexist/homophobic?" No, it is an opinion.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA no longer protect editors from serious unsubstantiated allegations?

Among the things that WP:NPA lists as personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It notes "Serious accusations require serious evidence". I have been accused of many things lately from harassment to homophobia, all without the evidence that should be required for such charges. How can I possibly respond to allegations such as "DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes"? It is true in one sense, since an editor here was able to interpret comments I made there to mean almost the exact opposite of what I said and labelled them as "anti-gay" despite the fact that they had nothing to do with homosexuality. To make it worse, the specific comment they found to be "anti-gay" wasn't even expressing my opinion, it was putting forth what someone might say. It may be useful to remember that the narrative that my actions are motivated by homophobia was started by the user involved in the RFC/U when they edited along side User:Benjiboi as User:Ash. I recall insinuations that I was homophobic even while I was suggesting that Ash create stubs for gay porn performers (to address the issue of links on lists of gay porn performers and award winners pointing to the wrong people). Apparently advocating having more articles about gay porn performers is something a homophobe does. I hope that reasonable people will see it for what it was - a smokescreen to deflect criticism.

Prioryman's latest comment are much more nuanced than the misleading and inflammatory comments they made when they were attempting to have me banned (one example of many). Despite the fact that they knew their statements were false, they refused to retract or strike them. (This thread on Atama's talk page contains a discussion of the specific details.) Nor were they blocked, and now here they are making more comments in the same vein on the administrator's noticeboard where they are read and ignored by the very people who ought to be enforcing WP:NPA. I understand that some here are angry with me at the moment, but history shows that selective enforcement of policies generally leads to more problems. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The section TParis hatted is clearly in violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:Attack page and should be deleted and/or revdeleted. Unfortunately the conversation has become so rancorous and undisciplined it appears the community has just thrown it's hands up on managing it, and the discussion of DCs alleged off-wiki conduct (there and ANI) is farcical Star Chamber stuff:

• "DC said bad things somewhere, ban him!"
• "Do you have evidence?"
• "No, we can't link to bad things, just trust me and block him." Nobody Ent 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Amen Ent---which is why I think the discussion has degernated enough that the RfC should be closed. It is no longer about Fae, it is now about Wikipedia Review, Editors from WR, Civility between WR editors and the rest of the community, etc. The RfC is no longer about Fae's actions... and the vehemence and side issues that have arisen over the past 72 hours pretty much ensure that no new independent voices will join in. And it's happening on both sides.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I saw that happening several days ago, which is why I suggested that the RfC should be closed... Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be feeding the troll - again - here, but: Is it a an unsubstantiated personal attack to point out, when I'm called out to substantiate an example of homophobia on WR, I quote a certain person arguing that a director who engages in "risky sexual behavior" could put Wikimedia at legal risk? Sure, maybe this editor wasn't speaking of homosexuality; after all, it was said he was talking about legally risky "sex in a public place", as amply documented by that PG-rated picture of someone standing all by himself in a room. And maybe he wasn't really saying that, maybe he was just saying he could say that. I suppose editors should be very careful of these small, crucial distinctions in discussion.

But you'd think then that we could expect more caution from editors about "public sex" allegations which are completely unfounded, or when they suggest someone had a picture of a naked child on his web page when in fact that image was altered from a PG version a few days after the person's account on Wikipedia was closed down, retroactively altering how his pages appeared in the history. You'd think it would be wrong to hold an RfC about somebody who occasionally omitted a source for some trivial, correct, factual detail, then representing that as there being "no question that" he "was caught faking sources". You'd think a "no personal attacks" policy would protect the person who is describing real personal distress from abuse and harassment, not just the person leading a process against him which so far has revealed no real wrongdoing whatsoever except possibly by ArbCom. You'd think a process like that would be closed with a resounding community statement of support for its beleaguered member, rather than people coming now and then to beg that it just be deleted and forgotten about because it can't go anywhere, and not even getting that. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, we've already had this discussion on the RFC/U talk page. I addressed all of your points about my comment on Wikipedia Review. Short version - you are simply wrong. It is not there anymore because it was all revdeleted or otherwise removed. You know that I am hindered in my ability to respond without linking to my comments on Wikipedia Review. In light of that, I ask you to remove your comment above and my response. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The revdeling was less than thorough (see here); besides, this is the admins' noticeboard, and they can read it all. Also, we're not even arguing about homophobia but whether it is wrong for people to allege homophobia (somewhat the mirror image of the gray zone between you saying this argument can be made and actually saying it). In general, I think that efforts to impose civility on Wikipedia, as we see here, can be counterproductive; people just end up arguing more and more about who is being uncivil. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with civility. This section is about personal attacks in the form of unsubstantiated allegations. Prioryman made allegations that were not only unsubstantiated, they were provably false. No action was taken, even though this is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You are making a number of allegations in your statements above. In order to show the inaccuracies in your statements and defend myself against your charges, I will need to discuss the "public sex" comments as well that images. I suspect these are subjects that Fæ‎ would rather not have discussed here. You have opened up a can of worms (again). I am giving you a chance to close that can. The choice is yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then, my reply is below. Apologies to Fæ‎, but discussing the specifics here was forced upon my by his supporter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The comments of mine that Wnt references were made in a discussion of an article which had appeared in Examiner.com entitled "Wikimedia UK trustee finds his hands tied". The article featured a copy of the now deleted image File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg, which had been uploaded by Fæ when their account was known as User:Teahot (later renamed to User:Ash). That image shows a blindfolded man with his wrists shackled to a chain above his head. His pants are around his ankles, exposing his aussieBum underwear and his shirt is pulled up to his armpits. Written on his chest is "4.11.08" and underneath, "slave". In reference to the article, a WR contributor asked "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?". My response is below:

I agree that Van Haeften's sexuality is a distraction in this discussion (although as Ash, he had no trouble using it as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic).

I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk. In this case, we have what appears to be a man chained up in a public place. Note that it was Van Haeften who uploaded this image to one of the world's most-visited websites and Van Heaften who added it to articles so that it would be seen. If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?

I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften should be mocked for his sexual proclivities, but I am suggesting that this isn't perhaps quite as simple as you would like it to be.

My comments were in relation not to homosexuality, but to bondage, which was discussed in the Examiner piece. (Another image uploaded by Teahot/Ash/Fæ‎ was File:Hogtied male.jpg which showed a man, naked from the waist down, in hogtie bondage.) Note that I am saying that Fæ's sexuality is not the issue and is a distraction. Note that I qualify my comment with "there is a case to be made..." which should indicate that I am not offering my own opinion. Note that I say Fæ should not be mocked for their interest in bondage. I do not know if this is a language issue or some other deficiency, but no reasonable person could interpret my words the way Wnt has.

As for the image on User:Ash, it was a photograph of a naked adolescent male inserting his finger into the mouth of a flying fish taken by Wilhelm von Gloeden, who has a known association with paedophilia (as any Google search will show). (I do not know what other images were on earlier versions of the user page.) The version that was on User:Ash was this. As you point out, the image itself was later replaced with this full-length image. The user page was deleted on 25 March 2010 and the image was replaced on 28 March 2010, so the full length image would never have appeared on the page, despite how it appears on the Internet Archive site. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Fæ is unaware of von Gloeden's associations and placing even the cropped image on his user page was probably ill-advised.

I'm not trying to stir things up here, but Wnt has made serious charges and I feel I should be able to defend myself. I gave them every opportunity to remove their statements, but they chose not to do so. While I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to Fæ, it should be said that I am merely commenting on actions which he took of his own volition. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, all this was in the RfC history and even revdeled would be visible to admins! (same would be true if that should happen here...) But if we're repeating ourselves, I'll repeat that Fae was accused of something he simply didn't do. And regarding the fall-back argument, our article on Wilhelm von Gloeden calls him "the most important gay visual artist of the pre–World War I era". Yeah, sometimes he started up with boys somewhat younger than is now permitted in some states (of course, back then it was illegal either way), but the pedoes' claims are a fringe argument. If a person can look up to Muhammad he definitely should be allowed to admire von Gloeden as a gay pioneer. I don't think it's right for the WR editors to try to tar Fae in such an outrageous way, get called on it, then take a fallback position and keep making the same outrageous association. Heck, von Gloeden's lover was cleared of "pornography" charges for those photographs under the Mussolini regime. If only Wikipedia were so liberal!

I also think this revisionism about "risky sexual practices" strains my credulity. The photo described is not sexual. Nor is it risky. Nobody gets HIV from being photographed by himself in a mock dungeon stance. Nor do they need to catch it in other ways, if safe practices are used. I still think by far the most plausible interpretation is as a straightforward anti-gay canard everybody's heard a hundred times before.

I should not take it amiss if this thread finds a watery grave somewhere. If you revdel it and post a link a neutral admin can still find it. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You made allegations about me on a widely watched noticeboard. Those allegations are nonsense. Anyone can read them, but the only ones able to read my earlier rebuttal are admins, if they know where to look and bother to take the time to do so. At this point I would object to any attempt to hide my response here because it is clear that you have not learned anything from the earlier episode. I find it surprising that you think an image of a blindfolded and shackled man stripped to his underwear is non-sexual and I doubt a reasonable person would agree with you. I hope it is clear to people reading this that you have introduced something that was not in my comments -- HIV transmission -- and accused me of using some "anti-gay canard" that you yourself pieced together from misinterpretations of what I wrote. At this point, I find it difficult to believe that you are acting in good faith. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, all that I can ask is that people look at this process for themselves, ask whether there is any documentation of any actual wrongdoing by Fae, and support appropriate action to put an end to this campaign against him with our deepest apologies. Wnt (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, that is exactly what people should have been doing from the very beginning. Everything else was an unfortunate distraction. I started this sub-thread in part because not dealing with it at the offset lead to more disruption. Not enforcing WP:NPA when serious unsubstantiated allegations were made in this case will come back to haunt us. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 response

Now that I have your attention, and I appreciate Prioryman's help in bringing everyone together, let me repeat that all Wikipedians from now on should avoid using ad hominem or other logical fallacies when they debate an issue. It's lazy and dishonest. Unfortunately, I myself have probably used such debate tactics in the past, and for doing so I apologize. If I ever do again, I expect to be called on it. All of you should also expect to be called on it if you use a logical fallacy as an argument. Ad hominem is probably the worst, such as the examples that Delicious Carbuncle discusses above, because it also violates WP:NPA, but using any logical fallacy is wrong. Ad hominem arguments are beneath us, and I'm sure we can all behave better is we set our minds to it. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we repeal WP:CANVASS? It doesn't seem to be being enforced against WR anyway. Also, we should allow users in good standing to repost the arguments of blocked users from their userpages (if they have access) or elsewhere online. Some parts of WP:Child protection could be thrown out when we evaluate editors only on what they do, not what they are. Indeed, much of the current fixation on "sockpuppetry" could be ended, as long as people don't actually cheat on votes with it. I'm sure there are a lot of other instances here I haven't thought of, but yes, getting rid of the focus on ad hominem arguments would be a good thing. But right now, complaining about them here is on the list of things comparable to "handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500". Wnt (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What in the world does WP:CANVASS have to do with avoidance of ad hominem attacks brought up by Cla68? Ever heard of a red herring (actually should use plural here since you manage to pack a full barrel of them fish in the above)? It's sort of funny that a post requesting that users watch what they say and avoid logical fallacies is immediately answered with a stack of logical fallacies.VolunteerMarek 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "Canvassing" rule is a one-size-fits-all mechanism for a narrow faction to defeat broad debate and broad consensus. I agree with the (sarcastic but correct) comment above that it should be completely abolished. It's anti-democratic. I vote yes for democracy. That said, what are you all arguing about here? I honestly have no clue. I DARE each one of you who have commented in this thread to check out your last 500 edits. If 50% aren't in mainspace — STOP SCREWING OFF AND GET TO WORK. Now shut this idiotic diversion down... Carrite (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

- Hmmm, I get 23.4% mainspace, 8.6% mainspace talk, 27.8% RefDesk, 22.0% other WP, 8.8% user, 8.4% template, 1.0% lost in the count somewhere. No idea how that scores with you. Volunteer Marek should note that each of the policies I cited judges edits according to the source, i.e. officializes ad hominem. But it's still true this is a diversion. Wnt (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect from the deafening silence surrounding this discussion so far, that Carrite isn't the only one reacting with some bewilderment to it. All of you, do some reading at the logical fallacy article, get educated, then say "No! No more!" to logical fallacies. Administrators, the next time you see someone use an ad hominem argument, as several such have, to their shame, attempted to use against Delicious Carbuncle at the Fae RfC, I urge you to block them for it. You will see an immediate improvement in the level of discourse in debates in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is the reason you have had no replies. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing users of engaging in personal attacks seems like an ad hominem attack in itself, since that's irrelevant to the issue of Fae's editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Will, for the turtle. I now declare it's turtles all the way down. →StaniStani  07:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason to keep this thread open? No action required? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting reappraisal of a block

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

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel/Archive

• Notifications: [15], [16], [17].

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

The case centers around the BLP of a San Diego-based neuroscientist, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and some of the pages about topics of his research. These topics include autism, which (in ways unrelated to the BLP subject himself) is something that sometimes attracts editing agendas. I originally raised the SPI that led to the block (the second in the archive linked above), based upon an IP edit, [18], that has a now-hidden edit summary, claiming to be an "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform". At the time, it appeared to be a blatant admission of socking, and the checkuser data indicated that the accounts, including the IP, all geolocated to the San Diego area, with the two named accounts having a shared history of interest in editing in these topics.

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

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

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

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

Looking purely at their use of edit summaries the two are very similar but there are also subtle differences. Both like to use caps and finish sentences/sentence fragments will full stops, Neurorel slightly more consistently. Both prefer double speech marks for quotations. Neurorel makes a few more typos and likes the word "reorganize", whereas Edgeform never uses it. If I was forced at gunpoint to make a decision I'd say perhaps meatpuppetry or some other form of collusion rather than socking, but since the effect is the same I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong). EyeSerene^talk 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neurorel is not currently blocked, fyi, although the template on their userpage says they are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me, then, ask this: If (if!) we think it's more likely to be meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry (which makes sense to me, regardless of whether the accusing IP is acting in bad faith), then does it really make sense to block one account and leave the other account alone? I understand the rationale for socking (limit one user to a single account), but it doesn't seem to make sense for meatpuppets. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ban discussion from ANI

Resolved

 – Unaniomous community ban enacted after 48 hours long discussion. Night Ranger (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved from ANI Nobody Ent 22:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Proposed community ban of the Beatles IP Copyvio Vandal

I would like to propose a formal and official community ban of User:Crazy1980 (which was, as far as can be determined, the first named account created by this chronic copyvio offender) and all IP socks therof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support don't know if it's really necessary but to avoid the possibility of future dispute I'm willing to support. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support til I'm 64. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - also a 'lol' at Sarek. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fervent support - this is the worst case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU I've ever encountered that was not linked to a cult (religious or ideological). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've dealt with this yahoo before as well. There is no sense in ever engaging in conversation with this person, a complete case for WP:RBI has never been more plain. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know what practical difference this ban makes since even contributory copyright violations are to be removed regardless of who adds them, but it never hurts to reaffirm the community's stand on this matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Of course. Block all socks on sight and revert all their additions on sight. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - is good to have it as a formal decision (though a ban is not a solution to a problem). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - rather obvious at this point. Calabe1992 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I already voted support above but from User talk:Mike Linksvayer, I think the user should be banned due to overusage of colour alone :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A massive net negative to Wikipedia, the project is better off without this person. -- Atama頭 18:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A user whose sole purpose is spamming links that the community has overwhelmingly determined to be not appropriate for the project. A site-ban isn't a solution for the problem, but it does give us another tool for dealing with the disruption more efficiently. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe we can sick [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff Drmies (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - user who has spammed links and WP:IDHT issues, unfortunately, has no place on Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - yes. Swarm ^X 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Repeatedly adding links against community standards and against consensus is very disruptive, and experience shows that no amount of discussion would resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed community ban

For clarification, is the proposed ban on if the user adds links, or also for when the user makes demands or any other comment regarding the links? The reason I ask is that 95.29.70.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has only one edit, which was not adding the link ... but is obviously the same user. Note: regardless of any outcome here, I wouldn't take action myself in blocking this IP as it would be a COI given the IPs comments directed at me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Although, given the same COI reasoning, I shouldn't have earlier placed a block on 78.106.94.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm mentioning it here now in an effort to be fully transparent in my actions regarding the user. If anyone feels that block should be discussed/reviewed, feel free to start a new thread so as to not muddy the discussion here with the secondary topic). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Being threatened by a user does not make you involved. That would be too easy, make sure I first threaten all admins and then start vandalising, good call if s.o. dares to block that user. That is not what WP:INVOLVED reads, Barek, that block was a good call. Please continue making them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that's appreciated. Although, it still leaves the original question: is the above proposed ban on any disruption related to their demands/comments/etc related to the addition of the links, or only a ban on adding the links themselves. It appears to be on any disruption, but I just want to be sure that I'm clear on the scope of the proposed ban before supporting it (although, I will be supporting it regardless ... just want clarification before I added it in the section above). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The ban is for anything. Banned means banned. Anything and everything the vandal does should be reverted on sight and all of their accounts should be blocked on sight. See WP:BAN. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear now that the intent is a project-wide ban on anything identified as being the same user.

However, just to point out a minor bit of semantics in the meaning of a ban - while ban means ban,the scope of a ban can vary. Per WP:BAN, "Though a Wikipedia ban may extend to the entire project, it is usually limited to an article ban or a topic ban." ... which is the reason for my question regarding scope. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly this should have just been called a "site ban" because that's what it is. The term "site ban" only has one meaning... Banned from all of Wikipedia. There are many kinds of bans... Interaction bans, page bans, topic bans, but "site ban" is pretty specific and only refers to one kind of a ban, a ban from any activity anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, our policy here states, "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") but that's not really accurate. A "community ban" usually means that the editor was banned by community consensus, as opposed to a ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee, or through discretionary sanctions, from WMF or from Jimbo Wales. You can be community banned from a page or topic. The policy should probably be corrected but I know how fussy people can get about editing even a single word in a policy (let alone the policy on bans). -- Atama頭 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I assumed community ban made it clear it was a site ban, but yes, a full "ban ban" is what's being called for here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CBAN links to a section that states, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." That in no way makes it clear that it's a site ban. :p I figured it out in context, though, based on the discussion preceding the ban, which is why I supported the ban. -- Atama頭 22:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Very relevant

I've posted this in a couple of very high traffic places before: This individual has previously admitted to me he is a troll (link). De facto ban or full ban (as it will now be), I recommend in the strongest possible terms that he is reverted and blocked on sight. His only purpose is the deliberate waste of precious volunteer time, and when people respond to him, he is succeeding. WilliamH (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There's nothing preventing them from creating accounts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• My first thought is that I don't like this idea. However, I'm curious: have you ever made an abuse report for an IP, and the vandalism stopped, and productive edits started coming from there? If not, then why in the world would your labor intensive solution be better than a long block? If so, then I'll think about it some more. Three years does seem like a long time, but I routinely make {{schoolblock}}s of one year, and if those switched to 1 month, you would dramatically increase the amount of crap we'd have to deal with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen some of these IPs that have had productive contributions in addition to the malicious ones while unblocked, particularly college and university IPs. For example, this one, although never reported for abuse, was blocked for a whole year after a vandalism spree, and it has had a mixture of malicious and constructive edits. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot, this one, belonging to West Franklin High School, has been to abuse reports and has a mixture of malicious and productive contributions. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• If three years is far too long, then one month is far too short. It is great to imagine the isolated cases where a new editor might first contribute from one of the problem IPs (positive: more editors), however we should also remember the draining effect on established editors of continuously dealing with the same crap (big negative: known good editors despair and depart). There have been several cases where an obviously mature individual from a school IP has requested that the IP be blocked because the individual is dismayed that their colleagues are damaging the encyclopedia—such potentially excellent editors understand the reason for long blocks and can work around them (make an account; edit from elsewhere). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  On the contrary. I am quite sure that a large proportion of the "please block my IP, there are many bad people here!" anonymous IPs are just trolls. However, you are right that three years is too long and one month is too short. Thirteen months is a sensible maximum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • e/c I imagine there are times when long blocks are the best solution, and yes, filing ARs is tedious, but I think slapping another long, one year (or longer) block on a shared IP not long after another one has expired is the wrong approach; I think it might be more appropriate to start over with a shorter block and escalate back up to a year. As Johnuniq has described, abuse can cause established users anguish, and if an IP is harassing established users, then we need to do anything reasonable to stop the harassment. Something that disturbs me is when I see IPs that were once blocked, and didn't vandalize immediately after the block expired, but when an isolated incident of vandalism occurred, an administrator escalated to a longer block length. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open project, and we're supposed to assume good faith, but I can see it getting to a point where most schools and a significant number of universities and libraries are unable to edit Wikipedia. That's sad, to me any way. I also have to wonder about the effectiveness of blocking these shared IPs, since it seems to me that if someone wants to vandalize and can't do it at school that they would just do it elsewhere, unless they have no internet access elsewhere. I remember, when I was in high school, I would sometimes correct errors in pages (mainly typos and unnoticed vandalism) without logging into my account because I didn't want to get distracted from what I was doing (usually researching a topic). I imagine a lot of people would be bothered going home or registering an account to fix such things if they don't already have an account here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also note, I never thought that we shouldn't use one year blocks, I just think that we should at least contact the network administrators to let them know that we've blocked the IP due to abuse and can lift the block if they'll cooperate. Some schools would probably just assume it remain blocked, but it should be our goal to minimize the need for long-term blocks. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the question in the header: yes. Absolutely. We frequently get multiple people vandalising from school IPs over a period of time, so reporting to the school and getting one kid detention (if the school bothers to do anything at all) isn't going to solve the problem—there'll be another one, and another one. So we block them, and no matter how long the block is, it's usually not long after it expires that somebody is vandalising from that address again, so it gets blocked again. Renewing the block every few days or weeks instead of every few years would massively increase admins' workload.

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

• That is a good idea, except the autoblocks are hardblocks (if I'm not mistaken) and could potentially create more havoc for legitimate registered users than the soft-blocks with account creation disabled. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• As a rebuttal to the notion that abuse reports do nothing as different people would keep vandalizing, we should encourage the IT departments to monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism. Assuming they don't have a ton of IPs that they don't even need, it should take about a minute to pull up the contributions page every couple of days and pop every single one of the vandals for policy violations. Sooner or later, all of the users would figure out that vandalizing Wikipedia results in the vandal getting in trouble. Personally, if I was director of IT at an educational institution, I would do this and recommend to the principal that their computer access is revoked for the remainder of the school year as most of the ones that vandalize probably engage in other policy violations as well, especially the one's that engage in cyberbullying on here, and the OCD ones that keep coming back for more. It's their job to monitor for such policy violations. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  Do you have any real-life examples in mind where school authorities have done anything to "monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism", to your knowledge? Remember we need a few thousand such instances, for it to be worthwhile... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone, supposedly a cheerleader from what I've heard, got caught vandalizing Wikipedia in another high school in the local school district in '06, seemingly without Wikipedia even contacting them (and I'm still not sure if it was someone at the district or that school that caught them). This is what she did the next day, and the district blocked all of Wikipedia as a result. Obviously that's something we should stress that they do not need to do to stop the vandalism, and that we can manage the vandalism at our level without them needing to block all access. Additionally, when I was on the phone with an IT department for a school district in Illinois regarding Conservapedia vandalism, the IT person mentioned that they had similar problems with Wikipedia and dealt with it; apparently that school district would revoke the vandals' internet access for the entire school year over it. Also, I've seen evidence of action taken when vandals have sent me harassing messages from somewhere else after I reported them, in one case when I reported them to their DSL provider at home, and in one case when I reported them to their cellular provider. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• (Per your notice on my talk), PCHS-NJROTC, I would love to stop blocking those schools and restart my writing. The current reality is that we don't have enough admin-hours even to amply warn and block, let alone contact the schools - i.e. we never know how many good editors do we scare away by blocks (surely we do), but we do know how many vandal edits come out from there. Further, more and more single-purpose accounts are being created recently for vandalism only (i.e. they are prepared to spend time on registration). A solution is more than welcome, but it needs proper thinking and a wide community discussion. Reaching out to IT departments is certainly a good idea, but I and most other admins simply do not have time for that (can WMF/ambassadors help there? - it is a top priority after all). I did have first-hand experience teaming with a college sysop to catch local Napster spam - he was a dedicated sysop and managed to identify real people with IPs in real time, but I saw how tricky that was. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to see some openness to my idea, and I do understand that ISP is a cumbersome task; I do a lot ISP contacting for Conservapedia and it does take time to research everything and try to get them to work with you, and trying to work that in along with a job can seem damn near impossible at times. I also know that persistant vandals are annoying; I've been here since 2007 and have seen plenty of them. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only once contacted anybody over vandalism: it was for this edit (note that it's been revdeleted; sorry, non-admins), and I got cooperative responses from a school admin, a police officer, and the kid that was responsible. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually make contact whenever someone goes bashing other people, like that girl (I assume that it was a girl based on the edit) in Indiana that's rev deleted, but that's not the only times. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Something else I'd like to add is that it's not always schools that end up in this situation; I recall coming across an IP belonging to the United States Department of Homeland Security that was producing very childish and vulgar edits like the ones we see from schools, and it was on the fast track to getting blocked like the schools do. The sad thing is that it was obviously one person doing it and there were many other contributions that were legitimate from the IP, but I sent a report to Sprint's abuse contact (since it was through Sprint) and the vandalism ceased. This was sometime between '07 and '09. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Then why not continue blocking IP's the way we have been doing all along, but if someone wants to contact the school, and it results in a satisfactory response, we can just lift the block? If it works, it's almost the same effect as contacting the school first. If it doesn't, then there's no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Students in schools will vandalize on the internet, and most schools do have a policy about this, but unless they actually censor outgoing traffic, it is very hard to stop them; bored students in a computer lab will try anything. Some schools I've known sometimes try to ignore the problem, some try to come down much too hard. I am reluctant to involve school administrators except in truly exceptional cases, because all too few of them are likely to take a reasonable course of action. I think long-term blocks on schools are inhibiting good faith would-be contributors as well as the others, and we need those contributors. A short term block to stop a major campaign of harassment makes sense, but long term inhibits sensible participation also. We can deal with vandalism much better than when the practice of school blocks began: we have the edit filters, which has reduced vandalism in general very considerably, and the response of anti-vandalism patrol for the ones that get through is usually very fast. We just don't need this. I suggest we end all such blocka at the end of the current school year, and see again what happens in September. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the block logs of those two IPs that you link to, I would say yes. Absolutely were the lengthy blocks necessary. I understand from a non-admin's perspective these may seem bizarrely long or excessive— I had a question on my RfA about unusually long blocks and I said something along the lines of "I would rarely, if ever, impose a lengthy block". I couldn't have been more wrong. Just working intermittently at AIV in my few months as an administrator, I've had to impose seven two year blocks and one three year block. These situations are far more common than you may realize. Also, we already have an abuse response team. Nothing's stopping our non-admin vandal fighters from going to them. Swarm ^X 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ABUSE has been around for quite some time, and I was actually a member of the abuse team for a while. Unfortunately, it's horribly insufficient in my opinion; it's always required IPs to have been blocked at least five times, and now it requires that an IP has been blocked for a year at least once. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Most school IPs that I've warned or blocked have never contributed a single productive edit, so there's no loss to Wikipedia when they are blocked. Furthermore, I figure that with most long-term school blocks, Wikipedia is doing the school's faculty a favor, as the kids are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia while in the computer lab, and once editing is blocked from an IP, editing Wikipedia becomes one less distraction available to the bored kids in the computer lab. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Orlady's second sentence hits the nail on the head: I've encountered what she mentions in the first sentence, but the second has never occurred to me. Why should we tolerate behavior that's already problematic if it's prohibited by the school's rules in the first place? My first thought is that this idea is contrary to our policy of encouraging editing by people in countries where Wikipedia is restricted, but I then remember that there's a massive difference between editing around government censorship that harms the whole society and editing around simple school rules that don't hurt anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• This idea assumes all contributions from shared IPs are happening during class time/work time when students/employees are supposed to be studying/working. In high school, I used to edit Wikipedia from the library during lunch time, using a work around to access Wikipedia that only a few people knew about. The school administrators and district IT were okay with this. Every situation is unique. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, that comment I posted from a shared corporate IP while on a lunch break, which is allowed by policy. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• We can only judge IPs (or ranges) on their edits, and trying to second-guess whether there are multiple people behind the edits can often be a wild goose chase. If a school IP produces a hundred vandal edits, I don't care whether it's a hundred different student or just one persistent student; the net result from en.wikipedia's perspective is the same, and the 101st edit is extremely unlikely to be productive in either case. Similarly, if the IP has made a mixture of positive and negative edits, we can't distinguish between a mixture of good/bad students, or just one Jekyll & Hyde student; in either case, a short block might be an appropriate reaction to a sequence of bad edits. bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes We already have more than enough headaches with Vandalism. It takes a significant amount (or very disturbing) of non-productive editing to get an IP editor a block. I do however recognize the need for parole, therefore if the address has done enough to get a longer duration block (more than 6 months) that the block be limited to expire prior to the start of a new "term" for the educational institution and no more than 1 year for non-educational institutions. The purpose is to allow peer/community pressure to influence the bad apples to clean up their act. Hasteur (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I agree with you, Hasteur, that having the school blocks expire at the end of the school term would be nice. The only reason I'm not 100% behind this is that, assuming the vandalism patterns don't change, every August/September the community will have to deal with all the vandalism, and the admins will have to deal with re-blocking all the schools. This is a potentially huge pile of work at the start of every school term. I'm very tempted to say "let the kids who want to edit either do it at home, or register an account." I get that we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that shouldn't come at the expense of being the encyclopedia that anyone can freely vandalize. If someone can show me why using another IP or registering an account is too high a bar, then I'll change my mind, but otherwise I can't support changing the existing procedures for school blocks. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with all the admins here that vandalism is a pain, but my thoughts are that we are supposed to be an open wiki that assumes good faith. I'm usually pretty conservative and support blocking, but of kids want to vandalize, there's nothing stopping them from doing it at home or from a mobile device, so why long term block the schools and keep constructive editors from editing? -PPCHS-NJROTC 208.62.154.8 (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Users who wish to edit constructively via a school computer can do so simply by logging in under their own account. Rklawton (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If they have an account or are willing to create an account. 208.62.154.85 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Forgot to log in. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Either the student (and I pray it's not Faculty/Staff) will either mature and learn not to vandalize or they will graduate. My thoughts for non college level is something like 3~4 months so that at the start of Fall/Spring terms the educational institution is given a limited leash. With the history we keep we can spot trends early on. For College Level I see more of a Fall/Spring/Summer rotation. Yes it means more disruptive editors for a few weeks and a few Administrator headaches to sort out the vandals, but also demonstrates our AGF that the disruptive elements have moved on to other forums for their trolling needs. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that new students enter schools every year, right? Kids will be doing this every year in perpetuity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely we can make the AGF assumption that the entire school isn't filled with students who get their kicks by vandalizing WP. It's the reason why we have the 6 and 12 month reviews on long term blocks, because we assume that people will change and are willing to correct their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is difficult when virtually the only edits from a school are vandalism. By the way, between British schools starting summer vacation around the end of June, and American schools (and some British) going back mid-August or so, there isn't much time the schools in these two countries aren't open. And as someone who does a lot of school templating, can I ask people to check IPs more with WHOIS to see if the IP is a school. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Note: Non-Admin closure. Mbz1 community banned per near unanimous consensus after 24 hour discussion. If this closure is too controversial, feel free to revert me and ask an uninvolved admin to review and close. Night Ranger (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could we get an admin to close this discussion. It seems unlikely that further discussion would change the result. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC) moved from ANI Nobody Ent 13:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Please see m:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale, history http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale&action=history. Meta wiki is not a place to appeal disputes from en-Wikipedia. ArbCom is the final level of dispute resolution. Two editors are carrying a dispute way beyond it's logical end, and have created an attack page on Meta for the sole purpose of defaming a Wikipedia contributor. I would like the community to confirm that the following indef blocked editors are community banned from en-Wikipedia. This will help put an end to their activities on Meta. Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [19] (NOTE: Already community banned and logged at the WP:List of banned users).) (stricken as redundant - jeh) Thank you. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I'm really puzzled why the folks over at meta are allowing that RfC to proceed there. It seems like a really bad precedent to set. 28bytes (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC) About filing the request on meta.It states Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed. So according to this description, it looks as I submitted it in the right place. I also provided on wiki differences for every statement I made. Thanks --Mbz1 02:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Above statement copied from m:User talk:Mbz1. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC) This is a misinterpretation of policy. Meta wiki is a place for users from the smaller wikia with few to no dispute resolution processes to have their disputes resolved. English Wikipedia has robust dispute resolution processes. ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution. Users, especially banned users, may not carry a dispute from here to meta. Jehochman Talk 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) We have an official response from a m:global sysop [20]. Basically, it's allowed. I think the next logical step is to go on meta and start a RfC on the purpose of [meta] RfCs. Any single editor apparently can start a RfC on meta. Not even a co-certifier is needed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That global sysop needs to have their bit removed by WMF. Meta is not a place for defamation of character. ArbCom is the final appeal on en-Wikipedia, not meta. A banned user may not carry a gripe from here to there. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC) RFCs should not be defamatory, regardless of where they're located.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC) A user's global sysop-flag has no bearing on the import of his/er statements, either way. So there's no flag to be removed. (I also removed the section-header, as this is no "official" response.)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Okay, so global sysops are not meta sysops? How can we get a meta sysop to respond? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Indeed they are not. Meta-sysops are few, list is here. But they hardly ever do anything about the RfC's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) The place to contact Meta sysops is m:WM:RFH, although they're certainly aware of the RfC since Mbz1 has linked to it themself on that page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC) In fact a number of them have made comments in the RFC. E.g. Billinghurst, Philippe (WMF), WizardOfOz all 3 of which have some experience here. However I'm pretty sure there as here, the meta sysops speak for themselves and don't represent the community or make 'official' statements so it's largely a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Before you start a new Votes for Banning, consider this. Our collective inability to ignore silliness probably causes more "drama" on Wikipedia than anything else, by an order of magnitude. A meta RFC is completely meaningless; it will have zero effect here. Let anyone who wants to waste their time on it do so. Creating a similarly powerless section about it here was 100% the wrong tack to take. See Streisand effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Disagree. We need to take a stand against the harassment of our editors. Anybody thinking of copying Mbz1's tactics needs to understand, clearly, that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole. Ignoring such harassment is not a good idea. Jehochman Talk 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Ignoring such harassment hasn't exactly had good results for the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) In fact, it had a huge Streisand effect. If not for this circus with its deletion, the RFC would become stale in a few months and then would be archived and forgotten (by few people who have actually known about it). Ruslik_Zero 09:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Support community ban for Mbz1. An editor whose positive contributions were warmly appreciated here and all over the world, but, sadly, also an editor who does not fit into en.wiki's model of working together to build an encyclopedia. The negative contributions - in terms of disruption - were repeated and overwhelming. The involvement in the off-wiki email canvassing ring and the DYK fraud was the last straw as far as I was concerned, but the off-wiki (and on-wiki?) hate campaigns have continued unabated since then. It's time to draw it all to a close, I hope. I have never encountered the other named editor. If it's the same person, a community ban applies to both of them and any futher accounts they may make, so it's irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support Full siteban for both Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha. I vaguely recall the latter has been a part of other offiste harrassment and threat campaigns in the past, and in spite of this it looks like someone was nice to him, renamed his account and added noindex tags to his userpages. (UPDATE: I see Malcolm Schocha is already community banned from Wikipedia via his User:Kwork account. Of course, nobody realizes this because someone went around and hid all the evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm undoing this. Night Ranger (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Unless they are handed a m:global ban from all WMF sites, this won't make any difference in their activities on meta. But I suppose a local en.wiki ban is a necessary first step in that direction. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That's what I meant, I don't think a ban from en-wiki extends to meta, but that's for them to figure out over there. Night Ranger (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Night Ranger, when you say "someone went around and hid all the evidence", do you mean on English Wikipedia? I remember being told that I would likely be banned if I posted the evidence about the canvassing ring and DYK fraud, but were administrative actions taken on this wiki to hide that sort of thing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Well, it sure appears someone went out of their way to hide his identity and connection to the Kwork account. I'm not provy to what happened, but as far as I can tell from looking back through the block log and userpage histories: (1) The account Kwork was banned in 2009. (2) The editor later came back with the Malcolm Schocha account and proceeded to get involved in the I-P areas, apparently taking part in some off site harassment of administrators (this last part I also read about on WR of all places, where Schocha briefly participated). Anyway, the MS account was blocked, then it was later apparently renamed to Kwork2, and the MS account was recreated and blocked. I also vaguely recall him lobbing some legal threats around to try and get the MS account renamed... who knows why. This is all going back a couple years or so and I wasn't really active here at the time. Anyway I tagged the sockmaster and sock accounts appropriately so people can see the connection. If you look back through the edit histories you can see what was done and who did it. Night Ranger (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (ec) That's right. This discussion won't have any effect. So you need to go to meta and institute a global ban. As far as en.wiki, they are already dead, but you can't make anyone "deader". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Mbz1 is stating that they are not banned.[21] I want to make it absolutely clear that they are, to terminate that avenue of wiki lawyering. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Oh. — ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support site ban for Mbz1. It's clear that when an editor continues a dispute after all en.wp DR means have been exhausted, and this includes our ArbCom, [22] they effectively place themselves outside of the English Wikipedia community. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Request. Can someone provide more information on the User:Malcolm Schosha situation? Did he do something similar? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) According to the WP:List of banned users he was banned in 2009 for abusive sockpuppetry. Seems he came back with a new account Malcolm Schosha, which was then blocked and at some point it was renamed to Kwork2 and then someone went and added noindex tags to the userpages. Anyway, I added the sock tags so now people can actually see the connection between these accounts instead of staggering around blind. Night Ranger (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Schosha, aka Kwork and Kwork2, was just a run-of-the-mill I-P topic area troll/warrior and frequent enabler of Mbz1, little more. He showed up at Meta just to assist. Honestly the entire site there is like some bizarre Dances With Wolves-esque outpost that pretty much everyone's forgotten except for the loyal ones left behind. I tried to make use of their deletion process to bring and end to the harassment but it lasted all of 6 minutes. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support - Users are a net negative to the WMF as a whole, not just en.wiki. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I will support a ban for Mbz1 since I remember their time-sinking, unhelpful, and beyond-tedious battles, but a quick look around has failed to find the pages I recall. If anyone has some links (particularly for the other editor), please post them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Comment - Thanks to someone for finally informing me of this discussion. While I am a global sysop, my opinion nor the opinion of any Meta administrator is important. One of the primary reasons that RfCs exist is to resolve unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, and I personally believe this to be one of them. While I do not necessarily agree with the comments being made (or more correctly their relevance), I do see this as an issue which is being dismissed here off of hand. I don't edit here so I could easily be mistaken, but either way, surely a simple refuting of the evidence presented there would solve the problem. On a related note, quite a few Meta sysops also agree with me as seen here. On aside, this has nothing to do with my gs flag which is only used to fight vandalism and maintain small wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, you are seriously uninformed and mistaken. This is not an unresolved dispute. It is an obsessive, harassing, banned user going after a good faith volunteer beyond all reason and fair process. This dispute has no reason at all to be heard on meta. As a sysop, you should not take a decision without first fully informing yourself of the facts. In this matter you have enabled serious harassment. Please correct your error. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC) No, s/he has not enabled anything, it's not in Ajraddatz's scope as I pointed out before. So drop that "sysop"-talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Comment If folks can be sanctioned for what they do on other websites then there are a bunch of WR contributors who'll have a lot to answer for. I think that might be a good idea, but I just want to make sure that folks know the proposed action here would set a precedent.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Users can be sanctioned for serious off-wiki harassment. Moreover, I dispute the idea that en-wiki must ignore harassment occurring on a sister WMF project. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban. Carrying disputes across Wikis does seem to be a problem here; just recently Mbz1 badgered me on Commons about a past grievance related to this project.  Sandstein  08:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose ban Draconian solutions do not work, and, in the case at ahand, all it does is indicate a spitting contest between meta and here. Since it will not solve anything, and since it may well cause more problems, it simply is not a wise action. Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban for Mbz1 - I have seen enough of this persons off-wiki harassment and comments to indicate to me that they are not able to edit positively in a collaborative environment, and are therefore an overall negative on this project. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban - seems like highly inappropriate behaviour to engage in - and the concerns raised here seem quite legitimate (and therefore the thread is appropriate). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia. (This comment should be taken as a neutral when weighing consensus)--v/r - TP 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban on Mbz1. This endless crybaby crap has gone on way too long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban of Mbz1 per ASCIIn2Bme. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban also per ASCIIn2Bme. Kcowolf (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban per ASCIIn2Bme as well. Aslso, trouts all around for those on Meta who allowed the RfC to go forward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban per ASCIIn2Bme's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose in light of Will Beback's precedent and per Collect's draconian solutions. Also I am glad of the disclosure of information (and supporting diffs) about this administrator, much of which gives me cause for concern. Writegeist (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Since you are not blocked on enwiki, why don't you start a RfC/U on Gwen Gale here given that you are concerned about her behavior? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the considerate suggestion. An en.wiki RfC/U might be rather a tall order if she's indeffed the peeps with the evidence and blocked their UTPs. Maybe it's something you'd like to pursue? You're a lot more active here than I am. Nearly 40 edits today alone - admirably energetic for a "semi-retired", "burnt-out" editor! Writegeist (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the vote of confidence. I hate to disappoint, but I have my way of faking a higher level of activity by copy-editing each post of mine a few times . I'm not as persuaded as you are that the issues mentioned in the meta-wiki RFCs are a cause for action. Several enwiki admins stated over there that Gwen was merely doing here job, at least with respect to the contested admin actions. I don't know what the deal is with the previous identities. I haven't looked into that. However, a google search for "Gwen Gale" immediately finds some SEO-friendly blogs dating back to 2008 discussing her past accounts etc. So, it seems the matter was well known for at least 4 years. I don't know if there have been any on-wiki discussions about that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Update. Even Encyclopedia Dramatica was less biased than that meta RFC/U, by linking to this explanation. So, I think the matter of past accounts was disclosed and resolved at the time of the RfA. Is there anything else that concerns you? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, it's interesting that the ED entry on Gwen and the meta RFC use similar language. ED has a heading: "Gwen Gale - a bully administrator". The RFC demands that she "stop being a bully administrator, and, if for some reason she cannot do it, stop being administrator at all". Also, the structure of the meta RFC and ED article are eerily similar, almost as if the latter was a draft for the former. Not surprisingly, the ED article was largely written by the single-purpose account "Lyuba" in September 2011 (can't link because of the spam filer.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Support ban. Mbz1 has been harassing Gwen Gale for literally years. Her ban from Wikipedia was a positive outcome but it evidently hasn't stopped the harassment, so we need to go further. With regard to precedent, Jehochman's point about bans being possible (and imposed in the past) for off-wiki harassment is valid, but I'm not sure it's even relevant as I'm skeptical of the claim that other WMF projects are "off-wiki." ((Non-administrator comment)) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the systemic concern

• I have started m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: The above discussion contains a quote that was taken from a comment I made about the origins of Meta. Few Wikipedians would know that Meta was originally set up to handle all policy, policy discussions, noticeboards, disputes, etc for Wikipedia. This was around October 2001, several months before we had the Wikipedia namespace. When the Wikipedia namespace was created in 2002 there were a few of us (eg. Larry Sanger, myself) who actively campaigned for keeping all non-article-related material on Meta. Obviously we lost that debate, all policies moved into the WP namespace, Larry left the project (for unrelated reasons) shortly afterwards in mid-2002, and it's never been an issue since (so much so that most people don't even know that was ever the case). I was quoted as if I was currently agitating for a fundamental change to how WP works, whereas in reality I was simply relating a bit of ancient history. Manning (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is all of this kerfluffle-promotion now of any actual benefit to anything? Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing our productive volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That meta-meta-RfC seems to have caused quite a few users banned from en.wp to come out of the woodwork over there to oppose the demise of their soapbox. Meta gives Wikipedia Review a good run for the money in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it a place to go around attacking and harassing our unproductive volunteers? Nobody Ent 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you one of them? Them who created the page are to blame for the ruckus. It is not okay to stand around and watch when an innocent person is attacked by thugs. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing anyone; your unnecessary "productive" qualifier implies some category of users (IPs? Socks? Trolls?) are fair game. Nobody Ent 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing a logical fallacy. I mentioned "productive" to highlight the different between "banned" and "productive" as this is an exacerbating circumstance. One "productive" editor harassing another is also not good, and even a "productive" editor harassing a banned user is also not good because that sort of goading can create negative results. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anything in the allegations worth looking at?

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

I consider this mess to be a systemic failure. Meta needs to understand that they do not have the power to review ArbCom decisions. At times I've been very critical of ArbCom, but the way to address that problem is to vote for different members at the next election. We need to have a process to globally ban users who engage in cross-wiki harassment. I'm not sure how to go about that. We should not allow grudges to be carried from one wiki to another. Any advice would be appreciated. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A m:global ban is possible for a user banned from at least two projects. However, given the self-righteous mission of meta admins to review en.wp ArbCom decisions, I doubt that's going to happen in this case or ever. Meta-wiki is basically a WMF-sponsored Wikipedia Review in that respect. Whether they'd ever have the balls to do anything overriding en.wp decisions is another matter though. Right now they seem content to enable banned users to soapbox endlessly over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I intend to change that situation, if necessary by WMF office action. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we hold an RFC to tell Meta that they can do whatever they want, we don't really care what they come up with on there and they're wasting their time? (You see that? I used all three).--v/r - TP 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta could have a useful role in evaluating whether dispute resolution processes work correctly on WMF projects, and advising WMF with well-considered opinions when it is necessary to reform or reset their administration. There is always a chance that any wiki will fall under the control of some clique that abuses its power, even en.wiki. (On the other hand, the same could happen to WMF...) But arguing RfC/U cases about specific users on other wikis seems unreasonable. As with an appellate court, the question should be whether the process was flawed, not what the verdict should be. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta does not have any power to overrule a local decision, not even with global bans. When it comes to problems with one user on one project, RfCs really won't accomplish anything other than raise awareness. We do get quite a few banned enwiki editors on Meta, although this is the first RfC I've seen made by one of them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The war of rhetoric is building up [23]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Just for the clarification, that was more an expression of my frustration over the arrogance it takes to think they can dictate dispute resolution to use rather than a real !vote which is why I said it should be taken as a neutral !vote in parenthesis. I just feel that en.Wikipedia has the most complete dispute resolution process and tougher sysop prerequisites than any other project and some sysop on meta who didn't have to go through half the RfA that any of us did, then an additional month long vote and (ceremonial) appointment by Jimbo to the role of Arbcom shouldn't feel they have the right to judge and jury the English Wikipedia. Besides, they have no technical capability to fulfil their decision anyway (besides the global sysops) and they should stick to their own sandbox. As I said, it was in frustration and not a honest !vote that I said what I said and I made that clear in the first edit (no subsequent edit to clarify what I meant) that it was in actuality a neutral !vote.--v/r - TP 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have some sort of red telephone you can use to call Meta and straighten things out? There's a rule if you send more than two emails trying to straighten something out, pick up the phone instead to avoid misunderstandings. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no such "red phone"--project-to-project leadership coordination is actually quite lacking, and essentially accomplished only through informal links among those who participate in multiple projects. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, meta-wiki doesn't have an ArbCom or a Jimbo, so there's no clear "supreme" authority. m:WM:RFH (their AN[I] equivalent) is already swamped with threads related to mbz1's RfC on Gwen, so it's not awareness that's lacking over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, my experience is en.wikipedia to other project communication can often be poor with many users from other projects not always happy with the way en.wikipedia people approach their projects or agreeing with our blocking and banning policies, and en.wikipedia people confused by the rules or allowance of banned/blocked users and their content in other projects. (One thing of course is that very commonly many people in other projects have some experience at en.wikipedia but of course most en.wikipedia users have little or no experience with the other projects.) Of course usually they stop any attempts to comment on people at en.wikipedia but I guess it's more difficult here given meta's purpose. As with EotR, I'm not convinced the way we're approaching the situation there is helping anything, in fact it seems to me it's just going to further convince them that perhaps there are problems at en.wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's cut to the chase: which concerns about Gwen need addressing, and how do you propose we address them? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said any concerns about Gwen need addressing. What gave you the idea I did? I have little experience with GG, but the consensus here and at the meta RFC by meta participants who I presume have analysed whatever evidence was presented appears to be that there's no legitimate concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkay, so are we supposed to have some sort of show trial then, in which nobody [on en.wiki] believes the concerns are real, but we do it anyway to appease someone at meta? WP:BURO? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm further confused by your comments. No one at meta seems to think the concerns are real either as I've already said. However it's clear that the way we're (well at least some people from here) approaching this is not helping convince those at meta with less experience of our systems that our dispute resolutions systems actually work or that we're fair to every user. Quite the opposite. (Note that I'm not saying either is true, simple that our approach is giving that impression.) And for those who already have a poor view it further re-enforced that view.

In other words, rather then helping shut down the RFC quickly and efficiently, what we've done is made it worse. And we're far less likely to convince them to change their policies and how they handle RFCs in the future or at least not in a way many here desire. And whatever we do achieve, it's likely to be a much more torturious process then it had to be.

This isn't exactly surprising, treating people like they're an enemy that needs to be destroyed rarely get them on your side. Of course what it does do is get their backs up and make them disinclined to believe anything you say, and think that perhaps those complaining about you may have a point. To put it in a mildly rude way, being an arsehole to someone just makes them think you're an arsehole. (If we're supposed to be the 'better' wiki, we definitely haven't shown it in this dispute.)

There's no reason why we couldn't have approached this in a clear and even forceful but calmer, politer, well argued way, following their rules as much as possible and treating them as fellow wikimedians rather then an enemy. If we had done so, I suspect a much better outcome would have been achieved and perhaps they would now be actively considering a better RFC policy, rather then the insane crosswiki mess we have now where it's not clear that anything productive is really going to come out of this. Perhaps even that RFC would have been deleted or blanked by now.

P.S. I'm not saying they've been perfect. But I don't really regard myself as a metadians and have very limited experience there so it's not for me to comment. Further, while 'they started it' may be a childish argument, it is IMO the case that we seemed to be the primary instigator of the mess we have now. In any case I agree with Bobrayner, it's generally better to discuss metadian actions on meta; on meta. Which is after all what we're asking for here.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how "following their rules as much as possible" could be done when they simply reply that we are misreading their written rules (like m:WM:NOT # 11) without further explanation as to how they interpret it, and when they edit war and block people right and left for merely stating disagreement with them, as they've already done to two enwiki admins in this case. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the developments below, but a meta-wiki admin and crat promised to go on a vandalism spree after losing the argument and was globally locked. Is that the kind of people that we can hope to convince with rational arguments if only they were more elaborate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction aside, hasn't ArbCom reviewed this already? From the not-so-confidential-anymore email that ArbCom sent to mbz1, [24] I would have thought so. If someone who isn't blocked on en.wiki wants to bring a RfC/U here on Gwen Gale for the multiple accounts stuff or anything else, I'm not sure what's stopping them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wyss account was begun in 2004 and blocked at the user's request in 2006. That's an incredibly long time ago. Those matters can't be reopened now. Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If there was ever a justified "tl;dnr", this, and the barrage of words on Meta, must be it. I make no judgement here about any of it except Jehochman's assertion above that matters between 2004 and 2006 cannot be re-opened now. In general terms, if a behaviour or set of behaviours started then and is continuing into the present, it would seem to be very important to know just how long it has been going on. Bielle (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The matters were hashed out long ago. The complaint was raised by a chronically disruptive, community banned editor. Sorry, no, they do not get the satisfaction of putting a good faith user through the wringer. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am astonished by the abusive, nasty behavior of the admins over there. I would fully expect ArbCom to hand my head on a plate if I acted like that over here. I know they aren't used to en.WP style uber-drama over there, but an admin participating in a discussion and then edit warring over a deletion tag, and threatening to block anyone who dares to revert him? And conversations just shut down while people are still adding comments because those admins don't think the request is valid, regardless of what consensus is arrived at? The whole affair makes me sick. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The same admin just indef blocked me without talk page access over there. Something is very rotten in Denmark when the guy defending a banned users right to attack someone over there for things that happened here can indef block me for saying something he didn't like. And I can't even appeal it on-wiki because he cut off my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess they are very fond of playing overlords when "admin abuse" on some other wiki is brought to their sérénissime attention, but they have a giant blind spot for their own petty, autocratic behavior. Meta = Animal Farm. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He isn't involved in the discussion, he is involved in keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama as possible. Your personal attack were why you were blocked, not the fact the you were arguing on the opposite side as him. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's totally fair, an indef block with no talk page access and no email access, applied by the very user who was the subject of said attack. I linked to WP:DICK, which is hosted at Meta and this is the fair result from a good faith admin just doing his job? Bullshit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had a bit of experience with that user; at the infamous bug 30208 at bugzilla, he came out of the woodwork to join the WMF people in patronizing us as if we didn't know how to run en.wiki and he was somehow graced with infinite knowledge (Dunning and Kruger could hardly find a better example). So I can't say I'm shocked over him doing something like that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Yeah, right. He is "keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama" by abusively closing early the deletion discussion multiple times so that actual user consensus can't be formed. And blocking users who protest that action. And the "RFC" your metapedian wizard is so carefully protecting [from enwiki drama] contains soapy commentary like "self-pitying" and "shameful, childish, dishonest and cowardly retaliation", words penned by author of the RFC. I rest my case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on meta:User talk:Nemo bis#Deletion closure is also instructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also m:WM:RFH#Involved_block.2C_WizardOfOz_and_Beeblebrox. It looks like there are some sane admins on meta after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Floating an idea

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

• I intend to appeal my block, if they will grant me a way top even do that, and I certainly think Wizard is an absolute disgrace of an admin, but just as the discussion there will have no effect here, no RFC here can influence anything over there. I find it comical that an admin who was acting the bully and openly threatening to block anyone who reverted him would turn around say I was the one doing the intimidating and proceed to block me for it. And he took the coward's route, denying me any avenue of appeal right off the bat. It is clear to me that Meta is severely dysfunctional if this sort of abusive admin behavior is considered acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your reduced to twenty two hours - congratulations - oh noes ...there is clearly something wrong in Denmark - Youreallycan 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be so sure about the opposite direction. A sizeable number of users from en.wiki asking the WMF or Stewards to relieve these two guys of their bits has some chance of succeeding. Hopefully, they'll see reason before it comes to that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let's not do that. They are probably doing many useful things. This matter is outside their area of expertise so they have fumbled it badly, but we can forgive them if they will agree to be more clueful in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We all know...

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

That sounds about right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they do have some practical power over all wikis, like via the global abuse filter and probably a few other bits. So we can't just let anyone be in charge over there. The meta-wiki pages have the same high google juice as most other Wikipedia sites. Let meta turn into soapbox where banned users can attack whoever they want with impunity? Their RFC/Us aren't non-indexed by default. True, almost everyone can put a blogspot page up and get practically the same result on google. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we clearly need to take some sort of action about this abuse of power and, really, the abuse of the trust of the English Wikipedia community. Silverseren^C 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot even find anything about a de-adminship procedure on Meta. The only kind of de-adminship their process pages say anything about is for inactivity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocking administrator on Meta has an account here as WizardOfOz. Is it not possible to request arbcom to review his actions on other WMF sites if they are directly related to en.wikipedia? He saw fit to leave Gwen Gale a note here which seems a little bit odd.[25] Does this not count as acting as a proxy for arbcom banned users? Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy I have informed WizardOfOz about this discussion.[26] Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears he is not very active here, his primary user page is on the Bosnian wiki here, perhaps leave him a message there. Youreallycan 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Leaving a user notice is not proxying. Let's focus on getting the deletion discussion restarted. That would be more productive than starting tangential issues like this. Jehochman ^Talk 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Irony alert. Apprently he expects a higher standard from our admins [27]. This guy likes making with the accusations, as he accused me of edit warring (with him, but he leaves that part out) threats (actually he threatened me) and trolling, which is just odd but not unexpected. Luckily cooler heads have prevailed in regard to my block there and it's been reduced to one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole thread on User talk:Kwamikagami [28] is surreal. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, WizardOfOz would probably not pass a RfA on enwiki if his usual demeanor in a dispute is like in that content conversation. We can tell he isn't exactly acculturated to enwiki polices on sources, verifiability, and no original research, besides exhibiting hostility and edit warring. This part was funny:

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

This is a threat of an involved sysop. [...] I´m not going to revert myself as it is a edit in good faith and acceptable by all rules of the project. And as a sysop and crat, I can´t imagine that there will be someone who is prepered to block me because of one edit that is sourced and improvement. Good night, and ping me tomorrow when you are awake so we can end this discussion and find a way out. Just leave me something on meta or bswiki. --WizardOfOz (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No wonder he prefers that dispute resolution on meta be used to overrule enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like he has decided to crash and burn [29]. The block is totally worth it if it results in him not being an admin there anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The powers that be seem to have talked with WizardOfOz over there.[30] (PeterSymonds reverted his post there in the next edit.) Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Plus [31] Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The user has also removed his crat and admin rights on meta - you couldn't make it up. Youreallycan 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Background to that [32]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Good grief, and FYI...

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

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

I think there's a substantive difference between the two scenarios you mentioned. Wikipedia Review is non-WMF site where some people discuss, rant about, and occasionally outright attack some Wikipedia editors. Although it sees some (occasional) serious participation from enwiki Arbitrators etc., nobody in their right mind thinks that WR has any sort of WMF mandate to solve problems on Wikipedia. In contrast, Meta-wiki is a WMF-run site that vaguely claims to be the wiki to rule them all, and where some admins assert a nebulous right to host somewhat official reviews of editor conduct from other WMF wikis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the analogy is singularly inappropriate. Meta is a place that has no "community" and no autonomous purpose of its own, other than that of serving whatever members of local projects "suddenly turn up" to get their business done. Its "regulars" are truly just janitors, whose job it is to make the place work for those who, like us, come there maybe once or twice a year, or once in a wiki-lifetime. And if they don't do that job properly, they indeed deserve to be "bossed around", as loudly as the situation requires. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is, Fut Pref, that our sysops and ArbCom members go through a much more thorough process to confirmation and authority than theirs. More is expected of our sysops and higher standards of conduct are required. WMF has constant and direct involvements with out sysops and Arbcom. There is no reason that a project of tougher qualifications should be judged by a project of easier qualifications for authority. This is like a circuit court of appeals being judged by a local high school student court. And WizardOfOz's martyrdom (the request for global block, not the self desysop which was respectable) is exactly the behavior that a 'crat and sysop shouldn't have. The analogy is accurate and appropriate.--v/r - TP 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a misunderstanding here – were we talking abut the same "analogy"? :-) I was referring the comparison made by SB Johnnie above, between Meta admins objecting to an invasion of en-wikipedians, and en-wiki admins objecting to an invasion of WR'ers. On what you just said, I quite agree. – By the way, I note with considerable amusement that I too have now been blocked on Meta, by an admin directly involved in a dispute with me, who is now claiming he "didn't remember" we had a dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the analogy is actually pretty accurate, but it's an analogy about the perceptions of the local communities. The more you accuse them of being incompetent and/or power-hungry and/or corrupt (which are rather similar to "WR-ish" criticisms of the regime here), the more they'll circle the wagons (which is -- again -- what happens here). Try putting yourself in their shoes for a moment. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, they are really twitchy over there when it comes to criticism of their wikiturf. [33] Apparently you get tagged as a WP:SPA [34] over there if you don't troll the place all day long like users banned from enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked Courcelles on Meta to look into FPaS's indefinite block on Meta. The blocking adminsitrator, Nemo_bis, does not seem to have an account on any part of wikipedia in any language, but I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not an indef, just 48hrs. Or at least it was the last time I looked. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Most sincere apologies :) Mathsci (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that it was for disagreeing with Ottava rime that you were blocked. [35] TMathsci (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again User:Nemo bis has an account here. It's hard in those circumstances to understand his conduct on Meta. (I have left a notification on his talk page here.) Mathsci (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fut Perf - Yeah, we were talking about different analogies then. I was referring to the One wiki to rule them all reference.--v/r - TP 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments about other wikis "not having a community" are generally wrong. Certainly so in this case; Meta has a steady and active daily community, on top of the groups that use it for one specific function or another. – SJ + 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't endorse "dancing on the grave" of any wiki- or meta-pedian, but the lock summary "Self proclaimed future vandal. locking per self request." is worrisome. WizardOfOz was an admin and crat on meta (meaning he could promote others to adminship over there). Someone invested with that kind responsibility promising to become a vandal the day after losing an argument rings all sorts of alarm bells about the meta-wiki regulars. Note a farewell message left on his page [36] mentioning "some idiots who have arrived recently". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is now clear to me that Meta, in addition to its stated purpose, is a gathering spot for malcontents who have been banned or indef blocked from this project, along with users from other Wikipedias who have grudges against this project because it is the largest and most well known Wikipedia. However it has also become clear that these users are not in total control of that project, there are some in the administration there who possess common sense and ability to judge things objectively. I think the problem is that is such a small project that if only one or two admins are around, and they happen to be in the camp that dislikes en.WP, their obvious contempt for users from this project and their rejection of our opinions on subjects germane both to this project and that one can cause serious problems. Not that I acted like the paragon of civility either, I tend to react badly to being bullied. What i find ironic in this whole episode is that some of the Meta users, and indeed some users right here are complaining about us barging in to the clubhouse over there when the reason most of us showed up was exactly because we didn't believe a dispute from here should be allowed to continue over there, and those very same users were defending the right of these banned users to do so, some going so far as to suggest that is actually part of Meta's purpose, to give people we kicked off a place to bitch and moan and endlessly challenge the outcome of disputes here. As we all know there is in fact a website specifically created for that purpose, but Meta is not it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like Avi is not getting through to some metapedians. [37] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

    ? Avi is indeed getting through to metapedians. Mbz1 is not acting as a metapedian; simply the antagonist in this situation. – SJ + 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What does meta even do?

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

I think it would be worthwhile to invite some folks who are active at meta to answer your question. It might also be beneficial if more of us went over there and helped out. There are lots of tasks that are common to all the Wikipedias, such as software upgrades. Meta has an important role to play coordinating those activities. We should also suggest more productive methods of handling cross-wiki disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as I understand, there are a few actual decision processes done on Meta, like closing or opening new projects. Also, the field of global RfCs or other global dispute resolution processes is something that there is certainly a need for (though rarely with individual user RfCs as attempted here). For instance, there's certainly a need for a big meta-RfC to be held one day about all the smaller projects that completely refuse to play by foundation rules when it comes to image licensing, non-free content and fighting copyvios. In situation where the whole admin corps of a project collectively and systematically refuses to enforce common policy standards, the possibility of a binding meta-process would be sorely needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I was genuinely confused about their function. Night Ranger (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The also host a "process" by which confusion in interwiki links is supposed to be solved, m:IS, although that's mostly broken. And they host cross-wiki efforts like the m:Controversial content stuff (reports and referendum on the image filter etc.) and m:Stewards elections (which are currently ongoing, by the way). More details here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Yes, see this discussion (now archived automatically by MiszaBot III. Goodvac (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• It amazes me that all of this has been going on while people seem to have no clue what meta is or why it exists. Meta serves many roles, including translation organization, fundraiser organization, global policy determination and implementation, assigning and removing global groups, mediating conflicts on smaller wikis. As I have said before, Meta does not govern enwiki in any way. There are some technical features, such as the spam blacklist and the title blacklist which affect all WMF projects, but other than that Meta has no editorial, political, whatever control over enwiki. The point which seems to have been avoided by just about everyone here is that the Gwen Gale RfC would not have resulted in any action - it is well outside of the scope of Meta to be screwing around with enwiki affairs. RfCs around unresolved issues on large wikis serve to facilitate further discussion on the matter, not result in a definitive course of action. RfCs are more for smaller projects that do not have the facilities to handle such things - and yes, that means that the Gwen Gale RfC was a waste of Mbz1's time. It amazes me how often people forget than the WMF hosts hundreds of wikis - about 515 open ones right now. Meta is more for about 400 of the smaller projects than it is for large wikis. What Meta is not is an outdated system in place from the first years of Wikimedia - it is an active body which coordinates many cross-wiki activities. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason most users here don't know much about Meta is that, as you say, we really don't need it as it is intended to help out smaller wikis. Which makes one wonder why some admins there fought so hard to stifle discussion of deleting said RFC and why there is such a large contingent of users who are openly hostile to this project hanging about over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, their purpose is not so much helping as it is bossing around. It's just that now that en.wiki gets a taste of it, you guys take note. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

View from uninvolved, random guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object against the proliferation of this odd meme that what we have been doing on Meta (assuming I'm included in your description) shows some kind of unwillingness to accept local norms, or ignorance of them. That's a meme that has been bandied about by some of the wagon-circling regulars over there, but as far as I can see it's simply wrong. Nobody has ever told me what those mysterious local rules are supposed to be that we have been ignoring. As far as I am concerned, I have been defending local Meta rules (e.g. the proper Meta-policy-conformant running of a deletion debate) from rogue Meta admins who were breaking them. I know those Meta policies; I looked them up. The only point of contention is the notion that "RfCs can never be deleted", but that's not Meta policy; it's simply a habit and some regulars' personal opinion. I and others happen to disagree with that opinion, and our opinion is as good as theirs. A certain number of Meta regulars can't distinguish between their personal opinion about Meta rules and the actual Meta rules, and that's where the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The manner in which some people proceeded to "disagree with that opinion" is hardly appropriate. Excellent analysis of the issue, Avi. —Dark 07:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The only reason the "manner" of debate escalated was the fact that abusive local admins (and a few trolls) were trying to shut us out. I don't take kindly to that, and no, if they expect us to continue talking in a manner as if all was nice and fuzzy in such a situation, that's one thing I'm not willing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Taking up your example of what went wrong, I think I have to correct the picture in one crucial detail: the notion that the RfC on Meta could in fact possibly overturn something here on en-wiki was not brought to the fore by ignorant fears of en-wikipedians. It was proposed most visibly by a Meta admin and buraucrat, WizardOfOz. Indeed, people who are more familiar with Meta ought to know that that was nonsense, but evidently they didn't, and it is hardly astonishing that some of the less Meta-experienced people then took the notion at face value and argued forcefully against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I am unaware of any statement by Wizard of Oz indicating that a potential resolution to m:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale would include any changes on EnWiki. I'm not calling your statement into askance, I just don't recall any such statement, and would appreciate a link. Secondly, WoO has returned his 'crat and sysop bits, went on a vandalism spree, and is now globally locked at his request. Sadly, it seems to be a case of serious burnout, and I think a week or three off from all wiki projects may help him calm down a bit (note, Meta has no similar provision to admins leaving trying to escape scrutiny, so it will be interesting to see what happens if he wants his bits back). So I do understand that to the non-regular on meta coming from EnWiki, it may look like that "the Metapedians are coming". What I am asking for is the next time something like this happens, clarify if there really is a concern (and get that clarification from people who have the power to enforce it; a Meta sysop can do nothing on Enwiki solely by virture of being a Meta sysop or crat), and maybe we'll find that we are more like-minded than not. -- Avi (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

See [38] for Wizards' forward looking statements. As for like-minded, I sure hope not. Insofar nobody here referred to meta-pedians as "some idiots", but the converse did happen: [39]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. About the other thing you added, the analogy "if a bunch of Metapedians, who were not regulars on EnWiki, would descend en masse on WP:ANI and try and get so-and-so banned or unbanned, they may take a bunch of us coming in without preamble and in a non-amelioratory manner to be somewhat disconcerting as well": I think I've said it before, but it bears repeating. While reactions along these lines may be understandable, it is nevertheless unacceptable, and we should not tolerate them. We should not show any understanding or patience or tolerance with local regulars who react like that on Meta, at all. People who react like that on Meta need to be kicked out, period. Because here's the crucial difference between Meta and local projects: Local projects have a right to have an established local community, and they have the right to treat their regulars differently from one-off outside visitors. Meta just doesn't have that right. There is in fact no such thing as a "Meta community". The community of the Meta wiki is just whatever members of any of the local wikis happen to have any central business on Meta at any given time. If some of the small club of people who hang out on Meta a bit more regularly than others think they constitute a local "community" that has the right to treat others as outsiders, they are wrong, and they must be shown in no unclear terms that their attitude is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "There is in fact no such thing as a 'Meta community'." Unfortunately, there is. It's just not a very healthy one judging from the past few days. If I may use a phrase borrowed from Jimbo, it's "not the kind we want". In fact, looking back at my edits early last year on m:Dick, I see the small set of meta-admins involved there were also involved in keeping the GG RFC: WizardOfOz, Nemo bis, Wikiwind, etc. And the same tactics used: reverts without discussion, nearly meaningless posts on the talk page and so forth: m:Talk:Don't_be_a_dick#try_discussing_one_revert_at_a_time_please. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you, ASCIIn2Bme, for pointing out that link. While technically WoO was correct, the m:Stewards do have the ability to overturn any decision on any wiki, I'm pretty confident speaking for my fellow stewards (and I'll take this opportunity to plug the ongoing steward elections) that we would not overturn the valid decision of any ArbCom solely because of a Meta RfC. If you were concerned about the steward actions, wouldn't it make sense to ask a steward if that would happen? We all have pages on Meta, and most of us have a presence on EnWiki as well (see Category:Wikimedia stewards). Just because stewards hang out on Meta doesn't mean that they jump to any Metapedian's bidding . I do not think it has ever been done, and the only reason I can think of doing it is for a project gone amok, and EnWiki may be dysfunctional, but it certainly has not run amok. Outside of a local project crat going around and desysoping /blocking all other admins/crats in a project, we only flip bits when asked, and we are very careful to try and not step on the toes of any local project. I believe that in truth WoO's statement was more meant as the bluster of a frustrated Meta admin who wanted to impress upon the newcomers that Meta had teeth; thankfully, the Metapedians with teeth also, usually, have both patience and common sense (or at least we delude ourselves into thinking that). For more discussion about stewards, I'd recommend asking at m:Talk:Stewards. -- Avi (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your issue with the Meta community, FPAS, here I have to respectfully disagree. Maybe the word community is not the best, but Meta has its own policies and guidelines like any other project, and they are not always the same as EnWiki's. There is nothing preventing someone from complaining about another project on Meta; using Meta to host an attack page—that is forbidden. But Meta has different, and often looser, restrictions than EnWiki, and those should be respected. My personal opinion, and I've made that clear a number of places on Meta, is that there should be no claims of "canvassing" when a Meta discussion related to a local project is advertised on that project, as every project and every member of every project has the right to access Meta, its discussions, and its service. However, that does not mean that Meta has to conform to the mores of the local projects; that's actually impossible as there are contradictory policies. So, I agree with you completely the Meta should make non-regulars welcome, and should treat no-one as "an outsider", but I believe it behooves us to understand the difference between Meta's culture and other projects' cultures. And simply, FPAS, the way to change a project's culture is to work from within. EnWiki's culture certainly has changed over the past 6+ years; Meta's can to, if so desired by a consensus of its members. -- Avi (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with Meta having its own rules. In fact, as I said, most of my activities over there was to defend those rules against the very regulars who were pretending I didn't know them. What I do object to is the practice of some regulars, of using the "we have our own rules here" mantra as a club to hit newcomers on the head. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

According to their regulars, we are "misreading" their written rules. See last chunk in this diff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in that. I think certain Metapedians have been too defensive, although I understand why, and I think certain EnWikipedians have been too attacking, although I understand why, and I am trying, in both projects, to provide some insight that will prevent future friction—no more, no less. -- Avi (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and just in case I didn't make that clear, your activity is very much appreciated. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I also want to thank Avi for being a voice of reason and moderation in this matter. It's clear that meta-wiki has its own bad apples among their admniship, but I would certainly not generalize along the lines of what one of those meta-wiki admins said: "my experience of most en wp admins is not all that favourable - that is actual experience not things I've heard or whatever." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The history of Meta

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

meta:Requests for comment/POV in Chechen Wikipedia is one of the core reasons that Meta exists, and in this instance it doesn't appear to have gotten any attention from that at Meta who should be dealing with it. Yet, instead, it appears that instead of giving issues such as that the attention it deserves, they have put all of their resources into giving Mbz1 yet another opportunity to rant and attack editors. If anyone at Meta is reading this, please tell us how this is not a misdirection of Meta's resources? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, good point. A case where one of the smaller projects is aggressively treating its wiki as home turf for a nationally motivated POV, using the language barrier as a means to shield itself off from outside correction. That kind of case is really where Meta should come into play. But in those areas where it really matters, it seems they have never grown the strength and determination to actually do anything. This would of course not be an isolated case. I suspect it's pretty common in most of the smaller wikis whose languages don't have much international spread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

err... no. I did follow this, and the person who filed the RfC deemed it resolved. Besides, it often (as in this case) isn't clear what action is requested other than some "comments" which were obviously given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Others do not see it as resolved just yet. [40]. I don't know how much of this other story is real, but it looks like on some wikis there's something like Balkan war going on, where only "disarmament" of admins seems to have stopped it, temporarily. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are those cases, yes. But what is one to do when all one is allowed to do is listen (often in languages one cannot read or has to rely on some translator who might be partisan)? In the case that just got everybody's attention it was all in English... would I advocate de-sysopping or not or whatever based on a broken translation of [insert language not covered by google]? I don't think so... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It was evidently "resolved" only in the sense that the complainant gave up, seeing that the Meta structures were unable and/or unwilling to curb the abuse. I quite agree that it would have been difficult to figure out how to intervene, in the given circumstances, but that's just the point: where it really would matter, Meta has structurally and systematically failed to grow teeth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(did you think we'd succeed where the two World Wars, the UN, and the US-army failed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

I wasn't aware the two World Wars were fought about the issue of how to grant access rights on websites, nor that the US army ever tried to influence that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't be that naive... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Naive? What are you talking about? Your comment about world wars, UN and the US army makes absolutely no sense in this context. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm sure I've got this - all of the above is because of a POV issue on a website that we have no influence over and which is in a language most of us would have zero chance of understanding? Manning (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, all of the above, with the exception of the references to Chechnya, is because of a now-banned editor's inability to accept dispute resolution on EnWiki. The reference to the POV Chechnya issue is just an example where Meta was supposed to work but couldn't due to a dearth of multilingual editors, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. Have you noticed that most contentious RfC's at meta come from the Balkans, the Caucasus, and similar places where the imperial powers tried to solve stuff? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think everybody familiar with Meta issues knows that the RFC opened by mbz1 had no chance. Such RFCs get opened on a regular basis by users banned on big projects (not only en.wp), or having troubles going through the dispute resolution process on big projects, and I can not recall an instance such an RFC led anywhere - they just decay, and some get formally closed, others stay there open forever. There are no policies indeed to prevent opening of such RFCs, but it would be difficult to create such policies - to list projects which are ineligible for RFC and to update their list on a regular basis? These RFCs should just not be taken seriously and definitely they do not deserve such attention and creation of such drama as we see here. As for Chechen RFC, indeed, I believe this is the case which requires action, and I am really glad you reopened the issue. But generally we should not consider "meta regulars" as a kind of enemy which have the only goal to destroy the dispute resolution process here - I find the direction the discussion was taken before Avi gave his opinion was less constructive and leading nowhere. Meta is a place for collaboration, not for warring or emphasizing the differences in policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This one is different. By searching for some phrases from that "RFC", I've uncovered that earlier versions of that text have been published on Encyclopedia Dramatica and then on MyWikiBiz, in both cases by single-purpose accounts. (I provided the details in the meta-wiki RfD.) The conclusion seems inescapable that it's part of an obvious campaign of defamation that has nothing to do with legitimate dispute resolution on WMF sites. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to ban a user from meta?

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

It technically is, but it takes much, much more than on EnWiki, or pretty much any other project. Yes, Meta, at time views itself as a place where others who have been banned from EnWiki (or other wikis, such as Guido Broeder, I forget his exact name) can come and vent. There are many banned EnWiki editors who are not banned in Meta. Some of them have issues with EnWiki in particular, but are helpful contributors to other projects, and yes, others use meta as a forum for complaints. Remembering that not much of actual substance can be done on Meta itself, I don't see it as that much of a problem if banned editors want to vent their spleens. At best, they vent, they can have a discussion with others, they actually may see where they could work n themselves, and after a while, they can apply for the standard offer or the like. At worst, they vent, they complain, and nothing happens other than there being a record of their frustration on Meta. And if they convince non-EnWiki (or what ever wiki is under discussion) members to come here (or there) and plead on their behalf, we should greet them cordially, explain our rules and how the person in question violated them to the well-meaning editors, and deal with the non-well meaning ones in accordance with our behavioral polices.

As an aside, may I point out, as deferentially as possible, that your question here, 28bytes, is an example of thinking in accordance with EnWiki's culture, which is very different from Meta's culture, and asking that question on Meta may engender immediate defensive responses. Meta has much more patience for what we would consider malcontents on EnWiki; perhaps they just ignore them more. Either way, I would not suggest trying to get anyone banned on Meta without some severe evidence that they are trying to undermine foundation-level issues, such as the authority of the wikimedia board, or engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment. Just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My only concern would be to prevent meta from becoming another version of Wikiversity, where en.wiki banned users go there and begin disrupting operations here (something like what Abd did some months ago from WV). While I of course understand that meta has to be somewhere that people who we call "malcontents" can go and express themselves, I think the line has to be drawn when it moves from simply sounding off to using it for actively disrupting other projects. Based on the size of this thread, I think it's safe to say this was somewhat disruptive; not ban-worthy, but if it became a pattern it could be, at least in my (en.wiki-shaded) view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is definitely a "culture clash", in that asking on meta if there is a policy on meta that supports or prohibits an action (e.g. an RfD for an RfC) seems to be taken as aggression. Thus, I asked here. :) Am I correct in presuming, then, that there is no formal policy for banning, and that such things are handled on an ad-hoc basis? Or have no cases yet arisen there that have required a ban? 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Very wise, 28 :). There have been some users either indef blocked or banned from Meta, but always on an ad-hoc basis, yes. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Hopefully the end result of this discussion will be that en-wiki editors become more educated on what processes there are or aren't on meta, so we can better understand our options when something comes up there that may affect us. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen they happen the same way topic bans happen here on ANI. They tend to be informal discussions which end up in a !vote. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you recall any of the cases? I'm unable to find anything in the m:WM:RFH history, although it's possible I'm not looking at the right page or using the right search terms. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Either way, I would not suggest trying to get anyone banned on Meta without some severe evidence that they are trying to undermine foundation-level issues, such as the authority of the wikimedia board, or engaged in off-wiki criminal harassment. Just my opinion. WizardofOz managed to get his accounts globally locked pretty easily. I hear what you're saying but to me it sounds much more like Meta views itself a project unto itself that doesn't really have much to do with the various wikis, which makes me think many over there have lost sight of their mission. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WoO was global blocked by self request, and most of us stewards didn't want to do it anyway; a cooling off period would have sufficed, Speak to Jyothis as to why he decided to acquiesce to WoO's strange request. -- Avi (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

What she did is not criminal in the way that we have had to deal with editors who have had orders of restraint issued against them, and even incarcerated. I don't think a ban from Meta would be an apprpriate thing to ask for. Learning to ignore her would be better, especially as she cannot affect EnWiki now that she is community banned. By the way, she got blocked for a week on Meta for calling those who disagreed with her "abusive", for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a criminal matter; imposition of restraining orders is not done solely for criminal matters, although their breach may be a crime. I can think of a lawyer or two who would accept bringing a false light lawsuit for stuff like that found on those web pages. (This isn't a legal threat in any way, particularly as I would have no standing myself whatsoever to be a party.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

FPAS, I am going to ask you to retract that comment above. There isn't a person on this page who doesn't know how to copy and paste a page from one wiki to another; given the lulz-value of doing so, it could be any number of people who have done so in this case. I'll also ping you on your page. Risker (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I have submitted private evidence to ArbCom (receipt acknowledged by Elen), which strongly suggests that the meta-wiki RFC was the last of the three similar pages to be created. The other two non-WMF wikis have public edit histories, so this isn't rocket science. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I have to clarify is that the identity of the ED author is not quite as certain as the identity between the MyWikiBiz author and Mbz's RfC on Meta, which is 100% certain. And yes, even if it were just those two pages, given the unconcealed insults contained in both, in my book, the threshold into harassment in the legal sense has been crossed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough on the authorship issue, FPAS. But it is not appropriate for anyone here to state that there has been a crime or to assess the "legal sense". Suggesting that an identifiable person has committed a crime for which they have not been charged isn't acceptable. The place to determine that is a court, not the Administrator Noticeboard of a website, even the 5th most popular website. or is it the 4th? 7th? I can never remember. Risker (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi suggested that a certain course of action on Wikimedia projects ought to be taken if there was harassment. It is my personal opinion that there was harassment, and that Wikimedia projects therefore ought to react accordingly. I do not subscribe to the idea that we should sanction people for harassment only if such a charge has previously been confirmed by a court; that would expose the victims to an intolerable extent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I did not suggest a certain course of action should be taken; I said that in this case a certain course of action should not be taken, for the only times I know of where it has been taken, the harassment has been orders of magnitude worse. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I disagree with that argument. If it's been done only in so few cases, it's been done too rarely, and should be done more often. And don't tell me my opinion about what should be done on Meta counts less than that of the regulars there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made any comments about anyone's opinion other than my own. My own opinion is that Mbz is not someone who needs banning from Meta at this point; once her 1 week block elapses, if she stops her campaign, all is well. Even if she continues to merely complain about people, we should learn to ignore her (reverting any truly defamatory or actual harassment, of course). Don't give her more credence than she deserves :). But, of course, that's just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This turn of the dialogue isn't particularly productive. We don't need recourse to a real-world legal standard to have someone banned from a WMF site or another. WP:NOTLAW. I don't think any WMF site has a policy saying than an editor cannot be banned unless they broke some real-world law. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dont' retract anything FPaS. If you retract it, I will take ownership of the comment from you. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I have to admit, much of the behavior from both en-wiki admins and meta admins has been appalling. However, it should be noted that there have also been editors such as billinghurst, Avi and others who have worked very hard to try to bridge the gap between the sides, and they should be commended for it. 28bytes (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, good on both sides but it never should have happened that way.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Courcelles should be commended too. Although he has been more low key in this brouhaha than the other two mentioned, he also made significant contributions to restoring a sense of balance. And speaking of balance, the meta-admins (Nemo bis actually) eventually blocked Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha for a week. So, while their approach to civility is more heavy handed than on enwiki, it's not lacking balance overall. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Rescue

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

Historical retainment of templates (and many other things) is commonplace. It is clearly not meant to be in use, as it states on the page, but is retained so that old page revisions that would contain it do not have broken links instead. I don't see the problem here. Historical things shouldn't be deleted. Silverseren^C 00:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, not sure you realize, but the rescue template is wrapping inside of a template of it's own that marks it as an old template on any pages it's used on. Go try to use it in the Sandbox and see for yourself.--v/r - TP 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Tarc, that seems a bit harsh. We don't need to hold over their head our 'victory' in TfD and DRV. The template is clearly marked and wraped in another template that prevents it from being used. It only exists in this fashion to prevent the redlink {{rescue}} in old revisions of articles.--v/r - TP 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the "This template is deprecated" text not enough? Reyk _YO! 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the "This template is deprecated" text is enough, it is not as if the template contains any information that related to the article it was placed on. Mtking ^(edits) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Due to the (silly) ongoing edit war on the template, I have just protected it for three days. I'm off to sleep now; fellow admins, feel free to unprotect without asking me should a consensus emerge here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't think so: it says that the deprecated template has been replaced by another one, while it was my impression that the TFD said that this one should be removed and not replaced. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Its not being used any longer, nor hurting anything at all. What possible reason would there to be to destroy it? You won. You somehow got enough people to show up to convince the opinion of the closing administrator to prevent it from being placed on any articles in need of Rescue. For historical places that link to it, its best to show what it was, instead of a dead red link. Dream Focus 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion discussion; you don't need to add a vote to your comment. By the way, is this edit considered simple enough and housekeeping-like enough that it's appropriate while the template is protected? I immediately self-reverted; the only reason I did it was to make it easy for you to understand what I'm asking about. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this is an obvious G4 speedy. Kept because article histories contain its usage? Seriously? There are literally hundreds of deleted templates that show up as redlinks in article histories. I'd like to see a very good reason why this one deserves special treatment. Resolute 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. There doesn't seem to be any real need to keep it around, other than some kind of shrine. Reyk _YO! 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• We generally delete templates because they're unfixable, because they're redundant, because they're unused and won't be used, or because they violate core policies. As this one was deleted because of the way it was frequently used, rather than because of a design problem or because it was never used, deletion isn't as helpful of a solution. The discussion's goal was to ensure that this template wasn't transcluded or substed in other namespaces; its preservation with the notice of deprecation will go along with the result of the TFD without causing the problems with tons of article histories that would result from deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• One of the prominent arguments in the deletion debate was that this was redundant to the real AfD template. Also, this is now unusued and won't be used. So tell me again why this shouldn't be speedy deleted? Resolute 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you look at the discussions at AFD and DRV, it's clear that the consensus was not for pseudo-deletion or faux-deletion, but for deletion. How is this not a {{db-repost}}?
  Tangentially, I tagged {{ARS/Tagged}} and {{Afdrescue}} for CSD yesterday (although the former was removed, for some reason). Both of them should go to the same place that {{ARSnote}} is now, and where {{rescue}} ought to be. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• As soon as it is unprotected, I will file another TfD, then. This isn't about lording over ARS...if I wanted to do that I would have joined the recent ANI attacks against their deletion discussions...it is about respecting the consensus of the Wikipedia community. The consensus was that this thing should be deleted, not left intact with some weird "we won't use it" pledges. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama. Resolute 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question Do we keep other old transcluded templates to help make sure previous versions of articles appear correct? If or if not, why is {{rescue}} special such that it should deviate from the norm? In other words, can we de-politicalize this and look at the underlying (at least, as stated) issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Templates are routinely deleted without any consideration as to how they will make old versions of the page look. I happen to think that's a mistake (it is probably technically feasible to have articles display the template as it looked at the time the revision was made, even if the template has been edited since), but common practice is what it is at the moment. NW (Talk) 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case since the template added nothing of significance to the article, why not just have it produce "white space" then fully protect the template. Mtking ^(edits) 06:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens' question is the relevant one here. I've never seen a deleted template get re-created for the sole purpose of ensuring that old revisions look nice. It may be that it happens from time to time and I've never come across it, or it may be that it happens rarely or never. If it does happen from time to time, I highly doubt it would happen on something that doesn't affect the content of an article, like a maintenance template. I can't imagine it would ruin someone's day to see Template:Rescue on an old revision instead of the life-preserver template. If this type of template re-creation is truly as uncommon as I think it is, then I see no reason to apply special treatment to this particular template. —SW— ^yak 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, who cares if our articles look like crap, as long as the bureaucratic niceties are preserved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's old article revisions. They arn't exactly pretty with or without the template because of that big red bar at the top. I personally don't care if the template is kept for historical purposes, but that argument is flawed.--v/r - TP 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. ((TFD==Delete) && (DRV==Endorse) == Redlink). Page histories are full of redlinks and other brokeness; relax and breath normally; this is ok. This is a camel's nose to get this all overturned. Alarbus (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid. We don't need to discuss this, because we already did, twice as a matter of fact. The community has already spoken, and it said to delete thos template, and then it said it again. Whoever recreated it needs to be blocked for deliberate disruption per WP:POINT and the template, in accordance with the already clearly expressed will of the community, needs to be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't recreated; it was restored, along with the talk page. Kanguole 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not quite: it was first recreated (as an empty, and non-functional, {{Deleted template}} stub) by the previous deleting admin Ironholds [41]; then the old content was recreated on top of that by Rich Farmbrough [42] and the prior history restored. The first step may not have been speedy-worthy but didn't technically do what was intended; the second step should never have been done without authorization from a DRV, and in my view does fall under speedy-repost. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the instructions for the template that after the article survived the AfD the template was to be removed? I ask because if the only argument for restoring the deleted template is that it preferves the look and feel of the article historically at that point it shouldn't be restored in it's full glory. A simple 1 liner of "This article was tagged with the Rescue template" that links to the ARS (or it's successor) page explaining about what the rescue template was. It satisfies the need to indicate that the article was tagged and also minimizes the amount of influence said tag has. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One (of the meany issues) that were discussed at the TfD was the wikiproject "advert" in main space, so any link to the ARS would not be acceptable, I also don't see it as acceptable to keep a template for only history reasons (see my comments below). Mtking ^(edits) 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're all for confusing future editors in wondering what this template was intended to do just so you can stick it to ARS? Take your pound of flesh and move on. The template is consensus deleted, we're just quibbling over the final disposition of a few edge cases. Unless your permanently volunteering to provide a NPOV explanation of what the template was about every single time an editor asks about what the template was supposed to do. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is not true that this treatment is totally unprecedented. See Template:Expand and Template:Deleted template. Not common practice but not totally invented out of whole cloth by the "desperate" ARS. 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• not to mention the fact that it was recreated (albeit just with the "this template was deleted" text) by the admin who deleted it in the first place! 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to the community discussion about using this {{Deleted template}} ? as it seams to be the work of just one editor ? I can perhaps see the logic for having while current versions of articles use a deleted template, however when all examples have been removed then the template should just be removed.Mtking ^(edits) 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We generally use {{being deleted}} while removing templates. {{deleted template}} was the work of quite a number of people and has never been controversial in and of itself. There was a community discussion about {{deleted template}} and there was also a notification left at WT:TFD after it was created. There was also further discussion on AN and probably elsewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• As the deleting admin, I have no problem keeping it as a deprecated template. Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't understand why User:Ironholds wasn't notified of this discussion; I thought it was required/polite. I've now done so. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tothwolf asserts that G4 doesn't apply to that template. I think that's a grey area, and it might be worthy of a WT:CSD discussion. But essentially for G4 to apply to a page, the page would have to be:

• A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy of the page that was deleted.
• Given a deletion result per consensus during its most recent deletion discussion.
• A page where the reason for the deletion must still apply.
• Not "userfied".
• Not undeleted via DRV.

That third criterion above might be the sticky point. If a template is no longer in active use, does the reason for its deletion still apply? With the text stating that it's a deprecated template, it won't be effective as canvassing or a rallying cry or an advertisement for ARS or whatever objection someone would have to it even if someone does try to use it. Does that deprecation effectively remove that criterion from any template? In that case, why don't we just add such text to every template at TfD that should no longer be used rather than deleting them? -- Atama頭 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, and as I mentioned above, should someone attempt to transclude {{rescue}} via a new edit, it will only display the red text and if the page is saved anyway, it will be added to the maintenance category where we can monitor and remove the transclusion. This is far better than having confused editors who didn't know of the TFD getting a red link when they attempt to use the template, etc.

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

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

Or you could simply salt the template so it doesn't get recreated. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinda "Strange"

A new article Peter Latham (born 1937) was created with biographical information that actually matched a subject named Nigel Doughty I reported it as a potential hoax/attack/vandalism. The article subsequently completely changed the biographical prose away from the false subject. I suppose it is now correct and don't know what happened at first. It is unusual that the article creator was able to remove the CSD tag without the bot replacing it? And the article does fail inclusion standards. My76Strat (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was intended to be a memorial page based on the creator's username, RIP Grandpa 1937-2012. I've deleted the page per A7 and left a note on the user's talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted now as stated, but anyway, my good-faith-o-meter says the article's creator started with a copy-paste so he could copy the layout of the infobox, as well as the style of the lead sentence. Looking at his other contributions, I don't see anything concerning. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points. Originally I was looking for sources to hopefully let the editor's article remain. When I was confronted with the disquieting possibilities, and possible impact on the remaining living members of the Doughty family I did want the matter reviewed. I am still curious to how he removed the CSD tag without it being replaced which I have seen to be common. My76Strat (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot probably skipped the page because you placed a customized speedy template on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. I suppose this is otherwise resolved. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not one of X!'s bots, is it? Those arn't working.--v/r - TP 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel requested

It's late, I'm sleepy, and I can't rightly remember how to get the IP address removed from the history of the text of my talk page--see recent history, please. And pardon my being braindead right now. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done delete revision text option. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up: unapproved survey of inactive administrators

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

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

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

I've removed Nrcprm2026's ability to send emails. Could you specify which other accounts were used, so that they can have email access removed as well? Or should we block access for all of his 80+ socks? Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't too hard, I would suggest they should be. It's already been demonstrated Nrcprm can't be trusted with email. Unfortunately if they have that many socks, it sounds likely they'll just create more so it probably isn't that useful. Incidentally, if they're mass emailing people with a small number of accounts (or even one account), perhaps this would help to reenforce the view to the foundation that the proposals to find some way to attempt to limit such abuse (arising out of the mailinator aided abuse of some wikipedians) are important? Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an en issue but if this foundation is concerned about the way this was handled or that the emails were misleading, are there any plans for a global ban? I ask because it looks like the survey was developed on meta meta:Inactive administrators survey and there was actually some discussion about the survey with Philippe meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Community Advocacy. Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, while I was aware of the survey, I was unaware of distribution mechanism and was certainly unaware that it would list a Foundation staff member as the contact. I also would never endorse doing such a survey without going through our research committee. I will make a clear statement to that effect on the meta page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven is right in its points. This survey was not at all under Rcom supervision or review. It is problematic to me that someone send message with clearly false content about the involvement of others --Lilaroja (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we allow users to use the email system to send 300 messages. Is there a legitimate reason to send even 30 messages in a day.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Over the summer there were a couple times that I bombed out probably a couple hundred emails at once. There are definitely sometimes legitimate needs to mass email, although it might be a good idea to set up a new user right +massemail and restrict volume of emails for people who don't have it. (I was interning at WMF at the time and they were related, so it wouldn't have been a problem if I had had to acquire a special userright or something to do so.) Kevin (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Curious - the "research" which underpins this survey is based on a Granger Causality test, and some IP is claiming it "proves" a relationship between declining admin numbers and declining editor numbers. An interesting claim, given that the Granger test is unable to prove the non-existence of a third variable driving both elements in the time series. It's a useful test for developing hypotheses, but no statistician would ever regard it as conclusive until the existence of other influencing variables had been ruled out (which is certainly not the case here). Manning (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• I have no objection to some sort of limit on emails per account (or per IP address) per day, but I think those who are intent on abuse of the email system will get round it. It would also have to be a global thing—there's be no point us implementing such a restriction on enwiki if somebody would only have to hop to another wiki to do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is already a limit of 200 per account per day per wiki, which is too high to be of any use. There are already feature requests to curtail email abuse, see e.g. bug 7518 and bug 33761. MER-C 03:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I'll try to lend a hand at it. I'm always worried that I might miss a copyvio, so I don't tend to do this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Anupam and Lionelt

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Anupam and User:Lionelt. These two users should not be allowed to edit any article pertaining to American politics or criticism of religion. It's clear that these two users are motivated on Wikipedia by the primary purpose to subvert the aim for neutrality of the project and to manipulate the good will of other editors in order to advance their Christian conservative agenda, which includes hate speech and libel against living people. Both these users made multiple edits over past few days at Militant atheism to enforce libelous content about Richard Dawkins and others. User:Mathsci has laid out Anupam's history of moving content at will between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, where his work has been honored for advancing their political agenda. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems with Militant atheism and WikiProject Conservatism. Lionelt founded WikiProject Conservatism, which as User:Saddhiyama has pointed out, has become a haven for "declarations of battleground mentality and biased editing". Just a few hours ago, Lionelt removed details of an embarrassing event for conservative congressman John Fleming as "trivia" even though the event was well-covered by mainstream news outlets (e.g. CBS) and properly cited. His actions here are clearly damage control in defense of his political agenda. Anupam and Lionelt have compromised the quality and integrity of Wikipedia for too long. It's time we put a stop to them. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this payback for reporting you for edit warring? I didn't know you were so vengeful. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is to defend Wikipedia and its users from your malevolent aims and those of Anupam. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It'd be best to start with an RFC/U.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to topic ban the admin who blocked you and the 6 that declined to unblock? You accused Fastily on "being in on it" and the other 6 are unfit for adminship. Don't they also deserve topic bans? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the John Fleming edit did you realize that the edit had consensus on talk?? You're being disingenuous to say the least. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just admit it, Jweiss, this has nothing to do with the pedia... this is personal.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback, you should start a RfCU first. There may well be problems, but start with an RfCU detailing them and saying what the remedy should be, which probably at this point isn't the topic ban you are suggesting. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if someone would close this thread because the topic ban isn't going to happen here, nor is it going to happen based on the evidence provided. That's not to say it isn't justified or shouldn't happen, but Jweiss11 seems to be unfamiliar with the process, and well, this isn't the right way to do things. I've only had a brief moment to look at the problem, but as far as I can tell, it isn't time for a user RfC just yet. I think the real discussion we should be having is about whether WikiProject Conservatism meets the community standards for a WikiProject, and whether it is being used appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that arguing about Jweiss11's motives is a red herring. Whether Lionelt and Anupam need to be topic banned is wholly irrelevant to the perceived motivations of Jweiss11. He wrote a statement worth looking into and that is what needs to be discussed (or referred to RFC/U). Lionelt should respond to the concerns brought up rather than attempt to obfuscate the issue by pointing the finger at the OP - even if Lionelt is right, it doesn't erase the concerns expressed. It is also not uncommon to hold topic ban discussions before an RFC/U. Lastly, I know that this was referred here as part of the effort to clean AN/I of drama, but it seems to me that a board with wider community input is important when discussing any sort of ban. N^oformation ^Talk 09:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Some form of editing restriction on Anupam is probably warranted, but needs to be precisely formulated and more carefully justified. As others have said, it can only happen if preceded by an RfC/U where he can comment himself.

There is no reason to restrict the editing of Lionelt. It is regrettable that he gave the appearance of supporting Anupam's POV-pushing, but that point is now moot in view of what seems to be happening to the article. Perhaps Lionelt might consider separating WikiProject Conservatism from all articles relating to religion. Why Anupam labelled Militant atheism as being part of WikiProject Conservatism is still puzzling. All it does is bring that WikiProject into disrepute. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think an RfCU on Anupam is probably called for now. I've mentioned my concern with a possible association of Wikiproject Conservatism and religion, specifically Wikiproject Christianity. And I agree with the statement " I think the real discussion we should be having is about whether WikiProject Conservatism meets the community standards for a WikiProject, and whether it is being used appropriately." Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article on Conservapedia, and I cannot find any attribution to Wikipedia. Thus, we also seem to have a case of, in the best case, "incomplete understanding of copyrights". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone hat this please? Vituperation, in the best of times, is part of what brings this noticeboard the reputation it has. Collect (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have unarchived this thread, because Collect interrupted the discussions concerning a possible RfC/U (four comments, three by administrators). Please allow these threads to run their normal course in a timely fashion, bearing in mind time differences for editors in different time zones (at the very least 24 hours). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci, you've now reverted people's closures of this thread twice. Please consider that we've been hatting it because there is nothing that can be accomplished in this thread, whether it runs for one hour or 24 - the issue must be resolved via RfC if it is to be pursued, so the point of leaving this thread here for people to snipe at each other is...well, there doesn't seem to BE much of a point. As you yourself said, any movement toward topic bans and the like must be "be precisely formulated and more carefully justified", which means RfC, and AN is not an RfC. What is it that you think further discussion in this thread will accomplish? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please allow 24 hours. The assumption that most involved editors are from the USA is unreasonable. Although the orginal posting was probably phrased in non-neutral language, it is still reasonable to leave time for editors from different parts of the world (Fiji, Tasmania, Devil's Island, Scunthorpe) to comment. I haven't been involved in editing this article or its talk page and nor have many others commenting so far. It is reasonable to allow those with more experience to comment, if only to know how to formulate possible RfC/Us. I personally don't think Lionel (who, all appearances to the contrary, has been a wikifriend) should be the subiect of an RfC/U, but please let others comment. No need to rush things. Thanks, 18:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see any need for bans here. I think that both users need to give some thought to how they edit, and I agree with other comments here, particularly those by Mathsci and Dougweller, that RfC/Us would likely be constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• No evidence given here for ban being required at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Tryptofish and Sarek on this one. Wekn reven 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• While RFC/U is the appropriate next step—as an editor from a non-dominant anglophone culture located in a timezone of activity radically different to the dominant anglophone cultures—I appreciate non-SNOW closure discussions to be open for at least part of my waking cycle. North American and European editors in particular need to remember that they have culturally distinct opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree on process. This thread was hardly getting out of hand, and it's not even that long. Remember Europe, North America, Australia and Asia (in particular the sub-continent). Hopefully, some Anglophone Africans, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

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

Requested close of move discussion at Talk:Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality

The discussion has gone on for 30 days and should be closed. Given the nature of this discussion and the ongoing issues surrounding it, it should probably be done sooner rather than later. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename

Hello, in order to complete my SUL, I would like rename my english account but I forgot my password and I don't register an email. How can I do? --82.234.134.207 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)