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 37 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 31 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)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 98 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 95 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 95 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)

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 47 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 37 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 36 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 34 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 33 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 32 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 31 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 30 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 29 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 28 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	9	0	9
TfD	0	0	11	0	11
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	84	10	94
AfD	0	0	0	6	6

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 253 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 76 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 73 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 71 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 61 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

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)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Please see the recent history and the article's talk page, over this pot issue. I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over. One editor claims (I think) that I'm way too involved to do this--well, my involvement is more with WP:BDP than with anything else, I think. I'll leave that for wiser editors than I; feel free to scrutinize my involvement and my decision to protect. I'm off for a little while: I don't mind being overruled, so if you think I'm totally in the wrong (or three days is too long), you don't have to ask me for my opinion--but I hope you'll overrule with some kind of consensus (the subject matter is important enough). Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Drmies's bold use of the admin tools with respect to WP:BLP. Taking corrective action like this and then highlighting the actions for community review are precisely the right things to do in this case IMHO. I think the protection should be removed as soon as the edit warring is clearly over (whether through discussion at BLPN or the article talk page) which given the swiftly changing nature of the subject hopefully will be in less than 3 days. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor drmies mentioned above. I think he is not uninvolved, as he edited the article to remove the information, and was discussing the removal on the talk page. His change was reverted, then he locked the page. I _do not_ think his action raise to any level requiring any kind of penalty/punishment/wrist-slap etc. I do think that his changes should be reverted and if needed acted on by an uninvolved editor (sigh, IAR). BLP does not apply, the subject is dead, and the information was released by his parents, so BDP also does not apply. INformation is EXCEPTIONALLY well sourced (12k-40k gnews hits depending on how you search). ongoing posts and BLP and RPP. Significant kudos to drmies for reporting himself, an example of good honest conduct for us all to follow. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree - there's been a lot of edit warring regarding whether we view this as a biography or an article about a news event and subsequent editing that supports one view or the other. I generally don't favor it, but in this case short-term full protection will give some breathing room, and one hopes the subsequent admin oversight will help to adjudicate the differences in opinions about what goes in and what does not. This is a high profile article, and needs some help. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement about the way the article is focused has nothing to do with the reason it was protected. Further, while there was some minor edit warring going on, it was dwarfed by the amount of productive edits happening, which the protection prevents. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, on your last point, the prevention of productive edits, I couldn't agree more with you, and I hate full protection. Who knows, maybe in the next couple of hours, when all the admins come back from cocktail hour, you'll get your wish. In the meantime: cheers. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This case centers on the actions taken the night Trayvon was shot, but it has morphed into a larger 'event', if you will, than just an isolated case of someone being shot. This has a national dimension now, with implications for how we proceed as a society with discussions of race and how we deal with others. Such a discussion naturally brings up more about the background of the various players, and as such it becomes hard to decide how to deal with that content. As is often the case with these high profile articles, these things will get sorted as time goes on, but we need to be aware how our coverage of things affects people's perceptions of the two primary faces in this story. The media, as usual, is not being cautious, often showing a very youthful Trayvon photo alongside a booking photo of George. And as a result of this, we see people wanting to take the law into their own hand. How do you counter bias once it has a foothold? I'm not entirely sure. But if we have reliable sources for the good and the bad, we need to try and write as unbiased an article as we can. This is a terrible situation where we really have no positive outcomes, and the best we can hope for is just a little less bad. -- Avanu (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Avanu, I agree - and that is one of the reasons I have been urging that we abandon the "infobox person"s and switch back to the "infobox news event" or one of the other event infoboxes, which would not include the possibly POV pictures. Same reason I changed the first sentence - the article is about an event, not about the individuals. I'd like some backup on this. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just one point to share with User:Gaijin42, without commenting on this specific case. We don't drop BLP concerns about a person 1 second after their last breath. They still have a family and community, and immediately after their death they have generally been provided the same protection as we would a BLP from improperly weighted, negative material. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin used powers in content dispute (Comments from WP:ANI)

I moved the following content from the "Admin used powers in content dispute" section of WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

In the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin, it seems that Drmies used admin tools to advance his/her position in a content dispute by first protecting the page and then changing to his/her preferred version.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While I do think drmies qualifies as "involved" for the purpose of this discussion, I do not think his action rise to the level of needing ANI. There are several discussions ongoing of this issue in different venues. I think it was inappropriate of him to fully protect, and it should be unprotected, but no further action should be taken against drmies. He self reported himself to the AN post as well, which is further show of good faith on his part.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Trayvon_Martin.2C_Marijuanna
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Protection
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#protection.21.3F

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Please discuss these matters here, since they were brought up here before the other thread got started. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, Please note that after Drmies protected the page, Drmies changed the page to his/her preferred version using admin powers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest his edit be reverted and the full protection be left on. After all, them's the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant if the changes he made were in accordance with WP:BDP (BLP), imo. BDP and BLP are far more important, and I don't see that as admin abuse. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call by Drmies. In this context it is necessary to be conservative in what we include in the article. We cannot at this moment verify that everything appearing in the media is factually correct (we have to wait in effect for the media to get a consensus on this), and we cannot yet tell what will turn out to be undue weight. Wikipedia is not the nine o'clock news - we can wait for the overall picture to emerge. Removing undue material, and material that is still in some question as well is protecting the article is quite reasonable as a policy enforcement - different to using tools in a content dispute, and I don't believe WP:WRONG VERSION applies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies's changes were not in accordance with WP:BDP and this was discussed on the article talk page. No one has disputed the validity of the info that Drmies deleted after page protection, not even Drmies AFAIK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, presumably he *did*, or he wouldn't have deleted it for that reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call, laudable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The content dispute involves an admission by a spokesman for Trayvon Martin's family that he was suspended for having trace amounts of marijuana in his book bag. No one has disputed this. Drmies felt that it was irrelevant and shouldn't be in the article. This is a matter that should have been settled on the talk page, not by using admin powers to essentially win an edit war by making a change after protecting the page.

It's shameful that so many admins/editors here are supporting Drmies's action and more aren't stepping forward to do the right thing. I consider this to be at least as significant an issue as the actions of Drmie that caused this discussion. It appears that neither has much chance of being corrected. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, this was a good call. With current events of this sort you will get muck-raking of only minor relevance; usually tangential material attacking one or more of the subjects. I expect the other guy will get some at some point also. To a certain extent we extend the BLP policy to individuals recently deceased - particularly in controversial circumstances such as these, with a larger family closely involved. There are a number of soapboxy phrases in the article as well that may need to be looked at, and individuals politely reminded of policy. This is exactly the reason we should have some sort of moratorium on news events for at least a short time. Tsk. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• However, if the consensus on the talk page is that the information is relevant and should be included, then it should. Silverseren^C 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bad call. There wasn't even much of an edit war here, since two of the three removals are attributable to Drmies himself (including the one where he edited through protection). Yes this is a controversial issue, and yes the topic needs to be addressed with care, but I don't think Drmies handled this well. The facts surrounding this particular issue are clearly verifiable and well-sourced (i.e. reported in many major news outlets and confirmed by the family spokesman). At this point, the decision of what to say about Trayvon's suspension is mostly an editorial issue to hashed out through discussion rather than one that needs the blunt hand of an admin to decide. Personally, I'm not sure this information serves any good purpose (and there do seem to be some people who want to use this information to paint Trayvon in an unfair way), but having a single participant use tools to enforce their viewpoint is not good either. Drmies was aware of and had participated in the talk page discussion about this issue. At the time of his protection, it seems like the majority of the talk page participants favored including this information. It would have been much better for him to request help at one of the noticeboards, such as BLPN, RFPP, ANI, etc., rather than for him to simply exercise the tools to enforce his preferred version. Obviously, there needs to be discussion and consensus about what do with this content, but I don't think a three day protection is necessary here. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with editing this article in any way, and it was only brought to my attention after a post at the WP:BLPN.[2] As an outside observer, it appears that Drmies is abusing their admin tools[3] to win a dispute they're involved in.[4][5][6][7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am also uninvolved here. In my view, Drmies made a tough but good call here. Upon first viewing the situation, I was ambivalent, though leaning towards my current position. Reading this thread has led me to firmly support his actions. Drmies made it clear when he created this thread that he protected the page so that discussion could go towards determining whether or not to include the material without having a contentious revert-war occurring on the page: "I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over." I see absolutely no indication that he was intending to "win" the dispute, as AQFN alleges; rather, he desired that it be productively resolved. It's not like he locked down the article indefinitely—the protection expires on Friday. In light of the fact that this is a highly-sensitive and high-profile article, it is in the best interests of the project that we follow policies like WP:BDP strictly. Contentious material should be thoroughly discussed before adding. Drmies was acting in good faith, and I support his decision here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A pause is a good thing - these articles get written too fast, and usually end up a mess for some lengthy time (usually until the SPA's with a strong view on the matter lose interest). --Errant ^(chat!) 01:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call. Admins can't make everyone happy. This is a tense issue that's grabbing the attention of the nation. We need to be very careful moving along with this. Again, WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia; it isn't going to be written overnight, so why ruch? 131.62.10.20 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with this comment. Why do we even have articles on topics that are only covered by news sources and haven't been noticed by stabler media? If something doesn't get sustained coverage and sustained interest over a period of time, it's really not encyclopedic, and we shouldn't attempt to force an article like this to carry the latest rumors. Good job on making the tough but solid decision, Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call? It wasn't even his call to make. He was clearly WP:INVOLVED in the dispute. Admins are not allowed to use their tools in content disputes they're involved in. How anyone could defend such blatent misconduct is beyond me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies made two major admin mistakes in this dispute.
  • First he was clearly an involved editor in this discussion. Whether he felt that his involvement was minor, is irrelevant. He had already taken a side in the discussion and eventual edit war. When he decided to fully protect the page, he violated the sacred trust we give administrators by violating WP:INVOLVED. He took it upon himself to use the tools that he has been granted to him and and protected a page in which he had recently been involved in a dispute.
  • Secondly he clearly violated the terms of WP:FULL by continuing to edit the page, supposedly to the preferred version that agreed with his side of the argument. In my book, that type of display sickens me. What gives him the right the continue editing a page after it had already been fully protected. This type of behavior breeds distrust and animosity.
• Just because some have chimed in here in agreement with Drmies actions, do not confuse the fact that you may agree with the points made by his side of the argument, and the fact that he twice violated his duty as an admin, by abusing his position to gain a foothold on the article. I am a very mush 'uninvolved editor on that page. I have in no way made any edits to the page or to the talk page. Even after taking a quick look at what the discussion is about, I probably would have taken the side of Drmies. But this does not excuse the blatant violations of admin tools, and in no way should be allowed to go unpunished. Without some form of retribution, these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses. We have these rules written for a reason, we should honor them.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you really just issue a call for "retribution"? 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Did I stutter?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll take that as a "yes", in which case, no, your request for "retribution" is declined. 28bytes (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And you consider yourself the personal judge and jury in this case? Does the opinion of anyone else on this page, have any bearing? Guess not.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • You are the only one here demanding retribution and punishment. Everyone else here is cognizant of the fact that Drmies brought the matter here himself for review, explicitly turning the decision whether to keep the article protected over to the community. That's what good admins do, when there are objections to an admin action they've taken. It would be extremely stupid to "punish" him for his obviously well-intended page protection, especially given that he put it here himself for review. 28bytes (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Drmies remains defiant and based on his latest post,[8] there is significant concern that they are likely to abuse their admin tools in the future. Let's give them some time to reflect on their actions, but if their attitude doesn't change, a desysop may be in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Oh please. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                • That's a sound argument. You really got me there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • I have made my argument all over this thread. The question at the heart of this dispute is whether we should care about WP:INVOLVED over WP:BLP in this specific case; i.e., whether our own social rules that have virtually no impact outside of wikipedia should trump the broader social and legal implications of a biography of a living/recently-deceased person in this very controversial and high-profile case. Was Drmies involved? Yes. Should another admin have made the protection? Probably. Is anything lost by holding our horses until the end of the week—or sooner if consensus for a removal of the protection is achieved—to re-add the material? No. Was the protection done in self-interest or bad faith? No. The only self-interested people here are the ones calling for his head on a pike for one single protection that expires on Friday. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • "to gain a foothold on the article": Sorry, I call BS. Drmies made it clear in starting this thread that the protection was put in place to allow for more productive discussion. That is a blatant assumption of bad faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Good Faith was lost, the moment he edited the article just after fully protecting it. If this was a case where he "only" protected the article, then came here to ask for assistance, then I can see a case for assumption of Good Faith. But he continued to edit the article, without any thought to what damage that would do to the trust we give admins. No I'm sorry, he lost the ability to claim Good Faith when he twice violated our trust in his ability to handle the tools we gave him.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • • (edit conflict)Step off your soapbox, sweetheart. Nobody's impressed. More telling than any of your tediously self-righteous vitriol is that Drmies recognised that his action might be viewed as problematic by some and started this thread in the first place. How is that a bad-faith action? Re: "these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses". No they won't. Go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. (Edit-conflict addendum: DGG below sums it up perfectly) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Are we standing up for a buddy? Facts are that he twice violated the trust he was given. How can he ever be trusted again?--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Do you have evidence to support that loaded question? Or are you automatically assuming that since I find your comments to be nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd, I must be 'in cahoots with the enemy'? That's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and I suggest you drop it. Drmies has by and large shown himself to be a reasonable contributor and administrator, and I see no reason why erring on the side of caution on a highly sensitive topic should mean any loss of trust. I find it especially telling that Gaijin42, the user who first brought this to the community's wider attention, does not advocate for anything other than the protection being lifted, whereas you—an individual with precisely zero ponies in that parade—advocate for the most laughably draconian solutions based on nothing but irritating self-righteousness. "Retribution"? Really? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • • First you ask if I have evidence. Nope, just did a simple duck test on that one. You confirm it with your quick knowledge of Drmies editing history and admin uses. Second, I'm not sure why you are turning this into some sort of personal disagreement between the two of us. The fact that you disagree with me is evident, the fact that you find me nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd is fascinating. How my opinion that another admin who twice abused his tools should be punished, would somehow give you this much hatred toward me is beyond compelling. Third, you ask why we should not error on the side of caution. Who's caution? Yours or mine? Who gives one person the right to dictate what is right or wrong? What needs protection from bias, when the very definition of bias in this case is in dispute. Vey bad form form very bad form indeed. Finally you mention that Gaijin42 does not advocate anything more than the protection being lifted. Has this protection been lifted? Has the edit that was made by an involved admin on a fully protected page in violation of two separate and distinct guidelines on admin tool use, been reverted? I have no "pony", as you put it, in the parade. Nor will I in this case. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that these violations occurred. Whats next then? Admins blocking other editors with whom they are in dispute with? Admins deleting pages because they don't like what they say? All in the name of "erring on the side of caution". Its clear that you feel that he was justified. Do you also agree with him in the content dispute as well? Guess what, So Do I. That still doesn't give him the right to take matters into his own hands. Now that he has violated these admin guidelines, its fair to say that his judgement as an admin, in the eyes of others, will always be in question. He not only violated the guidelines, he violated our trust in him. For that, no amount of words can express just how damaging his actions were. Not only to himself, but to other admins and users as well. How will he ever be taken seriously as an editor and an admin again, when there will always be doubt in the minds of those who disagree with him? He blew it, plain and simple.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • I have had little to no personal interaction with Drmies. I have only seen him around the AN and AN/I boards, and I have a positive impression from my observations. You, on the other hand, see one single action and mount your high horse to charge into battle as a righteous crusader for WikiJustice. No no no no no. This I take issue with. Anyone who demands "retribution" for such a matter is behaving in a "nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd" manner. Do we care more about our own little world here, or the actual world which we describe in our articles? That is the central question with regard to "bias" and "caution" in this matter. Generalising this incident to other situations is inappropriate given the nature of the article. The hotly-debated and polarising nature of this case in other places online and in real life makes this different than a simple editor dispute on-wiki. Should another admin have placed the protection? Probably. Has it been established that the material should be re-added? I think so. But those are not reasons for the desysopping of or the commission of other acts of nameless "retribution" on an admin who made a quick call in a sticky situation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I think Drmies did reasonably, especially by bringing it here. I am not sure I agree with his position, but this is the sort of topic where caution is needed. That an admin shouldn't protect their own view is basic, but even it has exceptions. If one;s own view is that possible bias should not be introduced into a particularly sensitive article , there's something to be said for taking direct action. (He should , of course, have asked someone else to do either the block or the edit, but I do not think this in the situation a great crime. Protecting articles from potential bias until the matter can be discussed is a good thing to do, even if done less than ideally). DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made between the protection and editing by drmies, and the overall BLP issue. the ends do not justify the means, IAR aside. And further, there is considerable debate as to if drmies is in the right regarding the blp issue (see the ongoing BLPN discussion). as this was NOT a clear cut violation of any policy, but merely drmies opinion of such, the action to protect and break rules via IAR should carry less weight. However, I do fall back to my opinion below, saying it does not require any sort of administrative punishment etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Well said. But the potential "bias" was still in dispute. The fact that he considered it "bias", and others did not, creates a big problem. He took the position that it "was" bias and took what he considered "appropriate" actions. The fact that he "thought" he was right is irrelevant. The fact that he made these actions in violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:FULL is undisputable. An admin should never take these type of actions when they are clearly involved. I'm not sure what Drmies was thinking, but what I am hopefully sure about, is that he will think twice before ever doing something so blatant again.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I do believe you raise very good points. The edit summary after protection gives the reason; "sorry, but WP:BDP does, and I protected fully precisely for those reasons. i hate using my admin tool here, but i feel i have to" Rather then handling it with dispute resolution he instead used his admin tools to protect and revert the very edit which had an ongoing discussion on the talk page by various editors over the course of two hours prior to the page locking. He protected the page and made commented about bringing it to the attention of the boards. [9] He should have done that first before taking such drastic action and even then he should have passed it onto a third party as he was involved. Instead he used admin tools to protect and remove the material to his side when no further edits could be made, telling them to 'hammer it out'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He reverted the page to the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute so that the contentious material could be thoroughly discussed before being added. WP:INVOLVED is a policy which ultimately only matters to us lot of internet-warriors, whereas WP:BLP/WP:BDP has much broader social and even legal ramifications for the project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• He removed the entire matter of the terms of the suspension along with the 'contentious' material which came from the family, some of which was already present and would seem fair under WP:STATUSQUO that those remain. Only the marjuana issue was added at 18:25, which came from the family itself and did not seem to be a BLP issue due to its confirmation from the family. [10] His first comment on the talk page was 19:50. [11] He removed the material at 19:51. [12] Which was re-added 'Status-quo' applicable at 20:06 by Richard-of-earth. [13] Then it was removed at 20:08 by Ledrush. [14] Discussion continued and it was re-added at 20:30 by Truthsort. [15] 10 minutes later, Drmies protected the page and reverted the edit again. [16] As two other pieces unrelated to the discussion why were those removed if it was status quo? Seems that a discussion was taking place, created an edit war and when other issues were brought up protected the page and reverted additional material that was not contentious. Going by that policy those two sentences should not have been removed and that since consensus was formed against his and Ledrush's view the best thing to do was bring it to dispute resolution rather then take action to end the edit war which his action started in the first place. I'm all for policy, but the situation warranted a different course of action then the one taken. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who initially brought up possible conflict/involved admin editing, I think its clear he did break the letter of the rules, by participating in the discussion, taking action, and when reverted protecting, but based on drmies reuptation and long history, i do not feel any action such as block/desysop etc are needed, although his action should be reversed. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question Is there a single editor here who examines the evidence[17][18][19][20] and thinks that Drmies wasn't involved in this content dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  but, but... zOMG, BLP!!!1!1!!1! (just sayin'...)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• As an editor who brought Drmies action to WP:ANI and is watching this spectacle, I don't think that Drmies or the editors supporting him should have administrator tools because they do not appear to be trustworthy. . --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think Drmies's actions warrant a desysop. Merely agreeing with those actions even less. I think your suggestion is an overreaction. Reyk _YO! 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You need to clean house here. Their actions show contempt for Wikipedia and demean the project. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I haven't decided whether I agree with Drmies's actions themselves, but it is obvious that he was acting out of a desire to protect Wikipedia's integrity. You seem unable to tolerate differing views. You call for extreme punishments for not only the "perpetrator" but anyone you deem guilty by association, as the first resort. This attitude is unhelpful. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • There's an awful lot of ABF in the comments here, and some ridiculously over-the-top calls for blood. This'll get sorted out sooner or later, and the encyclopedia (which is not a newspaper) will not suffer from not having every last little bit of breaking news in it before it's clear whether it means anything or not, or even if it's actually true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe that the page should be reverted to semi-protection, other material is awaiting removal under other concerns raised during its protection and while Drmies actions were not the best course of action, they do not warrant 'retribution'. People make mistakes. If the editors concerned (myself included) harbor no desire to see action taken then who is to condemn him? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies made the right decision. On what planet is it essential to immediately record some minor and very recent claims regarding traces of marijuana? Removing such over-egging per WP:BDP shows good adminship, as does protecting the article and bringing the issue here. Rather than having the issue resolved by an edit war, community consensus can readily determine what happens—no puppies have been injured in this incident. If consensus agrees, the edit can be re-instated and the protection removed. Yes, the admin action is unusual, but the article relates an extremely unusual case (the shooting is regrettaby not so unusual, but the associated interest is). Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the negative marijuana information was leaked from the police department, most likely to malign the dead victim and to support the case made by the police. Considering that somewhere around 50% of teenagers in the U.S. have cannabis in their bloodstream, this is unimportant information. Keep also in mind that the victim was suspended because cannabis residue (which I think amounted to smell only) was found in his belongings. It should be remembered that this is not evidence of usage, as cannabis residue is sticky enough to find itself on just about every conceivable surface. All one has to do is come into contact with someone who uses it, and bingo, you're a potential user just by touching the person or something that they have used like a book or a DVD. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is entirely incorrect. Editors held off during the leak and waited until it was confirmed from the family out of BLP concerns. It was not residue, it was a plastic bag of pot. And I really would contend that you can get a positive pot id from someone who merely comes in contact with any object or person who used it, specifically a book or dvd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you are entirely wrong. The leak was negative, and as every reliable source on the subject states, it concerned "an empty baggie containing marijuana residue".[21] Do you understand the difference between "residue" and "empty bag" containing residue? There was no "plastic bag of pot" as you claim. Further, you are evidently completely and totally ignorant about the concept of cannabis trichomes, so I suggest you do the research before you "contend" anything factual ever again. If you need any further assistance or corrections on any other misinformation you wish to share, please let me know. I'm here to help. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Good call Drmies. By locking the article and bringing the discussion here he seems to have done the right thing. Calls for desysop over this are frankly ridiculous. --John (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just to pile on, this seems a sensible decision. Admins are expected to make tough calls at times, and Drmies' protection was reasonable, especially given that he or she then asked for a review of their action (admins hoping to use their admin tools to 'win' disputes don't advertise the fact that they've done this here!). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hate to ask again; but why is the page still protected when the discussion has moved on, concensus has been formed and major corrections need to be addressed. Over 10 specific pieces of the article need to be addressed now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies made a call, and then promptly asked for community input here. That warrants desysopping of him and anyone who agrees with him? Sheesh. LadyofShalott 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Does it matter whether it was a good call or not? It's done. The question is how to now proceed. Support your colleague. Improve the article. Why waste energy with crucifixion? Span (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't his call to make, and what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time? What to do next? RfC/U or ArbCom?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I can assure you that you will be rightly laughed out of both venues by everyone except for Jojhutton and Bob K31416. Re "what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time?": I shall tell you the same thing I told Joj: go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. Nobody else thinks it's fun; you're just getting the front lawn all muddy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Lothar, that's the third time you've used rhetorical flourishes to respond dismissively to other people's comments. Given that some people are tense and some are likely to overreact, I would suggest that there are probably better ways to convey your points. After all, you yourself said we need to avoid fostering a battleground mentality. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Lothar likes language. I admit my tone has been less-than-cordial here, to say the very least. However, I really see nothing deserving of respect in this fallacious squawking for desysopping and/or "retribution". Others have phrased it more pleasantly, but the general consensus seems to be that boarding the M/S Hysteria to RfC/U- or ArbCom-land is not even a remotely reasonable way forward. I just translate that into more "zesty" terms. Whoops, looks like I already did.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin powers in content dispute — Poll: What would you do in a similar situation in the future?

There is tremendous support for Drmies here. I'm interested in the attitudes of only the administrators here regarding what you would do if you were in a similar situation in the future as Drmies was in at the article. Drmies situation was that he was working on the article, then protected it, and then made an edit after it was protected.[22] Please indicate whether you would or wouldn't do the same thing if you were in a similar situation in the future. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If I were working on an article and became concerned that there was a serious BLP/BDP issue, I wouldn't hesitate to use my administrative tools to address it, and (depending on the seriousness of the issue) I might also edit the article to address the violation after I had protected it. I would then present the situation in a suitable venue for outside input, and abide by the result.

  The community, the Foundation, and ArbCom have all repeatedly endorsed this sort of aggressive and proactive approach to BLP issues. There is no deadline, and no administrative action that can't be undone; if a short period of protection leads to a more thoughtful discussion of the issue in question, then that's a clear win, regardless of who placed the protection. Admins are expected to be responsive and accountable, and Drmies fulfilled that responsibility here. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think in a true case of BLP/BDP, Drmies would have been justified. It is my contention that the information added did not violate BLP/BDP, and if it did was not such an egregious violation to warrant full protection without prior discusson on BLPN etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How are we to determine a "true case"? By discussion? But a discussion necessarily takes place after the fact. Drmies made the assessment that there was a significant risk of a such a BDP violation, and installed the protection so that a discussion could be thoroughly conducted to determine whether or not to include the material without having the potential BDP violation waving around in articlespace. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This exact point, in reverse, is the exact problem with this topic. Are we simply to trust that any administrator, at any time, can make a judgement that any edit to an article who's topic is a "living person" (which is a moving target in itself) is "bad" and therefore the article needs to be protected and edits need to be reverted through protection?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator is, well, an administrator does mean that thereY is a significant level of trust involved. Without the community's affirmation of trust, a user will not gain access to the tools. Thus, an admin may make a bold action in an outstanding case, based on the fact that their very status indicates trust. In such a contentious case, the acceptable follow-up to the protection would be to have the action reviewed in a public place—that we trust administrators to make the right call does not mean that they always will; they are humans like us, after all, and will make some mistakes. Submitting the action for review shows that the administrator recognises the trust given them and their desire to maintain it by keeping open dialogue with the community. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh bull. Administrators are not moderators. Never have been, and the recent attempts by a (not insignificant) subset of them to become moderators is... undesirable. The trust that administrators have is the trust that they will not abuse their tools in order to impose their personal views on Wikipedia. These content issues absolutely should not be resolved through the use of sysadmin tools. If you're an admin and you feel that anything that you're about to do requires review (which is a commendable thing, by the way), then stop and ask first. Nothing that happens here on Wikipedia is important enough that it can't wait the minutes (hours, at most, for important thing) required to bring the subject up for debate.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the dispute was deemed "resolved" when the protection was put in place, or that Drmies's view was at all "imposed" on the article, other than that it was the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute. The full protect was put in place not to keep the material permanently off (i.e., enforce Drmies's view), but to discuss whether or not it was acceptable to include it without having potentially problematic material waving around in the wind on an article where "contentious" and "hot-button" don't even come close to describing it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, What do you think of asking for protection instead of doing it yourself? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would certainly be inclined to do the same; I'm probably the least likely person on earth to invoke BLP for anything, and even I saw the really obvious problem there. It wouldn't have hurt to ask, but RfPP gets backed up fairly frequently (and when you try it from the admin side, it's much more understandable) and this seemed like a pretty urgent issue. Bob K31416, I suggest you drop your crusade here because it's clear you're not getting anywhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the material was supported by reliable sources, what was urgent about it? I'm interested in your opinion on this. Thanks. Heres the deleted material for reference.[23]

"Initially Kypriss stated "He was suspended because he was late too many times." His father originally said the suspension was because he was in an unauthorized area on school property, but he declined to offer more details. Later a family spokesman said that Martin was suspended after traces of marijuana were found in his bookbag. Trayvon Martin had no criminal record."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I changed to the full cites for <ref name='MiamiHerald'/> and <ref name=SCHOOL/> after noticing that someone put up a {{reflist}} in the section "Admin powers reference" where they wouldn't otherwise show up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• As a general rule, if I believe that an article I'm involved with needs protection I'll generally go about it in one of two ways. The first would be to request another admin the review the situation and if justified protect the article. The other would be to protect the article and then request another admin to review my actions and revert as needed. Having said that, there will be cases where I'm convinced that protection is needed and there should be no question so I'll protect and leave it at that. There is no cookbook that we can create that is going to spell this out for every case. And no, while I have been looking at this discussion occasionally, I have not looked at the article being discussed here or the edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just butting in for a moment: RPP does have a tendency to back up--just look how often Jasper Deng and others drop a note on ANI, and I help to clear up that backlog often enough. But I probably would have gone straight to AN or ANI with my request (it's much faster) if I felt that this was not a matter of some urgency. And if I had protected five seconds earlier I wouldn't have committed by second mortal sin, reverting the re-addition of that information (and let it be clear that there was no talk page consensus for adding it either!)--but that's beside the point. Yes, there are other venues, but sometimes they are slow. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies did fine. He probably made an editorial misjudgment in removing the info, but the error was on the side of caution, which is precisely what one is supposed to do in this situation. It's easy to make mistakes in the heat of the moment, so "remove first, discuss afterwards" is fine per NOTNEWS. The edit-through-protection is not a big deal as long as it can be sorted out afterwards, which it was. Trouts to those going overboard calling for escalation. A more strictly neutral approach could be to blank the whole article (that is guaranteed to not be anyone's preferred version) and ask uninvolved editors to decide what to restore. That might be preferable in a more intense dispute with heavier involvement, but would probably have been overboard for this. 69.111.193.46 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ya, he made a major editorial misjudgment. An Admin should never put themselves in a position like this one. Even if the article should have been protected, it should not have been him. Then doing the unthinkable by actually editing the article after the full protection was in place, to the version that he was currently advocating for on the talk page. End of argument as far as he was concerned. --JOJ ^Hutton 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Unthinkable? Hardly. Reversion to the pre-edit war (or "most stable") version is the norm. See e.g. last year at Holodomor in which a full protect was called in to defuse a heated edit war, and the protecting admin reverted to the pre-disputed content version. In this case being discussed here, the version that Drmies reinstated was the "most stable" version. It also happened to be his preferred version, but he was only following the norm of reverting the disputed content until consensus could be established for its reinstatement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, Here's the first revert of Drmies.[24] It appears that he reverted to an unstable version which started an edit war. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most stable" only means "lacking recently-added contentious material"; in the Holodomor case above, the "most stable" version was very contentious—the article was full-protected to that version nevertheless because clear consensus had not been established for inclusion of the new material. At any rate, this discussion here is pretty much a WP:DEADHORSE that should be lain to rest. The full-protect has been gone from the article for days now. I do not see any lasting harm done that would warrant further ruckus-raising here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request lift of full protection

Protection changed to semiprotected by MBisanz, 1RR restriction put in place. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trayvon's family has confirmed that he was suspended for having traces of cannabis in his possession [25]. Drmies declined to unlock the article when I brought this up to him, suggesting I come here instead. So, here I am. The issue that caused him to lock the article is no longer an issue, so someone please downgrade it to semi-protected. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Cla68 is correct that I referred them to this forum: this is not just up to me, considering the dramahz. I still feel that there is no reason to include the information: I did not remove it (just) because I doubted the veracity, but because it is undue and excessive and all those things. That the family confirmed the story, well, they had little choice, did they. The problem is, in my opinion, the suggestion that this had something to do with that. Anyway, I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser. I welcome any admin to undo the protection, either by reducing its length or its status--but that should be an admin who has managed to read the discussions on the talk page (I just did) and has decided that there is a kind of editorial consensus which will ensure some modicum of stability. Whatever the 24/7 news cycle reported the last three seconds, whatever the family was forced to acknowledge, that really shouldn't be the only decisive factor. Anyway, I am going to leave this to you all, but I take some courage from the fact that some admins I really respect have weighed in here and have not overruled me. You know who you are; thank you. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Undue, however, is not a reason for full protection of an article, but for a talk page discussion. Undue is not a BLP violation. SilverserenC 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Without reference to this particular case, undue can be a BLP violation, per "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Then undue my protection. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re "this is not just up to me" — Since it hasn't been unprotected, apparently it is. Re "I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser." — Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers? Why don't you folks start by reverting the edit Drmies made for his own interest after full protection? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?" Please slow yourself down and read the the thread, champ. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?". Yes. Yes, I do. Reyk YO! 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Fairly straightforward case from one side of "Waaaah! He protected a version I don't like! Everyone agreeing with him isn't fit to be an admin!" in my opinion... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There is no emergency. How would an edit war help? Just wait for the discussion above to reach some outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Why assume there would be a fresh edit war? The article has generated several hundred edits, mostly productively. In the current episode, Drmeis was the only one to remove or add content more than once. There is discussion of this issue on both the talk page and BLPN, and I doubt any of the participants are eager to start a fight. There is no emergency, so why cut out all editing and stop the article from being improved? Dragons flight (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I don't think there would be an edit war, because currently the consensus at the BLPN discussion on this is that the information is ok for the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC) As I've had to point out to others recently, Noticeboards do not make decisions, they only offer advice. I'm not weighing in on this debate, but you can't say "BLPN says it's okay" as if it carried authority. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There would be an edit war if some editors repeatedly tried to add the material and others deleted it. There's no clear consensus either way on whether it should be there. Deleting it while under protection is an expansive interpretation of BLP, but for heavens sake people, please don't agitate for desysopping admins every time you disagree with an action. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There are two sides to this issue. On one hand the material at the time would seemingly insinuate the family was covering up a criminal past that somehow would have made it a "good shoot" and thus be defamatory and offensive. On the other hand, it has clearly emerged as a major narrative in the story. Drmies made some comments that were a bit too spirited on the other side, but this would seem to be a case where there is an obvious BLP violation and there needs to be discussion about how to handle it before proceeding. I think Drmies should approach these things in a calmer manner, but beyond that I see no ill action. Honestly, I would be opposed to reinserting that material without some balance added. A recent statement I saw on the news showed the mother accusing the police of trying to slander her son's reputation with these revelations, so that's a starting point for approaching it in a more balanced manner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There's a simple way around this. I'm going to reduce it to semi-protection in a couple hours at 18:00UTC AND apply 1RR to it, blocking anyone who reverts more than once until such time as the full protection would have expired. That should end any edit wars very very quickly. MBisanz talk 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The fact is, the full protection that was added - much as I tend to viscerally not like full protection ever - resulted in the editors coming together on talk and actually talking, and reaching a reasonable conclusion. Exactly what full protection is supposed to do. Now we're back to semi - that's fine. But I would strongly urge the semi to be of considerably longer duration as it had been prior to this kerfuffle - this article is a high profile POV magnet and the semi-protection allowed us to edit with some kind of sanity. Also, could a note be added to the Talk page to let editors know about the 1RR? It's on the edit screen, but I think it's a pretty big restriction that it's only fair to let people know before they go to edit and many editors don't read AN. Thanks Tvoz/talk 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)  Done MBisanz talk 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you MBisanz, and all other contributors. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything else?

At this point, the page protection has been changed to semiprotect, a 1RR is in place, and there's no consensus for censuring Drmies (beyond perhaps a WP:TROUTing for protecting & reverting it himself instead of asking another admin to step in). Is there anything else to be done here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What? My reading of the above is that Drmies receives a commendation. Yes, those who believe Wikipedia must immediately record every detail of a recent event think a trout is warranted, but many others have supported the admin action. Nothing further is needed, other than to thank Drmies. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a good lock, but his apparently involved status threw a wrench into things, as this report demonstrates. Appearance of impropriety and all that. Trouting isn't exactly a punishment. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:01, 28 March 2012 (

• I agree with Drimies on the substantive issue. But I strongly protest his/her use of admin powers, when involved, and find that it brings the admin corp into disrepute, as do the other admins who would condone such abuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Alanscottwalker. Drmies due to his strong opinions on the Martin case should not have made that call, and bringing it to AN after his actions had been strongly questioned does him little credit. His thanking, individually on their talk pages and collectively here, of those who have supported him, is unseemly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for Bigsean0300

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted, discussion has run for over 24 hours without any opposition - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bigsean0300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ongoing socking and vandalism. This would be just a formalization.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Clearly disruptive and vandal account. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Waste of time" collapsed

Why? Is there any fear that his edits to Wikipedia aren't currently being or will not be reverted on sight and his socks blocked? Waste of time to have this discussion. --Jayron32 04:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not comfortable with using de facto bans. If I was more bold I could've just as easily used one here. For all intents and purposes he's banned.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Again, ignoring the fact that what we name the situation doesn't change what we do, what additional actions does this proposed ban cause to happen in the future? Given that Bigsean lasts about 30 seconds before every sock is blocked, and all edits are reverted, what additional protections against him does the ban proposed by this discussion provide? What a ban allows us to do against an editor is already happening and will continue to happen. It's already happening, and if it makes you uncomfortable to name Wikipedia's relationship with Bigsean a "defacto ban" then don't call it anything. But whether or not we call it anything, it still happens exactly that way. Ban discussions are useful for providing remedies or restrictions against users where they are not currently being dealt with. Bigsean has been, is being, and will continue to be dealt with in an adequate manner, insofar as this discussion doesn't actually provide us with any additional tools to help us deal with him, it is a pointless exercise. --Jayron32 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) If you think this is such a waste of time, then why do you even waste time debating it? Yeah, a ban is not going to be much different from the current situation, hence the nominator's "This would be just a formalization" statement. Honestly, a ban isn't going to de facto accomplish much more (hence "formalizaton"), but it's not going to hurt anything, either, as far as I can tell. This would be an open-and-shut case if not for this "waste of time" tangent. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There have been people who tried to say, "My account is blocked, but I'm not banned!" as an excuse for making new accounts and socking. This just puts an end to that kind of silliness. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Gimme a fucking break. No it doesn't. Never in the history of Wikipedia has an admin unblocked someone who said that. "Oh, sorry, go back to harrassing everyone and vandalizing articles since you were never formally banned!" Also, never in the history of Wikipedia, has the enacting of a formal ban actually caused a troll to stop. We need to stop pretending this matters in cases like this. Ban discussions are useful when they provide additional ways to stop someone who needs stopping. This discussion doesn't. --Jayron32 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I don't freaking care about what the user does after this. This'll just make it so that we can rollback on site without having to cite the "elastic" clause of the Rollback policy, since it'll be covered by the banned users clause. If you want this to be unnecessary for Rollback to occur, propose that it also applies to any sockpuppeter.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Who has stopped you from doing that before now? --Jayron32 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC) If you want a "fucking break," stop fucking posting in this fucking discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Interjecting into a community ban discussion with "just de facto ban and be done with it stop wasting time" and then continuing to fight over it wastes a lot more time than just letting the discussion run its course. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• support As one who has both suffered these attacks and helped to clean them up. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support There's no place on Wikipedia for people who just sock and vandalize. Jtrainor (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - No reason to believe this user is here to be constructive. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Vandal account. Carrite (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA

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

---

As we've been around and around the bush with this editor as various noticeboards, AfD discussions, and other venues of sapping volunteer effort with no signs of improvement I wish to propose either a indefinite topic ban with respect to all MMA related articles and discussions or a indefinite block. As the evidence below enumerates, BigzMMA has consumed a significant amount of volunteer time and resources.

Fair notice: I am involved in some of these discussions/disputes

The Evidence

• October 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA - Attempts to vote multiple times to keep an article, is combative in their campaigning to keep the article
• October 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#User BigzMMA (again) - Discussion about disruptive article creation after a 96 hour block. Discussion includes a pondering about indefinite block
• November 2011 WP:DRN (WP:MMANOT) - User fixates on and repeatedly attacks other users when their attempt to add additional MMA organizations is reverted
• November 2011 Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 November 19#User Papaursa - Looks for advice about reporting a user who is in a content dispute in regards to WP:MMANOT to ANI on grounds of WP:OWN
• October 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#User:BigzMMA - Reporting of several personal attacks which cause BigzMMA to be blocked
• November 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leone - Attempts to vote on an already closed AfD discussion
• November 2011 Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles#User Papaursa and Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#User Papapursa - Attempts to sollicit advice about reporting annother user to ANI.
• November 2011 User talk:BigzMMA#I'm Back!!!! - Accuses people who delete "his" pages to be illegitimate.
• December 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Omer - Lobbies heavily for a non-notable BLP after having several people explain the failure of GNG level coverage.
• December 2011 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#Ultimate Challenge MMA 2 - Complaints regarding the deletion of Ultimate Challenge MMA via AfD which was recreated by another user and BigzMMA has been a significant contributor to since then.
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 - User agressiveley and combatively responding to anybody who expresses a reasoned deletion argument.
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination) - Assumes bad faith about nominator and anybody who votes Delete, posts a TLDR rant about how the policies currently in place are the cause for the decay of Wikipedia through the efforts of Deletion Squads
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 - Proxy attacking people who vote delete by cheering on those editors who poke holes in arguments for deletion and cross soliciting for OMMAC 1 AfD
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMMAC 1 - Proxy attacking people who vote delete by cheering on those editors who poke holes in arguments for deletion and cross soliciting for BAMMA 9 AfD
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 - Rants about how wikipedia's policies are causing the implosion of good content. Cross sollicits for BAMMA 9 AfD
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination) - Cross Sollicits for BAMMA 9 AfD. Makes Ad Hominem attacks on other editors
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Fights 18 - Cross soliccitation for BAMMA 9
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK MMA Awards - Arguing a keep on grounds of "Wikipedia needs to be the archive for everything"
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 2 - Repeated Personal attacks against individual editors and deleters as a whole. Asked to remove Personal attacks and responded by making more personal attacks. Warned personally on their talk page to cut the personal attacks out.
• March 2012 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#UFC 140 AfD - Accusing people of violating Wikipedia policies by nominating articles for AfD.
• March 2012 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 - Accuses those who disagree with him of not dealing(?) properly.
• Feburary - March 2012 User:BigzMMA/sandbox - Copying articles that are near deletion or deleted to restore them as they were at a future date in violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE
• November 2011 and March 2012 User talk:BigzMMA#November 2011 and User talk:BigzMMA#March 2012 - Warning regarding canvassing for AfDs. (I didn't notice he had been warned about it back in November earlier this month, but apparently decided to do it multiple times in the last year.)
• January 2012 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#ProElite page been seriously downgraded - Starts a discussion about the ProElite article in a combative manner.

Comments

Topic Ban: Based on the corpus of evidence that shows disruptive and personalizing behavior in the context of MMA events I believe this is the lesser of the two options. Hasteur (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done here, the whole MMA area on WP is a mess, proponents seem to have a very hard time understanding that WP is not here as a sports results service or a place to collect all the gossip about an up and coming event or to document every single fight in the sport, we don't have a page for every NFL game so we should not for every MMA fight or event. It has been mentioned before they should create there own MMA wiki for that. Chief among thoes advocating full coverage to everything MMA has been User:BigzMMA along with User:WölffReik (now indef'ed for copyvio and socking) and neither has understood that WP has policies and guidelines which we all have to work within. I would Support a topic ban (either on MMA as a whole or limited to creating new pages (files, articles or redirections) and deletion discussions) or a site ban on the grounds of no evidence of an intent to work in a cooperative way. Mtking ^(edits) 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban and temporary edit ban I've been involved in at least one of the AfDs where BigzMMA has been involved and have noticed tendentious discussions from the editor. He is extremely active off-wiki and communicates continuously with franchise owners and companies about promoting MMA on Wikipedia. Wifione ^Message 04:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have zero interest myself in these articles, even less than in most sports articles. But perhaps the solution is to make an article on every top level league professional game in all sports. In some sports, there are enough people to do it. Since we don't have size limitations, and they're not ridiculously trivial, the only objection is that it might be possible to get the people to do something more useful, but who am I to say what is useful for anyone else? Better they make the article than we waste time trying to stop them. . DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Would that not be a giant change in the encyclopaedia, think of the regular season in the MLB 2,430 games, NBA 480 games, NFL 256 games, just on those three sports alone in one country would mean 3,166 new articles a year then take say the last 50 years and soon we are talking some 158,300 games in just 3 top sports in one country. Then look at Soccer in Europe and South America on it's own has had organised top level leagues for in some case over 100 years each playing 300+ games per year, very soon someone would be using a bot or something to create stubs on all of these and we could have a situation where a good percentage of WP are just sports results. Would it be better to consider a new Wikimedia project for sports results ? Mtking ^(edits) 06:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:FOOTY has taken a common sense approach to individual matches, with only those demonstrating particular notability reflected in ongoing coverage after the immediacy of the event, being deemed worthy of articles. This has generally been borne out by the community at occasional AfDs. The 16 articles in this top level Cat are good examples. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, that has worked across the various types of football, and is highly sensible. From my very limited experiance with MMA articles, the editing culture around them seems to be both nasty and spammy. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Agreed, MMA, has one WP:MMAEVENT, however it is routinely overlooked by those creating the articles. Mtking ^(edits) 11:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • It's been suggested to Bigz that perhaps they should go off and found a MMA-Wiki in addition to suggesting that once the notability is proven for the organization having a "List of MMA Promotion events" that is the "headliners" part of card would be appropriate. Heck, even I would prefer to see it that way. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Well now that I have the chance to defend myself, let me first point out that many of you would find that many of this links that are being called 'Evidence' does not reflect any bad behaviour that can be used for such a discussion (take Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#Ultimate Challenge MMA 2 as example of this). Many of these links are being used so out of context that to use these as an excuse to ban me from taking part in MMA related topics is a hopeless battle to fight. Also you'd find that the canvassing accusations were later dropped due to the fact that it could not be proven that I was 'picking' who I was notifying about AfDs that they would be interested in. But seen as we are taking about disruptive editing, I would like to point out that users like Mtking and Hasteur have made numerous comments under keep votes in many of the AfDs seen above, and a couple of which they would tag a user in a way that would downplay their keep vote as much as they can without being openly called for a personal attack. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 2 is a recent example of this, which if anyone looks under the vote made by CookBookCharlie, he makes a good point about the notability of the event, then tagged under his signature, was a pointless comment saying that " CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." which was written by Hasteur in this case. You would find that this is a similar case for just about every single AfD above. The only reason I comment under the delete vote is because the keep voters are constantly getting stick from anyone who disagrees with our views so I pretty much do the same with them by asking them how they believe that their choice of methods to delete the page counts towards being an accurate way to decide on the matter (many of which actually say something like 'Delete' per [mentions a user who previously voted delete and gave a reason]). This is not right, and I find this complete idiotic to call for me to be banned on MMA topics whereas the accusing user/s ae not exactly angels in disguise in this debate either, hence a WP:BOOMARANG effect will most likely come out of this. BigzMMA (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that ... it's your attitude/behaviour in these discussions that has landed you in hot water. There's right ways and wrong ways to do things: WP:BATTLE is not the right way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The vote by CookBookCharlie is what we call a SPA (Single Purpose Account) that gets registered for the singular purpose of attempting to dilute consensus by adding viewpoints that are unfounded and contrary to WP policy. I linked to the entire conversation as it exists and not to individual diffs so that uninvolved editors can see the entire context of your commentary. And Finally, Boomerang would only have applied if MtKing, TreyGeek, and I had commited significant faults in terms of WP policy and practice. As I noted just before the evidence section that I am involved in some of the topics, It's up to uninvolved readers to figure out if my behavior has been a contributing factor to this problem. Hasteur (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any kind of sanction on BigzMMA, but support topic ban from MMA article on Mtking who has thus far demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of the subject and is just going about indiscriminately trying to delete as much MMA content as possible to the point of absurdity. This farce here is nothing more than an attempt to silence someone standing up to his bullying. --The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support MMA Topic Ban or Indefinite Ban Almost since the first day that BigzMMA has been here it's been his way or his way. When articles were properly deleted via AfD he promptly recreated them and was given a temporary block for doing so. He is often combative with people who have a different opinion of the notability of MMA articles, whether it be in AfDs or with revisions to WP:MMANOT. He has consistently been pointed to Wikipedia guidelines and policies with little change in his behavior. No matter how much people have attempted to work with him or teach him it seems he just doesn't WP:GETTHEPOINT. The fact that in his comments above he states the evidence shows no bad behavior on his part just amplifies the issue more to me. A few days ago I would have supported a limited topic ban or mentorship for BigzMMA. However, his claims above that he has done nothing wrong has taken those options off my table. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban. I was originally thinking just a topic ban until I saw their recent post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination) where they state "An encyclopedia keeps record of EVERY that has happened". Now in a new editor that would be cause for someone informing them how wikipedia works but this editor is hardly new and has been informed several times. This is an extreme case of WP:IDHT and, until they are able to work more collaboratively and accept that the community as a whole can have a different idea of what's notable to what their idea is, I think they are definitely a net negative to the encyclopaedia as their actions are so disruptive. I suspect a topic ban or a site ban would effectively be the same thing for this user, but don't think it's worth running the risk of them moving into a new area and creating articles on what they think is notable but the community does not, hence support for an indefinite site ban until they show they understand our notability guidelines and that they understand that community consensus trumps their individual view. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban; like Dpmuk above me, I don't see any indication that the problem would only be limited to MMA articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban I daresay that no one has been a bigger target of Bigzmma than I have (see above postings). He was the reason that I spent a month away from WP near the end of last year. Since he first started editing on WP he has insisted that his way was the only correct way and that everybody who disagreed with him was wrong--no matter what the topic. After his initial bans I thought he had settled into more productive editing, but the AfD discussions of the past month have showed me he is still combative and sees no value in the opinions of those who disagree with him. He still doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is built upon consensus. Papaursa (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well then... There is nothing else to say really, it obvious that this 'case' is entirely based on targeting one user who shared a different opinion to other users and they don't like it one bit, and for this reason it looks like I am going to get banned from Wikipedia. By doing so you all have admitted that Wikipedia is truly a one dimensional place that only selective information can past the mark here, despite the fact that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! Before anyone else comments or casts a 'vote' your all better off asking an admin to just close this case and work to block me now, because its as clear as day what this was all about.

Someone tell me something though, if I was the other way round with this, voting delete under the same manner as your all accusing me of being voting keep, would this case even happen? Would you all go out your way to set up a Topic/Site Ban just to stop me giving my opinion on a matter on which you would agree with? Because I don't think so, I think that if anyone agrees with you, you'd may as well call them your best friend, but in my case, we all know what disagreeing with any of your results in as clearly seen by this case. What this is, and I haven't used this term in a long time, is like a lynch mob back in the 1920s, in which you go out and take someone out based on them being different to you. Well you all better get that noose ready, because I am now done, if the result isn't blocked, I going to quit using Wikipedia as of the end of this case regardless of the result. I hope that all of you feel proud today, because in my books forcing someone out of something like this is something I wouldn't be. And all this just because I disagree with the way you guy think? Utter disgrace!

But you know, I'm glad of this in some ways, because being addicted to this thing has made me lose touch with society a bit. Its not that it affected my social life, as I still go out as regularly as I always have, but the fact I drain a small portion of my days on here defending pages, creating pages etc where I could be enjoying my mornings, go to the gym among other things. Now off here I can do what all you people wish you can do - enjoy the hot weather, drink, party, just do things. God no wonder any of you want to remove me, "if you ain't fully dedicated to Wikipedia, then we will block you" should be the motto for users before they create an account here. Because you guys will either drain their entire lives to making me enforce these stupid policies, which many are actually guidelines by the way!, or be blocked from using this site altogether.

Well, finally, as probably my final words on here, I would just like to say that Wikipedia is a joke because all people like you being power hungry and obsessed with any control because of your little penis'. I hope all you nerds enjoying playing 'World of Info-Craft' for the rest of your lives whilst I go get laid, get smashed, have a laugh and continue to be a part of the fastest growing sport in the world today. I am going to train MMA, watch MMA, buy MMA, support MMA and be recognised someday for what I tried to do on here. I am glad that you all are happy to waste each hour, of each day for the rest of your lives on here, and I most happy that you dorks know your place in life at least :). To end this I am going to use the words of Mr Chow from The Hangover "SO-LONG, GAY BOYS!" :D BigzMMA (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As a parting shot, I personally think you lack the seriousness (possibly competence) to edit a real encyclopedia. You refuse to get the point, view this place as a battleground, and repeatedly act uncivil. In real life, this would be called being a jerk. Due to your problems, I think you'd have a hard time in real life. You don't have to be 100% dedicated to Wikipedia to be a contributor. You just need competence, a clue of what you're doing, seriousness (to some extent), and some maturity. My 6th grade math teacher would say: "You're a spaz." I wasn't trying to make personal attacks. Remind me (one way or the other) if needed. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Just before posting this parting shot, BigzMMA restored a significant portion of his sandbox into 2012 in Super Fight League including prose that was previously deleted. I went through and cleaned up the double article into a more workable list with a preamble that clearly identifies the article as a list. Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Muhammad Lincoln (talk · contribs)

This user is currently engaged in several cut and paste moves and edit warring. The user's MO is consistent with a sockpuppet of Nipponese Dog Calvero (talk · contribs) DHN (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for page-move vandalism on User:DHN. Feel free to sock-check as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Already did and blocked a range. --MuZemike 00:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime

We’ve got a handful of activist editors abusing Wikipedia to denigrate a commercial product. The problem stems primarily from the article’s title, “Pink slime”. The subject of the article is an industrial food processing method (which, not surprisingly, isn’t named “pink slime”). The title “Pink slime” is, according to multiple sources, used by ‘’critics’’ of an industrial process – though it's obvious to anyone that that the title itself is clearly POV. In spite of several good-faith efforts to work with these editors to change the name to something more neutral, they refuse to budget citing Common Name (which specifically does not apply to POV titles). Several solutions exist including redirecting the article to an existing article already describing the process to changing the article’s name to something more neutral. However, these efforts have failed. The failure stems from a small handful of editors critical of the process and unconcerned about Wikipedia's neutrality. Since the side representing industry would be immediately branded as editors with a blatant COI, it is up to us – administrators – to uphold Wikipedia’s integrity in this matter and both warn and override the activists. I’d be happy to do this myself since I have the tools and have no stake in the article. However, I feel it would be better to bring this to administrator attention beforehand rather than after simply to ensure I’m not somehow mistaken in believing that the title “Pink slime” isn’t a blatant POV violation (a pillar of our encyclopedia) and not protected by WP:COMMONNAME, a policy which specifically excludes POV titles. Rklawton (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an important issue to raise, just not here. Please take every word you wrote, and write it again at one of the places noted at WP:DR, may I recommend WP:DRN as an option. Good luck! --Jayron32 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no "dispute" per se. There is only policy violation at a scale that requires multiple administrator participation. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't disputing what these people are writing, why did you even start this discussion? If there is no dispute, leave them alone. If there is a dispute, use WP:DR as suggested. --Jayron32 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of "pink slime" to describe this food additive has gone well past the stage where only critics use it, it's entered the popular vocabularly via the media (not just ABC News, as the article's lede implies), which is always looking for more colorful language (pun intended) to goose up the news. Anyone looking for an article on this stuff (I have to admit, I don't even know what its technical name is) is going to look up "pink slime" - but that can be taken care of via a redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the independent reliable sources don't seem to know what it's called, either. BBC News repeatedly calls it "pink slime" (albeit in quotes) in headlines, and seemingly never calls it anything else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Lean Finely Textured Beef". —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they mention that in an aside - but again that article's headline calls it "pink slime". I think the "official title" has a bit of peacock term in it, as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, it's not a content dispute because there's no dispute. There's a gross violation of NPOV by multiple activists that admins need to deal with. Rklawton (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm also not agreeing with you. I'm only saying "says who?" Furthermore, even if it is so, what options, short of having an administrator block someone or protect an article, have been tried and shown to fail? I'm not saying that people don't deserve to be blocked (and in saying that, I am also not saying that people do). What I am saying is that the burden is on you, as the person requesting that admins use their tools, to show that the use of those tools is justified in this case. Being justified means that diffs need to show that a) other methods have been tried and failed or b) that the violations are so eggregious that tools need to be used ASAP. You seem to be asserting b) but asserting something doesn't mean squat. You need to show it by giving diffs showing which user is behaving so badly they need to be stopped now. Otherwise, under what justification do we have to use the tools other than your own unjustfied assertions. It isn't that I am averse to every blocking anyone, but I am averse to doing so on your word alone. --Jayron32 20:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It would take you less time to read the talk page than it did to type your reply. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I did read it. I see a lot of strong emotions on display, but what I don't see is other attempts to bring in outside editors to evaluate the situations, and attempts to establish a consensus by a discussion of level-headed, previously uninvolved editors. "I don't like what they say and they're mean to me" is not a justification for a block, and thusfar, that's all I see as the substance of your complaint. --Jayron32 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any cause for administrative action - it's a content matter under discussion on the article talk page. This is a relatively common issue with controversial subjects that do not have a single predominant neutral name. To the extent policy speaks about how to title the article, that is a content policy and editors are doing what they should be doing, discussing what policy has to say about what the content should be. People on both (all?) sides of the issue have sources to support their position, and may perceive the other side's proposed wording as non-neutral. That's the nature of good faith content disputes. Any broadside attack on a bunch of folks favoring one particular position over the other as activists, policy violators, and otherwise acting in bad faith, better have some pretty strong support. I do see some heavy-handed prose and minor sensationalism in the article, which does strike me as POV. But that's the sort of thing that gets sorted out as articles mature. I see no emergency here. The fuss here on Wikipedia is nothing compared to the coverage this is getting in the world at large. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility of Wikipedia

Again this is something where Wikipedia has a responsbility not to give in to anti-science propaganda; while this stuff is not something I would particularly want to eat, I would eat it without complaint, and quite clearly that article has a bunch of issues. The title in my view would work for the controversy, but not the product. And just look at what I removed from the intro paragraph after a minute looking at the article... I don't even have to read the cite, I KNOW that 70% of american meat doesn't contain this stuff. Cause I have a brain. Egg Centric 00:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see is that "lean finely textured beef" is an industry euphemism, intentionally ignoring that this is a type of beef unfit for human consumption until it's treated with ammonia vapors, and thus ever bit as POV as the term "pink slime". In such a case, where no neutral term exists, I'd go with whichever term is more widely used. (A neutral term would be something like ammonia vapor sterilized substandard beef.) StuRat (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec - addressing Egg) Assuming you're right, good move. The title aside, thanks to you and Slim Virgin for cleaning up the lede substantially. POV is understandable. Bad facts and bad prose are unforgivable! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See, there's not actually any problem with ammonia. But even if there were, it would be like complaining about how ethnic cleansing doesn't actually mean giving brown people free baths. Unless and until pink slime becomes a serious term used by respectable folk (which may well happen), rather than just being something popular amongst hysterics, the great unwashed, and cynical journalists dealing with an early silly season let's stick to a more descriptive term.

By the way, here on the Isle of Man the ground beef I buy in my local supermarket goes through a mincing machine from genuine steak, so there are two animals in it at most. To avoid slime, move to an island country Egg Centric 00:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The point I made above is exactly that "pink slime" has become a "respectable" term, in widespread use by sources that we normally consider to be reliable, such as ABC, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, Reuters, Forbes and myriad other media outlets. WP:COMMONNAME now applies. No one looking for information on this is going to search on "lean finely textured beef" or the other euphemisms the industry applies to this product. For better or worse, the nomenclature battle has been lost. (I also thnk that categorizing this as a "science vs. anti-science" issue is a pretty POV take on it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen numerous news stories recently on this disgusting mystery meat, and every last one of them uses "pink slime". This is meat that Taco Bell found to be below their standards, and as such serving it to schoolchildren is causing a bit of stir, and as a result the WP:COMMONNAME of it is in fact "pink slime". And this is a content dispute that does not belong here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I question whether "pink slime" was that widely used until a recent publicity campaign, in place of the industry term. Similarly, in the last two days there has been a blitz of news items about "crushed insects added to food" at a major coffee shop chain; must we move the article Cochineal about a widely used food coloring to the trendy shock term "crushed insect food coloring?" It is more encyclopedic and less POV to use a term which has been in common use by government and industry than to switch to some tabloid shock term. Edison (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the question of whether or not "pink slime" is an acceptable term has long been settled. It is, clearly. *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is "slang". It is also now the accept WP:COMMONNAME for the stuff. This happens, language is a living thing. You' be surprised at how many of the words we now use in "proper" communication started off as slang. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should push government/industry POV by endorsing their euphemisms. In another example, the Reagan administration insisted that they did not invade Grenada, but only performed a "predawn vertical insertion". Are we therefore bound to use this silly term, rather than call it what it actually was ? No. See Grenada#Invasion_by_the_United_States. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If all of the history books and the majority of contemporary coverage of the Invasion of Grenada actually did use the term "predawn vertical insertion" (which clearly didn't happen, but this is your own example), then yes we should be using that term on Wikipedia. I doubt that we'll ever have to worry about that sort of thing though, since people are pretty smart generally speaking. Convoluted euphemisms are unlikely to gain traction among the general public.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro-"lean finely textured beef" sockpuppetry, and presumed paid editing

There has been an assertion above that "activists" are unreasonably promoting the "pink slime" name. However, it now appears that there are sockpuppets (some rather cleverly named ones at that) promoting the "lean finely textured beef" name [26] [27] [28]. We don't really want articles run by activists, but even less do we want articles run by sockpuppets, which in this case can be presumed to be sockpuppets run by commercial interests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Expewikiwriter

I'm a little worried that the user's contributions are a little advertisingish at times. [29]

Consider Joseph Lani, David_Jerome_(author,_adventurer), Stone_Bridge_Homes_NW, and others, possibly. 86.** IP (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{Sareyn-geo-stub}}

Because of local blacklists, I am unable to create a stub template for Sareyn County, Ardabil Province, Iran. The blacklist is evidently in regard to a youtube artist by the name of Sarey Savy, so is not related to this county of Iran. Content of the template can mimic content of any of the other county templates for Ardabil Province (i.e., {{Parsabad-geo-stub}}), only replacing the county name with Sareyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why the blacklist thinks this is a problem; it's not as if Sareyn is blacklisted. Done for you. Nyttend (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aciyokrocky

Hi, this SPI has been open for nearly a day-and-a-half now, can someone take a look please? GiantSnowman 17:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with User:DIREKTOR

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

---

Hi. I want to report following problems in behavior of User:DIREKTOR in Serbia under German occupation:

• 1. He simply deleting referenced info from the article: [30] - he removed info that common name of that territory was "Serbia" and he also removed references that supporting this info.
• 2. He conducting original research by pushing idea that name of that territory was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", see: [31]. There was only one source presented on article talk page that says what was official name of the territory, and that source name this territory as "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia", not as "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", see: [32]. He does not have sources that would support his aims to rename article to "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia".
• 3. I also suspect account User:Peacemaker67 is his sockpuppet, since views of this account are fully resembling views of User:DIREKTOR. I opened official sockpuppetry investigation case about this, but checkuser declined this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DIREKTOR However, I know DIREKTOR for long time, and due to that, I can be 100% sure that User:Peacemaker67 is his sockpuppet (it would be impossible that he is not). Evidences for that are on archieved pages of Talk:Serbia under German occupation, where DIREKTOR tried for months to delete name "Serbia" from title of that article and User:Peacemaker67 behave exactly the same.

So, please, is there a space for some admin intervention or mediation regarding this case - it is simply impossible to cooperate with user who ignoring sources, who deleting sourced info from the article and who creating sockpuppet to gain numerical superiority. Any possibility of any help here? PANONIAN 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

#3 is ridiculous. CU was declined based on the fact that the editing patterns of DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 could not be more different (DIREKTOR would have to be awake pretty much 24/7 to be the sockmaster, which is absolutely preposterous), while PANONIAN's only "evidence" is that the two of them have a similar POV. I'm inclined to write this off as just disruptive forumshopping in the wake of the torpedoed SPI. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Then forgot the sockpuppetry case. What about deletion of sourced info and original research? PANONIAN 18:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaa, what!? Direktor is removing references and names again! After so many failed attempts! I really dont know what to say! And, per #3, meatpuppets are awful also! --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your allegations of meatpuppetry (i.e., recruitment) other than the fact that they share a similar POV? No? Then hop off. As I said in my comment at the SPI, I could haul you, PANONIAN, and FkpCascais into SPI on similar grounds. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No you couldn´t... That is a phalse statement. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said it would work. I am just saying that "similar POV" is a giant load of codswallop when it alone is passed off as so-called "evidence" for an SPI. What you use against your opponents can be used against you with the same (il)legitimacy. That PANONIAN canvassed you and WW is another thing as well, but we shan't go into that.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The level of similarity between Direktor and Peacemakers edits has absolutelly no possible comparison to WW, PANONIAN and myself (you cannot claim similarity of POV in any possible way, you assumed that without any confirmation, only in order to make it an argument against PANONIAN). Regarding canvassing, you seem to be missinformed about what canvasing is... I noteced you mentioning me once in a phalse context, I let it go, but second time was too much. That is why of my intervention here. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions". Oops, looks like you're wrong. Sorry about that. PANONIAN was canvassing; it didn't take much research to find that you take similar POVs in discussions, regardless of the fact that your behaviour is different.

You are right, similarity of POV is a trash argument, but I have made no "phalse [sic]" claims against you. Your name was dropped because I saw that you were canvassed by an editing buddy. It was meant to demonstrate just how insubstantial the claims made at SPI were. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking me to provide him a link of previous SPI report is not canvassing. It was Peacemaker67 who informed PANONIAN about my SPI report on him, only then PANONIAN asked me to provide him the link from that report, as the report happend some time ago.

Regarding phalse statements, it still seems that you don´t understand that your claim that you could make a SPI report on WW, PANONIAN and me is actually wrong. I bet you cannot present one single exemple of somewhere where we agreed on something recently, simply because we did not edited same articles on WP. So it is not trouth that you could... You are just saying that in order to to give a phalse impression about similarity of edits between editors, when in fact Peacemaker67 and Direktor similarities are incomparable bigger and are real. Actually, I don´t understand your intervention at all here, you were not involved in any of these articles, and your intervention in multiple threads has been to find excuses for Peacemaker67 and Direktor in reports made against them. FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You and WW were canvassed to a discussion on an admin's user-talkpage regarding sockpuppetry. Not to the SPI itself, this is true—but to the discussion that was redirected to it.

You don't seem to understand what I was saying at all. I can file an SPI whenever I damn well please; I could do so right now if I really felt like making a WP:POINT. It would get shut down as bluntly as PANONIAN's did, but I could still submit one. Let's be clear: I don't think you, PANONIAN, and WW are the same person, just like I don't think that DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are the same person. And I have hard, technical evidence to support that last point, whereas you all only have weak whining about POVs that you don't like.

You don't understand my intervention? I find that especially entertaining. Maybe you should pull your head out of the dirt and wake up to the fact that if an uninvolved editor finds that your supposedly "clean" side of the story has great, gangrenous gashes gouged into it, maybe you are talking pure hogwash. I cannot stand people who use malicious, unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry to try and gain the upper hand in content disputes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is that he ignoring all these sources that I collected and he claiming that "Serbia did not existed" (see the last claim of this kind: [33] - Quotation: "Serbia did not exist between 1918 and 1944") and therefore he wants to annihilate name "Serbia" from article title. What else is this if not original research? PANONIAN 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRN. This is a content dispute that hardly requires administrator intervention. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Right.. the forumshopping continues, apparently. First the patently ridiculous WP:SPI report [34], now WP:AN for some reason.. No notification, both times, btw. PANONIAN is a buddy of FkpCascais, who got topic-banned for exactly this kind of forumshopping. Now it looks like he's encouraging another user to "continue in his footsteps" [35]. -- Director (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Protection of DYK queues

Just drawing people's attention to Talk:Main Page#Protection of DYK queues. Rcsprinter (whisper) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cold fusion

The recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Issues at Cold Fusion (moved from AN to ANI) seems not to have accomplished much before vanishing into archiveland. The same users continue the same behaviour. Are there admins watching this talk page? (Fair warning: I've been engaged there over the long term.) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

I know that AE is about the last place most admins want to end up at, but we seriously need a little input from a few other good admins. If I could offer you a pay raise, I would, but all I can guarantee is that your efforts will be much appreciated by the AE Adkins admins (if not necessarily the disputants). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we have to go on the Adkins diet? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Doubling the salary ought to do it! Wikipelli ^Talk 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate the autocorrect on my iPhone!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do admins at AE receive the ire of disputants? I figured that their anger would be directed toward the other disputants and toward the arbs, not toward the clerks. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually it's not too bad; I've never gotten completely ripped by anyone, although I've had my subject knowledge questioned a couple of times (as is happening right now). Some will even thank you, from time to time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A problem with AE is that admins who regularly work there tend to get burned out. So what's needed is new admin victims fresh blood. Experienced non-admin editors can also help out by reviewing cases, since the volume of outsider comment that keeps ANI brightly lit (with both attention and indignation) is absent at AE. Mostly what we have there is indignation by involved editors. So outsiders can help at AE by contributing a mainstream opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with that. For Nyttend's benefit, administrators' roles at AE are not that of clerks, but of judge, jury and executioner all in one. Which, yes, does tend to provoke some anger. Many disputants are sufficiently firmly convinced of the rightness of their own position that they have little wrath to direct toward their opponent (whom they regard as something akin to an unwitting embodiment of evil, or at least someone with whom it's not worth trying to remonstrate), but plenty for uninvolved administrators whom they expect to instantly see the obvious rightness of their position...

So yes, the judge/jury/executioner problem does mean that the presence of rather more uninvolved and clear-headed witnesses, evidence reviewers and advocates (to continue the metaphor) would be very useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Anarchangel

Anarchangel (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this user's admission here: [36], specifically,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mindless creation of "suspected sockpuppet" categories from years old, with resulting problems

User:Rich Farmbrough has created hundreds of categories yesterday, despite having Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

The problem is that this is done in a mindless, bot-like fashion, ignoring all potential problems this may cause. Among the creations are many categories from the "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ..." group, from years ago, linking e.g. an IP address to an editor for some edits done years ago (e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grimkn1ght), even though that IP is probably no longer linked to the same person, making the catgeory essntially useless. Other cats like Category:User rue-0 and Category:Wikipedians who like The Wedding Date are already up for deletion. Many more "Category:Wikipedians who like ..." have been created, from the categories only used by User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises. Considering the number of redlinks still remaining there, stopping these creations now may be useful.

A clear example of the problem with these creations is e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ghirlandajo, based on a tag from 2007, and where the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghirlandajo concluded that there wasn't enough evidence at all to link the two. However, thanks to this creation now, five years after the fact, this has been "officialized" and the editor smeared for no good reason at all.

The editing restriction was installed because of earlier instances of mass creations, including category creations, with poor or clearly unwanted results. Apparently Rich Farmbrough won't head the restriction without some firmer action though. The categories need to be chekced and deleted if needed, and the creator encouraged by some means to stop this. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that after this report, Rich Farmbrough has deleted some problems I noted, and hidden some others (the "Lady Aleena" redlinks). Any indication that he will change his approach and/or look for remaining problems himself instead of relying on others to check all his edits is so far missing. Fram (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Again? How many times is Rich going to violate these restrictions? This is going to turn into a Betacommand case again unless something is done soon. Personally I suggest a short sharp block to remind of the restrictions, and maybe if it continues in the long-term a desysopping. I don't want it to come to this, but you can't always ignore all rules, like Rich Farmbrough is. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "IAR", he has just (again) edited a fully protected template to add a rule that adds some pages using the template to a certain category created by Rich Farmbrough in 2010. Sadly, that category has just been deleted one week ago after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15#Category:Empty categories. So not only is he ignoring the rotection, he is also ignoring the community consensus at CfD after only a week. And it seems furthermore that his edit isn't having the intended effect, since it is listing on-empty categories into the "cat:Empty categories", e.g. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of "The Template Vandal" had one subcategory, 33 entries and the "empty categories" cat at the time of writing... Fram (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is especially concerning given that I had to threaten to block both him and his bot (and did block the bot) just a few days ago in order to get him to stop another series of violations of his other editing restriction. I recommend he be blocked for at least a month, as he's been blocked for 1 week and 2 weeks previously for violation of these same restrictions. However, I also have serious concerns that an administrator is unwilling to work with community-placed restrictions; that sort of conduct seems incompatible with the trust needed to hold the tools. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Therefore, let's not do what happens every time RF is brought here. Instead, let's do one or more of the following:

1. Archive this thread immediately, as nothing is ever actually done about RF, so why waste the time?
2. Block RF now, for at least a month or two.
3. Take RF to ArbCom and have him desysopped

→ ROUX ₪ 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I say 3 should be done immediately. He is clearly misusing the tools at this point. Silverseren^C 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support 2 and 3. Rcsprinter (deliver) 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked Rich. Like Hersfold I have previously threatened to block him for editing outside of restrictions, making volume mistakes and pissing people off. During the Betacommand case we had discussions about the necessity for UAT (testing the final outcome is acceptable to end users for those unfamiliar with the term). Since this UAT f*** up has affected real editors badly, I felt I finally had to block him to get through to him (I tried cussing last time. Didn't work). If someone opens an RfAR, he can be unblocked to contribute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Noticeboard participants in AfD and other debates

There is a case of informal coordinated voting (a distant cousin of meat puppetry) going on at the AfD on the Mundane astrology article. FT/N appears to have a history of trying to control pseudo-scientific material, like astrology, on Wikipedia.

The FT/N discussion about this AfD began on 21:42, 25 March 2012 by an IP that is likely user Saedon. The discussion at FT/N involved a number of other editors active on this board, including AndyTheGrump, Dominus Vobisdu, 86.** IP and IRWolfie-, all of which voted in the AfD debate. Another FT/N participant The Hand That Feeds You suddenly appeared, having taken no part in the Mundane astrology discussion at FT/N, with the AfD nomination at 21:42, 26 March 2012. Following that, yet another FT/N participant Salimfadhley appeared out of the blue to vote. One of these editors claims that as he/she voted against the proposal, it is evidence that no coordination is taking place. That claim doesn't fit with the evidence. Just examine the following exchange at FT/N concerning the Mundane astrology article:

Frankly, it looks to me to be nothing but a POV-fork of our existing Astrology article, with all of the criticism taken out: It should probably go for AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking. Would support delete if proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I considered an AFD as well but thought that maybe there actually was a difference between mundane and regular astrology. Going over it now I agree with ATG and would support as well. Saedon (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

These voting practices, even if they involve open debate at FT/N, are intransparent to other users, as they are not announced in the debates. The prior discussion also stacks the voting in favour of the FT/N viewpoints. The result is that decisions are not based on the merit of discussions but numerical superiority of those favoring clamping down on ideas at the margins of science, like astrology. Often the knowledge of the subject matter is limited and the attitude "the less, the better" is displayed, no matter the possible encyclopedic value to readers. Finally, these practices appear to have a [contentious] history. Some discussion about these biases has taken place at [FT/N]. However, as these practices are in violation of Wikipedia rules, they should be ended or managed to avoid biases. Romulanius (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This was Romulanius's 5th edit ever. Cardamon (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment further on this later, but for now, can you provide a source for your assertion that astrology is "at the margins of science"? From all evidence available, it is at the margins only in the sense that Mozambique is 'at the margins' of the Arctic circle ;-) Talk about fringe theories... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Right - let's start by looking at the thread at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mundane_astrology. What Romulanius has conveniently chosen to omit was the next post in the thread - mine:

I suppose one could argue that it is a subtopic: 'Western' astrology as applied to natural events, politics etc - but any policy-reflecting subtopic would have to follow Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience, and not present it as factual. If there are sources which can demonstrate that this is a genuine subtopic within astrology, we might do better to stubify the article, removing any claims to effectiveness, and other unsourced material (e.g. the 'Planets and areas of life' section, which lacks any inline sourcing), and balancing it by adding the appropriate material on pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[37]

(and of course the discussion continues...)

Does this look like "informal coordinated voting"? Nope. It is a discussion related directly to FTN matters - a policy-violating article that needs dealing with, whether by editing, merging, or deletion. As it happens, at the subsequent AfD, I !voted for a merge with the main astrology article - but only after looking further into the question as to the extent to which it could be justified as a topic. As can be seen, I was doing exactly what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do - which is to look at the issue of notability not on the basis of my own opinions, but on the basis of sources (or in this case, the basis of the lack of them). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, quite a number of Wikiprojects use a tool to bring AfDs in their field to their attention; I fail to see how mentioning a discussion on a noticeboard devoted to the policy would be any different, indeed, it's arguably rather less likely to result in coordinated voting. 86.** IP (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought, Romulanius: Don't blame Wikipedia's systemic flaw of promoting the bias of the majority, on the biased majority? Anarchangel (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This entire complaint is much ado about nothing. These are the same conversations that take place on every other notice board. Sometimes, that means an article being discussed does not appear to meet Wikipedias guidelines. Other times, it just means the article needs work, or the board editors feel there is no problem Doesn't matter if it's the Reliabke Sources board, Notability board, Fringe board, or Original Resource board. This is not vote coordination, in any form. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And then there is the question of whether say Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology could ever be used for 'coordination'. Actually, it isn't a question at all - what does it say at the top of the page: "This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that the OP is essentially saying that any post to a noticeboard or project page about a specific article is coordination that's bad. A view that, to me, is patently foolish. Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Except for Anarchangel, the replies so far are from editors participating in FT/N discussions. They see little problem with the issue at the basis of the complaint: advertising among like minded editors and vote stacking the debates. No surprise there. What is needed is feedback from administrators who are not themselves involved in such practices and can give an objective appraisal. Romulanius (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for a response from administrators that don't respond to posts on noticeboards? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A few administrators who aren't part of a noticeboard gang would do the trick. ;-) Romulanius (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Would that include the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard gang? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FT/N is the official noticeboard for discussions of WP:FRINGE policy. Could the OP kindly tell me what purpose a noticeboard should serve (in his opinion) if it cannot be used to notify other interested editors of the existence of suspected policy-violations? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard could be considered biased by the OP's logic: certainly they're trying to marginalize a particular set of opinions here. It is clearly desirable to attract informed comments at AfD, rather than no comments or poorly-informed comments. Should I not comment at deletion discussions on architectural topics because I see an AfD for a notable building at WP:ARCH, because that's just biased? Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)