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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 27 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 21 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)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 88 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 85 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 85 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)

WP:RSN#RfC: The Times of India

(Initiated 42 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 37 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#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 27 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)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 20 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: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 18 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	1	14	15
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0	4	4
RfD	0	0	0	47	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:List of undefeated mixed martial artists#7 to 10

(Initiated 82 days ago on 8 May 2024) We have reached an impasse and agree that a formal closure would be helpful in determining next steps. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 66 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 63 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:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 51 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)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"?

(Initiated 44 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm rather minded to mark this {{Not done}}. I don't think that discussion came to any useable conclusion. To the extent that there was a consensus, it was about historical events; the Zong Massacre was discussed, and presumably nobody takes issue with Amritsar massacre or Peterloo massacre or St Brice's Day massacre as article titles. At issue is titles like "massacre" in articles about current events, and there's the blindingly obvious guidance from the community to be careful with the wording, but apart from that I don't see the kind of clear conclusion that would justify closing an archived discussion?—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, then a close of no consensus is perfectly acceptable. Since you're uninvolved, why don't you go ahead and close that discussion? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sophie (musician)#Pronouns again

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 June 2024) Not particularly long or complicated, but participants are arguing over whether there's consensus. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024 July#ABC News (United States)

(Initiated 26 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident#Requested move 19 July 2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 19 July 2024) Please review or relist this discussion--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike

I really, really do not like making this proposal. If anyone checks the records, they will in fact see that I have historically been one of the few editors who has been somewhat on DeknMike's side. But the editor has a fairly long history of trying to get the content of the main Messianic Judaism article to support some internal positions of the group, specifically that they are older than independent sources seem to support. User:Jayjg has been most heavily involved in this, trying to get DeknMike to produce independent reliable sources that would support his contentions. I've tried to find such sources myself. So far as I had been able to see from the databanks I checked or the independent reliable published sources, the position is not supported. I and others have also tried to reason with DeknMike, to no apparent avail.

In this section, Jayjg indicates much of DeknMike's problematic behavior to that date. A check of the most recent article talk page comments would indicate that the problematic behavior of DeknMike hasn't changed. He misrepresents sources, emphasizes non-independent sources, and otherwise engages in disruptive behavior.

Although I am personally somewhat sympathetic to DeknMike's positions, as is apparent from some of my own comments, I have to say enough is enough.

I would request that DeknMike be banned from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well. There is not yet an article History of Messianic Judaism so far as I can see, but I would not rule out the possibility of such a page being created and possibly being subject to the same problems. Other related pages might also be subject to the same treatment if the editor is banned from only the main article.

I will myself continue to check the independent reliable sources to which I have access, and, if any of them do ever provide independent support for the MJ's positions, trust me, I will let everyone know on the article talk page. But none of us have the time to spend dealing with the problematic behavior which does not seem to be likely to stop without action of this sort. Based on the lack of existence of an article on the MJs history, I guess I would have to support at least a ban on the main Messianic Judaism article, and possibly on any yet-to-be-created article on the history of Messianic Judaism. But I am not sure that material might not be added to other related articles. On that basis, much as I dislike it, I think that a topic ban is possibly the option that would create the least trouble for others, and on that basis am proposing such a ban, although I would not necessarily object to more focused bans if such are proposed by others, and will try to comment on such . John Carter (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, please be more specific about the latitude of the proposed ban — either you need to list all of the pages from which you're asking him to be banned, or a description of the type of pages (e.g. "All pages dealing with the history of Messianic Judaism") from which you're asking him to be banned. If we enact a ban with "possibly related Messianic Judaism pages", there's too much latitude for him to claim that he's not editing a related page and for his opponents to claim that he was editing a related page. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Undedrstood. At this point, I propose the ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed. If a relevant extant article, like History of Messianic Judaism, already existed, I might consider limiting the scope of the ban to a few specific extant pages, but the present state of the content makes that a bit problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, et al have repeatedly stated their opinion that Messianic Judaism 'arose' in the 1960s. The word 'arose' is particularly troubling - what does it mean? Stood up/started? Emerged from the shadows? The sources used don't say. Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century...he tension between the Messianic Jewish movement and the Hebrew Christian movement had always been present. After the inception of the HCAA in 1915 Again, Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s... These external sources have been on the page for some time. What is 'disruptive' about citing the sources already on the page to say what they say? Except that I refuse to be bullied into ignoring true and reputable sources? I have admitted many times that the name was not mainstream in the US before 1967, and that it has seen significant growth since then (arose?). I have presented many sources that say the movement existed outside the US before the 60s, but the others in this conversation will not consider any sources they don't agree with or that says anything but their stated notion. I myself am not Messianic, though I attended their services in several cities, and have talked with leaders in the movement. I am an outsider trying to make sense of ALL the literature, not just the sources that agree with the opinions I held before the research began.--DeknMike (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe a more accurate and less self-serving comment would be more along the lines of "you insist on indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the basis for including material which does not meet basic wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the more obvious recent examples is to be found at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Jerusalem Council as source, in which you appear to take the position that because a self-published source makes a declaration about a specific group within the broad field of Messianic Judaism, that statement is true of Messianic Judaism as a whole. Such a position is not only contrary to policy, but actually even contrary to basic logic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(Pesky non-admin intruder again ...) Comment: is this just another US-centric problem? Pesky (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Messianic Judaism started in the US and remains overwhelmingly a US-based movement. Zad68 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support a general topic ban for DeknMike for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages. Reasoning:

• I was going to type up a long and detailed history of the issue, but it really has already been laid out pretty well here: Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. The basic issue is a very long history of civil (well mostly civil anyway) POV push. The description at Wikipedia:CIVILPOV fits the situation perfectly.
• The civil POV push is built on consistent (and sometimes sneaky) misrepresentation of sources. The editors at Messianic Judaism no longer have any faith or trust in DeknMike, and for good cause. Every one of his edits now is viewed with suspicion, and requires us to get him to show us the full text of the source he is trying to use, in context. Almost invariably, the source does not support his edit. This is really appalling.

• Here is just the latest example of misrepresentation of sources: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Another_source_misrepresentation_.2F_inaccurate_edit_summary.3F. The edit summary doesn't cover the whole edit, and the edit doesn't match what the source says. This misrepresentation of the source sat in the article for several days before somebody noticed.
• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_21#Deleting_reliably_sourced_accurate_material_again, there are more examples of sneakiness, where Mike was using the minor edit button to try to slip in significant content changes to the article. (He has since stopped trying to use the Minor button in this way.)
• More examples of misrepresentation of sources from the archives:

• DeknMike inserted the following text into the article:

In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.

What the source actually says, in the chapter on "Hebrew Christianity," is

On 9 September 1813 a group of 41 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews' Chapel. These Jewish Christians met for prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening.

Note, nothing about it being "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations".

• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_20#Misrepresenting_sources_again, from over a year ago, DeknMike is trying to do the exact thing as he's doing in the latest example, so clearly, this is a long-term, protracted problem that is still continuing through today.

• The Messianic Judaism article is itself in pretty bad shape. It used to be a good article but quickly fell apart. I think it has the potential to be restored to Good status, but I see DeknMike as an impassible obstacle to improving the article.
• Attempts by John Carter to encourage or mentor DeknMike in improving the article in areas other than history consistently fall on deaf ears.
• I have had, occasionally, some productive interaction with DeknMike on the Talk pages of the Messianic Judaism article, see for example Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_22#Non-summary_statement_in_Lede where we actually worked together and came to an agreement on a change to the lead, which still stands today. Although I've felt I've been on the receiving end of some personal attacks from Mike, honestly they aren't that far out of line from how lots of other editors I've seen behave on Wikipedia. For these reasons, I am proposing not to include Talk pages in the topic ban.

Zad68 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Zad, how would you define the phrase "Jewish Christians?" Pesky (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article Jewish Christian does a reasonable job of addressing that question. However, I cannot see how it is acceptable according to policies and guidelines, including WP:SYNTH, for any editor to instantly assume that any "Jewish Christians" must necessarily be among those described as being within the group Messianic Judaism. There are and have been other groups and individuals prior to modern Messianic Judaism who have been described as Jewish Christians. If we were to accept that argument as valid, we might just as easily call them Cerinthians, Ebionites, Elcesaites, Essenes, Nazarenes, Nazoreans, or Saint Thomas Christians, or followers of Antinomianism, Marcionism, or any number of other names that have been applied over the years to individuals who have been roughly described as "Jewish Christians." John Carter (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should avoid getting into a content debate here, this is about editor behavior. If we find one of the examples I have listed questionable, I'll provide a different one. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• [non-admin observer comment]. I thought it might end up here. I've pretty much stopped watching the page (or rather stopped bothering to click through to follow the daily edit summaries) so my comment has little recent value, but might provide some background. Firstly, John, there is a history page, Hebrew Christian movement, which has the same editors but gets less traffic - partly I suppose because it mainly represents the more "assimiliation" minded and Gentile-funded Victorian Jewish missions. It also contains the same 9 August 2011 edit as Zad68 points about above as OR that the 41 member 1813 Hebrew Christian congregation in London was the "first" - which I can't see how is a problem on a content level as putting [1813 "Hebrew Congregation"] into Google Books immediately pulls out 3 sources supporting that this (correctly r not) in sources is regarded as the "first" (since two of the 3 sources - Stan Telchin & Rich Robinson are anti-MJ Evangelical works I'm assuming they aren't internal sources). The reason I mention that is that if that's the worst example of DeknMike's OR, and we have to go back to August 2011 to find it, then how come it's supported in Google Books? ......that said, the issue here isn't content so much as constantly pushing edits and pushing with a slant - which usually get reverted. I initially thought Jayjg was being too picky in some of the edits being blocked, but have come round to see that in almost every one of DeknMike's edit a sourceable factoid is being accompanied by a tail with distinct POV/OR characteristics, meaning both the sourced factoid and the tail get reverted. In addition John Carter - who is evidently neutral if not vaguely favourable - has offered DeknMike the opportunity to pass edits through him first. I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something. What I personally would suggest is that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article, and others commit to check every week or so, with more leisure than now. There's also another potential issue with a topic ban - POV concerns aside I'm not sure that it's healthy for en.wp to ban the only active User of a particular religious group from editing his/her religious group's article. Particularly as MJs are a group, like JWs?, to which most of their religious cousins range from suspicious to hostile. That may be a consideration outside AN scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that we pretty much banned every western Falun Gong practicioner from that content some time ago, for POV pushing, so there is precedent for that. But I would think that only two months would be far too inadequate. Procedurally, there have been indefinite bans from a topic in the past, which are reviewed later and ended. That would probably be the best way to go here. And I do think, maybe, allowing him perhaps to leave notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish Christianity, for anyone to see, might be sufficient for him to propose new edits. If, however, DeknMike were to agree to a self-imposed topic ban, I would probably agree to that. If he would agree to that. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe a bit more listening to each other, in a more relaxed atmosphere, might be good. I don;t think a self-imposed topic ban is the way to go about that, personally, but if it's the only thing that works for you, he may have no option. Looking at the above information, though, I'd like people to think about "Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s..." and "Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century" and see if they can understand why DeknMike believes that saying it arose in the 1960's is wrong. See if you can discuss this one carefully with each other, looking to understand the "other side's" reasoning. Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead? Pesky (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order. Zad68 correctly stated the article is within the category 'formerly Good Articles', but including it in a discussion about me might lead some to conclude is was delisted BECAUSE of me. In fact, it was delisted in 2008 [[1]] and I didn't join the conversation until March of 2010 [[2]]. To say otherwise misrepresents the issues even more.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: DeknMike is correct on the dates of the article's delisting and the start of his involvement editing it, and it was not my intention to imply that his editing caused the de-listing. My point was that DeknMike's involvement at the article was an impediment to its return to Good status. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DeknMike, I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". There was just something (well, several somethings) about it which rang warning bells for me. I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. I think there's far more to this than meets the eye, and that what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it. I'm not saying that that is intentional (though of course there's always the possibility that it may be), just that these things happen. I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first. Pesky (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether I would qualify under the terms of TPC above, but I had gone through the sources available to me on EBSCOHost, JSTOR, ProQuest, NewsBank, and other databases, as well as the materials in the local public libraries and the libraries of Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis University, and Webster University. There is very little in the way of academic books dealing with the topic of modern Messianic Judaism. While it is included in a few encyclopedias and dictionaries of religion, none of those I saw, including some of the most relied upon, trace the MJs to before the middle 20th century. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ThatPeskyCommoner, two points:

• First, when you say 'I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".' what exactly is the deviation from truth that you are concerned about? What are the "warning bells," exactly? When you say, "what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it," what are they? Please be specific. It appears that you are questioning the truth of something being presented here, and if so, we need you to identify exactly what it is so we can address it. This is Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, this is as serious as it gets on Wikipedia (short of ARBCOM). John Carter did not list this case without thought or in haste, and I am not participating here without thought or in haste. I hate being here. I don't want to do this. But John Carter and I feel it has to be done for the benefit of the Wikipedia project as a whole.
• Second, when you say:

  I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. ... I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first.

  Sorry, "may be needed"? What else do you think a topic-ban request at Administrators' Noticeboard is asking for? We are asking specifically and exactly for an experienced, uninvolved Admin to review everything in detail. Are you suggesting we're hoping to get our request get rushed through without careful review, or that Admins don't normally review topic-ban requests carefully? John Carter, the editor who brought this request, is indeed a "scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin," is an Admin, has over 150,000 edits (please take a moment to reflect on this!), has religion-related articles an area of his special expertise, and has been only minimally involved in the edits at Messianic Judaism--he has not edited the article at all during the time-frame we are discussing, and has less than two dozen edits to the article Talk page in the time-frame we are discussing.

Pesky, you are asking others to make a careful, painstaking review of the detail; have you done so yourself? Have you read Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again? Have you reviewed the edits and compared them to what the reliable sources say? Of course everyone can contribute to these WP:AN discussions, but contributions here can't be valuable if you haven't done your homework. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit counting isn't necessarily a mark of quality or knowing what you are talking about. John Carter became an admin on 14 Jan 2008, if it matters (I have no interest in the subject) Secretlondon (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the date. I understand what you are saying. I was trying to come up with some objectively quantifiable, independently verifiable way to determine if John Carter is an "editor in exceptionally good standing" as Pesky requested. It's difficult to be a very, very active editor and also keep sysop over a very long period of time, so I think it says something. Perhaps what Pesky is asking for is too subjective to satisfy. Zad68 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all difficult given the near impossibility of desysoping. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then Pesky will have to leave it to the individuals reviewing this to make their own, subjective determination. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. DeknMike has strongly held and fixed personal views on the topic. This wouldn't be an issue, except that he continually edits the article to conform to his personal views, regardless of what reliable sources actually say. A classic (and the most recent) example is this edit. The source in question is discussing Christian missions to Jews; from the early 1800s to the mid 1900s mainstream Christian churches established Missions to Jews (often in areas where significant numbers of Jews lived), attempting to convert them to Christianity. The source itself states

"Missions to the Jews during the period were conservative evangelical institutions. It should be noted, therefore, that the years from the 1920s to the 1960s were not ones of decline but rather a period of growth for these enterprises in size, experience, organization and sophistication."

DeknMike "summarized" or "paraphrased" this as:

Its leaders used the decades to build a strong, respectable reputation, and hired Jewish converts as missionaries. Among the missionaries were Martin (Moishe) Rosen, who later founded Jews for Jesus.

This shows the heart of the problem. The source itself says nothing whatsoever about "strong respectable reputation", "hir[ing] Jewish converts", or Martin (Moishe) Rosen. Moreover, when asked what the phrase "its leaders" in his insertion refers to, he states "Why the Messianic Judaism movement, of course!". The source itself is discussing Missions to Jews by established Christian churches, and also explicitly states in that chapter that the "Rise of Messianic Judaism", the "first phase of the movement", occurred "during the early and mid-1970s". DeknMike is well aware of this.

This has been going on for three years. DeknMike has fixed beliefs about the origins of the Messianic movement, and cannot accept what reliable sources say on the topic, so he attributes things to them that they don't say (in the past he would also delete them, but he doesn't do this as much any more). As the various links provided above show, he has modified one specific statement in the article, sourced to seven reliable sources, twenty-three times, simply because he cannot accept what they say. When confronted on the article's talk page, he makes unsubstantiated claims, often accompanied by irrelevant comments about other editors, then typically goes away for a couple of months until the furor dies down, before repeating. There seems to be no way of making him accept what reliable sources say when it disagrees with his beliefs, nor any way of convincing him to edit in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I rarely even look at that article any longer specifically due to this problem. Previously, I was quite an active editor at the page and had numerous encounters with Mike. The problem was exactly as already described: Mike would take vast liberties in claiming that a particular reference stated something when, upon examination of the source, the reference did not. The agenda-pushing was obvious. In fact, without wishing to cast too negative a vibe towards a fellow editor, I often felt that Mike's methods of POV were sneaky - that, if able to get away with it, Mike would re-insert or re-attempt the agenda-pushing after a short time in what I perceived was a hope nobody would notice. This grew tiresome. and only Jayjg appeared up to the task of constant enforcement, whereas I drifted away from the article. Lastly, I agree that the article at one point was in better shape - if I recall correctly, it was written by consensus without the need to tilt it in one direction or the other. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (DeknMike discussion)

My apologies for having been away from this thread for a short while (thus leaving questions unanswered). Too much going on IRL. The biggest qualifier I had for someone to look through the entire history was the completely uninvolved one. That really means someone who has, to date, expressed no particular opinion. And someone who doesn't focus on religion-related articles, too. I really mean completely uninvolved. @Zad, no, I haven't had time to do a thorough review (too much going on IRL, again, and I'm spending quite a lot of time researching a different history, at the moment). As for "deviations from truth", it's a kind of nebulous, skewy thing; a smudging of borderlines, the inclusion of things like (for instance) the "delisted GA" being included as if it had something to do with DeknMike; as if there was some desire to encourage people to assume that it did, and so on. I'm not saying that it was deliberate (yes, I said that before, and I'm saying it again now, to avoid people feeling that they have to attack me, too; attacks on me are not warranted, and they upset me probably a great deal more than most people realise). I can think of one user off-hand, who has previously shown an exceptional talent in going through old history. I have no idea whether they're involved or not, or could spare the time to assist, but I will ask them (some time soon) whether they could / would take that task on; just the dusting off, bringing into the light of day, the old stuff (everything relevant, not just what's here. That's what I mean by The Whole Truth™). Pesky (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, can I ask you to do me a favor--Please step back from your suspicions of what you think might be going on, assume good faith, at try to look at it from our point of view for a minute. Can you see that your involvement in this discussion so far appears to assume that the concern that John Carter and myself and Jayjg have been dealing with isn't legitimate? Can you see that you have made vague but pointed statements that appear to question whether what is being presented here is truthful, but you bring no specifics that deal with the heart of the issue for us to review with you--in fact, you then admit you haven't actually reviewed the details? (This was made especially clear when you wrote, "See if you can discuss this one carefully ... Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead?"--the archives show we've been trying do exactly that for well over a year!) Can you see that you imply we are trying to hide the truth? Pesky, these assumptions feel like an attack, and are upsetting. However, if you feel you know someone who meets your standards (and they are good, high standards!) please do invite them to review and comment here. We want the same thing as you. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: the "warning bells" thing stems from a real-life hat which I've worn for nearly ten years, not a WikiHat. Pesky (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this or how I'm supposed to address it. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad (and others!) – apologies if I upset anyone; that wasn't my intention. Sometimes we get so tied up / bogged down in a situation that it interferes with our ability to see the big picture as a complete outsider would. (It's that Confirmation bias thing.) I can see that you all have problems with this situation; my suggestion of discussion wasn't about discussing the article, as such, more about finding a page where you could all get together and discuss the history of your problems with each other, try and unravel them, everyone (DeknMike included) walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, and that stuff. Sometimes that works much better than discussing the article itself (but I do know how much yer average male dislikes openly discussing his feelings! Gross generalisation, I know, but it often holds true!) It's a shame you can't all go down the pub and have several beers together ;P I did email the editor I thought of, but they are on a break and haven't responded (yet). Hugz to all concerned, anyway. I hope you can work something out with the minimum of pain all around. Pesky (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. However, I tend to agree that, intentionally or not, your own comments seem to imply that myself, a self-described devout Catholic, and Jayjg and Avi, who are I think both Jews, are in some way sharing a single confirmation bias. I do not see how such a position is very reasonable itself. In fact, the talk page history will reveal, in fact, that I have engaged in rather substantial discussion with both of them regarding whether there has been any sort of authoritative rejection of the Jewishness of the MJs, which would I think go even further to weaken such claims. This complaint however is not about that. Like I said before, there isn't a great deal of academic material out there on the MJs. I've checked the Washington University libraries, counted as one of the ten best university library systems in the US, the Saint Louis University libraries, counted by Gordon Melton as one of the best religion libraries on the planet, the local public libraries, seminary libraries, and other libraries, in addition to the various databanks. As Jayjg indicated in the section I linked to, DeknMike has a fairly clear recent history of misrepresenting sources, producing material which fails verifiability, and other conduct issues which are, I believe, sufficient cause for action to be taken in this instance. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, we're not looking to start a personal relationship with DeknMike, we just want him to edit in conformance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. That shouldn't be too much to ask, and yet this has been going on for three years now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I am certainly an involved editor as relates this article. DeknMike has had, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of patience shown to him as regards his edits. He tends to misrepresent sources, promote fringe or insufficiently (for Wikipedia) substantiated opinions, and does so with the intent to promote a particular point of view (to which he is entitled to hold, of course) which certainly does not reflect the vast majority of reliable and verifiable sources written by peoples of all creeds. He may disappear for a while, but comes back performing the same non-wiki-acceptable edits, despite the policies abd guidelines having been explained to him again and again. Whilst unfortunate, I agree with the above editors that at this point, DeknMike is acting as an impediment to improving the article, and has acted in a way that makes it difficult to trust that he will edit the article in accordance with our policies and guidelines in the near or forseeable future. A one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions) would seem appropriate; perhaps focusing on other areas for a while will help DeknMike internalize the policies and guidelines, and the extra care needed to maintain the necessary neutrality when we edit articles about which we have a strong feelings. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. What this comes down to is an opinion that Messianic Judaism as a belief that is illegitimate and is nothing more than a new name for Christian missions, created in the 1960s. There has been a consistent push (beginning before I joined) to delegitimize it as a religious movement that is separate both from traditional Judaism and Christianity. The methods include emphasis on why it's the wrong name, discounting sources that give alternate views on the movement, and attacks on anyone who writes otherwise. My so-called 'strong feelings' are for a fair and balanced article that lets the movement talk about itself as freely as other editors let outside/opposition viewpoints be heard. I'm grateful to the other editors for improving my skills, for spurring me to additional research from more sources on all sides of the issue (my opinions aren't 'fixed'); I wish these others could approach the topic with equally open minds and not make it fit their preconceived notions about it. If the content reverted to the 2008 version, with minor updates, it would be much better. They have been trying to reign me in to their views, yet I keep reading sources that contradict their POV. When I've asked for OUTSIDE opinions, they follow me to those boards and make the same tired accusations. This POV won't accept any source that doesn't align with their preconceived assumptions. If Feher, who said its "origins can be traced in the United States to the Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries" had meant 'began' she would have said 'began' and not 'arose.' Of his oft-repeated 7 sources, four say a segment of the Hebrew Christian movement emerged and changed its name and one says it existed in the 1940s. Yet they continue to harp on that one undefined word with no thought as to finding consensus, though I have tried over and over to find a synonym that squares with the 'approved' sources, even discounting the sources they veto as 'not authoritative enough'.--DeknMike (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First, Mike, it is generally understood without saying that the person being proposed for a ban disagrees with it. Second, your own comments above clearly indicate why the ban is sought. And your clear statements which directly violate WP:AGF contained in the above statement also demonstrate part of the problem. You accuse others of "preconceived assu\mptions", which have to my knowledge never been demonstrated, as an apparent excuse for avoiding dealing with the issue of your own violations of policies and guidelines. The "tired accusations" you rail against are in fact attempts to get the material to abide by policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:SPS, and WP:WEIGHT, and, in your individual case, WP:POV. In short, you have been regularly acting out of accord with policies and guidelines, and sought instead to impugn others as an attempt to distract from that. I personally have no opinions one way or another about the MJs, about whom I have no particular interest one way or another. The fact that you keep reading sources self-published by MJs does less to demonstrated the POV of others than perhaps the POV of those sources, and perhaps that of an editor who seems to seek out those sources. Like I've said, I have been to several libraries, and consulted all the online sources available to me. It is so far as I can tell your own preconceived notions which are the issue here, not those of anyone else. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Sadly, as the latest edits to the Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism (my latest edit here), and Mike's latest edit here, show the behavior causing this WP:AN discussion to be created in the first place is continuing right through this moment. Regarding Messianic Judaism, Mike's ad hominem that the other editors at the article are on a mission to "delegitimize it as a religious movement" instead of a embarking on a good-faith effort to get the article to reflect what multiple, independent reliable sources say is a new attack that fails WP:AGF and continues a disruptive editing pattern. Mike's suggestion that the article should be rolled back to what it said in 2008 (which was "Modern Messianic Judaism was reborn in the 1960s," supported by a single reference to the outrageously non-WP:RS anonymous blog "Messianic Judaism - The Best Recipe. RabbiYeshua.com. Kehilat Sar Shalom.") is a conclusive example of his desire to push a POV using sources in a way that is entirely unacceptable to WP:V, over having the article reflect what reliable sources say. Regarding the content (especially Mike's latest untrue contention here that "one says it existed in the 1940s"), please see the latest on the article Talk page--this WP:AN thread is about editor behavior issues, article content discussion is at the article page. Zad68 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

More threats on Wikipediocracy

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

---

Now we have more threats of contacting a Wikipedian's employer (obviously to get them in trouble and/or fired).

We need to completely ban this site now and cut all ties with it. Silverseren^C 02:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Link removed. Please do not readd. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's seriously unacceptable. Do we have any links with this forum though? Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a number of editors, and especially admins, that are members of the forum and that use it to verbally attack on-wiki editors and also take part in discussions that involve what I linked above. Silverseren^C 02:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose we stop people from posting on that site? --Jayron32 02:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed before that comments made by people there that are known to be editors here should be considered on-wiki. It won't stop people posting, which isn't our business, but it will stop the attacks, the outing, and these threats. Sure, the people over there who are already permanently banned users won't stop, but there's not much we can really do about them until they do something against an editor that can get them legally in trouble for harassment. But what we need to deal with and can deal with to some extent is the chilling effects that are used over there to influence editors and discussions on-wiki. Silverseren^C 02:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a slippery slope problem. No, I don't want people acting badly and threatening people IRL on Wikipediocracy, but I don't want them to do that anywhere, and really, it is just one website. We can't police the entire internet looking for people outing Wikipedians, and ultimately this leads to a Streisand effect type problem: All we do is bring greater exposure to that site, which sounds like a bad idea. In the end, I don't see the wisdom in creating general sanctions for behavior at external websites, though in specific cases I would not object to off-wiki evidence being used to build a harassment case. That's the sort of thing, however, that I would be more comfortable with Arbcom handling, given the sensitive nature to some of this. I don't see a workable community-based, wide-reaching policy which applies to any specific external website (or indeed against off-wiki posting in general). --Jayron32 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said at commons:Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions#Treat_comments_made_offwiki_as_if_they_were_made_onwiki, "Whilst superficially attractive, this would just make users of those sites dissociate themselves from their Commons/Wikimedia accounts. This dissociation would make things worse - there would no longer be any accountability for offsite comments at all, since we wouldn't even know who said what. In addition, such a policy/practice would make Commons users vulnerable to sanction for acts committed by offsite impersonators." Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Where was the threat? Just seemed to be a prediction based on Scottywong's alleged hypocrisy in his on-Wikipedia attitude to paid editing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"I'm sure some enterprising person will send a quick note to the people who own the machine that you're editing from. Just out of curiosity, does your employer know that you spend that much time editing wikipedia during work hours? Do you think they will be ambivalent to the hours they've been paying you being used for this purpose? Do they know you're moonlighting on eLance? Inquiring minds and all that..."

All of this is a threat to do what the first sentence says. Silverseren^C 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Still can't see any threat. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't be daft. You know exactly what he's getting at. If a shady looking guy with a noticeable bulge in his coat pocket comes up to you in a dark alley and says "That's a nice watch you're wearing," it's not hard to figure out his intent. (Hint: He's not complementing you on your choice of attire) This is an equally obvious case. Raul654 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not comparable. Contacting the employer would surely be harassment, and a subpoena for the poster's IP with a view to legal action would certainly be a possibility; so posting this when intending to do it (or even seriously expecting the post to encourage others to do it) would be pretty stupid. I can't think of an equivalent stupidity for your dark alley analogy. Rd232 ^talk 12:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your logic that the threat shouldn't be taken seriously only holds if the threat of litigation is real (which it probably is not) and if nobody ever did anything stupid on the internet (which is patently not true). Raul654 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the nature of this thread, it seems sensible to ask for frequent contributors to Wikipediocracy to declare that along with their opinion here. This might help allay possible fears of canvassing or tag teaming. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about we just ignore them? That might be worth a shot, it would save us some time too. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ignoring them doesn't work when they are taking actions against Wikipedians, outing them and otherwise trying to affect both their online presence and their real lives. Silverseren^C 03:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• It would be helpful in the future if the response to posts like that would be to report the post to the moderators, rather than starting another round of drama on the wiki. Unless of course the drama is considered to be somehow helpful in its own right, in which case keep doing it this way.

  (As a courtesy to Fae, I can disclose that I would be one of the people getting the ping from the report button.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  And I can report that I wouldn't be, and that I was recently threatened more directly with outing on Wikipediocracy than Scottywong was. But I didn't make a fuss, either here or there, and as I'm not an administrator nobody cares whether I'm outed or not. Interesting. In fact I've even been threatened with outing by an administrator on this site, who went to the trouble to trace my address. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• And you reported it and nothing happened? Where's the discussion for that? Silverseren^C 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't report what? The threatened outing here or on Wikipediocracy? The threat here was made by email; my response to the threat on Wikipediocracy is there for anyone to see. Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• The email one. Silverseren^C 04:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  No. To be fair though I think the admin might already have been desysoped by then, for other abuses such as describing me as "some form of insect, possibly a cockroach ... or perhaps a juvenile amoeba". Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What about frequent contributors to IRC? Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. At least with Wikipediocracy all the discussions are public. And to state the obvious about asking contributors to identify themselves: there are many more people who read the site than contribute. All that approach will encourage is, again (as I noted above in relation to making offsite comments = onsite), dissociation between Wikimedia and Wikipediocracy accounts, removing all trace of accountability. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well people could just OUT the alternate Wikipediocracy accounts. That would work. John lilburne (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That would "work" brilliantly. I can just see the joe jobs now. The trouble with net censorship (and that's basically what's being asked for here, to shut down offsite discussion and vilify anyone who can be identified as having been involved in any capacity) is that it's actually quite hard to do effectively. Rd232 ^talk 11:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about we have a discussion about the endless scurrying to AN and ANI by Seren, Fae, etc... everytime someone on the proverbial WP:BADSITE says something they'd rather not hear? At this point, how is this not considered disruptive behavior? Tarc (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• ^ See Tarc, proverbial example of a Wikipediocracy member. As an actual reply though, I know you don't think outing or threats are important, but i'm afraid the rest of the community disagrees with you. Silverseren^C 09:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seren, stop distorting, you know full well that I am a "member" of the Kohsocracy in the technical sense only. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: in response to an RFC on Commons (here) there is now an email address to contact Wikipediocracy moderators (previously, you needed to get an account to contact them). So it's now much more feasible to ask that problematic posts are removed. This new site is attempting to distance itself from some of the excesses of the Wikipedia Review past, and qua site, it would make sense to try and give that a chance. Of course this doesn't mean that individual acts by editors offsite can't be considered as part of an Arbcom case, say, in relation to showing harassment. Nor does it mean (since harassment is a criminal act, and the term should not be thrown around lightly) that offsite comments can't be provided to the relevant authorities when necessary. What it does mean is that when a discussion is highlighted offsite, the canvassing/advertising effect may be noted so that people are aware, and everyone reminded of WP:NOTAVOTE. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, in consideration that this thread is being canvassed on Wikipediocracy with the thread Yellow stars for everyone (how clever to turn the holocaust into a joke again to inflame the debate), how would you suggest that the canvassing/advertising effect should be highlighted? Perhaps something similar to {{spa}} after each comment from anyone widely know to be as heavily involved in Wikipediocracy as yourself would work here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm disappointed, so its not like a gold star that teachers used to stick on a wall chart when you'd been good at school. John lilburne (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think this thread is being made fun of (as opposed to canvassed) in that thread, Fae. I'm not fond of the "Yellow Stars" analogy either, but then again I'm also not comfortable with the wiki-analogical use of "outing" either (not to mention the rather trivialized interpretations of "stalking" and "harassment" that have become common parlance during these mudslinging exercises). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fae, my suggestion was at commons:Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions#Offsite_discussion_link_template. It's not like offsite canvassing/advertising effects are unknown; there are AFD templates for it for example. The only really practical responses are (i) highlight the offsite discussion, so people (especially any discussion closers) are aware and (ii) where people are entering a discussion with very little contribution history (or reasonably recent contribution history), their comments can be annotated with those facts. Both of those are already done, there is nothing special about Wikipediocracy in that regard. Rd232 ^talk 11:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions on off Wiki behavior would essentially require Wikipedia editors to out themselves and be subject to gaming: Wikipedians could be impersonated offsite to get them sanctioned onsite. Nobody Ent 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with NobodyEnt, the side effects are so dramatic that I compare it to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly in a crowded subway car. Maybe you'll get the fly (but likely not) but there sure will be some collateral damage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rd232, for pointing out that Wikipediocracy has a process for handling sincere concerns about our site: email us at support@wikipediocracy.com. I just checked the inbox folder: "THIS FOLDER IS EMPTY" - so I guess that posting it in a few more places is advised. *scratches head* Unless that's spamming or something. I don't mean to violate any of Wikipedia's processes. Oh, yes. As per WP:FAE I hereby disclose that I am an admin on Wikipediocracy.com. →StaniStani  11:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So why haven't you guys done anything against the Wikipediocracy post mentioned in this thread? It's very obvious that people are complaining about it, and you are obviously aware of it (despite no email being sent). Does that mean that kind of behaviour is okay at Wikipediocracy? --Conti|✉ 11:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that once something is brought up on a noticeboard (etc.), we tend to be accused of "hiding the evidence" if we remove something after the fact. Since Silver Seren has already copied the text to this thread, removing it from WCY would be pointless now anyway. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So if you remove it without making a copy it's "hiding the evidence", if there is a copy there's no point in removing it in the first place. Soo.. logically, there's no good reason to ever remove anything? If that's the case, why allow people to complain in the first place? :) --Conti|✉ 11:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, see my post above that begins with "It would be helpful in the future..." ;-). And yes, it's a ridiculous situation, but not one of my making (or of the WCY folks in general). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So what about a friendly, official statement that such indirect threats are not welcome on the forum? You're right, what's done is done, but you can at least disapprove of such actions (assuming that you do, that is). --Conti|✉ 12:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Statements of disapproval have been offered on the thread in question (where such statements rightly belong, IMO). Words are often more effective than delete buttons, in my experience :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is supposed to be hidden? The veiled threat (if such it was) isn't going to be magically disarmed by deleting the post. Nor is there any actual information in the post, just unsourced claims. Demanding they be deleted just gives them credibility. Really, in view of the Streisand effect, we should just ignore these things as far as possible - unless there's some real on or offwiki action which can and should be taken. Rd232 ^talk 12:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you know how the 'cracy user base compares with the 3455 AN watchers who have (allegedly) now been encouraged to contact a Wikipedian's employer. Nobody Ent 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The forum gives the view count for each thread; that thread currently has 656 views. (Though the post in question was recent, so we don't know how many of those views predate the post.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that 656 would include Wikipedians who followed the link at the top of this thread? Nobody Ent 12:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As a more practical suggestion, as in any thread that appears to be against a regular contributor of Wikipediocracy, or any thread that is being actively canvassed on Wikipediocracy (such as this one), we routinely see Wikipediocrats outnumbering and overwhelming the opinions of anyone else on AN or ANI in an effective travelling circus, perhaps it would be practical and expedient to mark those people with opinions who are not Wikipediocrats. Perhaps they can have nice gold stars, or pink triangles perhaps? I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that makes sense. Mere posting offsite invalidates any opinion. I guess we're going to need a whole rainbow of triangles to cover IRC, facebook, twitter, bla. The real problem becomes: how do we identify people who read those offsite discussions without participating? (I know you do, Fae.) Oh, this censorship thing is hard. I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy, but I have posted there. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind being marked. Can't put a link to the site in my sig, or an image, but perhaps this will do for the moment. I'll have to mention this thread to my buddies the next time I march in a pride parade. →StaniStani^WPO  12:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to edit Wikipedia, editors could be required to install software which monitors all incoming and outgoing IP packets which could then be analyzed by a AI engine; all discussions referenced in email, IRC, web browsing etc could be automatically tagged by a bot with applicable URLs. Additionally, if the device used has a microphone, that could be monitored to for any verbal discussions of Wikipedia; the bot could upload little sound clips. That way a closing admin would have access to the full story instead of having to rely on human judgement. What I do off of Wikipedia is none of your business. Nobody Ent 12:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Conti way up there, I asked Vigilant to clarify his remarks and he did, showing that there was indeed no threat, but just a snarky remark. He resented it a bit, but hey, new regime, new ways. →StaniStani^WPO  12:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to it? All I see is this, where he very clearly stands behind his words ("No. ScottyWong is a bully. Look at his statement at Delicious Carbuncle's page during the latest block drama. He says to a blocked editor, who is not all that popular, "Suck it, nerd." He plays to the crowd. He's a bully. Fuck him."). Maybe I just missed it.. --Conti|✉ 15:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see any relevant clarification either, just defiance. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So Fae... how exactly is a per-editor disclosure of involvement or non-involvement with Wikipediocracy (be it in signatures, like Stanistani has now done, on userpages, or in every discussion somebody thinks it relevant) not going to end up promoting the site? Yes, it's that Streisand effect again... Rd232 ^talk 12:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you are an active supporter the website by regularly posting there and thereby encouraging the use of the website by other Wikimedians with a trusted status is a far greater issue. Discussing the threat to Wikipedia that an attack forum owned by Gregory Kohs represents should be done in the open, not sneakily on IRC or by email, don't you think? That I am accused of disruption by even mentioning these problems on this noticeboard seems rather bizarre when your friends on Wikipediocracy are free to make false allegations month after month after month about my sex life and my integrity as a charity trustee, along with calling me blatantly homophobic names and disturbingly associating me with open police investigations into the deaths of gay people. As said before, free speech is not the same thing as allowing hate speech, defamation or harassment. I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you still try to carry out a failed, BADSITES-esque agenda against websites where people feel you are a net negative to this project isn't lost on anyone, Fae. You just pick up random threads over there and try to stitch them into a grand conspiracy against you. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions making direct allegations about me using my full legal name can hardly be called "random". I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

STOP constantly accusing me of supporting Wikipediocracy merely by posting there (usually in response to others), and of being "friends" with people who are attacking you (and presumably with the people who attacked me offsite too). Do it again, I'll open an RfAr for harassment, because I've fucking well had enough of it. Want to make such claims offwiki, by email, IRC, who the fuck cares? Be my guest. Onwiki, shut the fuck up. Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for assuming that your fellow members of the Wikipediocracy might be friends, and indeed that the word "friends" might be more offensive to you than the word "fuck". What term would you prefer to apply, collaborators, fellow members or something else? Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm highly offended by the word "friend", not by the way you used it to imply my support for people and actions you and I both disapprove of. Honestly, Fae, has anyone ever told you that when you're in a hole you should stop digging? Rd232 ^talk 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Streisand effect running count:

• number of threads on this topic in the last week at WP:AN, one of the more high-profile places on English Wikipedia: 2
• number of people with references to Wikipediocracy in their signature: 2

In short,

1. Talk about Wikipediocracy in an unstructured way, constantly complaining and trying unsuccessfully to find a way to censor it and vilify anyone who's ever engaged with it. Compare: commons:Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions‎ structured discussion trying to find solutions.
2. ??
3. Profit.

Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

By all means raise an RFC to help focus discussions if that is your primary objection to a discussion of this issue on AN. I note that "Commons is not Wikipedia" has become a bit of a mantra by us Commonists, the reverse also applies. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone else can start an RFC, if they think it'll achieve anything (and maybe just stopping the endless AN circles is worth something). The same arguments apply as in the Commons RFC, and that RFC already had some results (a contact email for the site moderators). I don't see anything different or better coming out of another RFC here, though. PS I'm not objecting to discussion on AN at all. Can you stop insinuating things? Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, "constantly complaining and trying unsuccessfully to find a way to censor it and vilify anyone who's ever engaged with it" read as an objection to me. --Fæ (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but is it an objection to discussion at AN? (no, it is not). See below on your apparent inability to discuss this topic rationally. Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, making quotes bold-italic in addition to using quotemarks why? Rd232 ^talk 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Making a claim that simple questions of transparency is an attempt at censorship seems less than rational to me too. Maybe we have a fundamental rift between our points of view as to what such words actually mean. --Fæ (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to your entire approach (including supporting the spam-blacklisting on Commons - and presumably here too, if you thought you could get support for it), so we needn't argue definitions of censorship here. Rd232 ^talk 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Say, Fae, since you're now the world's leading advocate of transparency, how about a re-do of your RfA but this time you reveal your previous WP usernames. Then people will be able to make a decision with all the necessary facts at hand. You should welcome that, yes? Carrite (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, which Wikipediocracy account was yours again? I'm sure you want to set a lead on transparency yourself. Thanks for calling me a world leading advocate of something other than gay sex for a change. Signing off, see below. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following your 2 and 3? unhip Nobody Ent 15:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a South Park meme, apparently. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While everyone's looking the other way...

While the "outing/threat/etc." is certainly interesting in the dramatic sense, did anyone notice that the guy being "targeted" by this ended up deleting an article he created to "resolve a COI issue"? Did anyone notice that an administrator who has been a very vocal and active participant in the "paid editor/advocate" debate seems to have been advertizing his services as a paid editor on the QT?

While I personally think implying that the guy's boss should be called up is out of bounds, it does seem as if Wikipediocracy has identified an actual problem here that's been completely lost in this discussion. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not lost but deliberately ignored, as the misdeeds of administrators so often are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

SB_Johnny good point. Perhaps the easy answer is to post complaints and information about any perceived issues on wiki where they actually count, rather than supporting attack forums owned by banned users and where comparisons of people like myself to current investigations by the authorities into deaths of gay people, or use of "faggot" jokes are part of the culture of harassment, privacy invading outing and general abuse? Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As you well know, the "fae got"/"faggot" post was removed. Would it kill you to acknowledge that some people are trying to make it a more sensible place? It's like tarring all Wikipedians with the same brush, because some people are vandals. (And by editing WP, even reverting vandalism, you're supporting vandalism...) Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it kill me? Well, there was no sanction against Gregory Kohs despite the "faggot" post being directly in contravention of policy. Posts making smears against my character such as attempting to associate me with the death of Gareth Williams are routine. I see little for me or you to celebrate due to the current claims of improvement, when Gregory Kohs remains the owner (hardly comparable to a Wikipedia vandal) and benefits personally by the website increasing in popularity and he along with obvious trolls remain free to make disturbing allegations of fraud and risky sexual practices against me in conjunction with posting links to my professional profile and ensuring my full legal name is against every allegation. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, Fae, if you think that's very bad behavior, maybe you might want to stop making assertions about G. K. using his real name on a website that has considerably more Google juice than Wikipediocracy. It's become a bit of a volley at this point, if you see what I mean. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"attempting to associate me with the death of Gareth Williams". The thread in question (since you misrepresent it and apparently don't care about the Streisand effect) does nothing of the sort. For reasons known to some, it's Williams' lifestyle which draws first silly speculation that he might be a Wikipedia admin, and then comparison with your good self. And eminently ignorable internet chatter - why draw attention to it by mentioning at least twice in this thread? Rd232 ^talk 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that with respected users such as yourself, saying it was becoming a "sensible place", these minor illustrations out of months of allegations which I find abusive, hateful and potentially damaging bring the matter into sharp focus even if you and fellow Wikipediocracy contributors are keen to dismiss these examples as "internet chatter". Of course I am happy to keep examples to my own case rather than forcing allegations made about so many other Wikipedians under the spotlight unnecessarily, particularly if you are then to immediately provide direct links to Gregory Kohs' website. As you are even-handed, I can only assume that you would find reasons to dismiss all other statements as "internet chatter" if unwarranted comparisons were drawn for other Wikipedians who happened to be members of non-LGBT minority groups where there were police investigations into claims of murder or other serious crimes. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was some people are trying to make it a more sensible place. Is a couple of paragraphs up really too far to check that? But on this subject, you just don't seem able to discuss rationally. I mean are you really insinuating homophobia on my part - that I'm only dismissing the comparison between you and a person in the news as "ignorable internet chatter" because you happen to share a sexual orientation?? And you're consistently trying to make every bit of nonsense a federal case, talking about "allegations" and mentioning police investigations with no conceivable relevance and at every opportunity implying some sort of homophobic conspiracy. You should have stopped digging a long time ago, but you just don't seem able to. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I hardly think I'm insinuating anything of the sort, that seems to be you making inferences, I am surprised that you are playing the homophobia card here when I prefer to stick to cases and examples. I expect you to be fully even handed. In that spirit, could you please find some "internet chatter" making hateful claims about other Wikipedians on Wikipediocracy that involve serious crimes such as murder, and other minority groups, say, blacks or Jews rather than sexuality? If you can not, and the only type of offensive "internet chatter" relates to members of the LGBT community, then you might see an odd pattern to consider and reflect on what that means for the Wikipediocracy community you are a part of. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I hardly think I'm insinuating anything of the sort "hardly"? You should know whether you are insinuating or not. But your claim that you're not "playing the homophobia card", as you put it, is then immediately undermined by a demand for proof that people on Wikipediocracy aren't in fact homophobic, seemingly in the form of a statistical demonstration of equal opportunity insults. And you've again thrown in a reference to "serious crimes such as murder" for no discernable reason. Just stop digging already. Really. Rd232 ^talk 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, Fae :/. I have no idea what Rd's sexual orientation is (and frankly you have no idea what mine is), but there are openly LGBT people in the management of the site, and I haven't seen them getting any ill treatment because of it. There are more than a few references to your conspiracy theories, because you sometimes give the impression that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're bigots (to the point where it's become almost a meme at this point).

And just FYI, the "murder investigation cross-dressing" crack wasn't about you at all, but rather about a person who used to be part of the management at WR (and is banned from WP, though probably contributing under another name). It really isn't always about you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

SB_Johnny I don't think Gareth Williams was part of the management at WR, was he? You seem to be talking about different examples. As for the sexual orientation of any of the contributors here, I have made absolutely no insinuation or assumption about it. I find it entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether anyone contributes to Wikipediocracy or uses it to attack people or not. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but the cross-dressing civil servant being referenced was. You're missing a bit of history there (email me if you want a quick explainer, I'm not interested in beating the guy up in public). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd232 I'll take your answer as a no. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure - take my refusal to accept your ridiculous premise (that everyone should be attacked equally, because life's fair like that) as an inability to prove or disprove the insinuation you base on it. That's par for the course for this discussion. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think your signature only raises the standing and profile of Wikipediocracy, and drives plenty of traffic there? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Snowolf Not nearly as much as having Arbcom members, Oversighters, Administrators and Commons Administrators posting there and then taking action on-wiki without being required to make their interest transparent or clear. By the way, it's not my signature, only a demonstration that the majority of people posting in this thread so far are Wikipediocracy members which may indicate that we have a problem with the Administrator's Noticeboard being manipulated by a tag team. In a thread about Wikipediocracy, mentioning "Wikipediocracy" a few more times makes no effective difference if you are worried about the much quoted Streisand effect - which has been worn tissue thin as a reason to never mention or discuss this issue openly on-wiki. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind that some of the people there are either not permitted to post here, are opposed to participating here (for whatever reason), or are worried that they'll be blocked or banned for saying something unflattering about somebody in the cabals (for example, Bali ultimate was quickly blocked on commons for bringing up something you didn't want discussed). Fortunately there are people like you and I who can bring it to the proper forum here "on wiki" where it can "do some good", right :-)? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May be people who are banned here but still want to have themselves heard should first get unbanned? And btw there was a long thread here about paid editing several days ago, without any references to any external sites.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the difficulty in getting a ban lifted, and the distasteful nature of having to "grovel" at the feet of whomever it is you're trying to convince in a very public manner. Anyway, what's the big deal if somebody discusses it there rather than here? It's not like you have to walk 2 miles uphill in the snow to see what's being said ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I should add to that: anyone who brought up the issue of this sub-thread would have been blocked in an instant, and the issue that is being lost in the drama above would have been buried. I'm not sure it's resolved now, but it does relate to the difficulties with the "no paid editing" stuff in the context of an anonymous community that has been the topic of considerable debate lately. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind

There's no point in discussing this when the discussion itself gets hijacked by Wikipediocracy members, as almost everyone posting above is. I'm just going to keep working on my list until it gets to the point where i've compiled enough evidence to get further action taken. Silverseren^C 18:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. I no longer believe that on AN we can have any discussion on Wikipediocracy or deal with sanctions on its members without serious concerns about the influence of the blatant travelling circus over the true consensus of the wider community. I guess this thread at least demonstrates that much, thanks for trying. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fae, I think it's certainly demonstrated that any Wikipediocracy thread with you in it is unlikely to be productive. Silver seren, if you want some more constructive discussion to happen, I invite you to follow the example of my Commons RFC (there are several links above, so I won't dig it out again). Rd232 ^talk 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not only am I world class, but I have supergay powers to disrupt the entire force of the travelling circus. Thanks for the encouragement Rd232. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Facepalm Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • I see that your Commons discussion was also not very productive, because every Wikipediocracy member (more or less) was involved in it and obfuscating getting any sort of actual "Commons" consensus on the matter. Silverseren^C 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, if you start with the premise that anyone who has a Wikipediocracy account is merely generating random noise when they post onwiki (l;ks kugpe8g-0 0898-0 089-8]-9 8-98]-8 ]-]89-] lklkjkljklj;l l;kjl;jk;jj) then yes, it was a waste of time. Apart from the concrete result of producing a way to contact the moderators without needing an account, of course. Rd232 ^talk 18:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC) comment from Wikipediocracy poster censored as invalid. Rd232 ^talk 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

HKCABLE-HK round-robin proxy needs a softblock

Short summary

61.18.0.0 - 61.18.255.255 (61.18.0/16) should be soft blocked (allow account creation) as a round-robin proxy. Alternatively 61.18.170.0/24 may be enough.

tool server report

Longer

Identifying this and researching the relevant proxy policy has been on my to-do list since March. This IP range is a medium sized ISP in Hong Kong and it puts all their users behind a transparent proxy - the same way that AOL did pre-2006. This has allowed disruption from these IPs to appear across the entire range of IP addresses. This has made the ISP popular with disruptive users and makes the disruption impossible to track. Something in the water in HK makes Wikipedia disruption a popular hobby so it is important to minimize enabling access proxies like this one. As far as I know, this ISP is not sending XFF data (you'd need to be a CU to know this) which was decided as a requirement for AOL and other ISPs using round-robin proxies.

Relevant policies that this is the appropriate action:

WP:AOL, obsolete in the case of AOL, because AOL started giving users public IP addresses even when proxied, and forwarded XFF data for those IPs. This policy is still relevant for this ISP because XFF data isn't being forwarded (and the IPs behind it are probably not public either, which is another requirement).

WP:OPENPROXY, anyone using this ISP is proxied. It may be a private proxy available to its users, but those users may be open access themselves (coffee shop, cybercafe, open wireless, etc). As a practical matter it is functioning as an open proxy to a limited geographic range. Private proxies are allowed when they have a single IP address (or manageable number) and an active abuse contact with WMF. These are usually corporate or academic proxies with enforceable policies, not ISPs with loose control over user activities. These are often soft-blocked as well. This ISP is not managing the IPs and isn't in contact with the WMF to track originating abuse.

I'm unsure if the entire assigned netblock is the open proxy or simply one subnet. I spent the morning exploring edits from 61.18.170.0/24 and found some IPs already blocked for disruption, but the admin probably didn't know it was a round-robin proxy. It may be enough to softblock just the /24 and wait and see what comes from the rest of the /16.

Thanks, SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My memory of the AOL case, which seems to be supported by the page, is that while we were willing to do short range softblocks as necessary in response to abuse (which meant editing anoymously from AOL could be difficult); we never implemented an indefinite range softblock until AOL became a true open proxy, which was when they did the same for anyone using their browser (rather then simply anyone using their services). I'm not saying we should do the same here, simply pointing out that it doesn't sound like the AOL example is what you want to actually follow/implement. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by the gross technical inaccuracies that SchmuckyTheCat, as a dedicated sock-hunter, has presented above. "Round-robin proxy" is an incorrect description of the situation; the correct description is "rotating DHCP". At any one time, any machine connected to the network is given a real IP. WP:Open proxy is therefore completely inapplicable to this IP range.

This ISP, iCable, is among the industry leaders in Hong Kong if not the largest, not a "medium-sized" ISP as SchmuckyTheCat claims. Nor could this ISP become "popular with disruptive users"; I hope you'd agree that changing your ISP to go into a rotating IP range would be rather too much dedication to disrupt Wikipedia. All major ISPs in Hong Kong use rotating IPs for its domestic users, and I was often gravely saddened by WP:collateral damage which auto-blocked me from editing Wikipedia on the charge of "open proxy". That was my real IP! It was one of the main reason which drove me to run for adminship - back then there was no "anon. only" block, and becoming an admin is the only certain way of avoiding being hurt by collateral damage. Now anon-only blocks have been invented, but the problem of collateral damage obviously remains with any ISP who uses rotating DHCP.

Yes, we recognise the problem of disruption from anonymous users, and I know which group of disruptive users you're talking about. But which part of the world doesn't give Wikipedia disruption? I'm afraid SchmuckyTheCat has taken his WP:forum shopping too far to oppress users who disagree with him in a potentially disruptive way. Whatever the reason, a rangeblock isn't the solution to the problem at hand. It merely turns away potential good-faith contributors in a time when, as SchmuckyTheCat complains, we have more than enough disruptive users already.

tl;dr: SchmuckyTheCat's report is technically incorrect and motivated by his personal on-wiki interest, and the proposed solution doesn't solve the problem. Deryck C. 16:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Backlog

Hi Folks. There are currently 49 brand new appeals needing attention on UTRS. If anyone has a spare minute and an account, please help clear this. If you don't have an account, register and I'll activate you (sysops only please). While I am here, there are also 8 needing checkuser attention.--v/r - TP 22:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I cleared the checkuser queue. AGK [•] 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--v/r - TP 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just registered, hopefully I can be of help. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And me! Secretlondon (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your accounts are both now activated and usable with regular admin access (if you require advanced access like CU, please speak to Tparis or another tool dev. I'm just a lowly tool admin!). Thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cut it down by a bunch. I'll try to get to some more later tonight and we'll see if we can't collectively get it under control. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've registered as well, awaiting confirmation. Hopefully I can be of some assistance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it down to about 2 now. Secretlondon (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help taking it down. It exploded today!--v/r - TP 03:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Physics education being redirected to benefit a webcomic punchline

Physics education has been redirected twice (1, 2) to Engineer, presumably after today's Xxcd webcomic published how - wait for it - physics education redirects to engineer. I am guessing, judging from the talk page, that this happens anytime Xkcd makes a similar sort of joke about Wikipedia. Maybe we should protect the page for a few days? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it happens every time. Physics major is already protected..... and nominated for deletion.....

Anyways, they have only done it a couple of times. There is no excessive edit-warring. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Physics education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) even worthy of its own separate article? I found Chemistry education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it does not appear that other fields have such articles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be enough material, try googling "Physics education" aristotle. See also Mathematics education. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And so it shall continue forever. I'm half-convinced that Randall's general plan is to convince Jimbo to divert some WMF funds towards him in exchange for never mentioning Wikipedia again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A blast from the past

Any old-timers around here who remember Jason Gastrich, life's not going so well for him right now and I am cleaning up and courtesy blanking the debates. There's low to zero chance he'll be back and no reason for us to keep a memorial to his youthful follies. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ooh, and I missed the drama of yet another attack site doing the same old shit. How will I console myself? Guy (Help!) 11:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, and good on you for taking the time to do this. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hate To Come Here For This, BUT......

I hate to come here for something so minor but I am hoping that someone can help me with THIS. I have had the notice there for a couple of days and was hoping that someone could assist. At this point, I am just looking for the single link to be unblocked so that I can update the article. The article is desperately in need of cleanup and there are very few "non-commercial" or "non-affilate" sources that I can use. This one (although associated with the industry monetarily) does have a good source that I would like to use. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You can still cite the webpage without providing the (full, clickable) URL, just as you could cite a printed source.  Sandstein  13:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So basically just keep the citation but do not make the link clickable? Example:

Online Scratch Cards. "Camelot Defends Against False Claims of Minors Gambling". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "www.online-scratch-card.com/news/2011/11/camelot-defends-against-false-claims-minors-gambling-854" ignored (help) --Morning277 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, what Sandstein said will work, but I took a look at the site itself and I do not think it meets WP:RS in the first place, I wrote a longer response here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#online-scratch-card. Zad68 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

THANKS! I left you a response on the blacklist page as well. Looks like the site was placed on the list as someone had previously tried to attach a link to the site under "External Links". Not sure if this was egregious or someone not understanding Wikipedia. Either way, I work in gaming in the US and was recently told about online scratch cards in the UK. I could not believe it but they do exist and I found info about it at Wiki. Thought I would improve the article but it can be difficult when you are looking for information about online gaming. There are too many affiliate sites that clog up the actual news about it. The article that I found was self-published but does show that there is controversy with using the online cards. Thanks again for your opinions and advice. I have made the changes to the article HERE. I took it from ZERO citations to Four. The link to the article would be nice to have but it "is what it is." I will be improving the article in the future (if I have time), but for now I have wasted too much time messing with the "link" issue that I feel my contributions to Wikipedia could be used elsewhere. --Morning277 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Application to End Topic Ban

I was given an indefinite ban on August 21st, 2010 for off wiki activities related to Israel. The ban was lifted on October 28, 2011 as long as I agreed to avoid topics relating to Israel and the Middle East. In the time since, with one absent minded exception, I have held to the ban and contributed to areas of my expertise. If others would agree, I would like to have my topic ban removed for the following reasons:

1. Since the sanction I’ve done work in the article space, focusing on non-controversial topics in the areas of my expertise.
2. I’ve made good use of article talk pages, when needed, in an effort to work collaboratively with other editors.
3. In addition, I acknowledge the actions which led to the sanction. I did not act as collaboratively as this community expects and should have known better.
4. I promise to make better use of talk pages when making substantive edits and a good-faith effort to work collaboratively in the topic area.
5. I have a lot to offer in the topic area, especially in the field of culture and history. I think that my contributions during the period of the sanction demonstrate that I am not here to impose a certain POV but rather to help improve the article space.
6. I am also willing to undergo a period of probation (the duration of which to be decided by you) to help monitor compliance.

I hope that you will look with favor on this application. I am sincere in my desire to edit neutrally, collaboratively, and in a manner consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policy.

--Eric (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor - I think if you will look above you will find that you should contact the administrator who topic banned you. If I am incorrect, perhaps some administrator or editor knowledgeable on this would comment. Mugginsx (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, a WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK. Bans are usually imposed by the whole community or by ArbCom. If it was a community ban, then the usual place to appeal is here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Eric1985:

• Eric1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In fact the ban was an unblock condition that Eric1985 agreed to in October, 2011. User:Panyd then agreed to lift the block. The original block was by User:Tariqabjotu. I am notifying Panyd and Tariqabjotu of this discussion. See also:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine.

-The original ANI discussion in 2010 when the indef block was imposed. Eric1985's posts on an external website are mentioned there.

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67#User:No More Mr Nice Guy and User:Jiujitsuguy.

-An AE discussion which mentions that Eric1985 used the external website to comment on specific edits of I/P articles by named individuals.

• User talk:Eric1985/Archive3#Unblock Request - The unblock discussion in fall 2011.

Since Eric1985 has made less then 100 edits here since October 2011 I don't see enough of a track record to justify lifting his unblock condition about ARBPIA. He also seems to continue using the external site to comment on the editing of I/P articles. This is not an open-and-shut violation of anything but it does give us some inkling of his approach to editing I/P articles. - EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

EJ the guy said he's willing to undergo a period of probation. If he gets out of line, block him. True he's made about 100 edits since his block was lifted but he wasn't that active before the block either. As for his own blog, it's just that - a blog, nothing more nothing less. He's entitled to his opinion and there is no evidence of any nefarious purpose. Other editors, such as RolandR have engaged in outside activities relating to IP and we don't hold that against them. The guy is asking for a second chance. What's the harm in giving it to him?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was invited to participate here, given I was the one who imposed Eric's indefinite block back in August 2010. But given no one asked for my opinion before replacing his block with a topic ban, and I wasn't even informed of this action until -- well -- now, I don't understand why anyone would really care now about what I think about this matter. So, consider this an official expression of indifference toward what happens here. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please welcome translators from Translators Without Borders

We are getting new editors who are translators with TWB as part of this collaboration here. Please welcome them and post any concerns on my talk page. There is a nice write in the Guardian about this [3] Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions on MMA articles

Originally I posted at ANI in an ancillary thread asking that general sanctions be imposed on all MMA related articles as well as a 500 edit minimum for editors to participate in MMA related AFDs (but not just to edit MMA pages). It was pointed out by The Blade of the Northern Lights that AN would be a better venue to ask for these sanctions.

I'm sure the majority of the admins here are familiar with the constant editwarring, SPAs, arguing, etc - the general battleground that now makes up MMA articles. We're dealing with new problems on a weekly basis at this point; this is the latest thread to pop up on the board, aside from the one I originally made my proposal in which ended with a boomerang indef for the OP.

We're dealing with some very passionate fans, some of whom have been off wiki canvassed (see the current ANI for some info on this), who don't quite understand the point of WP. Anyway, any arguments that need to be made for this are probably already well known by the community here, and those who need a refresher can check the current ANI to get a taste of how this has been going.

For those who may not be familiar with this, the reason I'm proposing a 500 edit minimum is that MMA AFDs have attracted tons of SPAs.

I think both of these provisions will better allow admins to deal with the situation, or to quote The Blade of the Northern Lights: "If you think it'd help, you can ask to impose standard community sanctions at AN. That's what we did for Indian caste articles, and from an administrative standpoint it's made the problem about 10x easier to deal with." Though I'm sure I don't need to sell you on making your job easier :).

Note: Insofar as I know I am completely uninvolved with MMA aside from removing a delrev tag from an MMA page after the review ended.

SÆdon^talk 05:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very clearly an involved editor in this situation, so I won't comment on what sanctions should or should not be put into place. As I have stated before I am willing to accept whatever sanctions Admins or the Wikipedia community at-large decides, on me individually or as part of a group of editors. However, I do have a question as this process potentially proceeds. WP:GS seems to be broad in terms of what "sanctions" are and/or could be (and reviewing the sanctions log it seems that any and everything is on the table). I realize this may be intentional, but even with my years of experience around Wikipedia I'm not totally sure what this action could result in. Can I safely assume that if sanctions are put into place, the terms of those sanctions will be clear to both established editors (like me) and those new to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (like those coming in from the MMA forums)? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just use the Obama sanctions text since it's quite specific:

Exact wording:MMA related-pages (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing MMA pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedon (talk • contribs)

Heh... fair enough. I was just wanting to be sure that if sanctions are applied by the time this AN is closed that those sanctions are clear. What you basically seem to be proposing is that a user gets one warning, if that much, before the ban hammer comes down, even if just temporarily. I have no problems with that. I just wanted to sure I know what's going on. I supposed the possible sanctions could have included topic bans for all involved editors, including myself, which is why I wanted to be sure the sanctions were clear by the time this AN closed. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think sanctions could be a good idea, as long as we take care to design smart sanctions. Be clear about what the problem is and how the sanctions aim solve it - this is especially important if there's a chance that somebody could get blocked for defying the terms of the sanctions. In particular, I think a time limit would be appropriate. (If when the sanctions end the editing is reasonable, we all win. If not, just click on "renew sanctions" or find a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I have no particular interest in MMA but I've probably made a few edits to MMA articles over the years)

That's a disambiguation page. Do you mean SMART criteria? Nyttend (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I am an idiot and I forgot to copy & paste the right target for that link. I've updated the link; thanks for pointing it out. bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion as to sanctions in general, but would just say that 500 edit limit can be easily overcome by a person of average intelligence using a Perl or other script that any novice could write. I could do it in less than a day with just the mouse and keyboard, and I'm not extraordinarily clever. This would leave us with 500 minor edits of dubious value, and an SPA that doesn't look like an SPA on paper. If you underestimate the determination of others, you do so at your own peril. Whatever the community decides is fine with me, but there would have to be a time elements as well (or similar test), or you are just creating more problems. To be sure, there is no silver bullet here. When dealing with problem makers, you have to think like a problem maker if you want avoid the sanctions being easily bypassed. Additionally: I would remind you all that WP:MMANOT is an essay, it is not a guideline, which is part of the problem. As an essay, it has no teeth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if a SPA goes to the effort of making 500 scripted/minor edits (which they'll probably get caught on some sort of automation/WTH is this user doing trigger) they'll still look like a SPA. If the SPA goes through the investment of 500 meaningful edits and then immediately changes to a entirely different style where they start exhibiting MMA-SPA behavior, it'll be obious they're a SPA. They'll reason the same way, make the same types of arguments, etc. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The regular sanctioning processes are not working or Administrators are declining to enforce the current community behavorial guidelines. While I appreciate the additional tool in the toolbox, it doesn't help if the repair man is not doing anything with the tools that are already in the toolbox. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mostly right, but there's a chance that a big dialog on a page, or a warning on given to a user that's got the dire language usually in these general sanctions might, might cause a problematic user to adjust their techniques. For most of these SPA's, it won't do much though. Someone will stir them up off-site and we'll get new accounts and IP's that frankly don't care about basic things like courtesy, respect and polite disagreement. And getting block? That's just a badge of honor to take back to their home site! Ravensfire (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

500 edits may be relatively easy for somebody competent at automation (or somebody who has an entire day spare) who already has some knowledge of what kind of edits / which locations permit rapid increases in edit count. These are not as obvious to outsiders as they are to old hands here; I'll keep quiet on specific examples. However, most potentially problematic single-issue editors are unlikely to fit that description. Even if 20% manage to jump over the hurdle, meh, we've reduced the number by 80% and that's a big improvement as far as I'm concerned. bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A 500-edit restriction is not that easy to game. There is such a restriction on a particular article in WP:ARBAA2. Two editors received an indef block for a silly process of editing one word at a time to reach 500. The edits they tried to do were revision-deleted as being obvious abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

MahdiBot

MahdiBot - Please block, bot running without flag or approval. Rcsprinter (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot owner seems to have stopped it after discussion here. Hut 8.5 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for GoldenGlory84

• GoldenGlory84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is quite enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a whole lotta socks in that drawer. Based on this alone, I'd support a community ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)