Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
81M (talk | contribs)
479 edits
Line 391: Line 391:


: Warned both (under [[WP:ARBMAC]]), and blocked Navyworth for a day, as I find his conduct even more objectionable than the other guy's. Question now is, is the IP {{ipuser|62.178.104.225}} who suddenly popped up to continue Navyworth's reverts and made personal attacks in the process the same editor? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
: Warned both (under [[WP:ARBMAC]]), and blocked Navyworth for a day, as I find his conduct even more objectionable than the other guy's. Question now is, is the IP {{ipuser|62.178.104.225}} who suddenly popped up to continue Navyworth's reverts and made personal attacks in the process the same editor? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' - As a non-involved editor, wouldn't you agree that your judgement is injudicious? The [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions|arbitration case]] you cited in your judgement was striked out in 2007 and even if it still holds, the ruling states than an initial warning is prerequisite before taking any such sanction. The same warning that you gave to [[User:23 editor]] should have also been given to [[User:Navyworth]]. I think that would have been fairer because both were involved in edit warring which in itself is a blockable offense. If you are going to block Navyworth, then 23 editor should have also been blocked. Objectionability is also a subjective judgment. I am interested in what Wiki policy states. For the record, I am not affiliated with any of these two (and have never conversed with them), neither I am a contributor to the article in question. My comment are purely based on the spirit of Wiki policy. If am wrong in my analysis, I stand corrected with a direct link to the relevant policy.[[User:Tamsier|Tamsier]] ([[User talk:Tamsier|talk]]) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


== Gang rape - unlock ==
== Gang rape - unlock ==

Revision as of 13:21, 4 July 2012

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

      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

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 31 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)[reply]

      Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

      (Initiated 24 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)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

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

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RfC: The Times of India

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 40 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)[reply]

      (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Talk:Steven van de Velde#RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 26 June 2024) RFC has elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

      (Initiated 31 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)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

      (Initiated 24 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)[reply]

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

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V May Jun Jul Aug Total
      CfD 0 1 8 0 9
      TfD 0 0 1 0 1
      MfD 0 0 5 0 5
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 71 0 71
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:MeToo movement#Proposed merge of Weinstein effect into MeToo movement

      (Initiated 126 days ago on 28 March 2024) Can somebody close this, frankly, I thought it had been closed by now. Its been at least a week with no new comments. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 88 days ago on 6 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)[reply]

       Done Charcoal feather (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 70 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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 66 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)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 54 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 29 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)[reply]

       Done by S Marshall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpbradbury (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump

      Sceptre unblocked, AndyTheGrump remains blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Background

      The links above were added by someone else. Arcandam (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request

      Please unblock users Sceptre and AndyTheGrump. Unblocking both is the fairest (least unfair) solution at this moment in space and time. Arcandam (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unblock requests are to be made by the editor, not by proxy. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? Do you have a link? Arcandam (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. Sceptre's unblock must go via the ban appeals subcommittee BTW.[reply]
      Block reviews can be requested by any user, not just the one who was blocked. See this subsection of the blocking policy page. That said, it also says that appeals typically should be made at AN, not AN/I. Might I suggest moving the thread? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I stand corrected! Thanks for pointing that out. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't believe Sceptre is blocked, just banned. And I think a topic probation, as suggested in the discussion, would have been a more fair 'punishment' than the ban that was enacted. -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You may want to double-check that. He is both blocked and banned. Arcandam (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow.... just unbelievably shitty of SarekofVulcan to do that. Seriously, that kind of cocky ass-hat stuff is why he has no business being an admin. He simply amps up the conflict instead of working to resolve problems. Sceptre didn't need to be kicked while down. I didn't agree with Sceptre's previous conduct, but really, this is just BS. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, Avanu -- start the recall, or STOP the personal attacks. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sarek, my language above was strong, but hardly comparable I think to blocking a guy in the manner you just had. You've had numerous run-ins with people over the years and a large contingent of people who dislike your tactics. I suggest that you simply resign or, even better, just avoid using the tools for a while; the process you refer to on your page seems overly convoluted. My personal feeling is that you lack self-control when your emotions are running high, and you make snap decisions that even you would question later. If you were forced to act like a normal user for a while, even by your own choice, I think you might realize that for most of us, the only option is patience. I'll reduce the level of derision in my comments, for your sake, but if I see your actions stepping over the line, I will let you know in plain and unambiguous language. Fair enough? -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you'll "reduce the level of derision" BECAUSE THAT IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY. If you don't like working the same way everyone else does, try Citizendium. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, and as for the other 99% of my comment....? I was actually trying to communicate why I am unhappy with your actions. (And please don't lecture me about WP:Civility, Mr. Pot. Thanks, Mr. Kettle.) -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sceptre's previous conduct was troutworthy (and in my opinion also worthy of a topic ban), but we were having a productive conversation on his talkpage. He was not refusing to get the point and there were no IDHT problems. The goal of the topic ban was not to prevent us from having a productive conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unblock of Sceptre. While the reference to the issue on his talkpage was technically a violation of the ban, it was a first such violation; failing to realize that the ban applies to one's own talkpage too is a frequent mistake and one easy to make, and we should also take into account that it was during a discussion that was explicitly brought to Scepter's talkpage by an editor from the opposite side of the debate. In these circumstances, a simple reminder would have been far more appropriate than an immediate block, especially a block of this length and without warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nota bene: In our discussion on Sceptre's talkpage none of the problems that caused the topicban (IDHT, refusal to get the point) occured. We were having a productive discussion, if we are unable or not allowed to do that then it is impossible to improve this encyclopedia. I voted for a topic ban on articles related to Manning, this is not an article. I won't hesitate to request a block if Sceptre deserves it, I am not a Sceptre fanboy and I disagree with Sceptre about a couple of things, but for now the most reasonable solution is to unblock Sceptre so we can continue the conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Support unblock of Sceptre per Fut.Perf., although I didn't realize that a topic ban of this sort was applicable to one's own talkpage. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I didn't know this either. I have notified Sarek about this thread. -- Dianna (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - When Sarek does address this, I believe he needs to agree to fully explain the BLPBAN in plain and clear language, and be willing to warn and explain when necessary if Sceptre happens to step close to the line again, alternately, Sarek could simply explain his ban fully, plainly, and clearly, and allow other administrators to do the actual enforcement, rather than biting someone who I believe actually wants to follow the community consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It seems to me that the biggest issue was that a number of people in the community thought the topic ban we were establishing meant editing BLP articles and their talk pages, especially Manning, not mentioning any of those on Sceptre's own talk page. We may need to clarify that ban as a community. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unblock Sceptre and trout all responsible for this ridiculous farce. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unblock of Sceptre; it's likely he didn't fully understand the ban. Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: I'm not sure I follow the logic of the original ban closing, and don't really know the process. Are blocks/bans typically implemented by a vote, or only for sensitive areas? Does the "weight of the arguments" system used on other parts of the wiki not apply, and how are sensitive areas defined? Thanks, Sazea (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unblock, 100%. I didn't know that the topic ban stretched as far as a civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page, and many above me also didn't know that, so no doubt Sceptre was also unaware. A warning would've been a much better way to handle this. Far, far too trigger-happy. OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - FYI, I was going to make this unblock, but it appears Sceptre has not yet recognized that he is prohibited from making such speech even on his talk page. This worries me: I don't want to see some of the IDHT behavior extended here, and then have this issue come up again in a month or so, which I think it might. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Wikipedia as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits. copied by request AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose both The blocks were subject to significant discussion at ANI. Andy opposes the request, and Sceptre's CANNOT be unblocked here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uhm, where was Sceptre's block discussed previously? Also, I disagree a valid unblock consensus cannot be reached here. AN has always been a valid forum for that sort of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In this diff and this one, I made it clear to Spectre that the topic ban included discussion of Manning's gender identity, not just article edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree that those diffs make anything clear at all. They make clear that AN/I, and presumably the rest of WP space, is also in the topic ban. They do not make clear that Sceptre's own talk page is in the topic ban. I think this is actually the nexus of the problem - you think you've explained something succinctly and clearly, but to Sceptre and a number of others, it was as clear as mud. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the amount of support (akin to 'seconds' in parliamentary procedure), I think it can be safely assumed that this request is something the community supports discussion on. Additionally, given the fact that "Any user may request a block", it seems reasonable that the converse is reasonable as well, i.e. 'Any user may request a unblock'. -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As I have written on the talkpage of the policy page, 14 minutes before you used the word 'assumed', "I think it warrants a mention [on the policy page] as there are differing assumptions on the matter." per it's removal from the page, indicating that you are mistaken. Penyulap ☏ 14:40, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      That's a moot point. Sceptre obviusly did make an unblock request himself. Given that fact, it doesn't matter who brought it here and in what form. Let's keep irrelevant process bureaucracy out of this thread here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're assuming it's fine, Andy is suggesting it's not, on the policy page it's not, so how does this not support the question of clarifying the issue ? Penyulap ☏ 14:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      Per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, this should go forward anyway, and WP:IAR that policy because it doesn't make sense. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      with the division of editors on either side, it seems common-sense to fix the darn policy. Penyulap ☏ 15:28, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      I agree that this is discussion-worthy -- while the topic ban was clearly validly imposed in my view, I acknowledge that this enforcement action wasn't as clearly supportable. Otoh, I haven't seen anything that's made me change my mind yet. "banned from edits relating to Manning" is about as clear as you get -- I'm quite confused by the editors above claiming it isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Here's the problem, Sarek. People in the discussion were !voting, but you had TWO concurrent discussions and people weighing in at different levels. For example, the two editors who led a call for bans said:

      Anyone willing to brandish WP:BLPBAN and topic ban Sceptre from making edits relating to Manning? Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      How do people feel about a topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed? I'd support such a ban. – NULL ‹talk›‹edits› 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

      Notice in the original post, the differing levels of each post... the latter one isn't indented, and Nobody Ent claims to be refactoring the two requests under one section. In addition, the various comments of people later show that they weren't (for most of them) specifically picking one or the other, just saying "Support" or "Support topic ban". Finally, when you closed it at AN/I, you simply said "BLPBAN imposed", but didn't make a summation of exactly what the ban was going to be or how it was to be enforced (even the WP:BLPBAN page says "articles", it doesn't say everything). Even the template on Sceptre's page that said "topic-banned from edits relating to Bradley Manning, broadly construed", since that contains a link to an article, it can easily be seen to be meant to apply to the linked article only. In short, it is about communication first and clear *and* helpful warnings later. -- Avanu (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh, by the way, the notification template informing Sceptre of his ban (placed by Sarek) says "Further violations of the BLP policy will result in you being banned from editing" (notice it does not say 'Blocked'). Another good cause to warn first, before acting with tools. -- Avanu (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the wrong venue to be wikilawyering over the wording of standard warning templates. Take it up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log (redir from Template talk:BLP Spec Sanction) if you think it's unclear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Avanu beat me to it, but that was what I was going to say, more or less. Especially the part about the link to the Bradley Manning article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unblock because I don't see evidence that Sceptre was willing to violate his topic ban and, as such, I believe he should just have been issued a warning. As a side note, to avoid these problems, when I impose a topic ban, I always point out that the editor in question is prohibited from making any edits relating to X across all namespaces (i.e. everywhere on Wikipedia). It helps to avoid confusion, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unblock - largely per Salvio above. Sceptre overstepped his topic ban by posting to his talk page and he may not have been aware that it also came under the topic ban. Having said that, he seriously needs to back away from the Manning article and its related articles, and just move onto something else - Alison ❤ 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unblock on account of some confusion about scope and assuming good faith, with the understanding that, going forward, the topic ban includes all namespaces, and further violations will result in extended blocks. —Torchiest talkedits 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      A request for comment has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

      Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:52, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

      Procedural discussion

      as it is not related to any editor, I figure I can ask the question, should block review requests be combined, or considered separately Penyulap ☏ 12:58, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

      which means the question doesn't belong here, except where it relates to these two editors, oops ! Penyulap ☏ 13:00, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      I'll have no part or opinion on either matter as I am involved clearly on one side, also, as a disclaimer, I edited (created) the policy section that has been linked to. I simply wish for everyone else to have their say here with as little confusion as possible, so I have separated the issues. all of which can sill be discussed, but with more clarity. Penyulap ☏ 12:49, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      Naturally, anyone is free to revert if they feel up to the challenge of tallying both sides, counting single 'oppose' or 'support' with 'both' !votes and so on, good luck guys and girls ! Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      Yeah, no offense, but I've collapsed them again. I find it far more confusing to have a new section started in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Also, the part about AndyTheGrump was obviously a non-starter anyway, given his own statement, so I believe it will neither make for much confusion in the original format, nor would an extra section about him be useful at this stage. I'm also not fond of having the sections subdivided into "support" and "oppose" vote sections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No offence taken, I'll just suggest that combining an unblock request for the two editors will be every bit as satisfying to the community, and editors involved, as the combined discussion of their original block. Penyulap ☏ 14:44, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      Combining a unblock request for two editors blocked several days apart for different reasons doesn't strike me as terribly satisfying... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Confused the hell out of me. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unblock

      I've unblocked Sceptre as there seems to be a consensus that Sarek overstepped and Sceptre should be unblocked. I don't see much discussion related to Andy's block, so I've left that in place for the time being. I hope this helps to resolve things, but if it doesn't, another admin can of course revert me. I'm not perfect. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Fair enough. Thanks for the review! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It'd probably be best to unblock Andy as well now. I think everyone is clear where they stand. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, no, don't unblock Andy. Andy has requested that he not be unblocked until he serves his term. The double unblock was proposed out of a misguided sense of fairness, believing that the blocks were for the same thing. They weren't. Sceptre's topic ban and Andy's block were for the same issue, but Sceptre's block was for a mistaken understanding of the scope of the topic ban. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Jorgath, it seemed like Andy was just blocked for fairness purposes so I've unblocked for the same. I've left messages for both. Again, if there's a clear consensus to re-block, then I will self-revert or another admin is welcome to revert. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fairness? Looks to me from the diffs above like it was persistent incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. The timeline was as follows: Sceptre reported Andy for persistent incivility. Andy was found to have been persistently uncivil, and was blocked. A boomerang then hit Sceptre with a topic ban from an area in which they have a bad history, for provoking Andy. The block being reviewed was SarekOfVulcan's block of Sceptre for violating that topic ban in a way that Sceptre was unaware was a violation. The initial proposal suggested unblocking Andy too, out of fairness. Andy responded on his talk page with a request that was copied here, saying that he did not wish to be unblocked, mostly because he felt that he deserved it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Then I misread that portion of the situation. I'll restore Andy's block but I will leave my unblock of Sceptre; I think it should stand. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it should as well. The "fairness" equivalent of Andy's block is Sceptre's topic ban, which still stands, although it needs clarifying. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • - Three posts to Andy's block log for no effect - well done Keliana - in future take your time and stand by your decisions a bit more - I support Andy's unblock as you made it - both users unblocked - to unblock one is unfair - what Andy actually said in relation to this was, "Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Wikipedia as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits." - User:Sceptre is the primary problem here and he is unblocked. - Youreallycan 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find that a highly disingenuous interpretation of the situation, Youreallycan. Andy was blocked for persistent incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was topic-banned for various reasons, including the one that provoked Andy's incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was then blocked for violating that ban in a way that they didn't realize was a violation: a highly civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page in which Sceptre was showing signs of overcoming their previous IDHT problems. That topic ban still stands, even though Sceptre is unblocked. If Andy requests an unblock on his talk page, I have no problem with that, but he shouldn't have been unblocked based on this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Change to topic ban

      Hey, I'd like, for specificity, to request that the topic ban be limited to "edits to articles and talk pages relating to Bradley Manning's gender identity"; there's a whole bunch of questions here where the topic ban is vague:

      • Would I get blocked for editing Wikileaks or Julian Assange?
      • Would I get blocked again for replying to Arcadanum on my talk page?
      • Would I get blocked for referring to the content dispute? There are genuine issues with editor culture completely separate from the issue of Manning's gender identity, but which came up in the content dispute.

      I would also ask kindly that an eye be kept on AndyTheGrump; obviously good faith BLP protection warrants a little leeway, but I am concerned that he's unable to contribute without living up to his username, which isn't conducive to improvement of the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      In answer to your topic ban specificity question, no, I wouldn't support that. In answer to the three specific examples: 1) Yes. 2) The proper response is "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." 3) Broadly construed, yes; if you want to talk about GID and LGBT in a way that in no way references Manning...maybe. In answer to the AndyTheGrump thing, he's serving out his block with dignity and class. If he says he can be civil from here on, we WP:AGF that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Really? How is this difficult to grasp? Avoid discussing the content dispute, as that's inherently tied to Manning. And I'd suggest avoiding Wikileaks and Julian Assange to prevent any appearance of impropriety. Tread lightly if you want to continue editing LGBT & GID issues, as those are subjects you appear to have strong feelings about. Essentially, don't go near this subject at all, and you won't risk anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)x2 Yeah, this. I'd advise that you go be a good editor in some completely unrelated area for a while (I mean like a year, not a week), and show that you can work well, on a regular basis, with people who disagree with you. Then maybe you might be able to request the topic ban be lifted. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Re #3 -- if the part of "editor culture" you're referring to is "only editors who know transgendered people should be editing in this area", then the answer is "Yes". Otherwise, Jorgath's "maybe" holds.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not "editors who know transgender people", it's "editors who are aware of how transgender issues should be handled". Would you want a young earth creationist making edits to Evolution? Sceptre (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sceptre, I strongly reccommend that you not pursue that question, or you will be repeating previously sanctioned behavior. Just - if it's in question at all whether it's under your ban, assume it is. Okay? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So long as that YEC adheres to our policies on verifiability and NPOV, without constantly trying to push a YEC opinion on various talk pages, sure. Further, it's highly presumptuous of you to assume your criteria of "how transgender issues should be handled" is the correct one. That is the source of this whole fracas. I'd suggest now is the time to drop the stick.— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd still think it'd be unwise for YECs to edit that page, because without an understanding of the topic, you can't really contribute to a topic. This applies everywhere, really. I think it's a no-brainer that, for such a sensitive topic as LGBT issues, you do need a quick 101: MOS:IDENTITY favouring a person's self-identity to others' perceptions of the identity is no accident, it reflects medical, academic, and journalistic manuals of style (even if journalists don't follow it that much). Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And this is the core of the problem: you arrogantly assumethe YEC has no knowledge of the subject. And I agree, following a person's self identity is important. And Manning has made no public statements on this matter. All we have are leaked private documents. That is not a source that allows us to unilaterally declare Manning has GID / is transgender. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      When? -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Here. we're disregarding the sources by pretending that Manning never had issues with their gender identity.... specifically the quote "We do know [...] Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". It's not the same as "We do know [...] Manning had asked people not to refer to him with a female pronoun".... the discussion should be "Manning identified as female before being arrested, how should we treat that?" instead of "Does Manning identify as male or female?". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Yea - User:Sceptre - you are banned from anything related on any article and any talkpage related to Manning - if you discus the subject anywhere on wiki you will be blocked immediately - is that clear enough for you ? - I Support - topic banning you from any WP:BLP transgender edit/comment/discussion - as per you edit history /off wiki activism COI - Youreallycan 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't issue superinjunctions around here; people are always allowed to say something like Jorgath's suggestion, "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." when someone asks them about banned topics, and we permit people to come to noticeboards and ask for their bans to be loosened or removed. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Its indefinite- a lifetime ban - appeal only to the highest committee - Youreallycan 19:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a matter for Sarek, not for anyone else, since he implemented it. The Ban was implemented as an exercise of Sarek's power as an Admin, and the particulars of it are governed by his will and interpretation of the consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Avanu, any time you'd like to read up on policy and figure out how things actually work around here, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "figure out how things actually work around here"... isn't it clear? I mean its obvious, right? Nothing left to discuss, we just go on and on because things are so clear. :) OK, I get the joke......... -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question is this request to find which articles and subjects are ok to edit, like flower arrangement is ok, but Mardi gras is a worry, or is it a specific attempt to ask how to WP:GAME the community by asking the rules ? Penyulap ☏ 20:20, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
        The former. The problem with "broadly construed" is that, someone may see the article List of transgender people as under the ban even if I'm not even thinking of anything related to Manning. Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd not consider that a violation, personally. And it would be harsh for an admin to block you for it. However; given that the problem at hand was specifically Manning, but generally topics of gender, you would probably be well advised to avoid that topic area. You committed some gross BLP violations in this case, for which we have had to limit you, and I still see a risk of you trying it again on another poor individual. --Errant (chat!) 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The gag order should be loosened. It's excessively officious and punitive. A user engaging in discussion on their own talk page, for example, about topics on which they're clearly well-informed, is hardly harmful to Wikipedia. Writegeist (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What benefit is there to article content to allow a policy violating topic banned user to continue to freely discuss the issue on his talkpage? Youreallycan 20:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Youreallycan on this point. Users easily could turn their own talk page into a form of "hate blog" about things they don't like, and it would be possible to misrepresent that page as a "wikipedia page" so that some less-than-well informed persons might think that it actually is the equivalent of an article. Me, for instance. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see it like an escape valve. People who are emotionally invested in an issue, want to discuss that issue. A broad topic ban invites chipping at the edges, and wikilawyering on article pages. Better to make the ban broad wrt article and article talk, while allowing some discussion in an area that will only be seen by those looking for it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose loosening of ban at this time, based on the comments of others of similar views above, particularly taking into account the speed with which the ban was apparently violated. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose The topic ban is not overly restrictive. Also throwing in a dig at another editor from the request is in bad taste. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - The restriction was clear. Wikilawyering it is bull. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Partial Support I support allowing discussion on user talk page. If that becomes a "hate blog" that permission can be revisited, but I think user should have broad leeway on the talk pages associated with their user name. However, I still support the "broadly construed" aspects of the topic ban in article and article talk pages.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I oppose a weakening of the restriction (i.e. I don't see a reason for relaxing it on non-article pages), but I don't think there's a reason for interpreting it as covering topics such as "Wikileaks or Julian Assange" too. The problems that occurred were rather narrowly restricted to a biographical detail regarding the personality of B. M., and as such were quite unrelated to the political affair in which that person happened to be involved. Under this perspective, I don't see any problems with Sceptre editing Wikileaks or related stuff, and I don't believe the current wording of the restriction covers that. On the other hand, I would caution against turning to anything that might be seen as agenda editing on other transgender-related pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would like to know what "agenda editing on transgender-related pages" would be, as it has come up several times. Whereas the matter of Manning is something that can be debated, both from a source analysis perspective and an ethical perspective, for most trans BLPs it's clear cut: refer to them by their preferred gender and pronouns, treat them as human, et cetera, because it's unethical to act otherwise (and manuals of style for RSes agree on that) Sceptre (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What it means, basically, is "don't push the issue." If a gendered-pronoun-change is completely uncontroversial, as in no one would dispute it at all, go ahead. But if even one person begins to dispute it with you, you must drop it. Period. If you're right, someone will sort it out. Actually...I'd be willing to take a look in such a situation. If it's all right with the community (especially SarekOfVulcan), the approved course of action could be "Sceptre disengages, neutrally informs Sarek and I of situation on our talk pages, and I try to evaluate content question fairly while Sarek reviews Sceptre's actions." This obviously would not apply to Bradley Manning-related edits, but to other transgender-related pages. I think I'm pretty good at NPOV in trans issues, and I think I satisfy Sceptre and Roux's previous requests that evaluating editors be familiar with trans issues. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unvanishing ScienceApologist

      Resolved
       – Per WP:SNOW, unvanishing performed by 'crat WilliamH, leaving unarchived for now in case any comments are yet to come. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist, which shows the first instance (that we know of) of sockpuppetry on 10 December 2011, EdJohnston logged it as 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since then, numerous SPI cases have come up, including an active one now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist.

      User:ScienceApologist (aka: User:VanishedUser314159) seems to have been granted a right to vanish around 2008, then it was taken away two days later, then there was a lot of redactions and gnashing of teeth, with a final WP:RTV granted around March 2011. Jpgordon indef blocked the vanished user on 4 March 2011.[1]

      It is clear that this user is not going to vanish. This means that all their past SPI cases and other edits are under a Vanisheduser name, courtesy blanked, which is inconvenient, at the very least. At this stage, after so many socks and opportunities, it appears that the courtesy vanishing should be taken back, and the full account restored, as the editor is clearly not acting in good faith and is continuing to be a disruption.

      As a courtesy, I will be notifing those who may have been involved at an administrative level previously, including User:John Vandenberg, User:Steve Smith, User:EdJohnston and User:Nihonjoe. Feel free to notify anyone else that may have been involved previously.

      Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal that ScienceApologist be unvanished and the account be fully restored

      So why don't one of you unblock him? The block is totally meaningless anyway, he can edit whenever he likes. After all, an unrepentant "sockmaster" has again had his userpage "courtesy blanked". While we're at it, blank all sockmaster pages and unblock the lot. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Question

      What do you mean by "unvanished"? Changing VanishedUser314159's username to ScienceApologist? Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, that's the short of it. Basically, re-establish his name, undo courtesy-blanking of pages relating to him, and adjust ArbCom pages to clearly reflect whom they are referring to (rather than the VanishedUser name). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. As if he had never vanished. Requires a 'crat to accomplish. I don't think it requires a discussion at WP:AN, but I think that is the best way to handle these: one at a time, in full public view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Completed

      • In light of the snowy nature of the above discussion, and the fact that the user's activity is well out of the scope of RTV, the user "VanishedUser314159" has been renamed to "ScienceApologist", and all the pages in the userspace have been moved over accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bless your heart. SA is at least the third person to blatantly violate the vanishing policy that I know of, and the first one to have their vanishing properly undone for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I am not mistaken, only four hours has elapsed since this request has been initiated at ANI, making it very hard for large segments of the world to comment, and no comment from the accused. There is only one SPI allegation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive which didnt have a Checkuser result, but was basically determined to be WP:DUCK, and only one request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist, which was pending a checkuser result when you 'unvanished'. Why the urgency?? It doesnt appear that he has been editing a lot and causing lots of problems. arb user:AGK has now done the checkuser and concluded there is no technical data to support the socking allegation, but asserts WP:DUCK. user:Hudn12 has now been blocked as a sock by admin user:Dennis Brown, the same person who initiated the SPI and this unvanish request. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The accused couldn't have commented anyway, as SA was indef blocked in March of 2011 for block evasion, which raises the question of why the vanishing was allowed to begin with. Yes, I filed the SPI and made the call to block based on duck evidence, after another editor, AGK confirmed my suspicions. Technically, I didn't have to go to SPI and could have just blocked him as a duck, but chose to stay in process and get a second opinion for good measure. CU was run during the change over, which was bad timing as everything hadn't updated so the results couldn't possibly be obtained properly, but a look at the IP addresses compared to previous, plus the contribs evidence, was clear enough to at least two of us. I didn't ask for the CU to prove the case, I asked to establish a record and find sleepers. As for bringing the case here, of course it would be someone like me who actually had to deal with vanished user cases at SPI more than once. No one who had never heard of the case would stumble across this otherwise. You're welcome to check my work if you think I've made a mistake, I don't have a problem with that at all. As to the amount of time spent here, that wasn't my call, so I can't really speak to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I forgot to add: technically, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that I come to WP:AN to get a vote anyway. WP:RTV appears to be intentionally vague about this, indicating that whatever method that is appropriate, is appropriate. I chose to come here instead of asking a 'crat directly, to keep everything in full daylight, and notified you and others who were involved previously. This might have been quick (not my call), but everything has been in full daylight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I may insert my $0.02 here, I feel you were quite right in keeping it in full daylight. It was quick, but that's because it was such overwhelming WP:SNOW. While I had no opinion on the unvanish request itself - I didn't feel I knew enough - the discussion and consensus seem clear enough to me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Courtesy blanking

      I've courtesy-blanked some of the pages linking the ScienceApologist account to its owner's real-life identity. I don't think the "unvanishing" was really necessary; it feels a bit vindictive, but I don't oppose it since it will make it easier to address further sockpuppetry if it occurs. But we need to courtesy-blank the pages that link this account to its real-life owner. We've done this for editors far more abusive than SA. Our basic ethical principles include (or at least used to include) the idea that we don't use Wikipedia's online prominence to "punish" editors by damaging their real-life reputations, no matter how abusive their on-wiki behavior.

      I feel strongly about this - strongly enough to protect the pages in question if there's edit-warring over the courtesy-blanking. This should not impact our ability to identify additional sockpuppets of SA, since the relevant details will be preserved in pages histories under the account's original name. MastCell Talk 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm certainly not going to edit war with you MastCell, not my style after all. I can honestly say I have never have reverted an admin action, ever, without discussing and consent, which is more than was done here. Not sure why you would even bring that up. I didn't unblank them until after this AN discussion, after all. The goal wasn't because of being vindictive or trying to punish anyone, it was exactly as stated and within a process that isn't technically required but was done for the sake of being open about it. Since I am the one that unblanked them, you could have just asked me about it on my talk page. There is really no need for posturing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually didn't look to see who had unblanked them, and my comment wasn't intended to be a shot at you personally. It was actually triggered by a discussion at User talk:ScienceApologist, in which another admin declined to blank the pages. I apologize if it came across as personal criticism of your actions. MastCell Talk 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then I'm sorry if I came across overly defensive, as someone kindly pointed out I might be on my talk page. I started this AN discussion and proposal, the current SPI report, the last series of blocks and the page blanking. In this case, it might have been more fruitful to just approach me as the person most involved in this current round of affairs with your concerns and I would have likely just reverted them back myself. My actions in all this was based on procedure, not personal feelings, as someone who has had to dig through the archives to match up the socks, and wasn't aware of the potentially personal information involved. And for the record, I'm always open to criticism even if that doesn't apply in this instance, I just prefer my talk page as a starting point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC

      Resolved
       – Looks like all the concerns here have been dealt with. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I see the RFC on Verifiability language is fully protected, so that only administrators may edit it. Why is this? It makes it rather hard to opine on this alternative or that without the ability to save an edit... Carrite (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Only the main page is protected -- if you click the section edit link, you'll be editing a subpage, which isn't protected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If people are getting confused about the protection, then it's a good sign that we need to do more to draw it to people's attention. I've made a suggestion for a banner to go at the top of the RfC at the RfC talk page. If any admins agree and want to add it to the main RfC page, I would appreciate it. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree, and please do. It needs to be obvious. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, the banner has now been posted on the RfC page. Just the watchlist notice to do now. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 23:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Watchlist notice

      While we're on the subject of the verifiability RfC, would anyone object to advertising it using a watchlist notice? I made a suggestion for a notice over at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details two days ago, but it has only received one reply so far. More input would be very welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Agree, hope that somebody can do this. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I, too, would like to urge that this be acted upon promptly. I think it's important for the entire community to know about it. A couple of days have already passed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      PLEASE, somebody do this as quickly as possible. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The watchlist notice has now been added for 10 days by MSGJ. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, MSGJ! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      "… on Twitter"

      Further reading

      The problem

      Interchangeable asked "Has there ever been a case like this, in which an article is simultaneously up for AfD and FAC? And is that allowed?".

      The answer is that yes, we've had a few cases where featured articles, and DYK nominations, have been nominated for deletion. Bulbasaur (AfD discussion) (2nd AFD discussion) (3rd AFD discussion), for example. The subjects tend to be U.S./global popular culture and recentist. And the deletion nominations tend to share a taint of "How can this be on the main page as an example of our good work?", which isn't the remit of AFD. Procedurally, they can be knotty. But that's mostly the case when a new article that was too suddenly nominated for deletion without proper research being undertaken turns out to be a DYK candidate, and the AFD 7-day clock conflicts with the DYK clock.

      That's not the case here. And what we have here is taking on all the signs of a problem that I've seen before, as possibly have many other administrators, years ago.

      The problem here is a rash of "… on Twitter" articles written by editors who have quickly headed for DYK, GA, and FA, saying things like "this is the future of Wikipedia" along the way; a backlash against that by a sizeable subset of the community; and some rather wrongheaded disruptive point-making in the guise of superficially helpful attempts to extend things in absurd ways, such as the "new process" by Br'er Rabbit, and the various sarcastic (but not clearly to the casual reader) further article suggestions of others, some in the encyclopaedia proper, alas!. Witness List of Twitter users (AfD discussion), for example, which started as a deliberately absurd suggestion on a talk page, was created as an article, and which I've tried to turn around away from the absurd direction by pointing out that there was actually a prose article to be had, that was hidden in plain sight, once one ignored the absurdism.

      The fact that people have already started using the "-cruft" suffix again, and otherwise parrot-voting with entirely rationale-free AFD discussion contributions, indicates that we're rapidly heading back to the days of the schools AFD discussions, if we don't start reining in the supporting-what-one-actually-opposes-to-absurd-extremes pointmaking (in the project and article spaces) and the policy-free arguments. We need to nip this in the bud.

      Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've seen a lot of these "...on Twitter" articles, and I think the best solution is to "freeze" further action pending an RFC on the matter (neither AFD started, nor creation of such articles, nor initiating GAC/FAC) until we figure out if these are appropriate given that they do involve BLP issues as well. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may be the first to deal with this. However, I know of several instances of former FAs that were listed for deletion and went through. Obviously, most of those were articles promoted to FA 7 or more years ago, in which FA (and Wikipedia) standards were far lower than they are now. --MuZemike 18:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There have been plenty of (at the time) current featured articles nominated for deletion, where the very placement on the main page has itself triggered the deletion nomination. But this case is indeed not the same as those. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mind these articles that much, largely as so far they've been created on clearly notable uses for Twitter and lots of work has gone into them. They're obviously better and easier to police than the drive-by articles on wrestling matches, football players, and high schools which constantly spring up. However, it would be helpful if the editors involved in writing these articles developed some kind of guidance (if only an essay, at least initially) on where the articles are justified and what they should and shouldn't cover. In the longer run, we're probably going to need something like Wikipedia:Notability (twitter accounts). Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it would better to expand the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guideline to include individual, notable social media pages of all kinds (not just Twitter) in the case of any social media platform rising and falling in popularity. — Moe ε 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • People are ignoring the notability criteria that we already have, in favour of their personal opinions of Twitter and the named celebrities. The problem isn't the lack of criteria. It's the unwillingness of editors to be objective about something that they like/dislike, and essentially rationale-free AFD contributions. It's also the mucking around in article space to make points. More notability criteria won't fix either of those. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      NOT FANSITE is not a like/dislike, but a policy based criterion. I would oppose such a page on anyone no matter how much I liked them without extraordinary evidence of real importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do think that if we freeze creation/deletion/promotion and figure out if and when these are appropriate, something can be written to prevent further poor AFD arguments. The results of those discussions may fall into a notability guideline. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I've started a general discussion of the appropriateness of these types of articles here. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Metricopolus

      Not sure what's wrong with the user, but appears to just be reverting everything, including ClueBot. [3] [4] [5] Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Moved to ANI. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Blocked. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      user Marcus Qwertyus and Ohio

      Further information: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/OSUHEY
      Charleta tavares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — copyright violation of copyrighted ("© The Ohio Senate") non-free content

      It has become increasingly frustrating to numerous people I know who have tried to update Ohio legislators here. Recently, I wrote a great article on Charleta tavares, who has been a prominent politician for many years. It's has been deleted numerous times by this person or a friend of his. While it is obvious that someone down the line harmed some stuff on wikipedia, the deletion of legislative articles, blocks, and reversions have made Ohios pages a mess. It also greatly upsets me that this person isnt even from Ohio and does not have an interest in improving these articles. Just deleting them. Why isnt there a more pragmatic approach? Much of these pages have been deleted or reverted to be incorrect.

      I am asking that either allow me to recreate the pages necessary under your guidance or at least for someone to take on the task themselves and stop Marcus Qwertyus' nonsense of deleting and reverting good edits and creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.51.123 (talk • contribs) 2012-07-01T19:58:45 (UTC)

      Obvious ban-evading IP of OSUHEY. Please do not entertain any requests from this disruptive user. --MuZemike 21:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what I was thinking. Page in question is actually Charleta Tavares — Charleta tavares is about the same person, but it was created when she wasn't yet in the legislature, and the creator appears to have been unrelated to OSUHEY. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What is wrong with the created article? Look it over and you will see it is very credible. These politicians need to be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.52.242 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, I am not OSUHEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.52.242 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem, IP user from New Jersey, is that they were created by a person named Ryan Monell with the username of OSUHEY; he got himself sitebanned for persistent copyright infringements. Even aside from the ban itself, these pages aren't safe to keep because so many of them are copyright infringements; one that doesn't appear so to be is likely to have been taken from a source that we simply haven't found. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But I recreated that page, and was blocked twice by Marcus Qwertyus, after the page was deleted. It does not make any sense to me that just because one person behaved poorly, the rest of us are punished. She is credible as are the others that were deleted and we are deprived of good articles because of this. Where else in life do we think this way, where if one person behaves improperly, then we just constantly delete anyone else's work with similar interest? I urge someone to take a more logical approach and reevaluate why we cannot update and create new articles on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.52.242 (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You are not going to have anything to do with that article, do you hear me? Now leave. --MuZemike 02:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      AfD backlog

      Due to a problem with toolserver, The outstanding AFD log was not updated for two days, which means 22 June and 23 June are not showing, although June 24 now is. I cleared off 22 June apart from a few that I was involved in, but there are still quite a few at 23 June. I'll try to clear these tomorrow (it's 1:40am here), but if anyone's bored in the meantime...

      I manually fixed the creation of the AfD page that was missed for July 4, and will keep an eye on that. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Note

      I know COI-named accounts has been discussed back n forth, but not sure how things ended up. So I thought I'd note it here for someone more knowledgeable. - jc37 03:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User talk:Calvin999 and User talk:AndyTheGrump

      At the moment we are trying to draft some new blocking policy for editors who use their own talkpage while blocked, and I was wondering if anyone could offer some guidance at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy on what is ok and what is not ok, there seems to be some confusion. Penyulap ☏ 06:41, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

      Downloading large numbers of pictures

      I'm working on a project that will require me to download large amounts of pictures from Wikipedia. I've been trying to find some advice about the best way to do this without breaking any Wikipedia rules or guidelines, but have had no response to my question on the help desk. I have heard that using Wikix is the best way to do this, but some people have reported being blocked from Wikipedia by using the utility. There is one such example here. Can anyone here advise me on whether using Wikix is allowed? And if it is allowed, are there any restrictions on download speed or time of day? Thanks,Nozzleberry (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Let me ask what sort of numbers your talking about...a couple hundred or a couple thousand? IS there a certain category or filter your using to determine which ones you want? That might help to get a better idea of how best it can be done. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Please look at Inter language links part of Harrier Jump Jet article. Is it true?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes as many other wikis have several articles on the Harrier and it's different versions all linking to this one article here. NtheP (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Crazy server lag

      Up to 1,559 seconds. Who broke it? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      See WP:Village pump (technical)#Database lag. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Chronic Spammer

      While patrolling WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology I reverted a spam edit by 115.111.32.134. When I visited their talkpage to leave them a notice of the action, I discovered that they have been warned repeatedly about spamming. I have two questions:

      1. Is this the appropriate place to address this issue? And
      2. Do I need to do anything else?

      Kthapelo (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:AIV is the place for quick reports about obvious spam accounts. DMacks (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I just reverted several questionable links he inserted regarding for-profit business colleges. See [6] and [7]. 81M (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User talk:Leontopodium alpinum

      Moved from WP:RFPP
       – This discussion should be archived somewhere. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      User talk:Leontopodium alpinum (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

      Unprotection: This page does NOT need protection. zzuuzz was asked to remove protection and refused to help. Unlike many of the editors involved, I do not have problem with IP editors or assume they are the bad guys. I want them to be able to contact me. This protection was instigated by a small number of overzealous editors continuously reverting an IP and agitating it in the process. The original edit was not even a personal attack as they put, although it was a bit harsh. Editors causing this problem need to read WP:DENY. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      To elaborate on the comment recently on my talk page, as with all my actions any admin is welcome to adjust the protection as they see fit. If you've seen the proxy-hopping trolls, both(?) ANI threads, and the edit frequencies then you're not missing much. My reasons for protection remain unchanged, so I won't be doing it myself. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Leon should do what I do and what the rules recommend: create a separate, non-protected pseudo talk page where IP's can "contact him", as he puts it. The "contacting" in this case is nothing more than a personal attack on another editor, and is not appropriate for Leon's talk page. And Leon's insistence keeping the attack there raises suspicions about his own alleged "good faith". The WP:DENY stuff is wrong-headed. You don't "deny" trolls by leaving their garbage untouched - you deny them by preventing them from posting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would say that the suspicions arise more from you wikistalking my edits and canvassing your pal Dave1185. You caused this whole problem by reverting edits multiple times that are really not personal attacks, and that's true no matter how many time you claim otherwise. Please refrain from adding your opinion unnecessarily, as you are not an admin. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have asked Dave to comment here. If he doesn't care, I don't care. If he does care, then your page should remain protected, so as to "deny" the trolls as you say. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a nice idea from you, but unfortunately for you or Dave1185 to "care" or not or what you think about what should happen to my talk page are not necessary or relevant. Please do refrain from your own agitation. Thanks for stopping by. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You are under the mistaken impression that you "own" your talk page. You don't. If you allow incivility against others to remain on your page, you are approving of that incivility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You are under the mistaken impression that your opinion is necessary or appropriate to add to this discussion. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit everyone's opinion is appropriate and even necessary any/everywhere. Can someone sort out these facts for me. Based on this edit history Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
      1. La has minimal edits to article space - four although I may have miscounted.
      2. La went around bestowing barnstars to those who complained about Dave1185's alleged incivility. So, per AGF they disapprove of such "personal attacks" occurring on WikiP. YET
      3. They are perfectly happy for "personal attacks" against Dave1185 to be added to - and remain - on their talk page. The term "tag and bag" used for socks who have already betrayed the communities trust is far less offensive then the post about Dave1185 added by various IPs (and that alone should raise red flags of various sizes and vivid colors) to La's talk page.
      As Bugs correctly state if La is here as someone who want to edit constructively then they can "create a separate, non-protected pseudo talk page where IP's can "contact him"" other wise can we please apply WP:NOTTHERAPY - among several others - and end this drama. MarnetteD | Talk 05:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You warp facts to fit the agenda of you and your friends. This has nothing to do for the actual comment left on my talk page, although I strongly disparage your view that it was a personal attack. If you think this is personal attack the you skin is far, far to thin for Wikipedia. It is clearly not a personal attack. Dave 1185 and his pals are simply trying to keep the Wiki clean of criticism of his actions.
      1. The number of edits I have made does not matter: WP:DONTBITE. Of course I thank people that took the reasonable position in a long argument. Oh, and Dave1185 did the same thing.
      2. You are grossly misstate what I am asking. I am not interested at all with this request to anything with the original edit on my page. I never mentioned it here. Good attempt, but again you do not tell the truth about this request. I am only demanding that my own talk page be unprotected.
      3. You do not have a neutral opinion in this matter and should recuse yourself from the discussion. You were part of the Dave1185 clique that caused this problem by constant revert to my talk page.
      4. If you wish to so nakedly have a personal agenda outside of the actual discussion please be a little more clever about disguising it. Bugs does not correctly state anything, and neither do you. You two are part of why there is a drama at all. If you had left it alone the page would never have needed protection and a mildly annoying comment (but NOT personal attack) would not have created the problem this IP wanted. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Your screed proves my point. BTW we have both Wikipedia:Attack page and Wikipedia:NPA as policies that should be remembered in this situation. Oh and I am not part of any clique. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      No, you are completely and embarrassingly wrong on all counts. Recommend you review the literature and Wikipedia policies before making any further comments. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Marnette has had an account here for 7 years, whereas you've had an account for 7 months. So there's a good chance that his/her knowledge of the rules is better than yours. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I note that Leon has removed the semi-protected flag from his page. That doesn't actually affect anything. The semi remains in effect until the 13th, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It should also be noted that although Leon does not approve of a message being removed from their talk page [8] they have no problem with removing them from other another editors talk as can be seen here [9] and [10] MarnetteD | Talk 15:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again you are kilometers from the correct mark here. Removing a comment from my page 1. Not what this is about 2. Not something I ever opposed. I spoke against you and your pals edit-warring and agitating an IP on my talk page, not against the comment being removed. And you are most certainly not comparing removing my own comments from a page to this, because even that would too nakedly reveal your agenda and bias in this situation. Please do sit this one out unless you have something valid to contribute. You are acting as the "garbage truck", as your buddy Dave1185 likes to say. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uninvolved admin here. I have been reviewing this situation, and come to the following conclusions:
      • The removal of personal attacks and the protecting of the page were entirely appropriate
      • Therefore the request for removal of protections is declined
      • Leon is reminded that this is an encyclopedia and that everything else is secondary to that goal. It's July, and you have made but 3 edits to actual articles this year. And no, it's not "biting" to say so, merely a reminder of what it is we are supposed to be doing here which all of you involved in this should take to heart
      • As a show of good faith from all concerned I would ask you all to voluntarily topic ban yourselves from interacting with "the other side" in this conflict. There is an evident pattern of a long-term problem here going back several months. Continuing to have any contact at this point is only going to antagonize the other parties.
      • This matter should now be considered closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      That is fine. For the record I have no idea what "long-term problem" you are referring to. I got involved with this less than three weeks ago when this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#User:Dave1185 and the user namespace occurred at ANI and, thus, do not know what you might be referring to. That is why the accusation of cliques makes so little sense. Also, just for my information, will it still be closed when another IP restores the offensive message (which contains no examples of the behavior alleged BTW to say nothing of there being no attempts to "help" as a followup) after the page protection expires? MarnetteD | Talk 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      John Daker ban proposal...

      My talkpage was vandalized twice this afternoon by (what I'm fairly sure are) sockpuppets of John Daker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently so was User:Gogo Dodo's (see [11], [12], [13], and [14]). Since December 2011, this guy has over 100 known socks to his name and has made it clear he intends to continue trolling and harassing the community with his continued socking (even attacking SPI pages themselves). I know I'm not an admin (and forgive me if it's not appropriate for me to be making the suggestion here) but I think it might be time for a ban. May not accomplish much, but if nothing else it will make a statement (and according to the banning policy make it easier to address any future vandalism.) 81M (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit war and revert war on the article on Montenegrins

      There is an edit war and revert war on this article: Montenegrins between the users.

      Parties involves in the edit/revert war:

      I reverted one edit and advised the users to discuss their differences of opinion on Talk:Montenegrins to discuss what the topic of the article should be about, as Montenegrins may refer to people as citizens of Montenegro, or an ethnic group in Montenegro that identifies as Montenegrin. The article is currently about the ethnicity of Montenegrins and the basis of this dispute is whether Montenegrins identified as an ethnicity prior to the 1940s. I asked for users to take part in a discussion and present their evidence. In spite of my request for the users to engage in discussions to resolve the problem, neither user has taken part in such discussions and the edit/revert war has continued. The hostility of the edit/revert war began to become very strong at this point: Navyworth reverting edits here and using combative language [15] [16], 23 editor repeatedly reverted edits by Navyworth with no explanations of why he/she reverted them, [17] [18], [19] - as can be seen, none of these revert edits explain why the edit was made.

      I recommend that both users be given a warning to cease this edit/revert warring immediately, to discuss their differences of opinion on the talk page, to request a Wikipedia:Request for Comment if they cannot find an agreement between each other, explain the reasons of their edits, and to immediately cease using combative language.--R-41 (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Warned both (under WP:ARBMAC), and blocked Navyworth for a day, as I find his conduct even more objectionable than the other guy's. Question now is, is the IP 62.178.104.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who suddenly popped up to continue Navyworth's reverts and made personal attacks in the process the same editor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - As a non-involved editor, wouldn't you agree that your judgement is injudicious? The arbitration case you cited in your judgement was striked out in 2007 and even if it still holds, the ruling states than an initial warning is prerequisite before taking any such sanction. The same warning that you gave to User:23 editor should have also been given to User:Navyworth. I think that would have been fairer because both were involved in edit warring which in itself is a blockable offense. If you are going to block Navyworth, then 23 editor should have also been blocked. Objectionability is also a subjective judgment. I am interested in what Wiki policy states. For the record, I am not affiliated with any of these two (and have never conversed with them), neither I am a contributor to the article in question. My comment are purely based on the spirit of Wiki policy. If am wrong in my analysis, I stand corrected with a direct link to the relevant policy.Tamsier (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Gang rape - unlock

      I wanted to create a new article about gang rape, but I found out that the redirect is locked. Can anyone unlock it? --Clidog (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=500647683"