Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 490: Line 490:
:Actually, I'm fairly sure that 2001:db8:a{{color|red|s}}ef:0:0:fc02:6578:0 would be an account...... [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 00:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:Actually, I'm fairly sure that 2001:db8:a{{color|red|s}}ef:0:0:fc02:6578:0 would be an account...... [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 00:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
::Oops! haha, my bad. Still, the message is the same - no accounts. Actually, an abuse filter would be nice to stop those kinds of things...--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
::Oops! haha, my bad. Still, the message is the same - no accounts. Actually, an abuse filter would be nice to stop those kinds of things...--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I do have an account, but this isn't it.... [[Special:Contributions/2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41|2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41]] ([[User talk:2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41|talk]]) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


==Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement==
==Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement==

Revision as of 13:57, 7 June 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 66 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]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meta Voyager's tendentious editing

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 22 August 2024) It doesn't appear as though consensus is going to emerge for anything in this discussion that's been going for 2 weeks. Can an admin please close this. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 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]
       Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

      (Initiated 95 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 76 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]
      Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 5 August 2024) - Discussion is a month old and appears to have run its course. A consensus may have emerged but not a snow close so needs a kind uninvoled editor please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
      CfD 0 0 10 0 10
      TfD 0 1 12 0 13
      MfD 0 0 3 0 3
      FfD 0 0 3 0 3
      RfD 0 0 67 0 67
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Raymoo

      (Initiated 70 days ago on 28 June 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Template:Empty-warn

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Toad Town

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Template:Latvia-edu-stub

      (Initiated 17 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Category:Non-fiction books about the African-American civil rights movement

      (Initiated 17 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 321 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:PAG#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 167 days ago on 23 March 2024) This discussion died down, unclear what the consensus is. (uninvolved editor) The Banner talk 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

      (Initiated 124 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 101 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]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 99 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 90 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 talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks#Merge Proposal

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 18 July 2024) – I'm requesting that the discusion reguarding the merger being being discussed be closed so that the pages may be merged as the proposed merger is unlikely to controversial.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Multi-RM Bolognese School

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 26 July 2024) – Talk:Bolognese School#Requested move 26 July 2024 is 6 weeks old, and discussion has died down. Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Amakuru. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 11 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb

      BAN LOGGED
      Logged ban. Nobody Ent 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      A topic ban was enacted this month for BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. A similar issue has now come up at Conspiracy theory. Since July 2011 BruceGrubb has been using OR, poor sources, or violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to "rehabilitate" the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory" - in this case, aided and abetted by Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs). BruceGrubb's focus on the Christ myth theory and Josephus on Jesus articles explain his interest in changing the common meaning of the term "conspiracy theory", as does Mystichumwipe's focus on rehabilitating Holocaust denial-related theories (see Mystichumwipe's editing history for many examples of the latter). There has never been a consensus for promoting this view on the article, and many lengthy Talk: page discussions opposing his proposed changes; see, for example:

      Their M.O. appears to be

      1. Attempt to edit-war in the article changes/re-write (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34])
      2. Be reverted in turn by a wide variety of editors (e.g. [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55])
      3. Open up lengthy talk page discussions, wait a few weeks until other editors get frustrated or lose interest, then repeat.

      By my count, Bruce has now reverted this POV into the article (in various forms) at least 26 times. Mystichumwipe was quite active in reverting in the early days, but is now more cautious, simply supporting Bruce's edits on Talk: or in the article, while letting Bruce do all the actual reverts. After the usual hiatus, Bruce began this edit-warring on the article again yesterday, and eventually got blocked for violating 3RR. I'm proposing a topic ban only on BruceGrubb because a) Bruce has been far more aggressive in his editing, and b) without BruceGrubb to edit-war on his behalf, Mystichumwipe will not be likely to edit-war instead. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am responding because I received a message about this thread. I had not looked at the Conspiracy theory page (not my topic really) but the effort Jayjg has put into preparing the diffs is impressive. Bruce's edit pattern fits a longer term trend, as suggested above. My experience has been that I have consistently failed to follow Bruce's logic, as many other people have commented. And when he was topic banned on WP:AN, the idea of "source misrepresentation" was mentioned by multiple editors. As a whole, I think Bruce has taken up much time from many people on multiple pages, and nothing constructive has come out of it. The last time Bruce was on WP:ANI (due to complaints about his WP:RSN edit behavior) he volunteered a piece of information that made me understand a few things. My guess is that, sooner or later, Bruce is likely to be indef-blocked for one reason or another. This is just one step along that path. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) The wording "has now come up" appears to be disingenuous, as I'm aware from WT:V and WP:Inaccuracy that this is a long-running content dispute involving WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The OP tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context.  We'll see if the administrators try to improve the encyclopedia this time, rather than allowing WP:AN to be used to win a content dispute involving a civil editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic banning BruceGrubb from Conspiracy theory and from articles connected with conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support a more general ban on "fringe theories" (given other cases, e.g. the revert cycle here) if suitable characterization can be found because those are where the editor's less productive actions seem to take place. History2007 (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. A more general ban on fringe theories (conspiracy theories and revisionist histories) seems necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we suggest other sanctions to impose other than a topic ban? Personally, I would suggest two things. A strict imposition of 1RR on BruceGrubb for all articles in main space: the edit wars are just too much. And a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL in talk pages and edit summaries. He is well known to use phrases like "DEAL WITH IT!" and "<user> went crying to the noticeboard to win a dispute". If he could express his views without so much emotion attached, I think people would be more likely to take him seriously. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • given [[61]] I think we can take anything Fifelfoo and History2007 say with a grain of salt. Their continual involvement against me in articles they are not even involved in (such as this one) boarders on violations of Wikipedia:Harassment via Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME. I have already pointed out my federal recognized disability (Hyperkinesis aka ADHD] here on this board and my yelling in all caps is demonstrated of frustration at the community letting things get to the level of [[62]] while banning perfectly good administrators like User:Will_Beback/Barnstars for which on the surface appears by comparison to be very minor infractions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Seems to have no understanding of WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and argues interminably, tiring out other users. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This quote is straight from Oxford University Press reference I am using in my version:

          conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event. The derivative conspiracy theorist is first recorded in the 1960s — Example — 1975 New York Times: Conspiracy theorists contend that two of the men have strong resemblances to E. Howard Hunt Jr. and Frank A Sturgis, convicted in the Watergate break-in.

        • Kindly explain given the parts that I have bolded just what I don't understand about WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and while you are at it explain this edit [[64]] where I expressly state in the editor comment "often not sometimes. Let's admit that the majority of the time it is used negatively". Given some of the comments here, I have to ask how many of the editors coming here actually went to the Conspiracy theory article to see what the sam hill was going on?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interjection: Bruce, what does "rubutle" mean? Did you mean "rebuttal"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • This thread is about user edit behavior, not content. Long content based discussions are not really needed here. And of course, the issue of WP:Walls of text had been brought up in previous discussions. History2007 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • History2007, you came here without doing any research and made comments effectively blind.Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory shows that there at least one time a more neutral definition of conspiracy theory existed and conspiracy theory in that context is being looked at again a point continually ignored by the OP in what several of the editors on the talk page have viewed as an effort to POV the article. When a lead that has Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell backing up its statements is being reverted or called WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE I have a right to call the editors making these claims out on the carpet for it.

              Also please stop using WP:WALLOFTEXT as short hand for WP:TLDR; they are not the same thing. As the second essay notes "A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity."--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

              • I am going stop now, given that I just said this thread is about "edit patterns" not "content" and received a response about content. Regarding your statement that "you have to ask what really is going on?"... who knows, may be it is a cons... Let me not even finish that. I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • As pointed out by Unscintillating, the OP had problems with an ipso facto case of inaccuracy. Instead of jumping in blind you should have at least done research to see if you really had an apples to apples or an apples to orange comparison. User:warshy stated "He (Ie me) has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far" a point as stated below Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx, and Rklawton also agree with. Even Nuujinn who challenged my sources on primary, secondary, tertiary grounds stated "Bratich is good, acknowledges both meanings." Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban as a minimum per the above examples of sustained edit warring on this issue. The extraordinary badgering of editors here (which may well be an attempt to generate a WP:CHUNK) and unjustified claims of harassment indicates that there are some more significant behavioral issues though. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just remembered that I (and several other editors) have been involved in a content dispute with Bruce in the World War II article recently. The relevant talk page thread is here, and Bruce started a discussion at WP:RSN which is archived here. His content in relation to this topic (he's arguing that a World War II-era American propaganda movie should be used to reference a view that the war started in 1931, and has kept on doing so despite a near total lack of support for this position - complete with all caps shouting initially) appears similar to that on conspiracy theories. As such, I think that we may need a bigger picture solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to again mention that the RSN for Is Why We Fight series reliable source for views of US 1942-1945? was archived by an involved editor against the idea after in just over three hours effectively short circuiting any meaningful discussion on the topic. As I said after I unarchived it and works by the University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press were produced supporting my contention the work was reliable "If anyone of us editors could close of a thread whenever the mood hit us then RSN would NOT have any meaning and issues of WP:GAME would pop up like ducks in a shooting gallery."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bruce, that discussion continued for two days, then you threw up your hands with "Let the thread be archived by the bot" when you still did not get your way. No matter how many times you keep repeating it, the source is not reliable for establishing the beginning of the war. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • BruceGrubb was topic banned from Christianity topics for a long-term pattern of disrupting discussions with "Ididnthearthat"-style behaviour and pushing of fringe ideas. A few weeks later he was back here at the noticeboards, and there was a consensus that he had been disrupting a discussion about WWII with just the same kind of behaviour. Now he's showing that same behaviour on yet another, unrelated discussion. This does not seem to be topic-specific, but a more deep-seated problem with BruceGrubb's approach to disputes in general. In this sense, we might need to resort to blocks (starting medium-length and then quickly escalating) rather than topic bans. Or a general "parole" kind of personalized discretionary sanction (i.e. any admin can quickly topic-ban him from any new discussion on the first signs of disruption). At this time, I'd be prepared to make a start with a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • evidence outside of Prelude to war as well as evidence regarding reliability for the context within the limited constraints expressly stated (ie US views of 1942-1945) has been ignored. University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press all show the Prelude to War was possibly reliable for the contex I want to use it in but any meaningful discuss of those source was short circuited the continual archiving in what IMHO comes off as WP:GAME. The Sept 18, 1931 date as a possible start for WWII had been noted in other even more reliable sources and yet this NPOV fact is not in the current version.

          "While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang who is referencing Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7. Last time, I checked Peter Lang and Transaction Publishers were not considered fringe publishers. How much we give to that position is a WP:WEIGHT issue not a WP:FRINGE one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support, basically. Mathsci above says it exactly. I'm a bit sceptical about topic-banning as a universal solution to disruptive editors, and Fut.Perf.'s suggestion about a personal "parole" for disruption might be better for the project as a whole. Tom Harrison Talk 10:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As mentioned below User:warshy supports my edits. His exact words on the matter are "Let me point out here that the work and research that BruceGrubb has been doing on this topic is outstanding in my view. I completely agree with all the changes he has made so far, that have considerably improved the article in terms of a neutral point of view, and of the overall quality of the article, making it much more suitable for the removal of 'American specific' tag that is the header of this section. He has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far, and that considerably improve and enhance the overall quality of information available on WP, in my view." (warshytalk 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how I feel about the proposed topic ban. Bruce certainly can come across as if he's trying to have a reasonable debate. But, I have been the most vocal critic of his proposed changes on the conspiracy theory page, and he (with the support of Mystichumwipe, who, IMO, appears to support the changes because he is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and this revised definition makes the term appear less of a pejorative) arbitrarily made the changes under the guise of being bold. Bruce's changes on the page were not entirely unreasonable, but they fail to include some critical changes that I feel are absolutely essential, and, more importantly, he made the changes where there clearly was not a consensus to do so. Regardless of what decision is made here, I do think we need some additional voices on the Conspiracy Theory talk page, because I am making no headway with Mystichumwipe and am quickly running out of patience!JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I have only just been alerted to this discussion, thus my delay in responding.

        Firstly, nearly all participants upon the discussion board of this article have commented upon the valuable and extremely good sourcing by BruceGrubb of material for this topic. Even those who were strongly opposed to the arguments of him, myself and others (viz. myself Mystichumwipe , Mystylplx, Rklawton and warshy) have commented upon the excellence of his research and sourcing. That includes John Shandy and JoelWhy. So I am surprised that Jayjg has accused him of "using OR, poor sources", and I think that this complaint is completely ungrounded in fact. (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell can hardly be called "poor sources"?!!! :-o)

        As regards the accusation of "violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to 'rehabilitate' the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase"...etc, that also I regard as a false claim. One that has been repeatedly answered but sadly to no avail. I think that's a strawman argument, as I've recently explained on the discussion board. In reality the discussion has never been about "rehabilitating" the term but distinguishing between the two definitions and usages, which the article for long has failed to do.

        BruceGrubb has been civil and polite at all times, only recently showing the frustration here quoted and this came ONLY AFTER what I see as the disruptive behaviour of two editors (Tom Harrison and Calton) who without any recent involvement in the recent discussions, ignored a request to bring any issues to the talk board before reverting, and instead went ahead and reverted ALL BruceGrubb's edits which even the main antagonist in discussions has admitted he only had one "small component" of disagreement with.

        Interestingly Jayjg himeslf has shown to be in error about the definition and usage of this term on two occassions, so his personal viewpoint about all this I consider suspect and this requesting of a topic ban against BruceGrubb I feel should therefore be questioned by fair-minded editors regarding its appropriateness. It seems to me that Jayjg really has taken acception to BG's point of view of the source material, NOT his conduct in appplying that.

        Finally I take issue with the wording of Jayg's complaint: "aided and abetted" smacks of some kind of criminal activity ;-/ and seems a deliberate attempt to imply wrongdoing. As are also his groundless speculations regarding my alleged cautiousness in reverting. In actuality I am merely in agreement with BruceGrubb's understanding, as are at least two or three other editors. I would call my involvement in discussions there with him to be attempting to 'form a consensus' or 'generating agreement' NOT "aiding and abetting". This we have tried to do using reason and discussion supported by verifiable sourcing, which I would have thought should be the backbone of Wikipedia editorship. Also the accusations of myself being a conspiracy theorist or a holocaust denier are fallacious ad hominem arguments and I request that they be deleted and a warning be administered to Jayjg and JoelWhy about this.

        Summary: The use of weasel words in this request, coupled with Jayjg's own faulty understanding of the term and the debate about it make this request look to me like some form of intimidation. Researchers of BruceGrubb's calibre should be encouraged and helped if they are thought to be infringing wiki policy, not hounded and censored in this way.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • My comment was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I was stating my perceived opinion about why you support a particular definition.JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually as the Ad hominem article shows it is not quite that simple as the above implies. According to the article Circumstantial, Tu quoque, and Guilt by association all fall under Ad hominem though I don't know how good the connections are. Also you clearly stated "appears to support the changes because he (ie Mystichumwipe) is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" As I tried to show in Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_30#conspiracy_theory_definition there were a lot of "Conspiracy theories" ranging from Al-Qaeda, a group of some home grown nuts in the Timothy McVeigh mold, or the government being responsible for the 9/11 attacks. One of the theories bore fruit and got called something else but at the time it was first proposed it was a conspiracy theory ("A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven."((sic) Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009) Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 Oxford University Press ASIN: B005ZO8KOY pg 3)). So even if it is later proven to be true that does not change in any way shape or form something's original status as a "conspiracy theory" and that in a nutshell is the problem with the conspiracy theory article as it currently stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I have pointed out over and over and over and over and over again on the conspiracy theory talk page, my problem with the changes was not that it stated there is an alternate meaning to the term, but that it implied both meanings were on equal footing. This is one of the reasons you should have waited until there was a consensus -- so we could iron out the proposed changes. It is clear you did not understand the point I was trying to make (which may have been partly my fault for not clearly articulating it, I'm not sure). The solution would have been to continue the discussion and iron out the issues rather than deciding that consensus had been reached, despite the clear protests from other editors. (I understand that unanimity is not needed, but when you have 5 editors participating in a discussion, and 2 are objecting, you continue the discussion.)

              I frankly don't think you're helping yourself here. If your intent is to insist you were right to act as you did, it is clear that you're going to be topic banned and you can then feel comfort in believing you were persecuted. However, there is still time to make an appropriate mea culpa, agree that you will not make changes without consensus, and move on. Thus far, you have been completely defensive (which is understandable under the circumstances, but still not helpful.) I have not voted in favor of the topic ban because I do not think it is constructive and I believe you were acting in good faith. However, good faith only takes you so far -- good faith doesn't resolve a misunderstanding of other users' objections. And, arguing that you were completely in the right makes other editors assume a ban is warranted as you are indicating the exact same behavior will continue. JoelWhy? talk 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oppose. My god, what a can of worms... The professional WP editors warrying here will certainly find my "diffs." I give up. When it comes to WP and all these boards and discussions you just have to be a pro. I am just a little guy, and this technology completely overwhelms me. It is obvious that the subject of this controversy is a very critical and sensitive one for a series of cultural and epistemological "interests." So many, in fact, that I can hardly start to ennumerate them. I am just a critical, skeptical observer on the side, trying to understand how this whole "machine" of knowledge works, and from my isolated, independent point of view, BruceGrubb has done an outstanding job of researching reliable sources and bringing them to bear on the subject. The people trying to ban him here are just trying to silence his powerful argunents against the mainstream and the status quo. It is an uphill battle, and only with a horde of professional editors you can make any progress in these "knowledge" wars. I give up. Good luck to all honest, independent editors lost in this machine, as I am. warshytalk 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I haven't even bothered looking at things properly. However, I trust Jayjg enough to assume there's sometihng there, and the behaviour of the user in this thread has been utterly ridiculous and clearly illustrates how much of a nuisance he must be. Egg Centric 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you "haven't even bothered looking at things properly" then why even comment? WP:CON clearly states that it is built on the quality of the arguments and not a vote. Unscintillating has clearly stated Jayjg "tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context." See for the restore by User:Bagumba ([[65]] with the comment "this is an essay about how to handle claims of inaccuracy, please describe the issue instead of just censoring it)") and then by Unscintillating [[66]] with the comment "the claim of inaccuracy exists ipso facto, please take opinions about the evidence elsewhere)" Again per Wikipedia:CON#Reaching_consensus_through_editing "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Jayjg did not have consensus regarding his edit and two other editors Bagumba and Unscintillating agreed with my edit. It is beginning to be clear a lot of the editors here are either not aware of this part of WP:CON or choose to ignore it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? Because I hope (not expect) if you read my reasoning you will understand how you are coming across... Egg Centric 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Support I'm changing my ambivalent stance to a strong support based on this latest revert, in addition to this latest comment he added in the Talk section. As they say, sometimes, if you give a man enough rope, he flogs himself half to death, ties the rope around his neck, climbs onto a 3-legged chair, leaps off, and shoots himself in the head simultaneously for good measure. (I believe there's a more succinct version of this phrase, but I can't think of it at the moment...) JoelWhy? talk 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban on Fringe topics, broadly construed. Due to ongoing WP:IDHT, tendentious editing and a general inability to accept consensus not in his favor, Bruce seems unable to operate in these areas without entrenching his position. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - based on the statements of others above, and on Bruce's own comments like at User talk:BruceGrubb#Conspiracy theory. Bruce seems incapable of believing that his conduct is unacceptable, and seems at this point to almost instantly go on the counter-offensive, accusing the people who, like Tom Harrison in the section linked to, politely advise him that his conduct has violated the rules here. At this point, given the pattern of behavior in general, and his apparent inability to even acknowledge that his conduct might be problematic, I have no reason to believe Bruce is sufficinetly objective to be able to contribute to this material in accord with WP:POV, and he seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge that problem. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - per this talk page edit and his bizarre misinterpretation of "consensus by editing". To me that seems to call for even stricter measures because it's not limited to a single topic but shows a general misconception of how Wikipedia operates. He is unable or unwilling to accept that his preferred version does not have consensus, to put it mildly, and he is edit-warring to still have it his way. While he may actually have a point regarding content, his behavior is simply unacceptable. Basically, what JoelWhy said about rope. Huon (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral - This could go either direction and not be a bad decision, really. A topic ban was something I felt would be a bit harsh at this point on top of the last topic ban, and suggest that other possible options are there if the community wishes to take that direction, but the original diffs shown by Jayjig are strong enough to cause serious doubts to the editors ability to just drop things and move on or at least cool off. Perhaps the encourage ment they need is a ban. I support whatever admin decides.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Blocked

      Since BruceGrubb has continued revert-warring on conspiracy theory even while this discussion was ongoing [67], [68] – and less than a day after coming back from another block for the same issue –, and also because his behaviour in the discussion above has again crossed the line into the bizarre, displaying all the conduct problems people have noted as problematic on previous occasions, I have blocked him, for an initial period of a week. I hope this discussion can in the meantime help to clarify whether more topic bans or more blocks will be the best means of dealing with him in the longer run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Indef block - but not a ban - if given a topic ban, I would expect he is going to keep on with the cycle of latch on to {{insert crazy subject here}}, make david icke type edits, get a new topic ban... However I do feel he's editing in good faith. Weighing these two things together I believe he ought to be indefinitely blocked from editing, but permitted to suggest edits using his talk page and generally try to talk folk around into unblocking him. No reason to think he can't reform, seems smart enough. Egg Centric 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Intelligence isn't enough to be a successful Wikipedian. You must also have social competence, e.g., an ability to understand other people's state of mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I could understand a ban from editing articles, but not talk pages, noticeboards, and the like. I might even support it. But WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE might still be problems there. Limiting him to his user talk page would be in effect giving him his own soapbox, which I would find unacceptable. Discretionary sanctions might be reasonable, but that is really only in the scope of ARBCOM. I honestly don't know what would be best, other than, maybe, discretionary sanctions, including potentially being blocked from topics or articles for a set length of time. But like I said, honestly, discretionary sanctions seems to me to be the only option that I would think might really work. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The community can and does establish discretionary sanctions regarding topic areas, consider the community general discretionary sanctions regarding caste, sub-groups and politics in subcontinental articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I said that based on the response I received from ArbCom regarding such matters. More or less, they indicated that one's admin's discretion might be found indiscreet by another admin and overturned. I certainly believe that might be possible here, and I am not looking forward to seeing it. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think WhatamIdoing said it gently, and correctly in the context of WP:CIR - which is only an essay of course, but can yet be used as a shorthand in these cases. The hand writing is on the wall that this is going to lead to an indef-block sooner or later. The path to that seems non-deterministic, as recent events have shown, but it is heading in that direction. The path may not be clear, but the destination seems likely. History2007 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I agree that Bruce is on a very clear path to an indefinite duration block. I'm not sure if this is warranted yet, but it probably would be if he returns to the same conduct after the current block expires. I think that Egg Centric is probably right about what Bruce is likely to do; I just hope that he doesn't do this. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that his behavior makes me think he's quickly heading towards a full ban. He's not making the types of edits which clearly warrant such a ban, yet, but it appears he thinks he's merely a victim in all this, meaning his behavior is not likely to change. Still, I'd love to be proven wrong as he has the potential to be a valuable contributor. JoelWhy? talk 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why this negative speculation? Is that fair? Or helpful? Just leave the word 'yet' out of your sentence and what is left is the reality of the current situation. As regards the question of victimhood, I myself think he has been treated unfairly. E.g. the comment of support for the blocking by Eggcentric with an admitted complete ignorance of the case. Do you Joel, think that 'support' for blocking was fair? Do you not agree that if Tom Harrison and Calton hadn't reverted ALL his work without first discussing it as requested, this situation would not have occured. That behaviour was the catalyst, wasn't it. I find it ironic that such disruptive behaviour by those two uninvolved editors is not even being acknowledged or mentioned. Then the framing of the complaint against him by Jayjg in this block request? Do you think they were fairly framed? Do you think the language (e.g "aided and abetted by...") wasn't loaded language? That these aspects have not been acknowledged or taken into account I think is not a sign of fair treatment and I feel quite naturally lend support to a quite justified feeling of being victimised. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Was my support for blocking fair?! Of course it was! The first thing Bruce did upon returning from his block is to post on the Talk page that, because his edits had not yet been reverted, this "silence" meant there was now a consensus. It was absolutely outrageous. The gall of him to complain that others were "wikilawyering" to then point to a policy that clearly was not intended to mean you also ignore the discussion on the talk page protesting said changes. And then to engage in yet another edit war, with editors who rightfully reverted his edits where there clearly was not a consensus; he is not a victim here. He did this to himself. JoelWhy? talk 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose it could be argued that it might be, remotely, possible for Bruce to straighten up. Someone might think that, possibly, some form of mentorship might work for him. I suppose that such might be possible, but I myself have serious doubts whether Bruce would necessary listen to a mentor. I do however suppose that the possibility is worth suggesting. I want to make it clear, however, that in no way would I even consider taking on such a role with him in any way. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      When one of the major problems is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, what good is mentoring? Bruce's user talk page now has a "retired" banner on it (User talk:BruceGrubb) so this discussion may be moot; on the other hand, users unretire all the time. My read of the situation is that if he returns, Bruce will earn himself a full site ban in short order; a topic ban, mentorship, or parole might save him from this fate, but does anyone want to take on the task of policing his edits? I certainly don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In any case, the original Jayjg request is still pending, hence I will request a decision on that, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I seriously suggest a mentor as John Carter has suggested. It may not work, or it may be the best thing for him. At least make the suggestion. Mentors do not always work out in this type of situation but it could be tried.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bruce does still have e-mail enabled, so it would be possible to contact him with the proposal. I just wonder whether we should do it now, or perhaps wait for someone to suggest themselves as a possible mentor for him. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for admin decision on the original Jayjg proposal

      Given that threads do get archived, and that there have been no major new revelations for about a day now, I think Jayjg's original request (a conspiracy topic ban) deserves a decision. The discussion on that has produced a number of votes and views (11 to 2) and a decision may be appropriate in any case. And that may reduce further friction if Bruce unretires. Hence I would suggest a decision on that, given the number of comments, etc. so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that, if Bruce is to return, it would probably be best for both him and the rest of us if this question were decided before that. It would probably be instrumental in his own decision, and I think others might be perhaps influenced by discussion about his possible continued retirement if we were to wait. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Logged ban per iar since no one else appears to be doing anything with it. Nobody Ent 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      IPv6 surprise!

      Further information: World IPv6 Launch, m:IPv6 initiative, and User:Jasper Deng/IPv6

      Get ready for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • That's funny; this fix hasn't been implemented over there. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's because *.wmflabs.org sites don't run on the cluster, where Tim's hook function was added. I doubt it's really a big deal. ^demon[omg plz] 03:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, definitely not big, but I'm now tempted to place the "this user deleted the Main Page" userbox on my userpage :-) I thought it meant that any WMF-related wikis would have this function. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Folks, we've been eyeing and anticipating this for a couple of years, now. This is not something isolated like Pending Changes; IPv6 is global (i.e. throughout all of teh Internets) and was imminently going to be deployed here. We can't hide ourselves from its deployment in the eyes of many onlookers. Whatever bugs that come up in the MediaWiki software as a result should be dealt with quickly and accordingly, as they normally are.

        With IPv6 eventually becoming a reality, we have to again see what works for us and what doesn't. IPv6 addresses are allocated differently from IPv4, and IPv6 ranges will be harder to see (without the appropriate software tools, many of which are out there and easy to access) than IPv4 ranges, but that is something that we have to get accustomed to. We cannot afford to continue living in the past, especially with something as critical as this. --MuZemike 07:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • It appears you are making counter points to an argument no one has made (at least here). I don't believe anyone has an issue with IPv6 being used in and of itself (though this is the internet and someone probably will) but rather the "oh hey guys we're turning this on in a few days" thing. It would be nice if someone familiar with the technical side (Jasper?) could make some help pages about how to deal with IPv6 addresses (blocking, rangeblocking, etc.) for admins. Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the vitriol regarding all of the recent software changes as of late, I am anticipating negative responses from them. --MuZemike 07:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm very tempted to make a satirical post on the Village pump demanding the reversion of IPv6 until an RFC is held to demonstrate community consensus... But I probably won't. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I liked the old way better. IPv6 is too confusing. The internet should be reverted until an RfC on Wikipedia determines its future. Equazcion (talk) 12:03, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)
      Can we at least have a gadget to restore the old functionality?? :P Happy‑melon 12:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Anomie: You should write a piece for the Llama. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Jasper Deng's page might be a little inaccessible for the administrator who just wants to know "How do I block these new-fangled long IP address things?". I've therefore started an alternative — designed as a user guide rather than project notes — page at m:User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard/Guide to blocking IP version 6 addresses. It's on Meta because, of course, it's not only you administrators here on this particular project that are going to be affected by this. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      His page contains some things that are not 100% correct, though it's slightly less technical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Did this fizzle out? I have not been able to resolve an IPv6 address for Wikipedia today. If there is no AAAA record for wikipedia-lb.wikimedia.org we are not going to know where to connect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems to be working now. Witness [69] and [70]. the wub "?!" 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Working for me too 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      MediaWiki:Sitenotice:POTY2011 round 1 banner

      I am a member of POTY committee. As we have some trouble to announce with meta:CentralNotice, will you advertize Round 1 banner(below) on the enwp MediaWiki:Sitenotice (for Login users only) till the centralnotice will come out (or 6 June)? Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Round 1 of the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open.
      Click here to learn more about the contest and vote for your favorite image.
      I was bold and added this to the watchlist notice rather than a sitenotice (the latter is more annoying). Killiondude (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is there no [dismiss] link for it? DMacks (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I came here to ask the exact same question. Please remove this notice until it can conform with the de facto standard allow us to dismiss notices once they've been read. ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've reverted it back to the version that uses {{Display/watchlist}} as this should ensure it has a dismiss link. Dpmuk (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The dismiss button worked in the (poorly made) version I posted. Happy Melon made some changes but it appears to be some sort of failure (as far as I can tell) with switch to using fmbox. I reverted to Happy Melon's version just before the fmbox addition and the dismiss button is now available again. Cheers, Killiondude (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ontario101 uploads

      Can an admin have a look at the image uploads of Ontario101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they appear to be images uploaded from the web, all without sourcing, they probably all need deleting. Mtking (edits) 02:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration motion on decision elements

      To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

      Elements of arbitration decisions

      For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

      Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

      Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

      Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

      Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

      Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

      Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      reverse Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners split

      George Ho (talk · contribs) is attempting to split WP:DYK the Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners discussion into 5 different pages. Could an admin please blank and salt Template:Did you know nominations/Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, Template:Did you know nominations/The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Template:Did you know nominations/Water by the Spoonful and Template:Did you know nominations/George F. Kennan: An American Life, which need not be created. It is fairly common policy to debate the propriety of a multiarticle hook in one location and not divide the nomination across multiple discussion pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I honestly don't understand your point. The rule applies here, and Tony's hook was valid under that rule: his request here is reasonable. If you are disagreeing, then I believe you are misinterpreting the intent and application of the rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, I'll rephrase: if subtracting subsequent bolded titles, that would mean subtracting subsequent Pulitzer subjects, leaving one article and one subject counted, am I right? That would be 61 to 95 characters. Nevertheless, the C3 rule isn't that official or absolute yet, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's strict character subtraction: you count all the characters in the hook except for those in the additional bolded article titles. Nothing else is subtracted from the total count. So the Pulitzer subjects would definitely count toward the total in this case. The C3 rule is both official and absolute: it explains how you count the characters in a multi-article hook. What makes you think C3 might be optional? It's a DYK rule, as are all those listed on that page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not quite sure why my input is needed, unless it's because I'm seen as an expert on DYK procedures, a distinction I would not reject but not without pointing out that there are plenty of others who could weigh in.

      If anything I could say makes a difference, it's that the combination hook is rather dull. They won awards ... well, this year's fiction Pulitzer notwithstanding, some work usually does win any annual award. Why are these special? The standalone hooks seem more interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Regardless of whether standalone hooks are prefered, the point is that the discussion on whether to have standalone hooks need not take place on 5 separate pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The individual hooks are far more compelling than any of the combo hooks and while centralizing the discussion is probably ideal, alerting editors who may have only one or several of the individual hook nominations that a discussion is ongoing is more important than convenience for a few editors. (This sort of drama and wikilawyering is a fair chunk of the reason I walked away from DYK in the first place.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Add Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to your watchlists

      Would you agree with me that the front page of this website is rather an important place not to host mistakes and to have content that is as accurate and professional as possible? Then I ask that ever admin within eyeshot of this post add Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to his or her watchlist. I am posting this because tonight is the fifth time I've noticed a mistake or poor content on Wikipedia's homepage and posted there. All my prior requests were acted upon. Tonight no one responded at all (the featured article blurb has changed so it is no longer relevant). Each prior time it took hours for my post to be acted upon. So I think it is clear more administrators need to have this page watchlisted.—108.46.98.134 (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Evidence requested on past episodes of outing of Wikipedians on off-wiki forums

      I'm doing some research on the prevalence of outing of Wikipedians on off-wiki forums, particularly Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. I'm seeking to identify occasions when Wikipedians have been outed on such forums, specifically with regard to the posting of legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information (per WP:OUTING's definition). I don't need to know the specific details but I would like to determine how often this has happened in the past. If you have any information, please contact me (email is enabled). Prioryman (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Have you fulfilled the requirements at meta:Research:Subject_recruitment? Nobody Ent 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not research into Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors, so that's not relevant. There's no requirements to fulfil if you want to do some research into off-wiki sites. Prioryman (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If you are doing research which involves contacting Wikimedia project editors or users then you must first notify the Wikimedia Research Committee by describing your project. By posting here, you just contacted Wikipedia editors. Nobody Ent 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You may notice that the name of the page is "Subject recruitment". Taking the phrase out of context hides the fact that it's talking about contacting individual editors only. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Were you planning on simply posting the number of times only or providing information on when and where the incidents occurred (even if they are hidden)? Anything like the latter would be quite an awful thing to post anywhere, potentially making a central repository from which to seek access to the very outed personal information that should not have been revealed in the first place. No matter your intent, I can't help but see this as fraught with potential for bad juju.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply the number of times only. There have been a few incidents of which I'm personally aware of Wikipedians being outed on WR and Wikipediocracy. What I'm trying to establish is whether this is an exceptional occurrence, or something that happens on a reasonably frequent basis. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be difficult to quantify to an informative number. You'd have to look at the details of each case and what role, if any, the forum played. There's a few instances I can think of where the "outing" has been the work of one person pretty much operating on their own, but of course they've then posted the information to the site as part of their criticism of Wikipedia or the person they've outed. But that sort of situation doesn't seem to me to be something which can be avoided except by trying for a sort of code of silence. On the whole, no other sites put much stock in this particular Wikipedia norm, in the way e.g. there's a widespread practice in the mainstream news media not to politicize the children of political figures. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Following up on Fuhghettaboutit's comment, what is the purpose of finding out this "number"? More simply, what's the point?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Does e-mail to other Wikipedians count as an "off-wiki forum", e.g., "Send me an e-mail message if you want to know that editor's identity"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be a reasonably straightforward exercise to count the number of instances in the various forum archives of posts of identity information about -- or allegedly about -- a Wikipedia user. That shouldn't require anybody's permission. Determining whether the posted information was accurate, and identifying instances where identity information was posted but subsequently redacted, is an entirely different matter. That gets into privacy -- and could mean, in effect, re-outing the user. --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's a good idea to seek more evidence about the outings. I mean, whoever found his WP alias suddenly - for lack of better terminology - got his or her cover blown despite a wish to remain private already suffered enough with that. Especially for those editors who have butted heads with someone who is later determined to get back at him/her off-wiki. I myself have gone to great lengths to ensure my identity remains sealed, such as asking not to log in the attendance sheet at our local WikiCon two weekends ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


      What is the actual intent of this project? I suggest that it is not the proper province of Wikipedia to engage in any investigations of anyone's identity, even if the goal is to assert evilness of external websites. In fact, seeking to assert that external websites are in any way violating Wikipedia policies seems a teensy bit irrelevant to the stated goals of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that it certainly isn't "the proper province of Wikipedia to engage in any investigations of anyone's identity". However, as I think we all know, certain off-wiki forums have been used for this purpose. The aim of my enquiry is to try to get a handle on how frequently this has happened, not to establish "evilness" but simply to determine whether it's been a common occurrence or a rarity. And I might add that Wikipedia policy does take into account what happens off-wiki (cf. WP:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment), so it's certainly a relevant issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In my view, you still haven't answered the question. Let's assume your research comes up with accurate numbers. What use will those numbers be to anyone? The section you cite says what can be done in individual cases. I don't see how knowing the extent that this happens will help other than to satisfy your curiosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My curiosity too, I'm afraid. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And no doubt others' curiosity as well, which is fine, just as long as Prioryman realizes that it won't serve any greater purpose. I don't see anything wrong with Prioryman doing this other than all the warnings that he shouldn't go any deeper than just collecting numbers and perhaps the fear that he might. The old Pandora's box.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Bbb23 here. I do not see any real indication regarding how the information gathered would ever be of any real use to anyone. Granted, many people have said the same thing about wikipedia itself, but generally sarcastically. If there were any way to make it useful, either by changing policy or guidelines or whatever, I would probably be more supportive, but, at pesent, I can't see any way to use the information. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What it would likely be used for is an attempted revival of WP:BADSITES. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope. That's dead, at least for the moment, but it's not my concern. Prioryman (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does anyone know how many people have been outed on Wikipedia? More generally, should we count COI cases, like Bell Pottinger employees? Sockpuppets of banned users? How about editors with a pedophilia conviction that attracted media coverage participating in Wikimedia projects, and found to be soliciting nude images from other Wikimedia users (User:B*** M)? How about fugitive murder suspects who have contributed to Wikipedia (User:Imastarok)? In how many cases was the outing information repeated and left to stand in Wikimedia projects? How about cases where the offsite information was redacted? Without an actual investigation of each case in question, counting white marks on a blackboard won't tell us very much. --JN466 13:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)

      The following was resolved by motion:

      1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

      2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

      3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Name Change

      Not a big thing. I am simply retiring my current account and starting a new one, simply because I hate my current username. Just didn't want any administrators thinking I was socking, so i'm announcing it here. My new name will be User: Ice Penguin. One pier (Logbook) 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ice Penguin was taken, so my name is User: Penguin 236. Sounds a lot friendlier than my last name. Penguin 236 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's cool, you may want to link your accounts on your new userpage; if it concerns you. Just make a note that says you used to have a different account. Many users do this, and it isn't a big deal to change usernames. You can also keep all of your old contributions if you rename the account. That can be done by filing a request at WP:CHU; which may be preferable to abandoning an old account as all of your contributions remain with you in your history. --Jayron32 18:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks. i'll see what I can do to link the accounts. Penguin 236 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Possible mentorship of User:BruceGrubb

      As per the section still currently included on this board WP:AN#Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb, he has now been banned both from the broad subject of Christianity and from the Conspiracy theory article. As per that section, serious concerns about his future conduct caused the question of possible mentorship to be raised. The editor in question has, apparently, retired from wikipedia, presumably based at least in part on the comments made here by others, including myself. It may be irrelevant at this point to raise the question of mentorship, given Bruce's apparent retirement from wikipedia, as per User talk:BruceGrubb, but I am not sure myself of the protocals to be followed in such matters, or if there is, at this point, any real purpose to be served about the possible mentorship of someone who has apparently retired from editing. It may be possible, however, that if Bruce were mentored, the problematic behavior which led to the two bans might be eliminated. Any input would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Bruce appears to be blocked for edit warring this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Response to wikihounding

      Nothing good will come of this being kept open longer. Banned harassment socks should get their edits removed, and other editors are asked not to bicker over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      On this page, in a recent arbcom review, in multiple SPI reports and more recently on WP:ANI, there have been discussions of the editing of Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is a serial sockpuppeteer who has been wikihounding me through a long series of sockpuppets and ipsocks since 2009. He appears to have created large reserves of sleeping sockpuppets. Apart from stalking me on specialist subjects where I have some expertise, he has made trolling comments in numerous arbcom pages, project pages and on administrators' or arbitartors' talk pages. Reccently in the last two days he has used four sockpuppets, all of which have been identified by checkuser and blocked indefinitely. Nyttend seems to have been persuaded by some of the trolling edits of Echigo mole, enabling him to some extent. Currently he is objecting to me removing trolling edits of this banned user from his talk page. Why would he object to that and why is that not covered by WP:DENY? That doesn't seem quite right to me. Nyttend seems, undoubtedly through no fault of his own, to have got things mixed up and the wrong way round. He does't seem to be able to tell the difference between a banned troll and an established editor in good standing. I have tried to discuss things with him, but, as it seems to me, he has consistently taken the side of Echigo mole. He does not seem to have taken into account my long term content contributions, which have been unproblematic and occasionally praised. There is something not quite right going on here, so I would rather nip it in the bud. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wow, I'm constantly taking his side? I came in as an uninvolved administrator, found a decent-quality article (about a street in an old part of a French city) that the sock had written and Mathsci had redirected, and unredirected it because it demonstrated notability through a range of sources. Mathsci objected to my action, protesting that the historical sources on the article were unreliable because of their age (even after I pointed out the fact that 19th-century sources are not made unreliable by time and that they're used on multiple featured articles), and became obstreperous to the point that I simply dropped the issue, hoping that the matter would be dropped. Logging on after church, I found that another sock had posted to my userpage and Mathsci had reverted it — because I'd rather not have others chop text from my talk page, I restored it, and my refusal to permit modification or removal of the text has landed me here and resulted in a threat of arbitration and checkuser. No complaints about Mathsci trying to fight illegitimate sockpuppets (see here and the bottom here to see how I respond to illegitimate sockpuppets), especially when they're trying to out you. However, when they're contributing good content and you remove said content because you live on said French street, you've got a COI — the article said nothing about Mathsci, so WP:OUTING was no justification for removal — and there were repeated erroneous claims that old sources aren't valid. All this was a content dispute, so I wasn't going to go anywhere, but the repeated unwillingness to heed the WP:RS standards led me to believe that this was not a good-faith situation of getting rid of a nonnotable article. Now today I'm informed that failure to heed WP:DENY is grounds for being brought here — funny, since that's only an essay. Damnatio memoriae in real life just doesn't work (let alone online), and I'm not inclined to obey an essay with which I disagree — especially in my own userspace, and especially after I've told the informer to leave my talk page alone and nevertheless find myself repeatedly harassed at said page. Find me a policy absolutely requiring the removal of good content or talk page messages produced by banned users, and I'll obey it, but until then I will strongly disagree with redirecting it away and will not permit its removal from my userspace. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Here: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

      Nobody Ent 01:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Revert != deletion of articles which are properly sourced and have been substantially edited by others. What is clear, moreover, is that Mathsci by saying "He does't seem to be able to tell the difference between a banned troll and an established editor in good standing" is evincing battleground mentality, about which, I understand, Mathsci has been chastised previously. Drop the idea that Wikipedia is a battleground, that everyone who does not agree with you is somehow against yu, and Wikipedia will run far more smoothly. And have a cup of tea - attacking Nyttend does not help anyone at all AFAICT. IMO. Collect (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The same comment was made by MastCell concerning an arbitrator and another blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, so I do not quite understand Collect's point. I have rarely been wrong about sockpuppets and should any of the accounts that created the hoax articles connected with rue Cardinale edit again, there will be a CU request. What seals it for me is that the probability of an accidental coincidence between a hoax article on Gustave de Zarbouble and a previous sock Zarboublian is zero. Echigo mole knows my real life name which he's written on wikipedia; he has said as much when trolling on arbcom pages and has undoubtedly worked out my address. I am not aware of any conflict of interest when writing articles on Aix-en-Provence or Marseille and I am surprised that Nyttend makes such a claim. My editing of articles on France has never been criticized. A long time back (2007) Elonka indicated that using web pages provided by tourist offices in Aix or Marseille for adding content on historical matters was not a good idea and I tend to agree. It can give a useful hint as to what information to search for in WP:RS. As far as the issue that living in a place creates a COI when writing about that place, the same criticism, in the unlikely event that it were valid, would apply to Roger Davies. Anyway later today I will supplement my collection of books on the history of Aix in preparation for expanding quartier Mazarin with reliable secondary sources, very few of which are available on the web. Mathsci (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Long response: You used intemperate language about Nyttend which was unneeded. The comments about the sock do not mean you should ascribe any wrong-doing to Nyttend here at all. Have a large cup of tea. Collect (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not use intemperate language. Even here Nyttend made a suggestion about COI, which is completely untenable and, if true, would apply even more so to Roger Davies. The phrase that you objected to was used in very similar circumstances by MastCell of an arbitrator:[71] "an inability to distinguish serious, good-faith concerns from obvious disruption and trolling". MastCell's comments might also apply to your edits here: it's a bit borderline. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Note:
      Nyttend seems to have been persuaded by some of the trolling edits of Echigo mole, enabling him to some extent. Currently he is objecting to me removing trolling edits of this banned user from his talk page. Why would he object to that and why is that not covered by WP:DENY? That doesn't seem quite right to me. Nyttend seems, undoubtedly through no fault of his own, to have got things mixed up and the wrong way round. He does't seem to be able to tell the difference between a banned troll and an established editor in good standing. I have tried to discuss things with him, but, as it seems to me, he has consistently taken the side of Echigo mole. He does not seem to have taken into account my long term content contributions, which have been unproblematic and occasionally praised. There is something not quite right going on here, so I would rather nip it in the bud.
      Including the last part There is something not quite right here after the earlier comments appears, to this casual observer, to be less than fully temperate, and to imply a deliberate malfeasance on Nyttend's part. If you have evidence that Nyttend is deliberately violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I commend you to file an RFC/U on him (or her). Clearly you have learnt from your previous problems for attacks on others and battleground behaviour, but I regard the statement to be clearly an "attack" on Nyttend. And drama/battleground inducing rhetoric. Collect (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You just restored a trolling edit by the ipsock 94.197.236.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) even after they had been blocked by an administrator as an Echigo mole sock following an SPI report.[72] Wow, what a great wikipedian you are! On the other hand, since 2009, Echigo mole has not only been a stalker but has consistently lied on wikipedia and made promises off-wiki to arbitrators that he has broken. Now you are apparently not only sending out encouraging signs to him on your talk page, but also continuing to make trolling edits here. Wyy reproduce an edit that can be read further up in this page? Today, by way of contrast, I purchased two definitive works on the quartier Mazarin and will obtain a complimentary copy of the history of the Church of Saint-Jean-de-Malte, Aix-en-Provence by Jean-Marie Roux the day after tomorrow. None of these are viewable on the web and I would imagine they are hard to purchase outside France. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow! You insert an irrelevant aside and attack on me here for no reason at all? In case you forget, each editor may delete or restore material on their own user talk page. Which I did. I regarded Hipocrite's "policing" of everyone's talk page to be quite unsettling, and I was not the only person who so noted this. [73], So your gratuitous aside makes me more sue than ever that your battleground mentality on Wikipedia continues unabated. Cheers - but your post was about the least useful thing you could possibly have done here. Collect (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC) FWIW, my :encouraging sign" which Mathsci asserts I gave was I note that you may be acting for a banned user, and assign your position the weight it merits only. Does that sound like I am encouraging that person? Cheers - but I suggest that such is the path of "finding enemies behind every log" - what happens is the random guy you point at may see your accusations for what they are. Collect (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My understanding is that "battleground conduct" referred to my perseverance ("grim determination" in the words of Roger Davies) in pursuing those operating proxy-editors. In the end it worked and arbcom bit the bullet. Collect on the other hand is just making assinine trolling edits here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My understanding is that accusing a good faith editor of "asinine trolling" is precisely what indicates battleground behaviour. Cheers - each of your posts appears to have a cumulative ffect. Collect (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote that about your "edits". I do not believe that you were editing in good faith when you made this comment at WP:AE a week ago.[74] There was a further request today (see below). I wonder now whether you could please change your tone and drop your continual attempts to misinterpret and distort the arbcom findings. They are clear enough about the accuracy of detecting sockpuppets of Echigo mole/Mikemikev/Tholzel, so please just drop it and move on. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Amazing! An edit that sought to defuse dramah is not in good faith? Pray tell -- since it did not assign blame to anyone, what the hell do you think I was trying to do? Attack you by not attacking you? And you think that I was trying to "misinterpret" arbcom findings? In what way? I think it is well past time for you to get a 2 litre super big cup of tea <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      TrevlyanL85A2 was blocked for one month for violating his topic ban for edits below. Your comments have been unhelpful and entirely missed the point. If you were editing in good faith, you would have tried to report the socks yourself.[75] On the other hand, kind administrators and at least one checkuser, such as Future Perfect at Sunrise, MastCell and Alison, have been working hard, sometimes behind the scenes, to root out and block the numerous trolling socks that are currently being created by Echigo mole. Alison even revdelled deleted edits on this page because they went beyond the limit.[76] And yet here you are going on and on, barking up the wrong tree. Please could you stop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just want tom make a general comment about the reverting banned users' edits thing. Yes, policy says things should be reverted in a general sense (something I don't really like, but whatever), but it has also commonly been upheld that any editor in good standing can restore said edits and articles, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for the content. So, if it turns out to be a copyvio or a hoax or something, then it is that editor's fault in terms of their judgement. That's usually how we deal with it at least. So Nyttend is completely allowed to restore a redirected article made by a banned user so long as he is willing to take responsibility for it and the article should not be redirected again by anyone else without consensus or it is the person redirecting it that is edit warring. SilverserenC 06:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good stuff in general, but we need to look at the unusual situation in the case reported (I don't mean the particular incident, I am mean the long term harassment). The community should support good editors, and it is not acceptable that a long term disruptive sock can track down an editor's identity, then create a permanent irritation with an article on the street where the editor lives (a long street in France, with various hotels and a couple of places where several people-without-articles were born). I do not know if the sock is harassing Mathsci because it is fun, or because of the race and intelligence arbitration case (where several very persistent civil POV pushers were banned). Either way, it is not helpful for the encyclopedia or the community to take this opportunity to debate the merits of whether a banned user's edits should stay reverted. Here is yet another sock who has just arrived to harass Mathsci with ever-so-helpful links to complex pages in the hope that some mud may stick. Applying WP:DENY is the best procedure: just revert and block the sock. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're saying that we can never have an article on this street because at one point in time it was connected to one of our editors? SilverserenC 07:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, of course I don't believe that. There are a lot of streets in France, let alone the world, and there is no urgent reason to have an article on that particular street now. For one thing, its content really is of zero encylopedic significance (my summary above gave the essence: the street goes from here to there; it contains a few hotels and some other not-very important buildings; some non-notable people were born there—a lot of streets fit that description). When an editor in good standing believes that it would benefit the encyclopedia, they may care to see if some decent material of encyclopedic significance is available and try again. However, given that there are lots of other worthwhile things we could all do, working on a dubious article created for the purpose of harassing a good editor just does not seem helpful to me. If anyone wants a challenge, I suggest they put it near the bottom of their list of things to do, and resurrect the issue in a couple of months when the current fuss will have died down, and when such an article would not be merely a monument to encourage further novel harassment techniques by the banned user. Johnuniq (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article on quartier Mazarin is the article to write given the recent scholarly and detailed 2011 text of some 300 pages, amongst other sources, and a detailed street by street account from 1964 which has become a classic. The start of the original English stub was just a word-for-word translation of the improperly sourced and inaccurate two sentence lede (all the content) in the French stub. (There is one fountain in the quartier Mazarin.) The history takes several chapters in the book of Castaldo and, written as it is in academic French using documents only recently analysed from Aix archives, will not be particularly easy to write. On the other hand writing this kind of article without any of the sources at hand has no justification whatsoever. I adhere without apology with the standard and only method of writing articles on wikipedia: first locate the best available sources and then write the article. That's easy to do in Aix. There are lot's of details that can be added later after the body of the article has been written. For example countless films are shot in this quartier, but I doubt it's worth mentioning many of them. Except perhaps for Beyond the Clouds (1995 film) of Antonioni and Wenders filmed in the church and in number 23. Mathsci (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It sounds like Mathsci should just commit to no longer editing people's talk pages after they ask him to stop. I too have had a problem with him continuing to edit my user talk to remove sock posts after I asked him to stay away from my user space. I hadn't realized it was such a common problem but I see now it needs to be resolved.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      SightWatcher was already given a very explicit warning by an arbitrator that commenting unduly on parties involved in the recent review could result in a site ban. [77] The well-documented record of TrevelyanL85A2 for covert proxy-editing resulted in his current indefinite extended topic ban. Probably even now he is breaking the terms of that ban by commenting here when his name has not been mentioned. Presumably the same warning and possible serious consequences mentioned by that arbitrator apply equally to him if he chooses to continue commenting in this way. The assumption will be that, as before, he is proxy-editing on behalf of the site-banned users Ferahgo-the-Assassin and Captain Occam and continuing the disruptive conduct that led to their site-bans. TrevelyanL85A2 has made no constructive edits to wikipedia of any kind for over five months. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrevelyanL85A2 filed. Nobody Ent 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Close merge discussion

      Resolved

      Could you please close Talk:Ashton_Kutcher#Merge_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would do rather than here. --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      O.K. I opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Merger_discussion_closure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia biography - Adele Astaire

      I am quite sure I have not found the correct place to inform your editors of an error in this lady's biography, but perhaps you might forward this information to the right spot: My comment simply is this - your article states that Adele Astaire died in Tucson, Arizona - actually she died in January of 1981 in what was then called Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, Scottsdale, Arizona (since name changed to Scottsdale Healthcare). I am an R.N. who was assigned to take care of this lady on the night that she died - this was over 30 years ago. I wondered why her brother was not with her as she lay on her death bed - in fact not a soul was in her room except for me - she was in no way suffering but lay quietly sleeping in her hospital bed. She did have an I.V. I was working the evening shift - 3:00 to 11:30 p.m. - and I realized it was a shame for her to breathe her last while all alone, so I stayed in her room after my shift ended for several hours until she died and a doctor in the building came up to her room and actually pronounced her dead. The only other thing I remember is that she looked so well cared for and did not look her age - her hair was curled and her face was very smooth and unlined - another nurse said she must have had frequent facials to have such beautiful skin. What I am saying could be verified at the hospital by asking someone in the record room to look through their microfiche back to the day she died - towards the end of January in 1981.

      Diane Mehok Scottsdale, Az. 85251 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.45.158 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you, indeed this information can be verified. I've posted 2 references on Talk:Adele Astaire#Scottsdale that directly mention Scottsdale and Scottsdale Hospital. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Sleepy thread needs to be put to bed

      Will some helpful fellow please archive-top (rather than collapse) the thread entitled "Oversight needed, erase personal information" at ANI? (link/snapshot) Pretty please, with a newcomer on top? I've suggested some language with which to do so, at the end-of-thread. No newcomers will be injured by an archive-top close, btw; that was just a joke. It should be uncontroversial. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Taken care of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Re:AWB Backlog

      Hey Guys, if any of you wouldn't mind taking a breath from editing and pop on over to the AutoWiki Browser Checkpage Requests, I would be really grateful. Thanks, and Cheers! The Illusive Man(Contact) 15:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I occasionally wonder if I'm the only one who goes there... I'm on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration motion on standardized enforcement

      To provide for standardized enforcement of editing restrictions imposed by the Committee, and to reduce the amount of boilerplate text in decisions, the following procedure is adopted, and shall apply to all cases closed after its adoption:

      Standard enforcement provision

      The following standard enforcement provision shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee:

      "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page."

      For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      May as well mention this here since it was prompted by a discussion over on the Incidents board not long ago. The bot policy page has a suggestion that a wikilink or similar be added from one part of the page to a bit further down. Cheers, --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Strong tensions and dispute at Nazism article talk page, need advice on how to proceed

      Discussions at this section [78] on the talk page of the Nazism article have been very tense and very strong and potentially POV claims are being made. There are claims there that is associating Christians and Lutherans in particular, almost as a whole of supporting Nazism. I believe that this is stereotyping all Christians in Germany as Nazis. I have asked for a compromise that would recognize both that there were Christians who were Nazis and that there were Christians who were not Nazis. This has been rejected.

      Advice is needed on how to proceed. The dispute was highly tense and aggravated from the start and I think that administrative intervention may be necessary. I am concerned that this article is going to display an anti-Christian POV with some of the things that have been said in the discussion. I am not a Christian, but an atheist, but I think that this article's material on religious support for the Nazis requires serious and careful review by multiple users, perhaps through a Request for Comment (RfC). I am confused on how to set up an RfC, I would appreciate it if someone here could assist in setting up an RfC for that discussion.--R-41 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I must correct the above misrepresentation by R-41. The Church and State section did in fact contain the balance which he maintains it lacked. I suggest that whoever investigates this should first - (a) check the Church and State section as it existed on 17 April 2012; (b) read the archived talkpage which led to (c) a set of changes made by 28 April 2012. Then (d) check the page as it now exists following R-41's edits made on 30 May. Then (e) follow the current dispute on the talkpage. Also, nothing has been rejected because R-41 has not made any positive contribution to replace the material he has removed. I do not envy anyone taking this on. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My concern about POV by Kim Traynor is that he/she has claimed that there was a "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime" and this "I have said that Christianity may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime".--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have now restored all the material that you opposed me for removing. We still need discussion on the content, and I believe administrative intervention is needed to assist in resolving the issue.--R-41 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This seems to be a content dispute with no apparent need for administrator intervention. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And I have made it clear in the discussion that the above phrase being quoted was a sloppy version of the original contention that the mainstream Christian churches may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime. I have given reasons for that which are quite well known in the literature on the subject. This is not an attempt to slander Christians. It addresses an issue which has caused Christians much soul-searching since the war. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I gotta back Saddhiyama here, this is not something that requires an Admin bit to fix. Try an WP:RFC and, if that fails to settle matters, follow WP:DRV. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      R-41 asks here for advice on "how to proceed". As Saddhiyama says, this is a content dispute. And discussion is still proceeding on the article talk page, as is appropriate, where it would be helpful if the OP desisted from (1) misrepresenting the posts of contributors with whom he disagrees (e.g., but not limited to, "Kim Traynor, I think that you have a strong POV here that is aimed at presenting Christians in Germany as causing Nazism", a misrepresentation so blatant as to be laughable) and (2) tossing accusations around (e.g. "insulting", "condescending", "hostile", "combative") when his own contributions trigger understandable yet surprisingly mild expressions of frustration in his colleagues' responses. No need for further discussion or action here.Writegeist (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Review block of SunLover77

      Sorry to bring up a stale issue, but I've spent some time trying to work with the blocking admin(s). Unfortunately we have not been able to reach a satisfactory result, so I am bringing it here for wider review.

      Here is a summary of events:

      Looking specifically at the block of SunLover77: Evidence on the third-party website suggests that Bamanh27 and SunLover77 may have been operated by the same user, but they were not operated at the same time (ten month gap) and Bamanh27 was not blocked (at the time of the SunLover77 block), and had not been given any single-account restriction. It has been suggested that all of these accounts are socks of some unknown main account, created in order to avoid scrutiny. That might be true, but I am still concerned that as soon as paid editing is involved, we lower the threshold for evidence, stop assuming good faith, don't discuss issues with the editor, and issue indefinite blocks for content/behavioural issues that other editors get away with daily. Paid editing of Wikipedia is not (currently) forbidden, but this sort of thing gives the impression that we're blocking editors merely for being paid editors.

      I don't mean to excuse any sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, block-evasion, COI-editing, or creation-of-articles-on-subjects-of-marginal-notability that has actually taken place, but without the context of paid editing this would be considered a pretty BITEy response. Would we be better off if paid editors were encouraged to operate openly, and in full compliance with our policies, rather than driven away or driven underground? I'd like to hear some outside perspectives. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have notified the involved admins of this discussion. I have not notified the indef blocked accounts. Bovlb (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There exists a still open but quiescent Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI on the issue. Nobody Ent 23:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the link to that RFC. Somehow I hadn't seen that before. I guess Wikipedia is a big place. It is very relevant to these issues. I'll read it over when I get a chance. Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Not aiming to be disrespectful Bovlb, but as indicated by your comment here, the only person involved in this situation and complaining - including the blocked individual - that the result is unsatisfactory is you. It's not a bad principle to encourage paid editors to operate openly, but since their first and inherent interest is their wallet, and not Wikipedia, they realise that there is only so open they can be. WilliamH (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It looks to me that not only is there at least one case of pure sockism, but that paid editing might have led to some fantastic meatism as well ... both of which have been met by the expected and anticipated end. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to elaborate on my previous comment. This is the third time I find myself saying this, but there is evidence that Bamanh27 was created using an IP from a rented server/proxy, a perspective with which another CheckUser agrees. The account almost certainly belonged someone experienced, in all probability a member of the community wishing to evade scrutiny while willing to abuse Wikipedia to further their own finances. The very creation of this account in this way completely vindicates my previous comment that however much we want them to be open and however willing they are to respond, the reality is that there's only so open they can afford to be. WilliamH (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unfortunately, going by that third party website, it seems likely that the person behind the Sunlover77 acount also created the articles Perfect Combination (book) and Platanos Y Collard Greens. However, in this case the account (User:GoJazz2012) has edited both prior to the creation of Sunlover77 and after Sunlover77 was blocked. If that's the case, the Sunlover77 account was being used at the same time as the GoJazz2012 one. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I did considerable editing of the overly promotional article on the book. I suggest careful checking of earlier articles for similar problems. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm. Good find. That suggests that the user has (even) less clean hands than I had supposed. Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I will note that another new editor has removed the COI tag from the Jon Gordon article that SunLover77 created in this edit. I think it's likely that this user is a sock of SunLover77. User names and contribution histories are similar. Even though the article was created and improved by socks of a blocked user, it looks fairly solid. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've added a Connected Contributor template on the talk pages of Dianna Booher and Jon Gordon and subsequently removed the COI tags on the front of the articles. COI tags should only be added if there is POV material in the article in relation to a COI editor. Neither of these articles have POV material, so the proper action is to document the COI editor's involvement via the talk page and a Connected Contributor tag, not to slather an inappropriate COI tag all over the place that our readers have to look at. SilverserenC 09:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Charlesdrakew & User:CourtneyBonnick

      There's been an "edit war" between me & User:Charlesdrakew in regards to the routes he keeps removing (which has been there for 4 years) which I'm attempting to sort out on another board,

      Anyway this user has decided to copy the exact reasons/rv's as Charlesdrakew (and the rv's seem to be around the same time) to why parts of this page: Arriva Southern Counties should be removed,
      And now I've pointed out to Courtney no one had removed the routes to : Arriva Southend and Arriva Guildford & West Surrey - She's now removed them .... I think she's decided to join in with her little friend, ...
      Alot of good editors have edited the page and I don't one person to remove it because "it's uncyclopedic" ... Waffle over Thanks Davey2010 Talk 01:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Revdel question

      Is block log "revdel" appropriate in the case of an obviously and admittedly mistaken block such as what happened here, where someone clicked the wrong button accidentally? --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Personally I think it is but whenever I've seen it discussed I've been in the tiny minority on the issue. Nobody Ent 02:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No. Snowolf How can I help? 04:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      RevDel should never be used for the purpose of hiding mistakes. Unless the content itself is problematic, the fact that it's a mistake doesn't justify hiding it. In fact, should an admin make too many mistakes, even the first one counts against them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Kinda thought it was a religious thing like this. OK. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not so much religious as clear documentation. Mistake was made, it was corrected. Anyone who inquires in the future can clearly see that; whereas if you RevDel, people might question what you're "hiding." Clear documentation covers your own ass, which is why nurses get it drilled into their heads, "If you didn't document it, you never did it!"
      Of course, this is Wikipedia, not a hospital, so it's not as critical. But, it helps to be a bit OCD on these things, just to deflect future accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On a purely academic point, there is Arbcom precedent for alteration of block logs found wrong or wanting. Although I think that pre-dated RevDel and required requesting a developer (Brion) do it, who promptly told them to get lost. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as the block log clearly and unequivocably denotes the error and subsequent correction, there's no issue - the previous "block-that-was-not-a-block" should not be held against them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I see it differently. I'm in favor of documenting, rather than pretending it didn't happen, but there's more than one way to document. To strain the analogy, if Nurse X gives the wrong medication to Patient Y, resulting in a disfigurement, we don't tattoo "This disfigurement caused by Nurse X" on the patients forehead, we file a report which goes in Nurse X's file. If we want to record that one admin make a mistaken block, post a record on the admin's talk page, don't permanently disfigure the block log of an innocent user.SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Calling it a "disfigurement" is a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
      As for your analogy, we wouldn't tattoo the patient, but the error would be on their chart as part of the patient record. The nurse would probably get a reprimand on their own record, but the error is still documented on the patients file — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To expand the analogy, the disfigured patient would be left to embrace the permanence of their new reality. My76Strat (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To bring the analogy back to reality - the surgeon accidentally cut a small slice on the upper left thigh ... but the backup surgeon immediately sewed it up - it's in a place that nobody will see it, and the patient and the surgeons will be able to fully explain it later (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell, the only acceptable reason *ever* for altering a block log (including revision deletion/suppression/oversight) is because it contains a clear personal attack, reveals private/non-public personal information or something to that level: in other words, if it doesn't meet the criteria for suppression, it probably should not be done. There was a long-ago case from before revision-deletion that was removed from the database by a Sysadmin because of this, and I believe there have been a handful of others in the past 4 years that were of similar nature. If a block summary is such that it needs to be made non-public, serious consideration needs to be given whether or not the administrator should be sanctioned or his/her actions otherwise reviewed. Risker (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Мэн-1

      This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

      Please look for it on that page. Thank you.


      Please delete copyvio picture

      Resolved
       – The local version here was deleted; the version on the commons is tagged for deletion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Picture File:Guayaquil Montage by Ultraman X77.png are picture collection without originals picture loaded and there are bigger version here of one of those picture.--Musamies (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for DRV closure.

      Hi folks, It's a really (really) hard DRV, but it is _way_ past needing to be closed. It will be fun, I promise! It's got copyright issues, an admin who !voted to overturn his own close and cake1!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_Advanced_Dungeons_.26_Dragons_1st_edition_monsters

      1: yes, the cake is a lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok, I've restored ... trying to close the DRV ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
       Done And since cake was promised - even if withdrawn as a joke - I think I deserve some anyway. Reading that took a lot of energy, and I need to improve my current icing quota (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry about the lack of cake :-). Thanks for closing it though. I can generally tell you how an AfD or DRV will close with pretty high certainty. That one I had no clue on. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Kingdom of Sardinia

      Someone who has a clue should do something about the long-term edit war over Kingdom of Sardinia [79] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I make no warranties as to my level of clue, but as a start I've protected the page for several weeks and opened discussion about dispute resolution on the talk page. This war has been going on for years. That history is horrible. :/ Shorter protection doesn't seem likely to accomplish much. It seems to me that the disputants have hardened in their positions. The first step would seem to be to try to change that through encouraging good faith outreach to neutral parties. If the edit warring persists after the protection expires, it may be necessary to semi-protect the page long-term (IP activity has long been problematic) and to either block or topic-ban autoconfirmed editors who persist in revert-warring after. Any other thoughts? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

      The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. There is a particular need for Oversight candidates in this round of appointments.

      Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

      Current demand for users with regional knowledge
      Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

      If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 15 June 2012.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Redirects for creation

       Done Would an admin please create the following 4 redirects if possible:

      Husareyn as #REDIRECT [[Húsareyn]] {{R from title without diacritics}}
      Igor Kojic as #REDIRECT [[Igor Kojić]] {{R from title without diacritics}}
      Raul Gonzalez (Mexican boxer) as #REDIRECT [[Raúl González (Mexican boxer)]] {{R from title without diacritics}}
      Sefika Pekin as #REDIRECT [[Şefika Pekin]] {{R from title without diacritics}}

      This is for my missing redirect bot creation task. The first is on a blacklist, not clear why, or if this should prevent creation of the redirect. The last three are currently salted pages, I assume it would be fine to create the redirects now there are existing pages. Thanks Rjwilmsi 18:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Created all of them, attributing you in my edit summaries. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Reminder: Do not confuse IPv6 addresses with accounts

      Things like 2001:db8:adef:0:0:fc02:6578:0 are not accounts! They are anonymous users anagolous to 92.7.8.3, except using IPv6!--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually, I'm fairly sure that 2001:db8:asef:0:0:fc02:6578:0 would be an account...... T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops! haha, my bad. Still, the message is the same - no accounts. Actually, an abuse filter would be nice to stop those kinds of things...--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I do have an account, but this isn't it.... 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement

      The following was resolved by motion:

      It is not in dispute that, despite being indefinitely prohibited from doing so, Rich Farmbrough made automated edits in breach of the sanction on 31 May 2012.
      1. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is blocked for thirty days from the date of enactment of this motion.
      2. To avoid future breaches of whatever nature, Rich Farmbrough is directed:
        1. to blank userspace js pages associated with his account/s;
        2. to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting;
        3. to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);
        4. to refrain from edits adjusting capitalisation of templates (where the current capitalisation is functional) or whitespace and similar as these can create the appearance of automation.
      3. Further, Rich Farmbrough is advised that:
        1. The prohibition on using automation will remain in place and in full force until modified or removed by the Committee;
        2. The earliest date on which Rich Farmbrough may request that the Committee reconsider the automation prohibition is 15 January 2013;
        3. The Checkuser tool will be used to verify Rich Farmbrough's future compliance with the prohibition;
        4. If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider.
      By adopting this motion, the Committee is extending considerable good faith to Rich Farmbrough, despite the aggravating factors, and notes he has unconditionally accepted provisions to this effect.

      For the Arbitration Committee,

      Lord Roem (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Unconstructive page moves that only one or more administrators can revert

      Not too long ago, a relatively new user, Dandylian (talk · contribs), made a series of page moves that seem to have been either tests or vandalism: moving the disambiguation page BUT across namespaces to the previously non-existent Portal:Pen (as well as its talk page). Because of the redirects that were created as a result of these moves, I am unable to revert the changes so that the disambiguation page can be restored to the correct namespace. Could an administrator please move Portal:Pen back to BUT over its redirect and delete the redirect created from this? Template talk:Pen appears to be another unhelpful redirect. Thank you. SuperMarioMan 02:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Is this post only visible to me? Or am I the only one other than SuperMarioMan who sees this as an actionable request? My76Strat (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Iosif Stalin tank

      Hello I am new to wikipedia and now and Admin says he/she will block me because the admin keeps removing things that I add. I need lots of help here, the admin is user:Denniss I am worried the Admin will block me just for fun for ever. Claimsort11 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I changed the section heading to something more specific, but have no view at the moment on the the comment by Claimsort11 (talk · contribs). I will notify Denniss (talk · contribs) (who is not an admin, but who has issued a final warning). Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I recommend no one else comment here. This thread is duplicated at ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Removal of topic ban from Thine Antique Pen

      Closing as premature. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Hello. A few months ago a topic ban was introduced on Thine Antique Pen (formerly known as Tomtomn00), that he should not collect rights. He has significantly improved and he has never requested any rights, unless he was nominated for the rights. He is doing a excellent job by creating around 100-400 stubs/day. Removal of the topic ban would help both the community and may also benefit him in the future. He has understood that collecting flags doesn't give him any status, and that's important. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It actually means more work for me! :) Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Please provide a link to the discussion. My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is the link. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 08:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I fixed the link, Dipankan. Also, WP:PERM/A. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 08:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Oppose Not yet - that was what, barely a month ago? Although I have seen some maturity since, nothing quite resembling the overall level required. By the way, you need to post a link to original the AN discussion :-) - should probably include the multiple ANI's that occurred just before those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It was actually 9 April. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 09:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Aha, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Tomtomn00. —v/r — Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • oppose. Creating hundreds cut-and-paste articles about beetle species with virtually no specific information does not say anything conclusive about maturity in editing and interaction with other editors. What is more, the original discussion expressed concerns about some "status game". Massive creating of subpar stubs for nonnotable animal species where redirects to a genus might perfectly suffice may also be intepreted as editcountitis game. - Altenmann >t 09:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In all fairness though, editors such as Ruigoland and Nielsen create similar masses of stubs daily and I'm pretty sure they invite the creating of sourced stubs on species. And its your opinion on them being non notable species, many would question that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Has the relevant WikiProject discussed the creation of stubs on beetles (like 1, 2, 3)? Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably you have to ask at the "relevant WikiProject" or "parent article" talk pages. - Altenmann >t 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. It's possibly not related to the issue of the topic ban, but when discussing an editor who creates "around 100-400 stubs/day", basic information such as whether the stubs have been discussed by a suitable WikiProject should be made available by the editor concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ban should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community Nobody Ent 10:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I haven't been able to find any discussion where such a ban was placed by the community (have only looked briefly). As far as I'm aware, the ban was imposed by MBisanz as a condition of an unblock, and the condition (and the block) were then approved-of by those small sub-sections of the community that discussed them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A quick search of the admin noticeboards using Tomtomn00 as your sole parameter will give you plenty (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done that, and like I say, it didn't turn up a discussion where there was a community consensus to place such a ban. As far as I can tell, it was imposed under the circumstances I just described. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I say give it a month and see how he operates and then give him another chance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      One thing that has concerned me is that, while TAP hasn't explicitly requested this user rights, they have implied that they should have them on the talk pages of at least three editors. [80], [81] and partially. Therefore I feel that the limitation on requesting user rights shouldn't be overturned at this time. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Demiurge is my mentor, LadyofShallot once granted me rights before and found errors, and Dr. Blofeld has made lots of articles himself and is a great advice giver on this type of thing. I would like to withdraw this if possible. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "appears" - well, in fact I went and fixed that all. At lest the current source is good. I'd be happy to stick another source on each article if required. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Basic rule of thumb for all stubs: minimum 2 valid sources, and an associated project listed on the talkpage. You say this error happened only a couple of times? Not sure I can believe that ... someone will have to verify all the ones you have created now. Substituting "quantity" for "quality" means more work for others now, just as if this had been a WP:CCI report (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      How well referenced are yours, Bwilkins? Shouldn't you be fixing that first before complaining about better-referenced stubs made by other people? Why does the "basic rule of thumb" only apply to people other than you?
      I advised against the opening of this thread, since it was clearly too early. The subject of the thread now seems to agree with me, and the thread isn't going anywhere helpful, so I suggest someone closes it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      While I am generally supportive of TAP's and Dr. Blofeld's position here, I think that is a little unfair; it was created 4 years ago.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So he's had four years to fix it? Why hasn't he? Too busy laying down "basic rules" for other people? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree BWIlkins and Fram that an extra sourced fact would go down a treat. If you could find a source for where these species actually live in the world it would make a considerable difference. Something which goes beyond what is said in the genus article. But your tone I find a little harsh here. We're all contributors and charitable individual who owe nothing to wikipedia so let's start treating each other in a more friendly fashion eh? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Currently I am actually adding an extra source to every Copelatus stub. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 12:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Agree with Demiurge, this is too premature, somebody please close this thread, its not constructive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Iaaasi is needed a Ip range-block

      Hello administrators,

      I think that Iaaasi is needed a Ip range-block. There is no point in reporting this banned user for sockpuppetry : another sockpuppet will be created as soon as one of his sockpuppets has blocked. Also, said banned user abuses WP:BAN in other ways as well; because when I revert his non-vandalistic additions to wikipedia, then this banned user asks somebody to take responsibility for the content [82]->[83]. Last time I proposed an article for deletion created by this banned user, he suceeded in having the article restored by asking a non-banned user to ask an admin to restore the article [84]->[85] And no sooner had the article restored than one another sockpuppet of him began editing the restored article:[86] His last sockpuppet is User:33606d, but reporting it for sockpuppetry does not help here. I might as well suggest giving an ip range-block to him. Subsequently, his internet provider should also be notified about that this banned user edit Wikipedia in an abusive manner.--Nmate (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Mate, you are right. It is odious that I dared to improve articles by adding images [87]. Also it is unacceptable that I had the insolently to remove self-links [88] and peacock terms [89]. This needs to be urgently punished with a range block 33606d (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not a normal behaviour. Also, if I happen to edit an article, this banned user begins making mass edits in the same article....strange, ...very strange.--Nmate (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And what's your problem with that? Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. I did not inhibit your work, but completed it. Sometimes is it highly recommended to be someone that reviews your edits. You invented settlement names that don't even exist. There is no village in Ukraine named Batragy. The real name is Batrad' [90]. Also there is not Salanki, but Shalanki [91]. Not to say that there is not Velyka Dobron but Velikaya Dobron’ [92]. In addition you provide unreferenced demographic data that had to be corrected by me [93] [94] [95] 33606d (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. I did not inhibit your work, but completed it" says a twofold indef-blocked and site-banned user.--Nmate (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone. Your block log is not empty either. It is only a matter of luck that you were not banned so far 33606d (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And it is not a joke...Iaaasi thinks it seriously.--Nmate (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=496440282"