Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 34 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 28 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 95 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 92 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 92 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 44 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 34 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 28 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 27 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 25 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	14	0	15
TfD	0	0	16	0	16
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	100	0	100
AfD	0	0	10	0	10

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 250 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 73 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 70 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 68 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 58 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Removal of Avoiceformen.com from spam-blacklist

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

---

• avoiceformen.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I've asked for the website avoiceformen.com to be removed from the spam-blacklist. My specific arguments refuting the grounds for denying the request have not been addressed. Instead my requests to engage in discussion to clarify the issues have resulted in the request being declined repeatedly with no useful feedback. I'm hoping to engage the community to clarify this issue.

Firstly the Houston, TX based website avoiceformen.com was abused on wikipedia by an Australia based spammer some time ago. I agreed that the individual's behavior was improper, but argued that banning such an important website for the behavior of an unrelated user is as unhelpful as banning Youtube because of a single channel. Removing the blacklist on avoiceformen.com is important to my efforts to document the "manosphere" from a neutral perspective. For clarity the "manosphere" is a broad focus area, with some communities interested in men's rights, and others interested in Game/seduction who oppose the men's rights movement, it is not a single purpose issue. However as the largest men's rights website in the manosphere, avoiceformen.com is indispensable to that documentation effort. The editors declined to remove avoiceformen.com from the blacklist on the basis of wikipedias policies on: External links, Verifiable, Reliable, Notable Sources, and pointed out a possible violation of Biographies of living persons

I responded on various talk pages that:

• Wikipedia's policy states that avoiceformen.com can be linked as an external source for articles about itself

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

• The subject's website can be used as a source

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites.

• The manosphere is notable

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Avoiceformen.com has been described by the SPLC (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere". Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source. The SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. The manosphere is also notable in that it has been mentioned in mainstream media publications like Huffington Post, Business Insider, Reason Magazine, and All Voices, among others.

I argue that whether or not one considers the manosphere to be "fringe" is irrelevant. I have clearly stated I do not intend to represent that the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, are valid. I do not intend to represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere. I have stated my intention is solely to document the manosphere, and represent their claims as their own in as balanced a manner as possible. Avoiceformen.com is certainly a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. Since a reputable source identifies avoiceformen.com as part of the manosphere, and the manosphere is notable, avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for a notable topic.

I would appreciate any guidance or feedback on this issue.

The earlier discussion on the blacklist is here: Ethicalv (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the manosphere isn't "notable" by Wikipedia standards, and we don't have any reliable sources to write about it. Even its proponents acknowledge that it exists only because of male bloggers writing about it, the same bloggers writing for "A Voice for Men", an activist, alternative news outlet. However, even that outlet isn't "notable" by our standards. It seems like there's no good reason to remove the link from the blacklist. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could share the reasoning by which you reconcile the statement "the manosphere isn't notable" with the fact that it has been written about in major mainstream media, some of which I linked above. Those articles did not mention the manosphere in passing. They were about the manosphere in their entirety. This certainly qualifies as the "significant" coverage required in wikipedia's Notability policy. And you did repeat the same argument I refuted above that avoiceformen.com is not a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. If you disagree with the reasoning I gave, stating that avoiceformen.com is definitely considered a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com according to wikipedia's policies, I would appreciate if you would explicitly provide your reasoning. Ethicalv (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did. Those "links" are not about the "manosphere" nor do they lend notability to the concept or to Avoiceformen.com. The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center in their Spring 2012 Intelligence Report.[1] "A Voice for Men" are also named in the report. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A voice for men is redlinked for a reason ... a couple passing mentions in mainstream media aren't sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which are fairly high. NE Ent 00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A redlink isn't cause for it to be on the spam-blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@EthicalvThis seems a little backwards to me. We don't have pages for Manosphere or avoiceformen.com, do we? So why would we need to link to their official websites? Honestly, I doubt that they're notable to begin with, but I'd suggest you delay your efforts to get their website off the blacklist for use in an external links section until after we actually have pages on them (ideally until after their pages have survived deletion discussions). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this comment seems a little backwards to -me-. The default isn't for links to be on the spam-blacklist, only to be removed when certain conditions are met. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there was a good reason to add this group to the blacklist and yet, still no good reason to remove them. I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation. Finally, we have a giant heaping dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Before starting this thread, User:Ethicalv was informed about the notability problems on his talk page. He ignored that information and decided to assert notability once again. It's interesting how the actions of an "Australian spammer" got this non-notable site blacklisted and how the actions of Ethicalv are indistinguishable from the spammer—asking the same questions over and over again, hoping to get a different response. He did this on the blacklist discussion as well. Note, if the user could point to a single reliable source that is part of avoiceformen.com that could conceivably be used as a source on Wikipedia, that would be appreciated. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there isn't one, so this entire discussion seems to be about how to best get the site removed from the blacklist so that the spamming can begin again. Not good. You want to talk about how women are oppressing you? Great, do it on your private website, not here. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(SO MANY EC'S)There may have been good reasons to blacklist this, yes. I don't know the full history here, but looking at the spam-blacklist page, there are quite a few different options other than putting them on the list. Were any of these tried?Notability in this case is a red herring in regards to it being on the list or not. As far as this person being the spammer, no idea, but if so, the second option of 'Will blocking a single user solve the problem?' seems more logical. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this intrusion is not unwelcome, but I tried to help the user before by pointing out that "Manosphere" is a neologism and getting avoiceformen unblacklisted is not likely to help him document the so-called cause. Even a Google search for "manosphere movement" only turns up results that say it is not a movement, and even the AVoiceforMen website itself defines it as a collection of websites, etc, and usually more specifically as a "phenomenon". I don't want to quote from a blacklisted website but it is worth considering this, EthicalV. -Wieldthespade (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, I think his reasoning is pretty...bad. Heck, I think the site itself is terrible. But again, your question really has nothing to do with it being on the blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've checked out the website, and I can't think of any remotely conceivable reason we would ever link to it in a WP article. Nor has the OP provided any. I do see a plausible potential for further abuse should it be delisted. I therefore see no possible reason to delist the site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I think a good argument could be made that the site itself could have an article. It does have multiple mentions in some RS's. I still think that's a red herring though. Arkon (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon, Mark Arsten: I created a page for the manosphere in my ongoing effort to document it. It is awaiting approval. This blacklisting was causing trouble. That's how the issue came up.

@Arkon I agree that a website shouldn't be blacklisted by default. Thanks for your clarification.

@Viriditas. You said:

"The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups".

My point is that those groups were EXPLICITLY identified in the SPLC and those mainstream media articles as a phenomenon noted as the "manosphere". They were not just called "misogynistic hate groups".

And those sites identified are also notable independently of the manosphere. Game/Seduction Blogger Roosh for example (who has been written about in newspaper articles, and talked about on TV shows around the world) is certainly notable. Avoiceformen.com has been mentioned in CBS News, Ms. Magazine, Bangor Daily News, and the New York Times.

Furthermore it is worthwhile to consider whether those groups themselves would be a more accurate source of their own opinions. Taking Roosh for example, without in any way advocating for his positions, it's useful that his blog should be allowed as an authoritative source of his own opinions to maintain balance. While wikipedia accepted sources like the SPLC may identify him as a dangerous hate criminal, he may or may not express a different opinion on whether seducing women qualifies him for being put on a list that the SPLC normally reserved for terrorists.

@Viriditas. You said:

"I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation..

There is no evidence it is a one man operation and strong evidence to suggest it is not. The website lists a staff as well as listing podcasts and an associated radio station.

@Viriditas. You said:

"Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one.

I would ask that we tone down the provocative and highly conflictual language. We are all working towards a common goal of making wikipedia better. My answer is that regardless of whether the content on the site is objectionable, "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. That is the entire argument that I have not received a reply from you on. Ethicalv (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To summarize:

• "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com
• avoiceformen.com is notable
• whether or not one agrees with the opinions expressed on avoiceformen.com is irrelevant to documenting them in a neutral way

Ethicalv (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Adviceformen would indeed be a valid source to use in an article about the website. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be an article about the website. If there ever is an article about the website, what generally happens is the blacklist entry is altered to allow the main page of the site to be linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethicalv, the solution is and has been very simple. Create an article about avoiceformen that does not get deleted, and you will have shown it's worth removing from the blacklist. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make this my last comment on this, unless someone asks me some questions. I really am not a fan of the fact that we went straight to the nuclear option on this. Putting a site on the blacklist is suppose to be "the last resort". Arkon (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the site is not even a reliable source about themselves, as it is unduly self-serving. See WP:SELFPUB. Basically, everything on the site is completely and utterly worthless for any conceivable purpose in WP, especially as the site itself is extremely unlikely to meet our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu said:

"the site is not even a reliable source about themselves

Your statement appears to set your own personal preference over wikipedia's entire set of written policies saying otherwise. Wikipedia's policies ensure polite collaboration between editors. None of us is meant to set our own "law of the jungle". In any case I believe we're reached concensus from those who have actually addressed the issue that avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for itself. That is progress. Ethicalv (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon: I agree that it was highly improper to "go straight to the nuclear option". What can we do about this? Someguy1221 suggested to write an article about it that didn't get deleted, and that would be grounds for removing the ban. However that seems very backwards. One could invest much time in creating content that was in the end just banned. It would be helpful to address the issue up front. Ethicalv (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I'm not sure blacklisting really affects a whole lot here. If you want to use the site as a source in an article about the webpage while it's blacklisted, just fill in the Cite web template but don't include the url. To be honest though, I think you might find it to be a waste of time if you try to start new pages about men's rights websites. They'll most likely be deleted--sorry, but we have fairly high inclusion standards for websites. Why not spend your time trying to improve the existing articles in Category:Men's rights? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arkon was wrong in their observation - this site was blacklisted in October for good reason. Why are we still talking about this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We are still talking about this because we are being trolled silly. Ethicalv is singularly focused on reviving blacklisted websites and restoring deleted articles by rewriting them with unreliable sources. Look at how long this nonsense has been going on just over at Mangina. The absurdity continues with declined AfC versions of Manosphere, Mangina, Dalrock, female solipsism, rationalization hamster, NAWALT, white knight, marriage strike, beta provider, and who could forget, cock carousel. At some point someone is going to need to put a fork in this and say it's done. He won't listen, and doesn't care what the guidelines or policies say. He's playing games by forum shopping back and forth, asking the same questions over and over again, and trying to find someone who will contradict what everyone has already told him several times. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is the proper venue for evaluating links to individual pages for white-listing on a case-by-case basis. If Ethicalv can come up with any single page on avoiceformen.com that can conceivably be used as a reliable source in an article, then that page will receive fair consideration and likely be white-listed. There is no need for further discussion here. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

What an outfit

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239 § Alan Liefting, categories in userspace, and bite; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240 § Topic ban for Alan Liefting; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241 § Request to lift a topic ban; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242 § Request to lift a topic ban; User:Alan Liefting/Essays/On categorisation; and User:Alan Liefting/Essays/Stub categories are project categories

So you lot have blocked me from doing category related edits. Have a look at this piss poor outcome: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Bibliographies by subject. FFS... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• The corps has. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a military expression. Short for "The corps has gone to shit." Usually used when talking about the good ol' days. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Alan, are you just going to keep starting threads here hoping that at some point some gullible admin will decide we can't possibly manage our categories without your personal input? FYI that is the least likely outcome. As I said in the last thread where we tried to get you to stop pissing and moaning about your topic ban, your WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Let it go, you are only making the day when the topic ban is lifted move farther away with this persistent complaining about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• That was a perfectly valid procedural close and not even relevant to AN. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • While starting a Cfd w/o adding the notification templates to the relevant categories is a spectacularly bad idea to start with, I have to wonder if filing the nomination iteslf was a violation of the topic ban, since Wikipedia: space isn't mainspace. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (EC) If it isnt, Its pretty clear with the above posting it should be. Perhaps a discussion should be had to extend the topic ban to mentioning catagories anywhere? Obviously if you are under a topic ban for something, and you want to take an action that requires you to do further actions covered under the ban, then a sensible person would not do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's not shift the goal posts. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I prefer to think of it as removing the posts altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Alan, is this type of stuff of yours going to keep happening? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Give the guy a fucking break, please. Nobody has questioned his faithfulness to the project, and it's to be expected that there will be a period of acclimation to his new status, so it's incumbent on all of us to give him a little leeway to express himself, and not raise a shitstorm about it when he does. I ask every one of you to contemplate what it would be like if you were prevented from contributing in your own little corner of Wikipedia, and use that feeling as a stepping stone to empathize with what Alan is going through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • BMK, I don't think anyone is questioning his faithfulness. However, comments like the beginning of this thread reek of "you cannot do this without me, your project is a joke without my protection... you bunch of imbeciles for preventing me from stopping this horrible damage" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Let's please have less of the "Oh it's Alan Leifting yet again!" and a little bit more rational thought. Alan Leifting was banned, by my reading, for xyr recategorizing of pages outwith the article namespace — user-space draft articles, images, and so forth — in a ham-fisted and destructive manner that is, in xyr own words, "too fiddly" to do the right way that doesn't blank entire draft articles written by other people.

  Are we really extending that to being unable to nominate a category at CFD for renaming? Was Alan Leifting renaming categories or nominating categories at CFD ever a problem? Was xyr adding {{cfr}} to a category page ever a problem? It seems not, by my reading of the past discussions. If it isn't, we shouldn't be making silly procedural knots out of it just because Alan Leifting has managed to get this issue into four successive archives of this noticeboard. (Although it does seem that Alan Leifting has deliberately tried to create the procedural knot, in order to then complain about it.) If it is, then it should be clarified, with diffs (for which there are none in the past discussion), that Alan Leifting's Categories for Discussion nomination behaviour is also a problem subject to this remedy.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well renaming/nominating catagories may not have been a problem for him before. It is now. This isnt a case of people piling on Alan, if he had just used common sense in the first place, people would not feel the need to comment. Here is a simple clarification: Alan, dont start anything procedually you know you cant complete as it would violate your topic ban. There, its clarified for him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So...why didn't someone help him and tag the categories for him? Nothing wrong with that. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because he didn't ask. I could have tagged them and re-listed the discussion, but he hadn't even listed all the subcategories that were apparently being nominated, so I figured it would be just as easy to start a new nomination as keep the old one open and going. I offered to help him start a new nomination if he wants to, but he hasn't taken me up on it yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have asked for a list of the categories... --Nouniquenames 03:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Slow speedy

Template:Allele has been in the speedy queue for over 24 hours. Why is it not yet deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it doesn't fit the G8 criterion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides, "Speedy" is anything less than 7 days. Please Hammer, don't tell me you're going back into your old AFD/CSD/PROD behaviours that have got you in trouble in the past - nom's like this one aren't too promising (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what his previous behavior was, but this CSD nom isn't so bad; just not what the criterion's for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It does too. It's dependent on Allele (band), which was deleted several times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to continue a discussion about the propriety of WK's action, here, I suppose that's up to you. But reversing an admin's determination on a speedy is inappropriate. I've removed the tag. Leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's not dependent on the article in the same way that a redirect to the article or its talk page is, which are the normal targets of G8. Navboxes are used on many different pages; that's their whole point. Now, this one won't be used, because none of the topics it would be used on are notable, but it's not dependent on a deleted page. I get why you did it, which is why I said above that it isn't so bad, but if you're angling for a SNOW/IAR speedy deletion, using a CSD criterion meant only for technical housecleaning is not the right way to go about it. Anyway, what's the harm of letting it sit through "God knows how long" at TfD? It's a template, it's not in mainspace, what's the urgent problem here? Let TfD do its thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I would also decline the speedy, WK simply beat me to it. GiantSnowman 16:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Because I've seen TFDs sit and sit and sit and sit AND SIT AND SIT AND SIT way too long. There's no point in keeping this one second longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• You asked why the template hadn't been deleted 24 hours after you tagged it. Now you have your answer. If you want to create a new CSD criterion for "useless template", I could see the logic there, but AN ain't the place for the discussion, and G8 ain't the criterion to shoehorn that into. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)TPH, your eagerness to delete lots of articles very quickly is concerning. GiantSnowman 16:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• TPH has now slapped a G6 on the template. Although it's a better criterion than a G8, I came close to declining it, in part because the real rationale is that the template is not useful, and if a G6 could be used for all such templates, than arguably there needs to be another T* criterion. Also, TPH's comment and about sitting too long is silly. As WK points out, who cares? It's not doing any harm. There's really an attitudinal problem here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• CSD declined. The addition was extremely POINTy and I strongly suggest TPH waits for the TFD discussion to finish. GiantSnowman 17:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Given the number of contributors to the template, and given reliable sources were found for the band, making it a "near miss" AfD, I'm not sure I'd call it "uncontroversial". I think you're just going to have to send it to TFD. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's already at TFD, was sent there 2 days ago. TPH is just impatient. GiantSnowman 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly disruptive to tag a page for uncontroversial speedy deletion when speedy deletion has just been declined twice. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like my original comment 2 lines down from TPH's original post (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are also still two articles that transclude the template. That's a very good reason to let the TfD run for a while. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

One of which is at AFD itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but until it is deleted, CSDing the template is not uncontroversial. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, you keep asking me what's the harm in letting this wait. Well, I ask: what's the harm in deleting it now? Why should it continue to stink up TFD for weeks? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we default to "keep", not to "delete". We keep things unless there is a reason to delete them, not delete them unless there is a reason to keep them. That a template is useless may in fact be a good reason to delete it, but consensus that it's useless is determined through a TfD, not a maintenance speedy deletion. TL;DR: burden of proof is on you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• As the editor who originally submitted this to TfD, I appreciate the discussion here as it has further educated me on the nuances of the CSD criteria. I reviewed the CSD guidelines prior to nominating and didn't see a clear fit for this scenario, so I went with TfD. After reading this discussion, I see clearer that G8 is a "technical housecleaning" criterion used primarily for the redirects and talk pages of deleted pages, and that the template in this case is not dependent on the deleted Allele (band) page. Writ Keeper's explanation here was particularly helpful. Thanks again to all.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okip socking

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

---

I have just blocked a number of socks used by Okip (talk · contribs) to abuse the XfD processes. I gave Okip themself a two-week block, but given the relatively long history of that editor (previously as Ikip) I thought it best to bring the matter here for examination.

Blocked socks:

• Dragdrag (talk · contribs)
• Calendar2 (talk · contribs)
• Spoildead (talk · contribs)

All are  Confirmed with checkuser (and, in the case of the link to Okip, also through a supressed revision). — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is quite sad. I know Ikip/Okip positions are controversial, but I thought he had more integrity. I hope he understands his errors and goes back. This route is not going to bring him any good. --Cyclopia^talk 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I reached the same conclusion on this following a non-CU trail (including one account that Coren didn't list, but did block). Here's what I've found, working backwards from present edits along the trail:

Down the rabbit hole

In November 2012, Spoildead continues a conversation at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Batman_tas&action=history started by Calendar2, as if he was the same person Calendar2 made edits to Scentura from 2011-2012 Scentura was created by user:Calendar in 2007. Calendar maintains the article through June 2009. Calendar2 says that he is Calendar and created the article. An oversighted edit directly links Calendar and Ikip to each other In June, 2009, Ikip is blocked. Calendar also disappears in June 2009. Ikip is listed as an alternate account of Okip Which circles us back to October 2012, where Okip expressed a sentiment that sounds a whole lot like what Spoildead's been saying today in ARS-related discussions this week

Given the length of the socking here, and the fact that it's being used to push a philosophy as well as attack others (see Spoildead's behavior in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)), I would support an indefinite block for Ikip/Okip based on the combination of disruptive history and long-term deceptive socking. This does not appear to be a person who has any interesting in playing by community rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question Do you mean that Dragdrag and Calendar2 were also abusing XFD? All I can see for Calendar is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scentura (2nd nomination), and nothing at all for Dragdrag. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that these accounts have been used in serious violation of WP:SOCK. The one discussion where I see an overlap (the user talk page of Batman tas) was rather trivial. Did I miss something? Simply having other accounts with trivial overlaps in editing shouldn't be cause for a swath of blocks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It looks to me like Spoildead is the account that was being used to abuse the XfD process in furtherance of Ikip's preferred inclusionism POV. Note, for example, that I warned Spoildead about making personal attacks and accusations against delete voters on XfDs, behavior which Ikip has a history of being blocked for - it appears to me he was using Spoildead to make problematic edits to XfDs that he knew Ikip/Okip wouldn't get away with. Calendar2 appears to have been used mostly to maintain Scentura, Calendar a combination of Scentura and various health and video game articles, and Dragdrag LGBT-related articles. Per a Wikistalk report, however, [I|O]kip and the Calendar accounts have crossed repeatedly on articles and noticeboards. Absent Spoildead's behavior, it could be argued that this set of socks was a sort of inept way of compartmentalizing different genre edits (though they do often violate the part of WP:SOCK that says socks shouldn't edit project space - Calendar, Calendar2, and Spoildead all have done so - and some of them don't stay consistently in one genre or another), but Spoildead pushes it over the line to "purposely using an account so people would not know that the person making attacks and accusations was someone who had a history of making attacks and accusations". It's standard procedure to block an entire sockfarm when found, even if some of the socks haven't broken policies otherwise - remember, these are all one person, and blocks are intended for users, not accounts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If several of the accounts have been disruptive, it's a textbook violation of WP:SCRUTINY - spreading out one's policy violations over multiple accounts so as not appear to be so disruptive an editor that a block is in order. I'm not familiar with any of the accounts here, except from skimming through the ARS MfD, but if more than one of them has been disruptive, than it sounds like a pretty standard application of SOCK. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Participation in AFDs at all with a sock account is a serious violation of WP:SOCK. Per WP:ILLEGIT, alternate accounts cannot edit project space. Compound that with the fact that he was using the alternate to edit project space pertaining to the ARS, and you have about as serious of a violation as you can achieve.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• For someone who references the "letter of the law" you seem to get it wrong. It says "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies". It is only in reference to "undisclosed" accounts, and it's not even an absolute rule. Alternate accounts routinely edit project space, including arbitration-related pages, and nothing happens. And you want to indef someone for "breaking" this "rule"? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, upon further investigation, I think there are some serious violations from back in 2009. Calendar created the article List of zombie novels, apparently also contributing to it with an IP account, and Ikip argued vociferously to keep the article when it was at articles for deletion apparently without ever disclosing his connection with the other account. Still, that is a bit stale. Unless there are some recent instances where any of these accounts have been used in serious violation, I am still not seeing the basis for present action on the basis of sockpuppetry. If it is on the basis of recent disruption with the other accounts being blocked to prevent their use for evasion then I would understand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's recent as well. Spoildead has been used to canvass ARS supporters.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Spoildead's current behavior in itself makes it an abuse of alternate accounts, really (serious evasion of scrutiny, and frankly disruptive behavior even in isolation); that the other accounts have also been improperly used in project space simply makes it straightforward sockpuppetry in my estimation. I think Okip really should stay to one account at this point, given that he now has a track record of abusing alternates. — Coren ^(talk) 18:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Based on Ikip's block log and the long history of socking, I see no reason to tolerate this editor's presence. I'd change that two-week block to indefinite.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now that I think about it, given that the MfD concerns ARS where Ikip was previously disruptive, it does some reasonable to consider the involvement of the Spoildead account to be a very serious violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK, as well as the letter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing less than a six-month block pbp 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indefinite block, we've had enough of his disruptive behavior, and this is much worse than normal sockpuppetry on articles as it undermindes the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have to say this really pisses me off. I was helping that supposed new account with an article they created. Now it turns out it was an experienced user pretending they didn't know how to put a real article together, (or maybe he really didn't after all this time?) and one of the worst of the worst of the ARS "battleground mentality" set at that. I have been trying to help that project move back towards a more mainstream approach and away from the overly confrontational unhelpful approach that user like Okip/Ikip/travb/inclusionist/whoever he is this week and others perpetuated there in the past. His last post under his actual name there was essentially to try and turn this back, to encourage newer members to confront and harass anyone who claimed they had a battleground mentality. Okip just doesn't get it. He has "rage quit" several times, and now this, and possibly more going back years. He is a negative influence on this project and the ARS in particular. They need help finding their way to being a project that is about content, not fighting and dirty tricks, for their sake as much as the rest of WP, open the door, push him through it, close it and lock it. In other words, indef block, at least six months before any appeal per WP:OFFER, and then it should only be considered if he agrees to permanently limit himself to one account only, and not to engage in WP:BATTLE behavior ever again.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I only ever met User:Dragdrag who put up a good article on a drag race, and which i helped him/her with. It's a shame it's come to this but it appears as a violation of WP:Scrutiny and WP:Sock. I'm not saying this editor should go unpunished in any way, but can we settle on a 6 month ban at most giving the editor time to change or think this over? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Per the comments above, I've just re-blocked with an indefinite expiry, and I've suggested that Okip pursue the Wikipedia:Standard offer unblock requirements. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indef - He and A Nobody were the worst of the lot, toxic presences here we're better off without. Socking and game-playing to get one's way cannot be tolerated. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair, while I was at complete odds with A Nobody at times, they at least remained calm; protracted in comments, yes, but far from what I've seen Ikip/Okip put out. Socking around blocks definitely puts Okip in the long-term/indef block range. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious block - He gamed the system people, its despicable behavior, there's no debate. I shoulda realized that was him creating a bit of controversy at the MfD, which would only backfire against the consensus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support the indef block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block: No excuse for sock-puppetry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If he follows the standard offer conditions, I think there's a decent chance that he could be unblocked in six months. "Indefinite" is not necessarily "permanent". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Indef Disclosure: I was one of the ones arguing with the Canvassing/Gaming sock The editor is clearly gaming our system in every way they can to achieve their goals. In light of the history, and now deceit, I think an indef is called for. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to unblock with conditions, or per the standard offer when they are convinced it will work. Monty₈₄₅ 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Immediate unblock It's good to see admins like Beeblbrox seem to have the Rescue squad's best interests at heart, but it might be nice if we're allowed to decide for ourselves whether we'd like to keep Okip? Okip is in fact a huge asset both to the ARS and the whole of Wikipedia. He's generally an excellent strategist. Benji was great but I've often thought we'd have achieved even more if Ikip had been our defacto leader. He's also good at encouraging people with well worded barnstars. Ikip has a really sweet nature too. I partly agree its ideal to discourage socking, but the best way to do that is to start being kinder and more gentle to fellow editors, rather than issuing harsh sanctions for no compelling reason. Its very encouraging news if Ikip has renewed interest in Wikipedia as for a long time it looked like we'd lost him to semi retirment. In recognition of this we ought to immediately unblock his Okip account, though with no blame to Coren, as in most cases a 2 week block for this sort of socking was most reasonable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "strategist"? "leader"? As someone who has managed to rescue articles for approaching a decade without any requirement whatsoever for strategists or leaders, I say that you are putting forth completely muddledheaded tripe here, and exhibiting exactly the sort of utterly warped thinking about and attitude towards writing an encyclopaedia that causes so much trouble from so few. (Indeed, it has been Ikip promoting these bad ideas to suggestible people that has long been part of the problem.) You're not a militia. This isn't a war. Stop this pseudo-militaristic nonsense now, please. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Like. I've been beating that drum for a while, but Mr. Huxtable seems a bit lost in a fantasy world where the ARS is battling dragons and people like Okip and ANobody are the white knights. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In his very last post from his main account, Okip said we ought to address head on these false projections of a battlefield mentality onto the rescue squad. I often ignore this sort of comment as doubt sensible folk take them seriously, but out of respect for Okip will make an exception and honour his wish.

UncleG, there's all kinds of groups that have their effectiveness increased by the guidance of leaders and strategy, yet are totally peaceful. Such groups outnumber the military many times over. All respect to you if you've a decades long track record of saving articles while working independently. But please keep in mind that squad members sometimes like to operate collectively, in recognition of the fact that it can be far harder to save an article than to destroy it. Im not denying I see editors like Okip and Anobody as heroes, but remember not all heroism of a martial nature. Dont want to give the impression you're totally wrong, its just you've overstated your point. Editing Wikipedia does sometimes involve an element of contention. Several of our guidelines recognize this. The important thing is not to pretend we all want the same thing, but rather to avoid attacking others just as they seem to have different perspectives, and to work together to build an encyclopaedia that balances views from different, sometimes opposing sources, thus achieving neutrality. Please try to avoid accusing fellow editors of having "completely muddleheaded" and "utterly warped" thinking. That kind of rhetoric isnt helpful to the collegial environment best needed for building an encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Collectively" can sometimes be perceived by others as being tantamount to a breach of WP:CANVASS: swamping a discussion, for example, without much more than a "keep it because it already exists" argument. I've had a recent experience of ARS that was far from pleasant because of a collective mentality that was at odds with the facts and displayed a complete lack of understanding regarding the subject. It was a horrendous waste of time. Socks are bad, period. If Okip and their alter egos are disrupting in the way that has been stated here then indef' is the correct response. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Feyd, the fact that you do not see the irony in Okip's last posting at ARS [2] speaks volumes to your own mentality. The message he sent was "people who say we have a battleground mentality are the enemy and must be confronted and have it explained to them at length why they are wrong" which perfectly demonstrates the very mentality he was claiming not to have. I can't remember the exact quote but someone once said something to the effect that if a group is extreme enough it becomes impossible to distinguish their actual beliefs from an ironic parody of those beliefs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note, he never said that. Don't put something in quotation marks if no one actually said those words. That's misleading. Why not actually read what you linked to? "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". There is no battleground mentality in the ARS. Dream Focus 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're thinking of Poe's law. Doesn't really apply to the squad, as we tend to have moderate and tolerant views on almost everything. And from where Im sitting, while you may think you understand our mentality, in reality you're not even close. Okip was alluding to Lennin, and making a deep strategic point, contrasting the great man's understanding of practical reality with the high minded postion some academics take about it being best to ignore attacks.

To answer your question from below on whether we'd call for an indeff if it had been a deletionist caught socking, the answer, at least in my case, is no. There's only two times Ive been aware of such discussions. With Jack, I wanted to oppose a block as for me his excellent contributions easily outweigh the negative stuff, but I stayed out of it as some Squad members have strong feelings about interactions between Jack and a certain legendary editor (which I don't know the full details of, as it was before my time). In the other case, which was back in 2010, I made a plea for leniency. Socking is often harmful, but IMO opinion rarely justifies long term blocks for editors who are otherwise constructive, regardless of where they are on the Inc/Del spectrum.

It's probably a waste of time to think we could gain better understanding of each other by txt based discussions, no matter how lengthy. Some of the reasons for this are alluded to in the Poe's law article. Despite disagreeing with almost everything you say, you seem an honest person, and I was most impressed with your tactics in pushing through the pending changes RFC. If you're ever in London, Id be happy to treat you to a beer or coffee and spend an hour chatting with you. If not, well understanding other peoples thinking is far from essential. As long as we interact respectfully, different perspectives are actually a good thing for building a quality encyclopaedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I got an email from him asking "Can you post this for me? thank you."
• On behalf of Okip:

  Hello. At around Wednesday, 5 December 2012 8 I alerted Jclemens, Casliber and NewYorkBrad about the sockpuppetry, asking their advice on what I should do. Without this email to Jclemens, Jclemens would have never known about this sock and never would have posted this checkuser on 22:02, 12 April 2010.

  Lesson learned for all those wikipedians who are in listening range: Don't ask for Jclemens help unless you want to be thrown under the bus.

  I know I did wrong, I know I crossed the line, that is why I emailed Arbitors for help. I don't care about being blocked. Thank you.

• I see that he didn't use any two accounts at the same time. Dragdrag was only used for one day. Special:Contributions/Dragdrag I believe he stated he was spending too much time on Wikipedia and asked for his Ikip account to have its password scrambled, then returned later on as Okip. I thought he had retired from Wikipedia after that. I would like to know why exactly he did this, instead of just using one account. Seems to have no reason for this. Dream Focus 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is deeply disappointing. Jclemens was once Okips mentor, I remember how happy many of us were when he steped up, as he seemed so wise and reasonable. Will have a think about whether I should contact Clemens to see if there is an explanation, otherwise Im going to have to amend my arb vote. I usually find it easy to forgive almost any human flaw, but if theres one thing I cant abide its a traitor. FeydHuxtable (talk)
    • I can't speak for Coren's investigation, but mine had nothing to do with Jclemens (or Casliber, or Newyorkbrad, for that matter) - I saw Spoildead disrupting rather vociferously on the ARS XfDs, thought his behavior was suspiciously non-new-user-ish, and went looking for what was going on. The evidence was right there to find, no secrets from ex-mentors needed. As for the rest of Okip's email, I can't make any sense of what "2010 checkuser" he's talking about, but whatever it is, I don't think it's relevant. Given that Spoildead continued to edit right up through today (a day after he claims he emailed the confession to arbs), it sounds like whether Okip knew he was doing wrong or not, he kept doing it until he was forced to stop. Not exactly something that engenders trust that he won't do it again, or even that he really understands that it was a bad thing to be doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Hi Fluff, no one suspects you of being an agent of Clemens in this, hope it didnt come across like that. You're right Okips email wasnt especially coherent, but then he woudlnt be human if he wasnt feeling a little emotional right now. After all his long years of hard unpaid labor for Wikipedia, he seems to be at risk of a permaban for socking, which while reprehensible, seems minor compared to what others have got away with. As for Clemens, I did suggest there might be an explanation, you're right he might be innocent in this. Still, it wouldnt be the first time he's took highly questionable actions against outstanding article rescuers. Anyhow, I feeling a little distressed about this myself too; in my previous edit I didnt even sign properly which I dont think has happened before.I better sign of and not come back till Ive calmed down. Thanks for your comment though, I agree one ought not to rush to judgment, hope no one switches to opposing Clemens before confirming the facts. PS - Okip, if you do end up blocked, thanks very much for all you've done for us and best of luck for the future! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I've notified the three arbitrators that they have been mentioned and that one is being discussed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Reaper, good to see from the below that jclemens appears blameless for this disaster. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Wait, what? What does jclemens have to do with any or this (or any other arb for that matter)? Fluffernutter did an investigation into what she saw as a clear case of socking. I did a parallel investigation (with checkuser) and arrived at the same result. I blocked. None of this has anything to do with arbitration or arbitrators, or a putative checkuser two years ago. — Coren ^(talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef If there was a legitimate reason for socking I would be comfortable with the two weeks. The explanation given above via email to Dream Focus makes little sense, and the only thing of substance seems to be a personal attack aimed at Jclemens. As for the request for an immediate unblock from Feyd above... not going to happen. The rules against socking apply to all users, though you are welcome to try and change the policies to make an exception for members of the ARS. Try and remember that Wikipedia isn't a battlefield. Frankly, standing up when a friend or ally breaks the rules shows much more character than turning a blind eye and ignoring the rules just because someone agrees with you. AniMate 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • How many times over the years did Jack Merridew keep getting away with things far worse than this? Unlike Jack, who harassed peopled and was unrepentant, Okip made a simple mistake, and admitted it. Would anyone have even noticed if he said nothing about this? Dream Focus 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I see no acceptance of responsibility for the latest socking, or the misbehavior of those socks. Monty₈₄₅ 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right about Merridew, and having taken a step back from some of this infighting, I have to say there are very few circumstances under which I can see myself supporting a return of his editing privileges, even with a standard offer. Again, if there was a legitimate reason for Okip to sock, I'd gladly hear it and reconsider, though it mostly looks like he was trying to avoid scrutiny. AniMate 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock The Calendar account was last used on June 2009. We are punishing him for something that happened more than three years ago? Dragdrag as I said was only used for one day. His latest account is the only one he is using, not double voting with it and Okip at the same time or anything. I see some familiar names trying to block him, who I believe are against him for his work in the ARS in the past, having argued with him years ago. We're discussing blocking him for the sockpuppets only, nothing else, and so far, I see nothing that would warrant such a harsh sentence. Dream Focus 22:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this is about the extremely disruptive behavior of the Spoildead sock, which was disrupting wikipedia over the last few days. Monty₈₄₅ 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you point to some diffs? I looked through them and don't see anything. He contacted some regular participates at the ARS to inform them it was at AFD. Nothing wrong with that. Was there something else? Dream Focus 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef I hate to do this, because I have great sympathy for Ikip/Okip philosophy and point of view on many things. However, I can't support years-long sockpuppetry used to sway consensus. I am especially appalled given that he should have known that this would only bring further controversy on the ARS and surely not help his causes. I do not support the indef block because I don't want to see him again: I support it because he has to show his good faith by accepting WP:OFFER and demonstrate he is, indeed, a valuable editor who doesn't need socking. I hope he'll be reasonable and do that -and I hope that, if he will be, admins will gracefully unblock him. --Cyclopia^talk 22:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  What's this "years of sockpuppetry used to sway consensus"? There are three accounts. One which hasn't been used in over three years, one which was used for only one day in October, and his latest he has been using through parts of November to the present. Dream Focus 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• For the record, I did receive an e-mail from Okip/Ikip a day or two ago, as he indicates above. I have been focused on other business this week such as answering election questions, and had not yet had the opportunity to study the issues raised by the e-mail and to formulate a reply or decide advice to give or what else to do with the information I'd been provided. And since I still haven't had the chance to study up, no comment on the block or anything else, except to point out that if people were able so quickly to figure out who the new account was, it presumably was engaged in the same behavior as the previous account(s). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I received a similar--possibly the same, Newyorkbrad and I didn't compare--email from Okip. That email arrived in my inbox at the same time that investigations by other functionaries had come to the conclusion (correct, apparently) that Spoildead was Ikip/Okip. I took part in no decisions of sanctions, since I participate in article rescue and while I've never been fond of hyper-inclusionism, it could be perceived as a conflict of interest for me to be involved at all, especially since I'd been invited to the discussion by one of the parties. As such, this is my only plan to contribute to the discussion--to clarify what role I did and did not take. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Just confirming, discussion and review on all this began late on December 4th UTC on the functionaries-en mailing list. A functionary (not one of the ones Okip emailed) emailed the list requesting that someone double-check their conclusions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ithink it is unfortunate that Okip chose to try and smear you on his way down. It seems pretty clear you had nothing to do with this. It also seems pretty clear that the only people so far who support an unblock are other more radical ARS users who miss the bad old days, and even in this very thread speak of Okip as a good tactician and leader of their struggle. It's too bad they can't see that Okip, like several other radical inclusionists before him, apparently felt the ends justified the means and that socking to "Winn the battle" is ok. The message here is clear, that is not ok, no matter how many articles you rescued before or after doing it. As I said on the ARS talk page, it is time to leave that mentality in the past where it belongs and to speak out against unethical behavior all the more loudly if it comes from someone closely assosciated with the ARS. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef, support for one or two years. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your position. An indef block for socking is often successfully appealed after only six months with no repeat offenses. Are you saying a definite block of one to two years, or just a normal block with a set expires but still subject to normal means of appeal? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like indefs on principle. Even a fixed term of one or two years could be appealed, but I think there always should be a fixed limit for non-technical blocks. Someday, I'll write up my argument, but for now, I'll just register that I won't support indefs like this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks for clarifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Speaking of Benjiboi, it has been awhile since anyone turned up a crop of his socks. Historically, 71.139.0.0/19 has been one of the ranges he frequented. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef- with the caveat that indef means "as long as necessary" and not "forever". Reyk _YO! 08:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indefinite block. If and when he wishes to resume editing (legitimately), he should have to explain his previous behaviour and convince an administrator and the community why he should be believed when he says he will never again abuse the trust of the community and disrupt the project. Until he makes that case, he should remain blocked indefinitely. jæs (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. As I understand it, Okip/Ikip had multiple accounts to try to keep his editing under control. There doesn't seem to have been significant overlap between these accounts and the new accounts don't seem to have done much. The editor seems understand that he's gone too far in having so many accounts and so a reasonable next step would be to ask him to stick to one of them and then watch what happens, per WP:ROPE. Other editors such as Jack Merridew have been indulged much more even though they were more extreme and displayed little contrition. It would be unfair to come down on a minor infraction like a ton of bricks when others have been given more slack. Warden (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indef and hold a very strict standard for return Obvious outcome given the extensive use of multiple identities to edit wikipedia space. The desperate tactics of the usual ARS suspects (with one honourable exception) to smear other users and distract attention from the main issue is a classic exposition of why allowing any cliques (whether inclusionist or deletionist) to organise/coordinate their AFD votes is a really bad idea. Maybe its time to look at the ARS again? MFD anyone? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  The ARS is at AFD now, so feel free to join in. There is no one organize/coordinate their AFD votes, that just ridiculous. I'll leave that discussion elsewhere where it belongs though. No one is trying so "smear other users" just by mentioning how ridiculous that some of the same people that kept taking the side of a notorious sockpuppet master and letting him get away with one blatant abuse after another for years, are now being so harsh towards someone who did something far more minor, and perhaps with a decent reason Warden mentioned. When some of these people also take a swipe at the ARS every chance they get, I have to wonder if so many of them would being showing up to comment here and be so critical of Okip if he wasn't part of the ARS. Dream Focus 13:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dream, I understand your frustration, but really, socking is indefensible. If another guy got away with it, then that is the problem, it's not an excuse to forgive Okip's socking. Two wrongs don't make one right. --Cyclopia^talk 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Double standard, someone they like gets away with things, while someone they hate gets the most severe punishment. I'm not arguing against punishment, I just think it rather severe to say to make it permanent. Dream Focus 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• And also, the fact he's part of a wikiproject many editors and admins criticize should have called for more attention to an impeccable behaviour, not less. By doing this, he damaged the ARS a lot, bringing shame on it in the eyes of many. While I agree the actions of single editors have to be judged individually and independently from the wikiproject, these episodes only make the situation of ARS objectively worse. I don't want to see the ARS as a gang who defends their own members even when caught with dirty hands. --Cyclopia^talk 13:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please dont say such hurtful things about Okip, he might be reading this discussion! His value to the ARS was too great for words. Socking is unwise and I dont even have to ask Dream to know he doesnt agree with it either. But its very far from an unforgivable sin. Compared to attacking others with hurtful personal remarks, needlessly destroying others hard work and depriving readers of useful articles, etc etc, it's really rather minor. I remember reading our policy on socking back in 2008 and it was quite relaxed about the subject, listing all kinds of reasons why its Okay to sock. If you want to stop socking, make the Wikipedia a kinder, fairer and more reasonable place. Most only seem to sock as they want to do something about perceived injustice while also prefering to avoid intense confrontation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Feyd, he brought the hurtful on himself. You (and he) know that editors close to ARS are scrutinized much more than others. You know what happened when A Nobody and Benji were caught using less-than-impeccable methods to bring on their philosophy. I see the ARS as a positive project, but many don't: and if it becomes more and more associated with editors that resort to socking to push debates, then all the "value to the ARS" they brought becomes wasted by their actions. We should be the first to call for objectivity and integrity, because if we don't, then the critics gain momentum. Let's hope Okip abides by WP:OFFER and comes back with us acknowledging his mistakes. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll never see Okip as a negative to the ARS or Wikipedia, but your last post does make perfect sense. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef for long-term disruption, of which the recent socking is just one example. In addition, anyone who, at the top of his user page, defends the practice of violating copyright has no business being here. Deor (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• If anyone wants to close this Id no longer object, even if its a non admin. With even some squad members taking a hard line on socking, I dont suppose theres much chance of getting Okip unblocked, at least until enough time has passed for a WP:Offer. I only re opened before as I felts its unacceptable to indef such an excellent editor after such a short discussion, without anyone having a chance to put in a good word. Always felt bad that Benji was perma banned without any sympathetic editors being able to speak up for him.. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Feyd, didn't you find it strange that Benjiboi abandoned his main account for no apparent reason and began editing only with sockpuppets? Do you think he suspected that the Benjiboi account was about to be banned for other reasons? I do, but I know some stuff that you don't. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes we did find it strange, but the squad have been fairly sure we've understood our former leaders actions for more than a year now. Exactly 3 years before this thread was opened, you yourself started a thread on this very board which saw considerable hostility expressed towards Benji from various WR accounts and their allies. With Benjis keen appreciation of the situations tactical reality, he understood that trying to stand firm might have hurt both the encyclopaedia and his friends. Squad members would obviously have defended him, but he knew some of us would have had mixed feelings about it. Myself and several others find detailed articles about sex rather icky , and arent so inclusionist about that sort of thing as we are about others. Benji selflessly abandoned his well admired main account to protect the ARS. Resorting to socking allowed him to continue his work on topics that interest him. Not saying I approve of this, but do respect his good intentions. This is partly speculation, as have had no off wiki contact with Benji to confirm his thinking. But it does seem true to Benjis noble and self sacrificing nature. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This has to be one of the single most interesting comments I have ever read here, and perhaps one of the saddest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Interesting" is not the word I'd use; "disturbing" is more like it. I never had any negative interactions with Benjiboi (although we disagreed on editing the single article in which we had a significant overlap), but Benji's socking, CoI issues, and paid editing (revealed after the fact) leave me wondering why Feyd is figuratively canonizing him. Horologium (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

*I will close this in an hour or so as it will have been 24 hours since this was opened and the consensus seems overwhelming at this point. I'm not sure much purpose is served by keeping it poen much longer.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why not wait and give him a chance to respond? He wasn't using the accounts to vote stack or harass anyone. Did he log on from different computers and do a new account since he forgot his password, or something? We need to let him speak in his defense. Dream Focus 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  OK, in the interests of doing this right I'll hold off closing for at least another 24 hours. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Okip already responded yesterday, someone posted his e-mailed response on his behalf; Okip feigned innocence and tried to throw JClemens under the bus. Just close this farce now, please...even some fellow ARS'ers want him gone, with the the only opposition coming from a handful of irredeemable True Believers. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've read over this, and I don't see the evidence supporting indef. Did the user vote in an MFD with more than one account? Overlaps with user:Calendar are pretty stale, as that account has not edited since 2009. Most of the "wikistalker" report linked above shows ties between Okip and Ikip (apparently common knowledge to everyone involved). Excluding those, there appears to be very little overlap. Scentura was brought up as an example, but there the first edits from Calendar2 follow the last edits from Calendar, and that doesn't look like any intention to deceive. So what exactly is the evidence? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. We have evidence that sockpuppets were used recently in violation of the sockpuppetry policy (to avoid scrutiny and to comment in deletion discussions). Our prohibitions on sockpuppetry are a good deal more general than using multiple accounts in the same discussion. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but the burden here should be on Okip to demonstrate that this behaviour will not recur. Hut 8.5 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What evidence specifically are you referring to? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't quite understand your confusion. This is an example of Spoildead editing project space. Here's one for Calendar2. Both Dragdrag and Calendar2 have been editing High Heel Drag Queen Race. Combined with the checkuser results (which, admittedly, we have to accept on good faith), what do you need before you will accept that he has violated WP:ILLEGIT?—Kww(talk) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
      • How is that disruptive? Sock accounts routinely edit in project space and nothing is done, so even if that violated the letter of WP:ILLEGIT, it's not significant. And simply editing the same article has, historically, not been an issue either. So what is the issue? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Our histories are different. I block any undeclared alternate accounts I detect editing an AFD, or using the same account in alternation to edit the same article. When I know the sockmaster, I block it. If there was a problem with it happening repetitively, I would certainly issue an indef as a result. Undeclared alternate accounts aren't allowed to edit project space. Letter of the law, you aren't allowed to edit project space, unless Gimmetrow has finally claimed you as an alternate.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Too be clear, that wasn't intended as any kind of threat: I'm well aware that Gimmetrow and Gimmetoo are the same editor. It's widespread knowledge, unconcealed by Gimmetoo, and confirmed by checkuser. For some reason, it's a point of principle with the editor that Gimmetrow cannot be forced to claim the account. That annoys me, but I'm not about to do anything about it.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
            • You are, as typical, quite wrong in your analysis. Nor did you answer the question on the point relevant to this discussion. I remind you of WP:NPA. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
              • I would appreciate hearing what was wrong with my analysis, and I'll answer your question explicitly: editing project space with a sock has long been determined to be, prima facie, an effort to avoid scrutiny. Using multiple undisclosed accounts in parallel to edit project space, including deletion discussions of material that the main account is inextricably associated with, is certainly an effort to avoid scrutiny. Making edits while not allowing other editors to consider them in context is considered by most to be disruptive. As for my other comments, I regretted them after saving. That's why I followed up to point out that I wasn't about to take any action about them. I don't think anything I've said approaches a violation of WP:CIV or WP:NPA, though.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
                • The "main" account has one edit in the last 8 months. I'm more than willing to hear the evidence of disruption, but you keep pointing to a minor infraction that is regularly ignored and to my recollection almost never enforced. What's the disruption proportionate to an indef? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
                  • I don't see his infraction as minor or capable of being ignored, for one. It's not the alternation, it's the cloaking. He changed accounts in order to argue for positions that people would have interpreted differently if they knew they were coming from Okip, and didn't perform a clean start, as he did not abandon old behaviours or areas when doing so. That's not a technicality. You are right in the sense that if he was a valuable editor there might be some support for him, but his participation in the ARS as a battle organization (as opposed to the productive wikiproject it was in the past and could be again in the future) makes many of us view him as a source of chronic disruption, even if his edits to article space sometimes have value.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
                    • You can talk about how dangerous speeding is, but it's still speeding; even if repeated it doesn't merit the death penalty. But thanks for your honesty in stating that it's "his participation" that really matters. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
                      • Don't get me wrong: for me, socking is a bright line rule, and I would be in favor of an permanent site ban no matter how wonderful his contributions were. I simply note that other people are more tolerant of it than I am.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support And I was one who supported mentoring rather than a block in the past. Okip is exceedingly aware about socking - I suggest admins examine his deleted userpages (under Inclusionist and Travb, IIRC) dealing with such. As for the attack on Jclemens - it appears a good reason to support his election, I would think. Collect (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Beeblebrox solution: indef, consider revisiting not before 6 months. KillerChihuahua 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. It looks to me like Okip was doing a WP:CLEANSTART until he was baited by the WP:TAGTEAM deletion attack on ARS. He realized that he took the bait and confessed. That should be worth something. CallawayRox (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that such a tag team exists, and how they baited him. It looks to me more like the community gave him lots and lots of rope, and he hung himself pbp 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's rich. "they" TFD and MFD of critical ARS pages and conspiring between you and IRWolfie. CallawayRox (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

He didn't get blocked because we started TfDs and MfDs; and there's no need to go down that road. You've been repudiated once about it recently. The reason he was suspected of sockpuppetry is the way he notified people about those, not that those existed in the first place. If he'd just said "Keep" and put his head down and soldiered (or obviously if he didn't participate at all), we wouldn't be having this discussion. To say "it's mine and Wolfie's fault that this guy got blocked" is ridiculous. We didn't tell him to get a new acct., and we didn't tell him how to react to our actions. This is no fault but his own pbp 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of them are easy keeps and completely unnecessary. Spoildead didn't comment at either one until the MFD started and provoked him past the breaking point. CallawayRox (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply here. He was editing in the exact same areas as before. And if a TfD and an MfD that you yourself characterize as easy keeps are enough to push him past the breaking point, perhaps he doesn't have the temperament for editing here. AniMate 21:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support the Beeblebrox solution, as per Breeblebrox and Killer Chihuahua. Horologium (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've just gone over this again and it seems about the same as before. Only other hard line ARS users are not in favor of a block. I know you all are disappointed that this is happening but if the ARS is to be respected at all it must be more critical of itself than of others. A formerly prominent member (characterized by some as a leader) has been caught red handed using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny. the rest of the community is telling you this on not ok. This is not the time to close ranks and defend Okip no matter what, this is the time to be honest, something that has been sadly lacking in the ARS "leadership" of the past, and admit that no matter who did this it was wrong. Imagine if you will that it was one of the "deletionists" that had been caught doing this from the opposite direction. Would you not all be here advocating a block? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As an ARS supporter, Beeblebrox is right. Okip did wrong. Let's just hope he will understand that, so that he'll be back, and let this be a lesson for everyone else. --Cyclopia^talk 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block of longer than two weeks.Coren had it right when he proposed this. When someone suggests a long block for an editor they strongly disagree with, I look at it a little skeptically, especially when they call the attempts of the other editor to defend their views "disruption." DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef / standard offer after 6 months - Despite my inclusionist tendencies, I was unsure about what to do about this until I took a look at Okip/Ikip's block log, which is very extensive. Given that, indef + standard offer seems very fair to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A question about all these e-mails about Okip socking

Resolved

 – Looks to me like one way or another, this was all orchestrated by Okip himself, and there isn't any real reason to suspect an improper leak of any kind—Kww(talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone clarify the timeline here? As I read it, someone figured out Okip was socking, and mailed a functionary list about it. Okip e-mailed a separate group of people shortly afterwards. If that's true, it would seem reasonable to conclude that someone on the functionary list contacted Okip, which sounds like a real problem. If it's not true, could someone that has access to timestamp data correct me?—Kww(talk) 01:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it more likely that Okip realized he was about to get caught as he was not exactly being subtle in his approach to deletion discussions and his comments there do not look like the comments of a brand new user. However I'm afraid I already deleted those emails from my inbox as I do a almost daily basis so I can't verify the timeline. Since Okip seems like he wants to take others down in flames with him maybe he could clarify by sending out some more trash talking emails... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I got an email (presumably) the same time as NYB and JClemens a day or two ago. I suggested fessing up, but discussion had already come pretty quickly to the conclusion above. sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So this was after the original suspicion had been mailed to the functionary list? That's what I'm seeking clarification on. Beeblebrox, I'm sympathetic to the the suspicion that someone is being set up, but I'd still like to understand the timing.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

When considering the Functionary List Email/Confession Email timeline, also consider that at 20:52, 4 December 2012, I asked Spoildead in the MfD discussion if they had ever edited under another username. Monty₈₄₅ 02:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Checking my mail logs, the self-declaratory email arrived about an hour before the first investigation email, but I read them both at the same time. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I started the initial thread on funct-en at 511 PM EST (2011 UTC) on 4 December. I had seen the MFD, ran a checkuser because an account was a fairly obvious sockpuppet, and for various reasons, I wanted at least one more CU to verify my conclusions were correct before acting. I knew nothing about e-mails from Okip to other arbitrators before reading this noticeboard, and did not receive one myself (or any e-mail from anyone on this matter other than the functionaries thread.) Courcelles 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This matches my functionaries-l records as well. I posted to that thread shortly after Courcelles's initial email, seconding the possibility of socking, since at that point I'd spent much of the day squinting at the MfD, the TfD, and various user contributions trying to figure out what was going on. This thread (here on AN, today) was the first I heard of anyone having been contacted by Okip about socking, confessions, etc. I tend to agree with Beeblebrox that, independent of the functionaries-l investigation, Okip probably realized that he'd made a bit of a show of himself in the TfD and MfD (my warning to Spoildead for personal attacks, for example, came at 19:28 UTC on 12/4) and that he would probably be called on his behavior as a result. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my email shows that the first reply to Courcelles' initial email was Jclemens noting that he'd gotten a tip about Okip socking, but didn't have time to look into it just then. This does line up with his comment above that he read the emails at the same time. His email did not indicate that the email was from Okip himself, and that was the last email from Jclemens on the thread. Beyond that, there were no other indications that Okip had contacted anyone. I'd actually assumed that someone else (not a functionary) had also gotten suspicious and decided to email Jclemens privately... usually sockpuppeteers don't own up when they've been at it for that long. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that had to do with my misunderstanding the email on a cursory first read. It wasn't until later that I reread it on my laptop (vs my initial skim on my phone) and understood that it was actually Ikip himself asking for advice, rather than another editor asking for advice on how to best address a problem of socking. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• This may help clear some more of the muddiness here, Kww: Dream Focus is of course repeatedly substituting Calendar (talk · contribs) for Calendar2 (talk · contribs) even though it is the latter that is listed right at the start of this section. And Ikip's "22:02, 12 April 2010" is fairly obviously a confusion of 2012-12-04 with 2012-04-12 caused by ambiguous culture-specific date formatting combined with a typing error. It would seem a fairly good guess, from the above, that 2012-12-04 22:02 is the date on either the abovementioned reply to Courcelles or a reply to Ikip's confession. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Oh hey, my mistake. Devil's Advocate mentioned Calendar, and that's the name I searched for after checking another one, just copy and pasted it. Calendar2 [3] I see did have some post in October and November, that the same time other socks existed. Did any of them work together on anything? This is odd an editor who once had so many edits every day continuously for so long, would just made so relatively few with a few socks. If he was switching back and forth between socks, then that's a totally different situation. Are we certain it was him? Does more than one person edit from his household? Dream Focus 09:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop grasping at straws and read what is above. Checkuser confirmed it and he admitted it in an email anyway. Yes, we are certain it was him. Yes, they were used to avoid scrutiny. Yes, he knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. I agree it is odd, I don't understand it myself but it was bad-faith socking, there is no doubt about that at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

backlog at 3RR notice board

Resolved

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems caught up now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that was fast.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of AfD reversal

Resolved

 – NAC has been reversed. AniMate 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Darkness Shines closed the AfD as an "obvious keep". User:FreeRangeFrog objected and reversed. I restored the closure per WP:NACD, interpreting it to mean that only an admin can reopen the discussion closed by a non-admin (or the non-admin could reopen as well). Also, as a practical matter, FreeRangeFrog didn't fix any of the collateral issues associated with DS's closure (the article itself and the article talk page). I bring it here without expressing any opinion on the merits of the non-admin closure. My vague memory is that if an editor objects to a non-admin closure, they should first address it with the non-admin, but I can't remember where I read that (sigh). FreeRangeFrog did post a message to DS's talk page, but I don't believe they waited for a response, and, too boot, they labeled the closure as vandalism. I'll notify the two editors after I post this.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't label the closure as vandalism, that would be a vandalism rollback. My comment in the revision change is there for anyone to see, and this is what I posted in that editor's talk page: Non-admin closures of AFDs like these because you think the outcome is "obvious" can be considered vandalism as far as I am concerned. I stand by that. As per WP:NACD, I didn't consider my action to be re-opening the AFD, but rather undoing what was a patently disruptive and arbitrary non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that Darkness Shines should have been the one to close this. He seems to do a fair amount of editing in regards to Middle East politics and has recently edited Israeli settler violence. He may not have a vested interest in the article, but he does in the topic. Besides, contentious articles like this one should probably be closed by admins. AniMate 00:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• As stated, my reversal of FRF's edit wasn't based on the merits. I don't know about DS's edits, but if I were a non-admin, I wouldn't have closed this AfD. BTW, I have absolutely no objection to an admin reopening the AfD or DS doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• The test for an NAC is if anyone could raise any sort of reasonable objection to it. Seems like this close failed the test. I am not aware of a requirement that only an admin can overturn an non-admin close. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that your position reflects consensus from the discussions that have occurred regarding NACs, particularly the RFCs, and while the question of deference to NACs is murky, I think the general consensus is that they be afforded more deference then that. I'm not looking to re-open the general discussion here, but don't want to leave your position undisputed, lest it be assumed to reflect consensus. Monty₈₄₅ 01:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I could have phrased it more clearly. It is my understanding that NACs of deletion discussions should only be made in cases that any reasonable editor would find to be exceedingly obvious. Since it was apparently not as obvious as DS thought in this particular case it was probably not a good candidate for a NAC. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The actual guideline language is pretty vague: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. The NAC essay is stricter and more in line with your position. Certainly the close at issue here can be reasonably seen as breaking the guideline. Monty₈₄₅ 02:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I note the Bbb23 undid the close reversal, and I disagree with that. This was obviously a bad NAC, but now leaves me in the position that reverting the NAC again (as an admin, which no one argues is a problem) feels like edit-warring and even close to wheel-warring. Bbb23, please redo the close or give the rest of us permission to do so. We shouldn't leave Darkness Shines's close in place.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the comments here, I've reopened the AfD and undone the edits to the article and talk page so they are consistent with the article being discusssed for deletion. If I left anything out, please correct it. I have zero problem with the consensus that the AfD should not have been closed. My objections were procedural. If we are going to permit NACs (not something I'm fond of in the first instance) and the undoing of NACs, the undoings should at least be done by someone who is experienced enough to know how to undo everything, not just the closure itself. I also think that FRF should have waited for a response from DS or at least approached an admin about the issue rather than doing it themselves. It wouldn't have been damaging to the project for the discussion to remain closed for a short time (as it did anyway because of me). Finally, I think allowing anyone who objects to a NAC to simply revert it because they "object" invites chaos.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think you've been incredibly reasonable here, and we can close this. I should note that Nableezy has opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Darkness_Shines. AniMate 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Even if this were an admin closure I would see it as a serious problem. That it was done by a non-admin who has recently been in heated disputes regarding this topic area just magnifies the severity of the action. I understand the reasoning Bbb applied given the policy, but it seems Frog's action was a classic WP:IAR situation. We should gear this towards discussion of DS's action and away from legalistic argumentation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Lesson learned - I will bring such things to the attention of an admin instead of acting arbitrarily. I apologize for the disruption. Two things: First, my objection was valid, I think, given a non-admin closure of a contested AFD where consensus has not clearly been reached. Such an action is arbitrary at best, and given the closer's topical interests, I think a clear case of COI. If I ever feel the need to object to an admin closing an AFD then I am aware of the established avenues for that. I would never simply revert a proper closure. And second, quite frankly given the above I did not think I had the burden of waiting for User:Darkness Shines's comments as to why he closed the AFD, since the end result would have been no different. I stand by my opinion that this was a case of borderline vandalism. §FreeRangeFrog 01:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The NAC was inappropriate but with good intentions. That isn't the same as vandalism. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. I'm dancing around the strict definition of vandalism. Perhaps "consciously did something disruptive that he knew he shouldn't do" is better. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ACC flag

Just wanted to put this out there, not really asking for a formal discussion (of course, unless that's what comes of it) "It would be a good thing if Admins considering approving a request for the ACC bit to just get a tool admin's input on the user requesting the flag, since the user should have some kind of track record at ACC". Thanx for what ever this might bring Mlpearc (powwow) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me attempt to reword that: "If you're considering giving someone the accountcreator right, ask a Toolserver administrator's opinion in order to understand the track record of the person who wants to be an accountcreator". Did I understand you rightly, or if not, where did I go wrong? Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Mlpearc means tool admins in regards to the ACC tool. More specifically these users. Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clearer, you both hit the nail on the head, if a user goes to WP:PERM and requests the ACC bit the patrolling Admin(s) look a "on wiki" statuses, while back at ACC the same user might not be ready to handle special requests yet, even after hitting the six requests limit a few times, and a tool Admin would be aware of this and could shed light on the PERM request. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly makes someone a tool admin? Are Bsadowski1, Cobi, Deliriousandlost, etc simply regular administrators who use the account creation tool? Sorry for being dense. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The users on that list may or may not be en-wp admin's. They are Toolserver admins for the request interface, they have management functions such as accepting new users, suspending current users, they are able to black requesting IP's and/or email addy's of known socks, vandals, and so forth. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It would probably help if you didn't call them "Toolserver admins" and used the phrase "ACC tool admins". Or something that doesn't mean the same as "toolserver roots". Legoktm (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't call them toolserver admin's, I was just clarifying that they, I am not an en-wp admin. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So I assume this isn't coming out of nowhere. Are there admins, otherwise uninvolved with ACC, granting this user right without properly assessing an account creators actual record?? If so, a) this is a problem, and b) there should probably be some sort of notice to administrators at the RfC page to not do this. Swarm ^X 06:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy moved twice

Not wanting to go into a move war, I'm posting this here to gain some attention. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has moved Wikipedia:Image use policy to Wikipedia:Image use suggestions, removed the policy tag from the page and revoved some key text. I've restored the page once, but he simply repeated his actions, both with the rationale "This policy has never been approved by the commmunity as policy". — Edokter (talk) — 12:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from digging in the page history, it was first marked as policy here; the odd link to Wikipedia:Miniseries of Wikicivics was retargeted to Wikipedia:Policy Library in the next edit, and it's seemingly been consistently marked as a policy since then. Something that's been treated as policy for two-thirds of our history shouldn't be dethroned now; long usage has made it what it is. Think of this page's policy status like the sainthood status of mythical or semi-mythical figures like Saint George — they're called saints in a Catholic context because that's what they've been popularly called for many centuries, and likewise this should be considered policy because that's how it's been used for most of our history. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Those were my thoughts as well. I'll restore the page once again and move-protect it. — Edokter (talk) — 12:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

BMK's move was certainly not the best way to resolve this, but I've long been saying that our collection of image-related guideline and policy pages is badly in need of cleanup. We have a "policy" page that contains lots of stuff that has nothing to do with policy; we have a "MOS" page that contains lots of stuff that has nothing to do with style; we have "help" and "tutorial" pages scattered all over the place; it's all a mess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The move was clearly not uncontroversial (i.e. controversial!) and so BMK should not have moved it without prior discussion and wider consensus; he certainly should not have moved it a second time - POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The image issue is conflicted with the fact we have non-free policy that overlaps with it, and we can't talk about images (Free and nonfree) without also highlighting NFC policy too. Cleanup is definitely possible but the page moving and demotion without discussion is inexcusable. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tangentially, can someone please tidy up the mess caused by someone moving (and then re-moving) the page Wikipedia talk:Changing username? Thank you, Victor Yus (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Edokter (talk) — 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC

Hi. I'm referring this up the ladder, since Poeticbent seems to want it to come here (and to be honest, I'd welcome that. It needs sorting). At Talk:Richard Tylman some time back, an RFC was run to deterime whether data from Genealogy websites could be used as a source - it was requested to be closed, having had no activity since October 12, and Chris Gualtieri closed it, with it having no consensus, thus defaulting to the status quo, of "no". Poeticbent reverted this close to the RFC on 3 December.

Now I've looked back over Richard Tylman, and indeed, Chris is uninvolved with the article itself, openly admitting that "I (Chris) don't know two things about the subject and I don't personally care about the subject." He was completing a procedural close, for which he doesn't need to be an admin. Poeticbent then decides to revert his close of the Richard Tylman RFC a second time, this time with a threat in the edit summary. This occurred on 4 December.

This is where I waded into the battle - and I stress I wasn't canvassed to do this. I've had the Richard Tylman article and Talk on my watchlist for a while now, pre-RFC opening. How it got there, I have no idea, I don't remember editing it, still I digress. I reverted Poeticbent's undoing of the closure, and gave him a very clear, very blunt (read: bordering on incivil), untemplated warning on his talk page not to revert it again or he'd wind up here. Poetic has now replied at his talk page, to both myself and Chris, stating that he intends to "get more answers" here. So here we are :) All parties involved have been notified. Fish^Barking? 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The close by CG was fine. The "listen up" in bold stuff on Poeticbent's talk page placed by BarkingFish -- not helpful. (Rest of the message was okay). NE Ent 12:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The close by CG should've been "No consensus" as no one but TFD supported exclusion and yet CG closed in TFD's favor. The other two editors make decent points. But the biggest knife in the CG's close cake is that the larger consensus at the RS noticeboard was also non-consensus leaning toward careful use of Ancestry.com as a source. So I'd say that CG's close was actually poor. However, Poeticbent's behavior certainly isn't good; especially since he was involved in the other discussion. The right thing to have done would have been to discuss it with an administrator or bring it here rather than get into a fit with other editors and reverting the close.--v/r - TP 14:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that CG was a neutral uninvolved editor and Poeticbent would be well advised to not accuse others of bias simply because they didn't agree with his bias.--v/r - TP 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So you say throw out policy and convention on the number of votes cast in the RFC? Also, the actual discussion itself about Ancestry.com being a reliable source is pretty straight forward. See here. [4] Many well founded opinions and comments are already present for that, and I cannot simply disregard what seems to be a strong argument against Ancestry.com's teaser hints as being a valid and reliable source. As I mentioned in the RFC close, I would have taken them as primary or secondary sources provided they were verifiable, but the links used were not even viewed by Poeticbent himself, and much of the postings are a synthesis and original research because of it. Furthermore, as they were being used as external links and WP:ELNO is pretty clear about not having paywall and minimal use.

Also, please remember that these links were not solely Richard Tylman. They included links to "William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614), with children" and "Richard Tylman IV (1569–1614). Born to Nycholas Tylman III and Jane Benson." Furthermore, the links in this family tree assembled by some amateur are really reliable? [5] Even other 'reliable sources' used in the article are questionable such as this one. [6] 'Freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com'? Seriously? This is no different then taking some random angelfire, yahoo or other website and posting it up as proof. Its like the one line fragment used from a Lulu.com (a POD print book) as a reliable source in this article? [7] So, I'd seriously consider what is really reliable and what stands out as a massive synthesis of material. We are already aware that there are many Richard Tylmans and that others lived in the same area, and there is at least 5 if the assembled geneology is to be right. Though this is coming from a website that tries to push that almost everyone is related to kings and queens of olde. True geneology research takes time and even people at Ancestry.com know that the trees of others can be entirely garbage. Only the documents themselves are useful, not the assembled product of amateurs seeking to glorify their pasts. I would assert that Poeticbent does not even have access to the pages upon which he linked, as the dates for the events and such would be surely included, but nothing more then what the 'free' look is taken. As far as I was concerned, they do not meet the standards for WP:RS and WP:V, let alone WP:EL under WP:ELNO as they were. So yes, even though the number of !votes were leaning away, the simple fact that the sources themselves were garbage in full view of policy means I could not simply go against a community concensus of what is reliable (even the side discussion at RSN proved as much) and had really no other choice then to act in accordance to policy. Poeticbent began disrupting and making personal attacks on me immediately thereafter. There was no activity in that RFC since Oct 15th, after I close I am called to be non-neutral, partisan, a bully, and commiting 'fakery' by mere closing of the RFC.

The real disconnect, even amongst the supporter of the previous link Clemrutter is as follows, "...I can happily agree that two commercial websites are not valid sources. I fail to understand how they shouldn't be cited for external links- so the dear reader can share the external links he will need to use if he wishes to do OR." This kind of mindset underscores my decision, Clemrutter agrees that they are not valid sources yet wishes to include them as external links for OR. If they aren't valid sources, they shouldn't be used, even if you must argue it, ELNO covers it then. If you cannot count the source as reliable and verifiable, don't stick it under 'external links', it shouldn't be on the page. So here we go round the circle again. I decided the RFC on policy. Clemrutter's comments seem fair. And if you really want to be super-precise on the RFC the count was 3 to use, 1 to not use, 1 comment. One of the uses were from a blocked sockpuppet (and didn't add an argument anyways) and the other use was include because AGF that the geneology info is correct rather then see if it is reliable or not. Making the whole RFC in reality, 1 to use and 1 not to use. TFD's arguments and the discussion at RSN was really the important matter as it as on policy, as all good decisions are made. I do not think I was 'poor' in judgement for deciding it that way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All of that makes a great comment in an RFC, not a close. Taking a single editors comments and closing it as the "consensus of an RFC" is a joke. If anything, you should've closed it as "No one seems to care" or just simply "no consensus."--v/r - TP 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I listen on policy instead of popularity. You take a blocked sockpuppet's 'me too' as a vote? You take someone who admits the sources aren't reliable as a pro use? You take a comment by Clemrutter who just after the close agrees the sources aren't valid yet think I closed wrong? Seriously? If you oppose and state, 'the sources aren't valid', you really are saying that they are not valid, and Wikipedia deals in reliable sources. So Clemrutter doesn't understand External Links, but he knows what a reliable source is. 2 to TFD as I see it. The other not vote from GeorgeLouis fell into the same boat as 'Let the reader decide if it is reliable or not and I AGF it is correct'. These are not strong arguments. If the sources cannot meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V then we should not use them, not tack them onto external links and try to let it fly in the face of WP:ELNO. The RFC as small as it was, had only one major argument rooted in policy, and that was TFDs. Consensus is fine for certain things, but Wikipedia as a whole is not going to be locally overruled because 2 people with flawed arguments are numerically more then someone who roots arguments in policy, and that those said sources do not meet community standards. Unless I am sorely mistaken, rather then argue about the number of votes, how about someone argue on a matter of policy and how those sources are okay in light of it. Forget it being about external links, they won't even pass RS or V, if they do, I'd add them as sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed on the RS noticeboard about how WP:V can apply to Ancestry.com. Where you are mistaken is believing that your interpretation of policy is the only one. That is why we consider consensus in discussions. Other editors have a different idea of how WP:V can be met. As a closer, your job is the summarize those ideas, identify the ones with the strongest policy based rationale, and show how much support that rationale received. You can't stick with your understanding of policies when closing. You have to recognize the community's interpretation before your own. The larger discussion offered solid ideas and took WP:V into consideration. So the close wasn't done well. I would've said "No consensus" which would've resulted in the same thing. Instead, we essentially have a supervote.--v/r - TP 16:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the close is one thing, but calling a good faith effort "a joke" is uncalled for. My first thought when reviewing was there wasn't enough discussion on the article talk page, but when I followed the link to RSN my read of the discussion was similar to CGs. NE Ent 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The effort isn't a joke, the "RFC" is. I read the RSN thread completely different than you then. My takeaway from it was that WP:V could be met given certain conditions on Ancestry.com.--v/r - TP 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I understand the different. Ancestry.com has some good and rare records that can be used. As I stated and have been stating, I'd take a primary document of worth. As so is the discussion at RSN. The problem is that no documents have been provided and that even Poeticbent does not have access to said primary documents (its the free content only) and the tree as was in the external links was not even about the subject alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see RFC closure as a deterministic process -- it's a messy process. Lacking evidence CG was either involved or grossly ignored the discussion, closing it as they did seems reasonable to me. I'd have said the same thing had TP closed it as no consensus. The whole point of RFC should be to bring closure to a discussion; I think it counterproductive to Wikipedia overall to allow reopening of RFCs by parties disagreeing with an outcome unless there's compelling evidence the closer made a gross error. NE Ent 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, I fully support CG in this thread. It was certainly within discretion. It's just not how I'd have closed it. As I said earlier, the result is the same and I tend to get tied up in principals, but I agree CG was uninvolved and perfectly capable of the closure and Poeticbent doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on here.--v/r - TP 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was in the process of opening this, when User:BarkingFish beat me to it, so 'm skipping the intro. Informing other editors about ANI is not a threat, and not an insult contrary to what BarkingFish said on my talk page... We have a prolific user here, ChrisGualtieri, a rollbacker with long edit history, who forgot that he's not an administrator (and for a good reason) dishing out controversial judgements with no regard for the contributions of other experienced Wikipedians. His personal views are so entrenched that he doesn't seem to realize that what he dishes out from his own little corner of RFC doesn't smell good. Comfort breeds contempt apparently, and his ego-self is compelled to pretend to the throne. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're currently at the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. You've thrown out a ton of insults against ChrisG without at all addressing the close or substantiating your accusations. What makes Chris biased? What makes him egotistical? As far as I can see, Chris is completely neutral and uninvolved and although I disagree with his close, it doesn't at all support the remarks you've made about him. Editors have just as much capability of closing RFCs are administrators do. Whomever told you that only administrators closed RFCs was mistaken. You've given no evidence that he has a personal view prior to closing the RFC. You've given no support that his views are entrenched. You've given us nothing but your word that your insults and accusations are the truth. Seriously, welcome to WP:ANI.--v/r - TP 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (Quote): "Chris, I will report you to ANI for misuse of process tools, partisan editing, revert warring, fakery and general bullying." Now tell me - does that look like Poetic is "informing" the user about AN/I, or threatening to report him? To me personally, it looks like a direct threat to report Chris for a load of stuff Poetic can't actually substantiate. Partisan editing? Fakery? General Bullying? What the hell... Step up to the plate and back up your claims, if you can. Fish^Barking? 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Policy states it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. NE Ent 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The attacks come against me from the moment I closed, I even mentioned this before. Its a wonderful example of 'i didn't hear that'. I never edited the page before closing the RFC, the view history is easy enough to check. He called me horrible things for simple closing in disagreement, based on policy nonetheless. Poeticbent created the article and has done a lot of the work, but is suffering from WP:OWN and is lashing out, even calling my close of the RFC as an XFD. I don't want to delete the article, never did. I just don't like the response to my close and how not once has an arguement over those sources been made, instead its attack the editor. If those sources pass RS and V, I'd be happy to have them on the page. Though they do not meet the criteria and Poeticbent does not have the primary documents either to back it up. Makes verification nearly impossible, and the marriage one is only one line in a book as are some of the other sources in the article. And those too have flaws, yet I didn't remove those. I was solely here for the RFC close as per the request on the page.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This would probably be more easily solved by reopening the content issue and taking it to RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to WP:ELN as they wanted it as an external link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has no dog in this hunt: it's very clear from the many WP:RS/N inquiries on ancestry.com that there's a wide consensus that its material is often unreliable and that most of the reliable material would tend to be considered primary sources. If the RFC had been conducted at RS/N it surely would have attracted a lot more negative responses. Moreover, a quick read over the article leaves me quite uneasy; it feels very much like a piece of original research that is having to put together a lot of material without benefit of secondary sources having done the work first. Personally, I think a procedural close sending to the issue to the correct noticeboard would have been an appropriate response, but I don't think CG's closure was out of line. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to the ELN right after I closed it by TFD. TFD was in favor of removal. [8] It should be RSN as it was before. Though I closed the way I did was because it had already been to RSN. As it was here [9]. So I closed the way I did because it I took both arguments from the pages into consideration (as the majority of activity occurred at RSN anyways). If you are implying that I should have closed by sending it back to RSN, then its surprising to me. Since I thought the matter was already handled adequately there. It bounced forums and is doing so again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that you should have done differently, only that you could have chosen to do so, with the likely outcome of that being essentially the same as your closing result. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This article was sent to AfD five times not because of Tudors... and certainly not because of Ancestry.com website. The subject was targeted by WP:EEML, one of the biggest arbitration cases in Arb history originating from Eastern Europe. When ChrisGualtieri approached this article he saw its history and instead of stepping back and acknowledging the lack of consensus he chose to take one side against the other. What's worse, he also performed unilateral revert in main space. No editor can call himself uninvolved anymore, as soon as he begins to perform unilateral reverts in support of one side in a bitter and long-standing conflict. User:The Four Deuces is an active participant in Eastern European conflicts regarding communism and he knows a lot more than he cares to admit. His two AfDs were no accident. Some of the best Wikipedians were prohibited from casting a vote by ArbCom. For him, the article subject does not matter as much as the fact that it is named Richard Tylman. Read the opening line of his second AfD. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment - the "Richard Tylman issue" has been going on for quite some time and is far more complicated than some of this thread suggests. Having had a very good, long look at the whole history during the last AFD for Richard Tylman, I posted this note which gives some background. Poeticbent had tried to explain some of the background (as he has here) but without some of the details that might be construed as a conflict of interest on his part, given his openly declared conflict of interest with the previous article of the same name. Was it smart to create a new article about a different person with the same name as the subject of a very controversial article with which he had a direct conflict of interest? No, probably not "smart", but also not prohibited. There will naturally be more "eyes" on the new article given the history of the old one but it's probably not helpful to describe that extra scrutiny as "general bullying". Poetic might feel like he is being watched / scrutinised / hounded but transferring that anger onto an uninvolved editor won't help the situation, regardless of the actions of that editor. That said, nor is it particularly helpful to consider the history of an article (having "stumbled across" it) and then non-admin close a discussion based on an opinion. It doesn't help that the editor in question cited an WP:RSN discussion (with basically the same content) started by the same OP that had not yet been closed with any form of consensus that had been started only days earlier. I'm not sure why the OP felt there was a need for an RSN and a talk page RFC but citing one unclosed discussion to NAC another probably wasn't a great idea. In reality, WP:RSN is probably the best place for such a discussion and NAC'ing the RFC as a "duplicate" while directing editors to RSN would probably have been okay. To be honest, I can't see that there was a great deal of malice here, just a little bit of line over-stepping (all around) that can be quite easily resolved with a re-wording of the closure (noting duplication and directing to RSN rather than citing it) and an agreement to discuss it there with civility. Stalwart111 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and expansion

Some have thought my actions may be a bit much, in light of such strong words, even without evidence behind them, such attacks have already proven somewhat effective. So I'll point out once again, that I had no idea what I was stumbling into, I didn't even care to check the AFD history. After this little fuss started I checked and saw it was about some poet and figured that the article was in no shape or form related. How wrong I was. Stalwart seems to have pieced together what I did not know and it was eye opening. In fact, I was a little bit taken aback as the article probably didn't need to be deleted, COI notwithstanding. I really had no idea of what this drama was about or why my actions are somehow related to this mailing list and Arbcom stuff which has long preceeded my wiki activities by a span of years. When I say neutral and uninvolved, I really meant it in all forms, as I was entering the matter completely ignorant of any history and dealt with the matter purely from the RFC and the RSN noticeboard discussions. A plus or a negative, debate amongst yourself, but I had pure intentions. I decided according the guidelines for closing an RFC and did so with the policy, as policy is a foundation for good decision making, not !votes. Sadly, something with this article and the deception as well as the outlandish attacks against me have stirred a curiousity. While I looked at the sources briefly and specifically dealt with the ones concerning the RFC, the others I AGF and let them be. In light of such attacks, I feel that something was trying to be covered up, trying to scare me away, anyone who could disturb Poetic from this article. With Stalwart's post, I realized this entire thing is under POINTY. The Richard Tylman article is full of original research and synthesis and outright false information tediously crafted to portray a single individual. Simple fact, Richard Tillman was the merchant who in 1580 made 33 voyages during the 6 month recorded in the Port Book. Depending on your views as purposeful malicious action or very poor editing, the problems begin with lines like this, "In 1580 all corn sold by Faversham dealers to the London merchants came from Richard Tylman..." No source backs this. Its also blatently wrong. Even if he was mayor, the connecting stemming from a letter which states as such and a note in the history of Kent in one source but not the best one, states a Richard Tylman was mayor. Problem is that the best source says he was a merchant, nothing is said about him being a merchant AND a mayor. A bit rough to say based a single letter record which isn't a primary document, but an account of a letter rather then the letter itself. One of the sources tied to him is supposively 16 years after his death. The article itself is full of synthesis and original research. Not even Faversham's own web page makes a single mention of Richard Tylman.[10] I'd love to straighten this mess out, but I think something major is going on here and me closing the RFC was truly a blind man's folly as I've wound up in the middle of this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the close. It used the same reasoning recommended for closing AfDs, to evaluate the arguments about the interpretation of policy. This issue however would probably not have gone to ANI except for Poeticbent's defensive attitude toward other editors. I did not participate in the first three AfDs and, except for Poeticbent and myself, no one involved in the current article had any involvement with the previous one. And while some of the editors who voted to delete in previous AfDs were involved in Eastern European articles, many were not, yet Poeticbent impugned their motives. The only editor participating in the first nomination who was involved in Eastern European articles voted to keep. TFD (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is just another petty dispute about nothing. This should never happen. The article in question is really nothing, it may or may not exist - who cares? These databases may or may not be used - either way is fine. Whoever brought this to ANI, do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is valid to discuss whether the RfC was closed and reopened properly. My thoughts is that involved editors acted mostly in AGF, and that we should reclose the RfC as no consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I did actually revert the unclosing of the RFC by Poetic, Piotrus. If the RFC needs to be reclosed, fair enough - my understanding was that in the event of a no-consensus, closure reverts to the default - whatever it was before, in this case being a no to the decision. Will reclosing it again with a different reason make a blind bit of difference to this? It's still a no, either way. Fish^Barking? 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: returning this to AN/I, wasn't closed, was archived by Miszabot II before discussion was finished. Fish^Barking? 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm no longer amazed that such a massive discussion could have happened in the few hours since the thread was started on the image use policy page...Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Back log at Requests for page protection

Could we get a few admins to look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as we have a bit of a back log (20 open requests).Moxy (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Now 30 open requests. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It was up to 36 requests when I had to leave for the gym, but now it's back down to a handful. Thanks to all who helped clear the backlog. -- Dianna (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(not so) hypothetical scenario

So let us presume there was a user who was blocked here some time ago for a long-term pattern of incompetence as well as another action that was very deceitful and dishonest, although done so poorly that it could also be seen as part of their pattern of incompetence. This user has managed to remain in good standing at Commons, possibly because a language issue that they would not admit to here does not get in their way over there. This user has now established a decent track record over there and has just changed their name. Just after the Commoms name change went through somebody created an account under that new name here. I mean, like within hours, far too soon to chalk it up to coincidence. As of right now this account has no edits at all.

Keep an eye on it and see of it ever does edit, or block preemptively and leave a notice on the blocked users talk page? (with enough digging you may be able to determine who I am referring to, but for the moment I would ask everyone to keep the disc:ussion in the realm of the hypothetical.) Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's possible they are just registering the name so that nobody else tries to edit under that name, but I'm not 100% sure how the whole global editing thing works, so I might just dead wrong. - SudoGhost 21:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no issues with a preemptive block. Seems like the logical conclusion of the "prevention, not punishment" credo.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the new account simply be the effect of automatic creation for a unified account, done as soon as the user enters en-wp as a reader (while logged-in at Commons)? Why not simply ask the user on Commons if the new account is him, and just remind him that he is not supposed to be editing with the new name here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive User JoseGoGo

User JoseGoGo (talk · contribs) has spent spent the last couple of days Wiki-hounding me from 2 different IPs on an open proxy. Now that his proxy has been blocked (See SPI for diffs to support the preceding sentence: [11]), he's registered an account and seems intent on edit warring. He is edit-warring at James Dobson [12][13], contrary to consensus in an ongoing Talk discussion[14], and he is also edit-warring at Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States[15][16], where he refuses to justify his edits. Now he is harassing me on my own Talk page. [17] Belchfire-TALK 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In all likelihood it's probably the indeffed SkepticAnonymous.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoever he was in the past, it's quite evident that this brand new account is not a user who is new to Wikipedia. I also see telltale signs that would seem to tie him to another badly behaved IP, but I am informed by the patrolling admin at SPI that they won't do Check User for IPs (which is ridiculous, because a quick look at the User-Agent string would clear this up in a heartbeat). Belchfire-TALK 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The correct place for this is SPI. You brought the two IPs to SPI, but not this editor. File there again showing any relevant behavioural evidence you have for the assertion. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

JoseGoGo is obviously a sock, and based on the behavior, not just of the two IPs but of some unknown experienced editor. I have no idea who or if they are blocked/banned though. Monty₈₄₅ 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have semi'd Belchfire's talk page for four days as an interim measure. -- Dianna (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is the evidence, that's the sort of connection that can be made through SPI with behavioural evidence and with a checkuser (I see that is being done now). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page error reports are ignored

Not only are main page error reports ignored, I get told in the instruction on how to deal with a problem, that I should report it to the page that is being ignored.

Wikipedia has a main page with a do you know on it that says something that is not in the article (Intraplate deformation). I posted about this problem. The information is still on the main page 3 hours later. Shouldn't inaccuracte statements be removed from the main page?

Someone posted about a version that had the information in it. But I cannot just use that version, because the author of the article included information that is not in the sources he references. I don't know about you, but when I use a reference, it should say what I say it says.

Can someone remove the article from the main page? It is silly to say something on the main page, then link to an article that doesn't say that in it.