Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 31 December 2012

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 45 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 106 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 104 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 104 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.

—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 75 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 56 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 47 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 45 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 44 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 42 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)[reply]

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 38 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	37	37
TfD	1	3	4
MfD	1	0	1
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	16	21	37
AfD	0	1	1

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

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 261 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 84 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 81 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 79 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 69 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 40 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?

I got the following requested following a deletion I had nominated ([1]) Effectively, the user wants me to provide a copy of the article before deletion to PasteBin. Is there anything "wrong" with doing this? --MASEM (t) 20:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason not to. It seems a pity to have deleted it if it was useful to people. It got over 15,000 hits in November. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It went through a proper AFD, based on NOTCATALOG. There's probably lots of pages that fail core NOT policies that had gotten lots of hits that we've deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem providing a copy - the version prior to deletion was licensed CC-BY-SA, so anyone was free to take a copy of it for their own use. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing obligates you to post the article to pastebin, really. If the user wants it, I'd suggest providing a copy via e-mail as we usually do, then they can do with it as they wish. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I have an aversion to doing so, just needed to make sure that I didn't step on any established toes. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We get those requests at WP:REFUND all the time. I personally refuse to action them, but they are typically actionned (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with fulfilling this type of request as long as the article didn't contain BLP violations or the like. In fact, it is often good practice to provide a copy of the deleted material as soon as requested, to minimize the hurt feelings etc. resulting from the deletion of good-faith contributions. (Incidentally, it looks to me as a completely uninformed bystander that this article could well have been kept, although I don't have the subject-matter expertise to be certain, much less to DRV it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a good amount of time before even putting the AFD in for the article. I had to outline why I felt it was different from nearly-similar lists in the AFD nom, if anything to remain true to NOTCATALOG. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My default position is that articles with hundreds of edits and thousands of hits should be kept whenever possible, in the absence of BLP problems or incurable POV problems or the like. I suppose I'm betraying some form of inclusionist tendencies by saying that, and I'm sure some people will suggest various kinds of treatment for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Newyorkbrad's second comment to an extent — while I'm perhaps not as fond of keeping articles, I'm strongly in favor of keeping titles that are old. I agree with his first comment: as far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with this content; the only reason that it was deleted was that we've created inclusion guidelines that don't include this kind of list, and there's no problem with someone hosting this that wants to. What if you undelete the article and immediately convert it into a redirect to List of games using Steam authentication? You could then just point the requester to some of the old revisions before it got converted into a redirect. The worst that could happen is that someone un-redirects it, and resolving that issue won't be harder than clicking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steam_games&action=protect. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very different list, with a different inclusion criteria (and why that was kept), so that would be improper. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a problem? It's a list of Steam games, so creating List of Steam games as a redirect to it wouldn't be problematic, and since there's nothing out-and-out wrong with the content of the deleted list, it won't hurt anyone if we undelete it. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not violate GFDL to give copies of deleted articles without all of the history? I know this is routinely done, but doesn't that break GFDL? If I contribute edits to an article, it gets deleted, and then someone else asks for a copy of it, they don't have the attribution history to show that my work (and that of others) is part of it. LadyofShalott 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that raises an interesting question. What happens with good-faith reusers of our content, mirror sites and such, which comply with GFDL/CC-BY-SA and play by all the rules, and then after some indeterminate time, the articles they have reused legitimately get deleted... How is this any different? --Jayron32 03:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nyttend's comment. Keeping the old history under a redirect would appear to solve the problem of copyright attribution for the provided material. Restoring List of Steam games and then making it a redirect to List of games using Steam authentication would not run afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG in my opinion. The cataloguish material would not appear in the generally visible encyclopedia. On Jayron32's question, see section g of foundation:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content which provides some wiggle room in cases where attribution via link is impractical. It appears you should provide a list of authors if the link is no longer working. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do good-faith reusers obtain a list of authors after we delete our article? --Jayron32 04:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ah, I see, and agree with that (or perhaps just redirect to Steam (software). Would one indef protect the redirects? --MASEM (t) 04:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect could go to any reasonable Steam-related page. If there was a concern that people would undo the redirect and put back the article, protection could be imposed. If good-faith reusers of a deleted page are quite concerned about our copyright, I guess they need to contact a Wikipedia admin to see if they will provide the attribution information. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attributation only requires the list of contributors and that can be sent with the page. I'd be very wary of any mechanism like this that can allow any user to force us to undelete content that has been legitimately been deleted at AFD. Especially when there are just as simple ways of doing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Attribution would seem to require the entire history not just a list of contributers (One supposes we could send the history data along, of who contributed what and when, with the knowledge that it will then likely be lost down the road, but at least the admin has provided proper attribution at that point). I'm not clear though on what the objection is to maintaining the history on site? It was created at this sites invitation under GFDL (log of all changes to the work), even if it has been later deemed not article worthy. Is it a space issue? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alerting the queen of copyright to this discussion -- I know she has provided attribution history for deleted articles in the past, so this process is likely documented somewhere. —SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of contributors works. See Terms of Use #7(b). This provision was also included in the older Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is clear then. When we delete pages should we replace the content with a list of contributors? In that way external sites already linking to our material and using the URL for attribution can maintain their licence compliance. Thincat (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I were more technologically inclined, because it seems like it would be ideal if we could somehow link to the history in the deletion log. I have no clue if that's possible. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the way Mediawiki currently works, but a quick inspection of the relevant code tells me that allowing looking at the history of a deleted article by separating it from being able to actually see the deleted revisions or undelete them is feasible and I could make a patch for that relatively simply.
  That said, there are legal implications there that would need Geoff's input. Do you think it's sufficiently desirable a feature that it's worth it for me to start the ball rolling? — Coren ^(talk) 18:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember back in the early days (pre-2005), non-admins could see the entire Special:Undelete page, just not the text of the revisions. The right was later revoked due to possible issues with seeing the edit history (e.g. potentially compromising edit summaries). However, allowing non-admins to see just a list of contributors seems quite reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily agree with this idea. It's actually more of a good idea than it was pre-2005, since we now have RevDel for edit summaries and usernames, and we can oversight a page when its very title is a problem. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm thinking that, perhaps, Special:Contributors/ThePage might be a more elegant solution that does not cause issues with edit comments either. Ima talk to WMF about which work tickle their fancy and propose an implementation. — Coren ^(talk) 22:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're suggesting a page that would spit out the list of contributors and nothing more? Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's just a view of the edit history that only shows usernames and IPs (and maybe dates), but with edit summaries and anything rev-deleted omitted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right; and possibly coalescing the history to just list the editors and number of contributions, say, in a format more amenable to using as credits. This has the advantage of being generally useful even on pages that are not deleted since it offers a permanent link to contributors that makes it particularly easy to provide attribution. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that does sound like it would be something useful to have generally, seeing as attribution is a key part of our licensing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thread has my head spinning a bit (in a good way). How do IP's play into this? Do we pretend an IP is a singular "person" for the purpose of satisfying attribution? Technically, an IP is "anonymous" in this context (even if it is less anonymous than a reg'ed account in other ways) so could/would you just state "and 45 edits by various anonymous editors" in a list of attribs? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, actually, is one of the questions I'm sure Geoff will want to chime upon. I'll be starting a chat with Maggie and him after the new year in order to do this the right way for attribution; I've already got a working prototype on a test wiki of mine, so implementation is basically "whatever we need that works within the legal constraints". — Coren ^(talk) 03:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Legal should be involved, as it seems a proper GFDL log identifies who contributed, what was contributed, and when. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, when you create a book, it gives the contributors in alphabetical order by their usernames, and at the end of the list it appends ", and [number] anonymous edits". Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What this entire discussion seems to suggest is that we need to rethink the AFD process in the case of a close as "delete". If the information is not bogus or copyrighted (read: no value to keep), a consensus to "delete" may be getting rid of potentially useful edit contribution information that would be required for CC-By attribution. Therefore, in AFD discussions that trend towards "delete", it would make sense that either the delete !voters or the closing admin figure out some target that a redirect can be made towards, and then the closing admin would be responsible for blanking the page, putting in the redirect, and fully locking the page as to "delete" it but maintain the pretense of a deletion without the actual problems of deletion. We would likely need a template that can be added to the redirect page, saying that if the user wants to replace the template with a user space page that is meant to be different from the deleted material, they must contact the admin that closed the discussion or WP:AN if the admin doesn't respond to request the unlocking to do so.

Note that this would be a different situation if the !votes were to redirect/merge. In such a case the admin may create the redirect but should not lock down the redirect; there's no need to maintain the deletion pretense there.

The only snag in this is if there really is no redirect target, and this might be where we have a special page for listing articles that were "deleted" via this new process, perhaps some WP:AFD/Log/YYYY page. Here again we can list the instructions for requesting "undeletion" (removing the lock). Also we have to be very clear when content should be outright deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting such a page by default is a bad idea. Pages are often recreated appropriately after their previously non-notable subjects gain notability, or after someone comes up with good sources that didn't appear beforehand. Of course we should protect when the page is restored to its pre-deletion version or otherwise inappropriately recreated, but it shouldn't be automatic. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to conisder, aside from what we do after an AFD, is what we would do with this edit history information in the case of a PROD or CSD? BOZ (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "deleted" articles aren't really gone, so the information isn't lost. Anyone could request that content for a page if they wanted it. And sometimes the article title itself is a problem, which opens another can of worms. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julian 'Nitrane' Lane

Can an admin look at the above article at see if it is a G4 of Julian Lane (fighter) deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Lane (fighter). PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the {{db-repost}} even though a non-admin he has no way of knowing if it is or not and as someone who !voted keep at the afd is no impartial anyway. Then the creator Willdawg111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also removed it. Mt king^(edits) 23:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a straight copy and I have deleted it. I will point out WP:DRV to the editor. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new pages looks much different from the last as to point out why it passes WP:NMMA. to quote g4 "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly close enough, and certainly should not be re-introduced onto Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin also look at this edit summary I take it as a violation of WP:NPA (what I have come to expect from MMA fans) I think at the least it is appropriate for the edit sum to be removed. Mt king^(edits) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad enough to be removed, but bad enough for an "only warning" for NPA's IMHO (which I did) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the way the cookie crumbles. I am surprised that a lowkey comment like that got flagged. I guess there is always someone spying. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low key? Showing a bit of remorse/understanding for a significant and almost-blockable personal attack might have been a better choice. Accusing someone of spying is really just the icing on the cake here, as it's yet another WP:NPA. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I SPY with my little eye. A spyglass isn't a tool for spying as the Soviets would define spying. Then there are the EyeSpy books. Spy is a synonym for watch. I think you should dig a little deeper into what words mean. Maybe consult the dictionary first? Then you would see what I mean. Perhaps a little good faith is in order on your end mr admin? I'm sure you would advise me to use 'watch' instead. To that I reply: Could you point me towards the policy that is against ambiguous word usage? I'm also not sure why spying (and not in the way that the information collected is to be used for bad) is inherently negative? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins, I am hunting for a wet fish to greet you with, so please, wp:Please do not bite the newcomers. Any new, 2-month editor (contribs), especially with an interest in wrestling, can be expected to need a "period of adjustment" to the notion of 10,000 people looking over their shoulder in reading user-talk pages. So, lighten up, wouldya? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought common sense would have been a reasonable definer of how one should use language to interact with others. Spying has negative connotations because of its inherent association with stalking or more precisely hounding. Just my couple of lowest-denomination-currency. Blackmane (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for "Tailsman67"

There has been discussion on AN/I regarding the latest issue with User:Tailsman67. This user was previously indef blocked for disruption and was considered de facto banned but was later given some rope and allowed back briefly before being idef blocked again. Currently, they have been harassing User:Sergecross73 and block evading via several IPs leading to several range blocks being imposed to deal with him as well as generally disruptive edits on various AFDs and articles. There was a consensus for a formal community ban proposal to be discussed here. For those who haven't been following the drama surrounding this user, please refer to Salvidrim's summary here as well as the ANI linked above. I'm posting this here as I made the initial suggestion for a community ban proposal of this user. Also included for discussion would be whether Tailsman67's latest activity warrants yet another range block. I'll notify the user on their most recently used IP and cross posting to the ANI. Blackmane (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Quick correction -- I do not believe any of the user's IP were ever indef blocked; there was repeated blocks and a number of rangeblocks, however. I would recommend reading the previous AN/I threads found on the summary page, and perusing the various IPs contributions for further clarification. Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If any other editors have noticed that "Tailsman67" is not a registered username, I just checked ANI and it appears that it's the name used by an individual editing with the IPs 98.71.62.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Also, I corrected your link to the ANI thread, Blackmane. Hope you don't mind. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I fixed the links also, heh. :) Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well you actually fixed them the right way.. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks for fixing those. It was doing my head in trying to work that bit out and trying to do so late at night after a couple of beers wasn't the wisest idea. I believe the range blocks were 6 month blocks. Blackmane (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The longest rangeblock was for 6 months. Salvidrim! 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban - Per my comments at the ANI subsection. It's been over a year and over 7 blocks and still no improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban. Enough is enough. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban - It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a productive user, and has been a time sink for far too long. AniMate 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The user has had more than enough chances... sufficient time has been wasted for me to believe there is little probability of this user becoming a constructive part of the encyclopedia anytime soon. However, despite everything, he has shown dedication and occasionally good faith editing, thus I believe in a year or more, a successful return is not out of the question... but we'll see then and there. Salvidrim! 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - more than adequate time has been given for this editor to reform. Killer Chihuahua 12:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't say I never tried to help this place but since it's almost the end of the month,oh bye,wait what happens if I see vandalism?Well it doesn't matter if I get banned,all I want you to know is that I tried,thank you Salv for giving me a chance,thanks Serge for helping me out,giving me pointers,and sorry AniMate for not being good enough.98.71.62.112 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding assuming that the above IP is Tailsman67 again) If you become banned, as the above appears likely to do, then you are banned. You should not edit the project for *any* reason. You're likely best off not reading the project either, to avoid temptation. If you see vandalism, you do not get a pass to fix it. Banned is banned. You will be banned from making any edits, helpful or otherwise. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay see you in later unless i get ban,then see you never.But can someone tell me what the mean of disruptive editor means,I keep thinking it means an editor who is unneeded.98.71.62.112 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if you're blocked, you're already not supposed to be editing as the block applies to a person. A WP:BAN means you've been a disruptive editor after the block as well. It doesn't mean someone who is "un-needed", more like "someone who continuously fails to follow the rules and policies of the site in a manner that make more and more people do more and more work to correct the problems caused by said person" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - I agreed with the others; We don't need people like him here. Apparently judging from Salvidrim's special page, Talisman67 appears to have a hard-on for his and Sergecross73's edits and makes things hell for them. Banned is indeed banned, you are to be excommunicated and be made a nonperson for all I care. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed in making community ban official

So, there seems to be a lot going on here at AN today, so I understand if this isn't first priority, but I just wanted to point out that it seems like discussion is winding down, and there's unanimous support for a community ban for Tailsman67 and all of his IPs. I'm just requesting help with finalizing this, partially because I've never done that aspect of of things before, and partially because of being "involved". Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack

Could someone look here and tell me if LlamaAL's edit comment about a recent barnstar given to me constitutes a personal attack? Thanks PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is undeserved because you have very few edits to MMA-related articles. And with substituted, I was referring to {{subst}}. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you to read WP:WIAPA before taking someone to the AN or AN/I. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this is the sort of very mild, insignificant incident that is best dealt with by ignoring it. Who cares if somebody thinks you did not deserve a barnstar? Somebody else thinks you did, or they wouldn't have given it to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen someone blocked for referring to another persons improper edits of their page "vandalism". This seems to be in the same general area. While it may be mild it is still insulting to my efforts. I also feel that his comments were not in good faith PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) He fixed a problem on your talkpage b) you probably didn't deserve the barnstar, so he was right, c) he apologized on your talkpage for that edit-summary and you removed it, d) it wasn't a personal attack - it's not like he referred to someone by a specific disorder in their edit summary like someone I know. What else is there? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PortlandOregon97217 already in top 3,000 active Wikipedians: I think the judgmental claim of "undeserving" can be considered an insult to an October newcomer (re wp:BITE) who has made over 232 article edits within 2 months (edit-count stats), which places User:PortlandOregon97217 in the top 3,000 active Wikipedians for November/December, by article-edits, among the now 600+ edits. Remember, about 9,500 editors average over 25 article-edits per month, but over 115 article-edits is rare. I think, perhaps, PortlandOregon97217 should be given another barnstar, for diligence, for maintaining a high level of activity especially during these 2 months when many editors must cope with holiday/travel plans, and we need extra help on Wikipedia. Well done. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary in question clearly does not rise to the level of an actionable personal attack. Arguing about barnstars is a waste of everyone's time. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar is incidental. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the wikibreak javascript code from my user account

Hi,

I am user kazemita1 and would like the wikibreak removed from my account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kazemita1#Sockpuppetting

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.59.250 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try logging in now (ps: bypass your cache)(✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious — if you disable Javascript in your browser, will it be possible to log in anyway? Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. Firefox+Noscript = no wikibreak enforcer. Rd232 ^talk 02:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply any browser that allows disabling of javascript or doesn't support it. This issue came up at the time of the enwiki's blackout which was likewise accomplished with a mix of js and css. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Shinkansen

It is being suggested that I am vandalising an article on the front page of Wikipedia (the Chinese Shinkansen). I am not a vandal. I am simply seeking to have the article corrected for accuracy. It makes no mention of the source of the technology (clearly Japanese)

My name is Alan Erskine and my email address is <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.33.97 (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan. This is a content dispute and should be discussed at the article's talk page, so I've gone ahead and made a section for discussion here. Wikipedia follows a particular cycle of editing, in conformity with which, please comment there rather than continuing to make changes to the article (which has been PC-protected by King of Hearts (talk · contribs)). Λυδ α cιτγ 07:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are not going about it the right way. Placing that bold face edit into the article, although you do not consider it as such, is not generally received as a constructive edit. Whether the rail line is, or isn't, based on Japanese technology is not up to Wikipedia, or more specifically the editors writing the article, to decide. If reliable sources write about the rail line being derived from Japanese technology then please by all means include it in to the article, but until such time your edits will be challenged as original research with no sourcing to back it up and other editors who challenge this material may remove it per WP:BRD. Please discuss, on the talk page, the inclusion of your edits into article once you have found reliable sources. Blackmane (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful interactions

Proposal opposed. Criticism is not a bannable offense. I'm sure every admin has wished it were at some point.--v/r - T P 20:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like you to ponder a ban of sorts--a ban preventing A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) from commenting on Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). I don't understand what AQFK's interest in MF is (certainly MF couldn't care less about AQFK), but what I see is edits like this one and this one--reopening a thread at ANI that they had nothing to do with at all. I'm sure others can more easily provide diffs from various ArbCom cases where AFQK brought charges against MF. I don't really want to go digging through AFQK's history; right now I'm interested in the principle of a ban that said something along the lines of "AFQK, thou shalt not bringest charges against MF in such and such forum, nor shalt thou comment on thine or others' talk pages about said MF". Something of the sort. Because I'm tired of seeing what I can only call a vendetta, unrelated to any conflict about a specific article (thus involving hounding as well), and I don't accept the rationale that they're doing it for the benefit of the project. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it would be simpler to ban Malleus from interacting with all the "fucking idiots" he encounters. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support a ban on AQFK commenting on Malleus, unless required to do so by WP policy (or responding to any comment by Malleus mentioning AQFK, if any ever are made). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone calls another editor a "fucking idiot" and an "ignorant idiot", and the perceived solution is to have an interaction ban for anyone who points this out? The initial thread was closed, people should just let sleeping dogs lie. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I think sometimes we get so used to editors using the various disciplinary processes to advance their grudges that we forget that some people wish to use them as intended. Not that I'm saying AQFK's done that; in short, I agree with you that he's not helping the project by what he's doing, but I'm not totally sure that he doesn't think he is (though perhaps someone can find some diffs to say otherwise). My personal opinion is that the best way to respect AQFK's right to comment on proceedings, while at the same time reducing his ability to create drama, is to topic-ban AQFK from initiating any disciplinary procedures against Malleus. I'm not saying that I, personally, would or would not support such a ban, but, from my moderate familiarity with this case, and going off of what you're saying, Doc, I think that an appropriate wording might be A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from initiating any disciplinary procedures against Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), or from attempting to prolong any such procedures once another editor has marked them as concluded. Once again, I'm just speaking from an outlining perspective here, not from a support/oppose one. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has stated he has retired so I see no real reason to do anything.©Geni 15:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Or are you saying we should put any action on hold until it's clear it will have any practical effect? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a symptom of a wider problem, that whenever Malleus is mentioned it attracts a bunch of shit-stirrers with personal grudges and civility agendas, even when it has nothing to with them, or if it the involved parties have already moved on, or if it is some trivial comment that from anyone else wouldn't even be noticed - that includes some admins and some arbs. I honestly don't know what, if anything, can realistically be done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - You are failing to acknowledge that whenever Malleus is mentioned, it's usually because he very rudely told somebody else off, quite possibly calling them names in the process (and he's the one that complains about childishness?). Whenever and wherever he is mentioned, it's probably going to draw a few editors who dislike him and a bunch more who will defend him at every turn, regardless of if his actions are defensible. I still have yet to see any of his supporters address whether or not what he said to this most recent editor is ok. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider this editor a master shit-stirrer, which is why I'm bringing it here. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they can't get their kicks elsewhere, and I think it is disruptive that they don't. In general though I share your pessimism. Thanks Boing, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This thread seems to indicate that AQFK reopened the ANI discussion after it had been closed. That is not an accurate portrayal; Scottywong reopened the thread and AQFK posted the level III header shown above, after it was reopened. --My76Strat (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's recount the timeline of events to see what has happened:

Malleus refers to another editor as an ignorant idiot and a fucking idiot, presumably for the massive transgression of initiating a GA reassessment on an article that was previously edited by Malleus. An obvious case of childish name-calling, violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as Malleus has done so many times in the past.
An obvious sock reports the incident to ANI. Why he chose to report it as a sock is unknown, but perhaps it is because he anticipated the predictable backlash from Malleus' harem, who are apparently in hyper-sensitive mode now that Malleus is threatening to retire for the 79th time, as he seems to do every time he needs a little extra attention.
The discussion on ANI focuses exclusively on the sock, not the personal attacks, and the sock is soon blocked with talk page access removed, even before a checkuser has the time to confirm/deny. When a checkuser finally gets around to it, they find no relationship between the blocked user and any other user on the site. Yet, he remains blocked with talk page access removed.
The ANI thread is reopened by me (not AQFK) to examine the original complaint without regard to who posted it. It predictably attracts Malleus' supporters, who, instead of discussing the blatant personal attacks, focus on the fact that I mentioned that Malleus has been blocked many times in the past for civility, has an arbcom sanction at RfA for civility problems, and nearly got site-banned for civility problems last time he was at arbcom. They apparently took offense at the notion that someone believes Malleus has a history of civility problems.
The thread is closed again, 2 hours after I reopened it, with no substantive discussion on the personal attacks.
Drmies starts this thread in an attempt to get an interaction ban between AQFK and Malleus, and for what?! Because of a single comment by AQFK, rhetorically asking when it is acceptable to call someone a "fucking idiot"? I, for one, think it is a perfectly reasonable question; one that should actually be discussed without closing the thread after 5 minutes. And certainly nowhere near worthy of an interaction ban. There were no personal attacks in his comment, and his comment was perfectly civil and reasonable.

I'm tempted to continue starting threads on ANI about the incident until it actually gets discussed rationally for longer than 10 minutes. But, I already know what the response will be, and I honestly don't fucking care enough to put myself through the bullshit. The events in the timeline above are concerning to me. These events would never take place if the user involved wasn't Malleus. Malleus' supporters continually refer to complaints about Malleus' behavior as "lynching"; but then they respond by starting threads like this one (an obvious "lynching" of AQFK, who has done nothing wrong). Obviously, I oppose the proposed interaction ban, but I am very concerned about quite a bit more than that. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 16:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Ha, that's nice: you are very concerned, well, so am I, and your inflated rhetoric only confirms that. You know as well as I do that AQFK has no business trying to be the civility police by asking some innocent question. It can be an innocent question, of course, but not if it comes from this editor. No number of fucking bullshits will change that--you know he's out to get Malleus. There's a few more who are, and some of them have wisely laid low and stayed away--what I want is for AQFK to stay away. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you stay away from AQFK, and do something more constructive than thinking about ways to defend Malleus and attacking those who "are out to get Malleus" with your time here. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we would all be better off ignoring Malleus' bouts of moderate incivility and, if we are going to ignore them, I don't think it is reasonable to sanction the editors on the other side of the dispute who are acting no more disruptively then Malleus. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As presented the whatever-this-is proposal does nothing to convince me that it is necessary. I don't have a stable enough internet connection at the moment to dredge through interaction history, but I'm not aware of any history that would make me think there's enough clashing between these two users to warrant this ban thingy. --Ks5stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 17:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this issue is long dead. --Rs chen 7754 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this is definitely ax-grinding and should be closed. --Rs chen 7754 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Scottywong and Monty845. Seriously, Malleus can be far more of a problem than AQFK, who's main crime appears to be attempting to draw attention to Malleus's misconduct. If you want to crack down on someone, crack down on Malleus. Besides, Malleus is still retired as far as I know, so why should this be necessary? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, having read through some of this page, I find that Malleus's behavior was once again bullying, abusive and condescending toward an editor with fairly little experience. This sort of trash has been allowed and even encouraged for a long time. Silencing the opposition to it is nothing other than censorship. Perhaps Cornellier didn't understand the GA criteria. Does that mean s/he should be treated like dirt? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...it shouldn't be a surprise though that this website may very well have a few editors that are "@#$*&@#...idiots". In some very rare situations, it might not be such a bad thing to say it as it is. Generally speaking, in ones own usertalk, I think great latitude should be permitted for venting. I would really like to emphasize that for our administrators to ponder. I'm not saying that this would make it okay to threaten bodily harm or similar, but seeing anyone blocked or dragged to arbcom for comments thay make in a frustrated or disgusted state in their own usertalk worries me somewhat.--MONGO 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I couldn't agree more. BTW, thanks for fixing my poorly formatted notification. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that neither the "ignorant idiot" nor the "fucking idiot" comments were made on Malleus' user talk page. ‑Scottywong | express _ 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were made on someone else's talk page weren't they? So the same principle applies. I do have to apologise though, as what I'd mean to type was "fucking dishonest idiot", but the "dishonest" bit seems to have been lost. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same imaginary principle applies, perhaps. However, there is no provision within WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL which allows for exceptions based on the location of the uncivil comment or personal attack. You are free, of course, to start an RfC to add such an exception to the relevant policies. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 19:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There might be less disruption if Drmies stayed away from AQFK. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pfff. That's BS and you know it. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. Malleus's supporters have for some time been more disruptive than Malleus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think it's not BS. I think we need to start handing out interaction bans for people whose entire existence here seems to be devoted to defending one editor. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What hypocrisy, Scottywong! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that hypocrisy? What editor does Scotty defend? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, would you accept a two-way interaction ban with AQFK? You don't comment on him or his edits, he doesn't comment on you or your edits? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose criticising an editor for calling someone a "fucking idiot" is perfectly acceptable, let alone sanctionable. Hut 8.5 19:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask AQFK to not bring forth complaints about Malleus he is not a party to. While I don't have objections to third party complaints or efforts at litigation, in this specific case, no good can come if AQFK initiates another he is not directly involved in. I don't condone the use of any wiki space to call anyone a "@#$*&@#...idiot" or similar, but we need to apply less zeal, step outside the issue for a moment and get well educated on what the underlying issues are. I therefore oppose an interaction ban, but strongly advise AQFK to not participate in any further efforts at seeking sanctions against Malleus unless he is directly part of the dispute.--MONGO 19:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close This proposal is, apparently, not being well received. Now, if we had some committee that dealt with intractable issues . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - AQFK is an unhelpful busybody who just needs to find something else to do and mind his own business. The community has made it rather clear by now that Malleus being generally right about a given topic outweighs any perceived incivility. We used to call people like AQFK "net cops" back in the Usenet days. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose As too broad and vague. The restriction should be to prevent him from raising concerns about Malleus as a third party. AQFK has caused a great deal of disruption to the community and Malleus by repeatedly trying to go after him as a third party, I noted this when AQFK filed the ArbCom case because one of the previous ArbCom filings this year was instigated by AQFK taking a frivolous complaint to Jimbo's page. He should definitely stay out of it unless he feels he has been treated uncivilly. Malleus is getting stressed for obvious reasons and when there are numerous members of the community, including Arbitrators, denigrating him repeatedly without provocation and people making frivolous complaints about his contributions it must be very hard for him to maintain his composure. If this restriction were changed to be a ban from making complaints about Malleus as a third party, I would support it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this nonsense and let's hope to see a little more maturity from Drmies in the future than this blatant attempt to silence anyone still daring to be critical of Malleus' frankly outrageous behaviour. Small wonder that the only people who still risk calling a spade a spade are socks now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would be happy if AQFK voluntarily concluded that commenting on MF isn't helping, but a community one-sided band requires a lot more justification than has been presented.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator abuse

Enough. You are supposed to be acting like mature, reasonable people - this is a months old dispute with no apparent relevance today other than to make a point. Go have some early New Year drinks. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've Spun this off as a separate section since it has no direct connection to the previous thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the section title - "Administrative abuse" is abuse occurring in administration; "Administrator abuse" is abuse of administrators. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Administrator Scott MacDonald has not withdrawn his personal attack against me, and has faced no penalty. Perhaps some of the champions of civility enforcement and no-personal-attacks could show that they have principle and indefinitely block Scott for personal attacks and disrupting discussion (probably not intentionally) rather than just heap abuse on Malleus? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you attacked him first. Were you disciplined for it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Did you really think this was acceptable? Scott MacDonald's response seems remarkably restrained. Hut 8.5 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did Kiefer withdraw that blatantly inappropriate remark? If not, he should be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely WP:POINTY post; this WP:BOOMERANG worthy. You trolled an admin about cancer and he responded to you, citing how inappropriate it was, and now you call for him to be blocked two months later, citing some perceived personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (added 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I am not going to comment on the "cancer" discussion. I have nothing to add to my post which Kiefer helpfully links to above and you can draw your own inference. You will note in it I stated I would not comment or interact with Kiefer in any way after that, and instructed Kiefer not to post on my page again. So, I am disappointed that having posted this here, he took the opportunity to appear on my userpage to tell me. I'd thank others to instruct him that the project would be best served if he should not attempt to communicate with me in any way at all going forward. I have no desire to be made aware of his contemptible presence ever again.--Scott Mac 20:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is subject to Wikipedia policy, Scott, and I am sorry about your issues. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang proposal

Per the evidence provided by Hut 8.5, I am proposing that this thread WP:BOOMERANG on Kiefer. Trolling someone about cancer is not cool (cancer is not a joke) and it should not be ignored. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Demiurge's comment below, I will be more specific: I think that a ~~one week~~ block would be appropriate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 24 hours is probably more reasonable, given that the incident is two months old. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you're going to need some sort of concrete proposal here if people are going to support/oppose it. ("Boomerang is needed" is not a concrete proposal.) So suggest one. One year civility restriction? Six month ban on KW opening new AN/ANI threads or re-opening existing ones? One year ban on KW calling any other editor a liar or otherwise accusing them of dishonesty? Twelve hour block for blatantly offensive trolling about cancer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a 24-hour block? Seems good enough to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of it, if passed, can the blocking admin do it exactly at 12:00 on 31st December 2012, so that he can say "Blocked until next year"? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Bear in mind Kiefer was indefinitely blocked 3 days ago for disruption. A 24 hour block isn't going to work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare to be in the company of such self-righteous editors:

Scott stated the falsehood that men cannot grow breasts. I'm sorry that you all know so little about the standard screenings for male cancers, the prevalence of such cancers, or the side effects of treatment, or have such malice that you could imagine that I was trolling. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support block, escalated back to indef. Seriously, Kiefer, attacking your fellow editors with those insults while your behavior is being discussed? And your post at Scott's page is impossible to take seriously when you name it "Male tits" and continually use "you" when referring to Scott and cancer. It really does connote you were just trying to get a rise out of him. And just coming off an indef for disruption? Yeah, it does seem like malice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why did Kiefer post this two months after the edits in questions happened? I'm puzzled. --Conti|✉ 21:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-Free Media Usage Warning

Good Evening,

I am Malikussaid, a newbie Wikipedia editor. Here, in my personal opinion, I felt that mechanisms of warning users of inappropriate edits is quite highly... (sorry) shocking. I uploaded a few screenshots, having good faith that these are appropriate ones and complies with Microsoft Screenshot Licensing practice. Unfortunately a bot (which I cannot blame) posts warning on my user page, and I panic-ly checks the pages of my screenshots, and there I found the following warning :

I know it's my bad to unable to link it immediately to any articles, but I was consulting with a more senior editor to help me decide the best form of those images to use. And then suddenly a big red scary warning (for me) appears underside of screenshots I uploaded, giving me a 7-days chance to fix it or it's going to be speedy deleted.

As I known (tell me if I wrong), a speedy deletion is reserved for downright wrong edits, such as vandalism, blanking, harassment, etc., but now I am is getting threatened with the same action. This is... really scary for me. I tried all my best to comply with screenshot uploading policy and/or licensing rules, and with one mistake (orphaning the image), I am being faced with the consequences of speedy deletion.

I am suggesting that the way of notifying user upon this form of offense is modified, so, as for example, the user is told that his images must be modified in a certain way to kept in Wikipedia, instead of telling them that their images will be deleted if they do nothing. I think it is more informative, and helps user learn upon mistakes they've made. I also suggests, in a way I don't know, the "scare level" of speedy deletion is decreased.

Thank you

Malikussaid (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content enforcement is something that we are supposed to handle quickly, given the Foundation's resolution on handling of non-free media. We regularly delete non-free content not used in articles (per WP:NFCC#9), and do so in a timely manner. And the message is correct - you have to include those in articles to keep them around, so there's no "modification" that can be done. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing, speedy deletion is not reserved for downright wrong edits as you state, it's reserved for any content where the result of any deletion discussion would result in overwhelming consensus to delete. Downright wrong edits are definitely part of that, but not only, there's a number of purely routine deletions that are covered by speedy. As Masem explains above, we will not keep non-free content on the servers that aren't used, and deletion of such unused content within 7 days is routine maintenance.

There's also an important notion in that warning, which is that non-free material should not be uploaded without a valid reason and a plan for inclusion. A non-free image isn't "yours", in this case it's Microsoft's, and while there are a couple of good reasons to use them, limiting that usage to what is strictly necessary is a sound policy to help ensure that our access to what we DO use doesn't get more restricted in the future. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept the MASEM's reply and first paragraph of MLauba's reply. But I has a plan for inclusion of those images in articles.

Malikussaid (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically until you know you can use them , you shouldn't upload them here. If you were asking for advice of which of two or more images to use for an article, it is much better to use a free image hosting site to provide the links, and then once you're ready to include the selected image in WP, upload then. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know this policy.

----

Malikussaid (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resysopping RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices impacts administrative practice, so it's relevant to watchers of this page, so please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies block

Result:Let's save ourselves the predictably pointless drama. Any attempt to reinstate any of the blocks is as dead as the rest of this nonsense. Now, get back to work!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ironholds blocked User:Drmies for 24 hours for a personal attack. I have unblocked Drmies. I will add to this but wish to post it quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds blocked both Drmies and ScottyWong. Why act on only one side of the dispute if you're unblocking? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Do you intend to unblock Scottywong as well? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from my perspective, in response to perceived or real goading, Drmies left an utterly inappropriate comment on Scottwong's talkpage. It's for that that I've blocked him. I note that Bbb23 not only failed to discuss the unblock with me, but failed to even leave a notice anywhere (other than AN) that the unblock had taken place - and inquire as to how Bbb23 can possibly consider himself utterly uninvolved from a block of the person who nominated him to become an admin in the first place, less than six months ago. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for fucks sake Bbb23. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, DO NOT unblock a civility block without discussion. That's never ever been helpful.--Scott Mac 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is an all-round fucking disaster, isn't it? Giant Snowman 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind the community that it isn't wheel warring if you unblock the user who nominated you for adminship. Obviously. There is a policy for that, right? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't see any discussion between you and Ironholds, Bbb23. Did you try discussing the block with him before unilaterally undoing it? That's generally considered, at the very least, a minimum requirement before unblocking in a heated situation, especially when you're unblocking one side of a two-sided dispute while leaving the other blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Apparently, Drmies was blocked for this post on User:Scottywong's talk page. Although Drmies's comments are harsh, they do not rise to the level of a personal attack, and even if they straddle the line (e.g., "mediocre editor"), they do not justify a block.

I don't know what it is about today, but I can't remember seeing so much drama in such a short space of time. People need to get a grip.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think I'll extend my holiday vacation from WP another few days. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered actually trying to respond to the rather serious issue with your block raised above? Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty has been unblocked by Floq. Youreallycan was also blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the personal attack straddles the line, it's pretty inadvisable to unblock the admin who nominated you for admin, without discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Floquenbeam unblocked Scotty. Go Phightins! 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Re-instate~~ Bbb23 failed to discuss the block with Ironholds (or seemingly anyone else). Bbb23 is also involved. The original blocks (plural) were justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should highlight that I think both Scotty and Drmies make great contributions to wikipedia, this doesn't change that the blocks were justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I didn't know Scotty was blocked because he's not on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess ignorance is bliss :) --Malerooster (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of research before unblocking seems warranted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say, "I unblocked this one because I knew who he was" is a really bad defence to the issues raised. Ironholds (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bbb, I think that shows that you were involved and shouldn't have acted in an admin capacity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many a time poor behavior by MF has been excused on the grounds that he was baited. Well, so was Scotty. Are we going to be consistent? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! Next time you see Malleus say something that crosses the line, let me know and I'll block him fast enough to make your head spin. Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I respect Scotty and hated to see him get blocked, I've got to admit I admire your mentality. No favors for anyone. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't afford to lose good editors. But for every one editor slapped on the wrist if we enforce incivility, a dozen leave if we don't - not people we know, not people we see, just people who walk into an increasingly hostile and aggressive atmosphere and go "this is not for me". Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Ironholds, there's no need to be trigger-happy, particularly when you didn't even discuss it with either of them. Not to mention it's an admin in good standing who has never been blocked before who made a borderline comment. Then you went farther blocked the target for rising to the bait (not well, I grant). Then Bbb23, you unblocked someone you are clearly uninvolved with? Typically you try to find some consensus first. Blocks are meant to prevent drama, not make it worse. I think it's time to break out a few whales to smack people with. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, both of them were baited, by each other. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the "but mummy, the other boy said a bad word first!" as a defence. It wasn't acceptable in primary school and it's not acceptable here. Being in good standing does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the heck you want, which is, I understand, precisely what Drmies and SW were arguing over in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, but blocking established contributors (like it or not, those who have been here longer tend to be more well-known) without any discussion first tends to lead to more drama, no matter how you slice it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience blocking established contributors under the civility policy, or not blocking them and instead taking it to AN/I or AN, are both actions that seem to attract precisely the same semantic argument from Known Parties and precisely the same cheerleaders and hangers on. Faced with two equally dramatic options, I picked the one that prohibited both parties from exacerbating the situation directly. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, we have philosophical differences in our approach, as do most people who have opinions on the whole civility enforcement ~~debacle~~ issue. Also please note that all my comments mean nothing against you, as I really do admire your work, but I disagree with your stance here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understandable; I'd point out we have both managed to disagree about something of great import without at any point directing the f-bomb at each other. Even on Wikipedia, miracles can happen! :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted to post a comment using every swear (including British slang) I know or could find, but I feel like that would not be taken well, given the general tone of this section. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving back one meta-level and looking at the dispute that led to these blocks...I'd like to hear any of the involved parties explain exactly why they felt attacking each other was a good way to go about...whatever they were going about. Ditto for why Bbb23 thought this was such a horrible emergency that he not only couldn't discuss with the blocking admin, but also couldn't research the situation. Guys, you're both more than experienced enough to know that what you were doing could only make things worse, and not correct the issues you felt were occurring. Bbb23, you're experienced enough to know unilateral cowboy unblocks with no discussion make situations that were bad enough worse. Perhaps blocks here weren't the only solution, but good lord you all know better than to have done what you were doing, and I find it difficult to support anything that looks like acting like the behavior tonight wasn't a problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I've unblocked Scottywong. I assume my dislike of SW is well-enough known that accusations of protecting my friends won't be thrown about. I don't suppose everyone would be willing to holster their block buttons and their mouths, go to their corners, and chill out for a while? That would be what grownups would do.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When you jumped in with your tools before discussion, I don't think you are in a position to come the adult and lecture the children here. You took an action you knew would be controversial, in haste, and without waiting for consensus. There will now inevitably be a prolonged shitstorm, and you are partly to blame.--Scott Mac 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, no. That shitstorm started with the original comments and subsequent blocks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad unblock Aside from the fact that Bbb23 failed to discuss this with blocking admin, Bbb23 is not uninvolved with respect to Drmies. Drmies nominated Bbb3 for adminship. Bbb23 shouldn't be using their tools when they're involved.

@Bbb23: Can you please help defuse the situation by undoing your unblock? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All aboard the Arbcom Express! Train leaves the station in fifteen minutes--so get all your block-warring and personal attacks in pronto. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If the administrative consensus is that I am involved AND that Drmies should be reblocked, I will defer to that consensus and do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have waited for consensus before taking such a controversial act. Whether the unblock was justified or not (I think not, but others will disagree), the haste and lack of discussion were extremely poor judgment.--Scott Mac 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There was a heated exchange between the two of them, over a discussion that has since been closed. I think the blocks were excessive and did more to fuel drama than reduce incivility, and I'm pleased that both have been unblocked. As the interaction between Drmies and Scottywong is now over, any reblock would not be preventing anything - I'd say it's time to move on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad unblock - This is all getting extremely petty and retarded. Civility blocks have no consensus at all these days, so undoing one, esp one as poorly-thought-out as this, is justifiable. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock both. Administrators don't have to obey rules. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this doesn't exactly bode well for your complaints about admins getting a double standard, does it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly a double standard here. Some editors/admins are expected to follow the rules while others get a free pass. I wouldn't mind it so much if someone actually enshrined it into policy: Some editors are more equal than others. At least, it would be honest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much agree. I've seen the exact same situation before where admins have stepped in and blocked two editors who were personally attacking each other etc. The editors weren't admins. They weren't unblocked by any admin. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we're seeing here is more along the lines of "the admins couldn't put together a conspiracy to protect their ranks if we paid them, because put two of them in a room, give them a topic, and they will instantly disagree on how to handle it." It's not "admins get away with murder" so much as "admins constantly running headfirst into walls, flailing wildly at their buttons and each other. Occasionally, the buttons do something. Usually the worst possible thing, in the eyes of at least one other admin." I would hesitate to say that this unblock shows admins being held to a different standard even if it's is upheld, given that "block-> unblock-> ANI -> screaming about block" is basically how blocks on a lot of popular non-admins also go. It just shows that Bbb23 held them to a different standard than Ironholds does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably agree with fluffernutter except that apparently we're not allowed to agree with each other. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear; I don't think it's admins being held to a different standard. Just that friends sometimes help friends, and if your friends happen to be administrators, so much the better for the blocked editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with Tarc.~~ This ~~was not a bad unblock, it~~ was a terrible unblock. --My76Strat (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you mean the first part. Either you're disagreeing with Tarc or you're agreeing with AQFK.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the ambiguous portions of my comment. This is a bad time for sarcasm and I apologize for succumbing to its use. --My76Strat (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Admin corps not seem to learn anything, each time this happens? It's all bad behavior. And, it's over, and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (spelling correction by request Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
There's no such thing as an admin corp. There's over a thousand of us last I checked, elected in different eras of Wikipedia, active in different areas of Wikipedia and coming from completely different backgrounds, both as editors and as human beings. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that mean there is no such thing as an admin corps? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)(spelling correction by request Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Admins should be treated like any other if done wrong. Not an administrator but it looks like a very bad unblock to me, they were both treated fairly and equally initially. Unblocking whilst clearly involved and not even looking at overall picture isnt right, saying i dont have Scotty on my watchlist so i didn't know isnt an excuse. If non admins both would of been blocked and unlikely to be unblocked in this manner either should of been discussed. Im not an admin as i say so my view probably means nothing here. Blethering Scot 00:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does mean something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, thanks for unblocking Scotty. Bbb, thanks for unblocking me. These civility blocks are stupid and should be undone as soon as possible. Scotty, I'm sorry about the "mediocre editor" part--too late to take that back, I suppose, but I shouldn't have said it. But you know where I'm coming from: there is too much baiting going on, and if there's sides, it's not "my" side that starts AN/ANI threads, runs to ArbCom, asks for blocks, et cetera. AQFK, you could have stayed out of this one, just to show your good faith.
This is all too stupid for words, with Ironholds private banhammer and Kww speaking for a non-existent community. I'm sorry I myself got involved in this. I won't call Scotty's remark baiting since that's a low blow--Scotty was just trying to insult me and succeeded very well, but I would never think that he would try to bait me into getting blocked, and I certainly wasn't going for that. I'm glad some people in this thread see that "blocking people to make a point" serves no purpose whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC) This got accidentally eaten in an EC with me a few minutes ago, restoring now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to focus criticism on the unblock that was likely to be controversial rather then on the block that was certain to be. If the unblock should have been discussed first, certainly the block should have to. All this episode has done is generate needless controversy. Stop blocking people to make a point, and stop blocking people to advance civility when there is clearly no consensus for it. Support unblocking both. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If i as a non admin said what both of them said to each other especially Scotty i would of been blocked, no doubt. Admins do not need consensus for that block, now if your involved which bb23 clearly is then he should of discussed either with blocking admin or here first. They started discussion after they unblocked, its too late then. Its just another mess of which there are too many surely this still should not be happening after all thats gone on recently.Blethering Scot 00:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't think such a block would be good either. When two well established editors (and certainly I would consider you an established editor) get into a mutual spat like that, blocking often does more harm then good. We need to be a bit less trigger happy with the block button. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Monty. The unblocks were "cowboy" but not the blocks? That's absurd. Ironholds, blocking is as violent and hostile an action as can well be performed on this site. A "slap on the wrist" is a miserably inappropriate metaphor for blocks of long-time editors in good standing with previously clean block logs. I ask you to consider whether your blocks were more or less violent and hostile than the original offenses? Come on, please engage the empathy and think about it. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thinking about it would be good, because while there are good blocks and bad blocks, there is nothing violent about a block. Whether it was hostile is more of an intent thing and may go into whether it is good or bad, but it is not violent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic note: violence has in some circles come to include the exercise of force or official authority leading to injury, even that injury is not physical. In that context, calling a block an act of violence does make sense. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I challenge your assertion that "there is clearly no consensus for [civility blocks]". I further challenge the implication that a consensus could ever supersede an existing policy; it can not! A personal attack is as prohibited as a legal threat and both are as sanction-able. --My76Strat (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is drawing the line between mere incivility and a personal attack. There is no consensus for civility blocks not rising to the level of personal attacks. Further, in that sort of back and forth, as long as both editors are making criticisms in good faith, and not trolling, I think its mere incivility, even if it includes otherwise actionable personal attacks. There is not a bright line between what is a fair criticism and what is a personal attack, and when emotions are running high, we should exercise restraint in welding the block button. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"its mere incivility, even if it otherwise includes actionable personal attacks" Where does that come from? What basis is there for that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that says as much; its a practical approach to a very complex and messy topic. As there is no bright line as to what constitutes a blockable personal attack, blocking when two editors are criticizing each other is often going to lead to controversy, often doing more harm and disruption then the editors were doing in the first place. Obviously there are times when blocks are still needed, but we are too eager. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocking when two editors are, or one editor is, making personal attacks is often going to lead to controversy, often doing more harm than if they got a forced time off, because they should not be personally attacking others, now or in the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock Bad block to begin with. Nothing in that comment crossed a line that isn't crossed by many regular editors on a regular basis. I'm not particularly concerned with COIs when the right decision was made. B³23, please discuss with the blocking admin in the future to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Sædon^talk 01:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malleus Fatorum

NO CONSENSUS

It's pretty obvious this is not going to gain consensus, so let's not drag this on. For those so desired, WP:RFAR is that way. --KTC (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

On a related note, I've indeffed Malleus Fatorum. Both Drmies and Scottywong have complained that blocking them constitutes a double standard, and, unfortunately, they are quite correct. I expect that they thought that meant that they should be unblocked, but I quite disagree. There's no interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferret_legging/GA2&diff=prev&oldid=530255820#GA_Reassessment that doesn't cross the line of WP:NPA.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My god, Kww, I can't believe I voted for you for arbcom. [/me slaps self upside the head.] Bishonen | talk 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, Bishonen. Didn't you get my message that I thought people should uphold policy instead of treating some editors and policies preferentially? I'll have to work on my campaign for next year if that wasn't clear the last two times I ran.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For all that it's going to matter in the uproar that will inevitably end in someone controversially unblocking, this looks like a good block to me. Treating other editors like people worthy of something other than insults is and should be one of the most basic requirements we ask from our editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good block but unblock In an ideal world Malleus should have been blocked, but this isn't an ideal world. Any block etc should basically be left to ArbCom because otherwise things will go crazy; if you think a block is justified, go there, because no other block will stick. Whether you wish it or not, Malleus will be unblocked in 5 minutes, and we will be back where we started. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That should help calm things down, KWW, nice one. --John (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked; there's clearly no consensus for an indef block, you're substituting your judgement for others'. Do not make blocks that you don't believe have consensus, it's an abuse of your admin tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking people without justification is as well, Floquenbeam.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Unblocking restored the status quo ante, the consensus decision based on the AN/ANI threads. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about that there's no consensus, Floq? There's been pretty much no discussion either way, given that you unblocked five minutes after the block was reported. It's a bit early to call either consensus or no consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the previous ANI thread about this issue, already closed. It's linked somewhere above, or just Ctrl-F "Malleus" on ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus that we have a group of admins that irresponsibly insist on keeping Malleus unblocked would seem to outweigh the consensus that Malleus isn't in the habit of making personal attacks. That ANI thread was not closed as a consensus that Malleus's behaviour was acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Floq, I see what you were looking at, but I think you're misreading what constitutes consensus for something like this. The threads from yesterday/today were about Malleus being rude on the same GAR, yesterday, and a request to bar a user from interacting with him over that. This thread appears to be a block based on incivility Malleus put forth after those threads were begun. No one in the old threads appears to have an opinion on the incivility that caused this block, because it hadn't happened then. It's downright weird to call "no consensus" on behavior that hadn't happened when the "no consensus" was (debateably) formed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, there was no AN thread about the block, it was about having a limited interaction ban of another editor. The ANI thread was pretty much closed before it really started because it was started by a DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffernutter and IRWolfie are correct on that sequence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any discussion on AN or ANI of this diff, I would very much welcome Floquenbeam pointing us to where this took place. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Indef Block Malleus Fatuorum

I'll be clear here: I consider Floquenbeam's reversal of my block to be unfounded and unwise, and would like to see a community consensus that would allow it to be reinstated without crossing WP:WHEELWAR. It's clear that Floqenbeam misinterpreted the discussion on WP:ANI when he considered it to include the behaviour that I blocked for.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose It should be clear from the many past discussions regarding Malleus' conduct that the community does not support an indef block. Given the past contention regarding him, it should be equally clear that further blocks WILL be controversial, and absent egregious conduct far beyond what occurred here, and such block should be discussed FIRST. At this point, we need to establish consensus in favor of a new blocking if we are to act. Now that the block is undone, there must be clear consensus to move away from the now restored status quo. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not consider the conduct at issue here block worthy, and it is most certainly does not justify an indef block. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Literally per Monty, word for word. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Monty, and with Ironholds. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will you show me where Ironholds claimed that "You wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you in the ass" doesn't cross the line of NPA? I must have missed it (or, more likely, he never said it).—Kww(talk) 01:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The community has made its wishes on this subject clear numerous times and and indef is clearly not what is wanted.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't presume to speak for the community. Do you, as an individual, champion the right of editors to tell another editor that he "wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you in the ass". Please directly state your views, don't state what you think other people's views are.—Kww(talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Until we have a considerably more explicit policy on civility, a subject on which there are many different (and culturally diverse) opinions, then indef incivility blocks on established and constructive editors will remain a bad idea - blocks can sometimes be effective in defusing short term conflicts, but even then they can easily create drama and make things worse. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that at this point, this isn't something the community can handle, based on the past track record of these threads. Malleus has little to no interest in moderating his language or behavior. Some people have little to no interest in tolerating this, some people have a lot of interest in tolerating this at all costs. Arbcom has no interest in cutting the knot. For what it's worth, my personal belief is that people who have little/no interest in speaking to others in a manner that accords them very basic human respect are better suited to hobbies other than Wikipedia; unfortunately, I don't rule the world, and other people think differently. I can't see how this thread can close in anything but a heated, ragey no-consensus manner that at best, would take out a couple more editors as collateral damage or the ragequit or disruption-block type. I'd suggest that if people want to pursue this - again - they take it to arbcom - again- who will probably refuse to deal with it - again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstating the indef block. I'd also support unblocking as soon as a credible request is posted by MF. --My76Strat (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and I'm going to be controversial and say what I imagine many are thinking but are afraid to say - wikipedia is better off with an insulting and gruff Malleus than without him at all. I think civility blocks are counter-productive in the light of such impressive content contributions, and it's obvious from previous discussions that this kind of block is never going to stick without an ArbCom case. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to say that I disagree quite strongly with this. We don't need insulting people around here, no matter how awesome they are. Having said that, Malleus has become one of Wikipedia's unblockables, so there's no real point to this discussion. He's not going to be blocked. And if he is, it will take less than 1 hour and he will be unblocked again. No amount of discussion will change that. --Conti|✉ 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What saddens me about this is that a lot of people seem to be convinced that we must either let Malleus behave exactly as he wishes, or we must go without content forevermore. There's a third option here that people seem to ignore: we could keep both content and constructive engagement with other editors. Most other editors manage that with no effort. I don't know or pretend to know why Malleus prefers to give us a Sophie's Choice instead, but we are not obligated to accept the terms of the bargain as he prefers them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like what Basalisk said. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Basalisk and Monty845. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't frequent ANI at all, but I want to make it clear how significant Malleus and his work are to this project by weighing in. Frankly, I think that after all this time people would know what to expect of him. You can all privately loathe Malleus all you want, but all these dogged reports about him are eventually going to drive him from the project, and we'll lose one of our best writers. To me, that's a clear net loss. ceranthor 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Arbcom Any discussion here is just going to be dominated by his supporters and detractors, and lead nowhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Arbcom Agree with IRWolfie. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef block or taking this to arbcom. I do not approve of MF's incivility, but think that blocking him or taking things to arbcom would generate more heat than light. Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Desysop Kwww for displaying extremely poor judgement, abusing administrative power and general drama mongering. Seriously a whole bunch of people really need to get a life. This is beyond ridiculous.Volunteer Marek 01:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not actually a sanction which can be imposed through discussions on this board. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah I know, but that's basically what *should* happen.Volunteer Marek 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Arbcom for the reasons noted by IRWolfie. ArbCom has handled Malleus previously and is the appropriate body to follow up on subsequent issues. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm 99.5% sure that this was a cynical ploy on Kwww's part to create drama which could then be used to open up yet another pointless Malleus-related ArbCom case. There's no freakin' way that he didn't know that the block would last. So block, then admin-board drama then show up at ArbCom requests with an innocent look on their face claiming "gee, other steps in the DR process didn't work". Bleah. Volunteer Marek 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this does end up at Arbcom, I hope Arbcom carefully considers all of the admin conduct in this whole mess. Maybe they will also figure out a way forward on the whole Civility/Personal Attack quandry that is at the root of this and dozens of other instances of drama. Malleus's conduct should be a secondary issue at most. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was tried in the 'civility enforcement' case earlier this year, with what I think are generally regarded as disappointing results. Based on that experience, it would be better for ArbCom to focus on the actions of the various editors (in the follow up to this case several Arbitrators have expressed frustration with Malleus' continued conduct, so it would end up a major part of such a case/motion). Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What is going on? Did everybody just go crazy, or is there some block quota we're trying to reach for this year? I can't believe Scotty and Drmies just got blocked when a warning would have sufficed. Two wrongs don't make a right, and blocking Malleus now just to be fair is a third wrong, and it still doesn't make a right. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I disagree with the statement "wikipedia is better off with an insulting and gruff Malleus than without him at all". Just look at how much community time is being wasted by this - yet again. Year after year, and while the community jumps through hoops to make excuses or silence critics or justify one approach or another, Malleus makes not one iota of effort to behave even slightly differently, when even a small change in his approach would avoid this happening over and over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but the community time being wasted is being wasted by folks like Kwww or BoNL and all the others who seem to derive some kind of masochistic pleasure from poking Malleus.Volunteer Marek 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not Malleus, its people like you that make the community jump through these hoops... why don't you make the effort to change? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Just imagine how little time we would be wasting if no one unblocked an editor that showed no sign of changing his behaviour.—Kww(talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point, Epipelagic, I have made changes, for example ceasing to post on Malleus' talk page, at all. Is he capable of even such a tiny level of self control himself? There's a reality check for you. No, it's not "people like" me that make the community do anything. And don't give me the old sob story about how Malleus would never be insulting if it weren't for goading from evil cabals or whatever, I've heard it all before and I've seen how blatantly untrue that is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - support desysopping Kwww per Volunteer Marek--Epipelagic (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Silly and punitive civility block given without warning. --John (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With a possible return if Malleus accepts a modified version of the standard offer that would allow for immediate return in exchange for stopping incivil remarks. This is very generous because Malleus, for the umpteenth time, retired while under the microscope and then unretired after the scrutiny of him was done. As usual, people claimed that since he was retiring there wasn't any point in blocking, in addition to the other people that always appear and defend him. These people also predictably demand Kww get desysopped because he dared to block Malleus for violating policy and being part of the anti-Malleus admin cabal of EVIL. However, the community has apparently decided Malleus is a vested contributor and is thus exempt from the policies that mere mortal editors must follow. To put it simply, this merry-go-round from hell will keep happening until something is done to stop it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Arbcom Per Wolfie. Besides, we pay Arbcom the big bucks to handle stuff like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, or alternately throw it to ArbCom. Hopefully the new committee isn't as spineless as the old. Ultimately the problem is not that the civility policy isn't enforced (although it is a problem): it's that the community can't seem to decide if it should be. A firm commitment that yes, we're going to be a community of vile, abuse-slinging, first-amendment-lovin' troglodytes would almost be preferable because at least there'd be certainty. Luckily, we have a body tasked with making decisions in user conduct situations when the community can't agree: it's called arbcom. Hopefully the new arbs will actually want to try and make a stab at resolving this mess - lord knows they can't do any worse. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to get a bit of common sense BF in here, this is more indication that this was a cynical block, not meant to stand on its own (which it didn't have a chance in hell of), but rather as a way of provoking yet another pointless Malleus-related ArbCom case. Shameful.Volunteer Marek 02:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Kww .. and.... never mind - move along - Youreallycan 02:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Honestly, I feel a bit like invoking WP:IAR and just collapsing all this garbage and archiving it. You guys are just generating ridiculous drama for no discernible purpose. Whatever this shit is about it sure as fuck isn't about writing an encyclopedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - And here's why. Its preventative, not punative. Standard offer applies. No, we don't need civility police...we need professional acting editors and I don't think it helps at all to continue to take a blind eye to the extreme nature of some actions. Is Malleus a great content contributer? Oh heck yeah. Does that give him immunity from our civility policy? Oh heck no. This is't a one time thing. This isn't about taking sides on any civility discussion. This is about the five pillars and whether or not, we even give a crap about them. If content is all that matters dump the five pillars (the images used aren't even pillars but capitals. LOL just a slight bit of humor to lighten the moment) and stop allowing anyone to edit. Just allow those that the community feels have such excellent contributions that it doesn't matter what they say to other editors or how it effects the project overall...or the ones they are involved in.

KWW was/is right in the block decision. Consensus is not a vote anyway, but more important is why the block was made. If it overrode a percieved consensus, very well. If we desyops KWW over this....there is a pretty long list of other admin who warred today over other blocks. I have no dog in any of these fights and wont begin to stick my toe in those muddied waters. But my watchpage showed a game of whacko moll going on with blocks and unblocks and if KWW has the tools taken away....then there are quite a few others who will need the same action. Likely this will go to arbcom. If Malleus retires it is likely the commitie will reject the case or make no decision. I say...this is a community problem and the community needs to see through the dust and smike and just indef ban the editor. There is no single editor that is so great that their absence will be a true detriment to the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. - No way. He is a net positive to the project and he helps keep this place honest. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Malleus hasn't committed vandalism or used sockpuppets, nor has he used foul language. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
here. This is all this about. 173.79.39.133 (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody snow close this. There is no realistic chance this will close as "enacted." We very recently had an ArbCom election, and the community had an opportunity to elect candidates from the "tough on Malleus" contingent. The community chose not to do so. That's as close to a site-wide referendum on such a thing as we're likely to get. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Demiurge1000. If it doesn't work here, then take it to ArbCom. Also, the fact that every admin that takes tough action is faced with de-sysopping is why so many people refuse to be admins. Malleus and his posse have succeeded in driving me away from the project. Who's next? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What I have to say about this, I've already said it on a recent ArbCom case request. I am not a personal friend of Malleus, but this sort of overreaction is worrysome, both from Kww and Floq. I am not saying that we are bound to whatever Malleus wants to do with the way he talks to us, but it's quite clear that blocks (even less indef ones) are not the way to go. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

O'Dea's block by Hex

This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've just undid Hex's block on O'Dea - I see no reason to block and all the reasons to unblock. Didn't contact the blocking admin because with all these negotiations the block might expire and even though it's short this doesn't make it less outrageous. Max Semenik (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not again. What is it with admins rushing to unblock without discussion - always a poor move.--Scott Mac 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The block was blatantly incorrect, and unblocking was obviously the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting here and getting a second opinion first would have been better. That's all I'm saying. If the block is plainly bad, a couple of others will endorse you and then you are not imposing your judgment over that of the blocking admin. If blocks can be bad judgement (and they can) so can unblocks.--Scott Mac 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - When the block is so obviously an abuse of admin tools, there's no prior discussion needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jaw-droppingly bad blocks like this one are best immediately reversed, and discussed later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but... The problem is that one admin's "Jaw-droppingly bad block" isn't another's. With a bad block the blocker has made a bad judgement call - however, humility tells me that when I judge it as such, it is entirely possible I've missed something, or indeed that others would say my judement is bad. So, unless we want one admin simply overriding the judement of another, it is best to take 5 min and come here for a sanity check. If it is obviously bad, you'll get your unblock call endorsed immediately. Much less dramatic than risking the lone gunman stuff.--Scott Mac 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think that this was quite an "abuse of admin tools", but a block for not using edit summaries is clearly unjustified given that no policy requires them, and many experienced editors chose to not sure them. As such, I think Max did the right thing by lifting this block without delay and reporting the matter here for additional opinions on his and O'Dea's actions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He hadn't actually "not used edit summaries" - the blocking admin just didn't think one of them was good enough, and blocked when it was pointed out to him that he was wrong about policy. That's abuse in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wrong. You're very poor at reading a situation.

I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing - I assumed in good faith - the minor edit feature. Advised him of the fact. He responded by blanking his talk page. I checked back later, noticed no change in behavior. Advised him much more strongly that he needed to start using it correctly and that he should not ignore the advice. He blanked it again. Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary, advised O'Dea of that fact and provided - politely - a link to help on how to correctly use the feature. O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with, and leaving a comment with a gibberish edit summary. I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly. O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me.

I blocked O'Dea for disruptive editing, exhibited by his interactions with me. Not because he didn't use an edit summary. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment prior to blocking was "Keep taking the piss and see what happens" - he wasn't taking the piss, he was pointing out that a) policy does *not* require good edit summaries, and that b) you were not perfect regarding edit summaries yourself. The block looks to me like it was out of spite. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You look wrongly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was out of spite; sometimes blocks are just bad blocks, and people need to learn from them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the incivility/PA; none of the comments were severe enough to justify any action. I think it's a matter of interpretation whether this is ok: [3], personally I think it's fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there is no requirement for edit summaries to make sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we stopped even posting stats about edit summary usage on RfA talk pages... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before forming an opinion on this matter, readers should examine in the edit history what actually transpired, and not accept Hex's sanitised version of what he would like you to believe. This was inexcusable bullying followed by punishing the user with a block because he tried to stand up for himself. O'Dea is a committed content builder who had a clean block log. He has far more experience in content building than Hex has. As usual on admin boards, little interest is shown in redressing an assault like this on a valuable content builder. The focus is merely on protecting the sanctity of admins, however bad. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hex, let me tell you about best practice: never block for attacks against yourself. (Of course don't block at all for something as un-attacky as this was, but that's another matter.) There's no rule that says you're not allowed to, but it's best not. And when you see a user post something "clearly intended to anger me", then don't oblige them, for goodness sake! Don't get angry and block in anger! You're supposed to be the bigger man in such exchanges. Not just the man with the big gun. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the comments. For the record, there was no anger involved, as much as drama queens like Epipelagic would like to make out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cat among the pigeons, Batman! Blocked for repeatedly misusing the minor edit box, something in which virtually no one pays any attention to, by an administrator who was completely, 100% involved? I've seen Hex's name around quite a bit lately and I generally like the guy, but this is a pretty colossal lapse in judgment. I sure hope he has no intention of repeating that kind of mistake again, because it actually does have a bit of a chilling effect on those who don't waste any time worrying about such arbitrary things (like myself). Kurtis ^(talk) 11:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hex by O'Dea

The following are my observations about Hex's comments, above, time-stamped at 23:48, 29 December 2012:

Hex: "I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing ... the minor edit feature."

Reply by O'Dea: This is a red herring. Hex did not cite it as a factor in blocking my edits. It is not relevant at all to what he did.

"He responded by blanking his talk page."

It is my talk page. I maintain is as I please. In the past, I used to carefully archive my talk page periodically, but more recently I concluded that it was not worth the effort to me – the amount of talk traffic is normally very low. If I or anyone wants my talk history, it is there in the page history. My present default is to clean my page fairly often, and I will remove the latest conversations on it soon. This is none of Hex's business at all and is not a factor in deciding to block another editor. This is another red herring, and Hex took it upon himself to interpret my neutral page clearing action as an attack upon him, which it was not, as my talk page history shows that I clear it often.

The WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED policies were explained to Hex by another editor just two months ago and he demonstrated in his reply that he understood them, yet here he is again pretending that he has a hard time understanding policies when he complains that I cleared my talk page. Once again, he is guilty of selective narrative and inconsistency.

"Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary."

This is a feeble attempt to make something out of nothing. Edit summaries are not compulsory, nor is there a threshold quality to be sustained. In short, my edit summaries are no business of Hex's. In any case, anyone with time on his hands who wants to trawl through my edit summary history will find precious little to complain about, and even if such an archaeologist personally despised my edit summaries, there is no binding policy concerning them. There is advice about edit summaries, and I normally summarise my edits and do so fairly meaningfully. My record speaks for itself. Hex threatened me with a block already on only his second visit to my talk page. He likes to increase the pressure rapidly. He said I would be blocked from editing until I could demonstrate that I understood the point he was making. I resisted the temptation to reply to his provocative and bullying talk of blocking with the first thought that struck me which was that, if I was blocked, I would not be able to demonstrate any kind of article editing behaviour at all. But I exercised patience and simply ignored him, and made no reply about the patent absurdity of his logic.

"O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with".

This is sour grapes because I found an example of Hex failing to match his own misplaced standards. The word "grubbing" is truly an example of the kind of bad faith that Hex implied was not his style when he lectured me sanctimoniously about good faith on my talk page.

"I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly."

This is a self-serving re-interpretation and sanitization of what Hex actually said, which was, "Keep taking the piss and see what happens". That was a direct threat, and one which was expressed in less careful language than Hex is using now that his actions are under scrutiny.

"O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me."

I invite anyone to read my comment which pointed out Hex's inconsistency and directed him to read the edit summary advice at Wikipedia Help. It is clear from this whole fiasco that he did not understand the official position so my direction to him to read it was germane. I also asked him to cite exactly the transgression he thought I had committed, and I invited him to come back to discuss it. He has chosen to interpret this as "an inflammatory comment" – but that is his problem.

In his latest comment about me elsewhere, Hex has said, "From my prior interactions with the user, I was unconvinced of their commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community."

Leaving aside the flustered grammar, Hex's talk of "commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community" is truly meaningless and irrelevant gobbledygook from a man finding himself embarrassed and in a corner.

Hex just blew up because I pointed out his inconsistency in a way he could not wriggle out of, and he further believed, wrongly, that edit summaries are mandatory, and that I was wrong, but he was the one who misunderstood. He also misunderstood how to administer a situation like this one, and misunderstood when, and when not, to block other editors. There are, so far, ten editors who disagree with Hex's actions, on this page and at my talk page. No other editor who has examined the narrative has yet come forward to support Hex's position. I am entitled in the circumstances to repeat my demand that Hex withdraw the lie that I was "taking the piss", as the facts do not support this hostile and self-serving insinuation. — O'Dea (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. Looks like a nice dramatic reading.

I can spot someone taking the piss from a mile away; it takes far worse than the likes of you to get my gall up. Your mental picture presumably has me howling like a monkey and hurling the keyboard across the room, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I will admit, however, to momentarily raising an eyebrow and putting down my cup of tea. It's possible that I may have even emitted a small sigh. Anyway, feel free to demand whatever you want. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, O'Dea... please don't expect the courtesy of a reply. Admins do not make errors. You and I are members of the unruly, and we really must be put down or ignored. The mere fact you had the presumption to come to Wikipedia and add content is proof enough that you are uppity. If Hex was one of the unwashed he could be arbitrarily sanctioned (if it amused just one other admin). But he's not, he's in the group that is here to sanction you. More to the point, your thinking on abuse is wrong. You should learn to chant the admin mantra, "the only admin abuse is abuse of admins".

Many admins are keen on using their own particular idea of "civility" as a weapon for smashing content builders. This is a splendid weapon, almost impossible to challenge, and they have been practicing lately on each other. But it is not a weapon a lowly content editor may use against an admin. It's like the samurai's sword; only the samurai may use it. Hex's behaviour and punishing block may seem a gross breach of civility. It is not, as the non-action on this board will shortly prove. Admin behaviour towards a content builder never lacks civility. Hex may discipline you at his whim. As a content builder you may grovel, but not grizzle.

The best content builders have left or are leaving, like rats perhaps, since content builders are treated like vermin here. Wikipedia is spiralling in deadly ways as unskillful administrators destabilise it. Hex's hubris, his clear belief he is entitled to behave the way he does, is a symptom of that. In time, if this trend continues, Wikipedia will degenerate into a comic book Conservapedia for the impoverished, with ingratiatingly polite overlords feasting on hapless content builders that mistakenly stumble into its maw. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having fun, are we? — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Really? The status quo is not "back in place". A content builder now has an undeserved block log and has been subjected to inappropriate abuse by an admin. Nothing has being done to reasonably redress this. Are you really endorsing this thread, Fluffernutter, as an exemplar of the way admins now handle content builders? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am endorsing nothing here other than the fact that the thread was turning nasty very quickly and that I personally believe it would be wise for all parties to try to cool down rather than keep hammering away. I can't force you to do that, I can only recommend. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... there it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So: no integrity, no withdrawal, no apology, no guts. Noted. — O'Dea (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some constructive, wild spitballing

Just woke up from a nap to find a good many users I respect (on both sides of the aisle) in a fair amount of trouble. Suffice it to say that there's probably a combined half-million contributions between all the editors who deserve trouts right now. So, something revolutionary occurred to me. I have no idea if this, or anything like it, has ever been suggested, but... why, exactly, does one admin need to be able to block another admin? Hear me out here: If you read through old ArbCom cases or Signpost issues, as I have on many a late night, it seems like a recipe for disaster; what was the last time that one admin blocked another and it ended well?

Now, I know, I know, this seems like the wrong direction to go as allegations of "admin abuse" are ever on the rise - and don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I don't think admins should be "above the law." The thing is, though, blocks of admins can fall into one of two categories: urgent and non-urgent. If there are urgent grounds to block an admin, it's generally appropriate to also emergency-desysop them, either in conjunction with the block, or as a back-up if they self-unblock, depending on the nature of the urgency. Anyways, I don't have a fully-formed proposal here, or anything, but here's the general lines I'm thinking along: There's been a whole lot of wanderlust, so to speak, among the bureaucrats lately; everyone agrees that we need them for something, but no one's sure quite what that is. And at the same time we have yet another dispute involving admins using tools against each other. So why not change the policy to say that only bureaucrats can block admins? 'Crat attention is already needed in any emergency cases (since even if you start out with a block, you need someone to have their finger on the 'desysop' button), and in non-urgent cases, we could simply require some sort of consensus on AN before blocking an admin, which would then be carried out by a 'crat. That way the only way an admin can get blocked is if they're judged to pose a threat to the project, or if there's a consensus to do so - without ever giving the impression that admins are as a rule more trusted or more valuable, but simply acknowledging that pretty much any non-urgent block of an admin will be controversial.

Anyways, if anyone else has any ideas for a general solution to this type of problem, related to my suggestion or not, feel free to post it here. The section title says everything. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one. I think it would be helpful if every single admin at all in any way involved in the debacle of the last two hours or so walk away from whatever device from which they access Wikipedia and think for 15 minutes about how the situation should best be handled and then put their heads together. There are some bright minds in the admin. corps, I have no doubt they'll come up with something more constructive than this current cycle of block, unblock, unconstructive discussion of protocol, hurling insults, repeat. Go Phightins! 00:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the majority of the corp is involved and I've been away for a few hours, does that mean I'm left in charge? YAY, just call me Emperor TParis, The Almighty and Dignified, Ruler of the Unruled, and Keeper of the 'Pedia.--v/r - T P 00:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, "corps", not "corp", please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I used to talk highfalutinly about the admin corps, there was always some amusing friend who changed it to "corpse". :-) Bishonen | talk 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It's you and Dennis, who's also mysteriously MIA. Go Phightins! 00:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dennis is enjoying this thing....what is it called again....oh...a life. All Hail Emperor TParis ruler of da "pedia".--Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the admin corps couldn't agree on whether there is an admin corps. TP, your highness, please do my work for me; I'm not getting anything done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Indeed. Tsk-tsk, Sergeant.

Also, apparently it's neither corp nor corps, as neither exists... no, I understand Snowolf's point, but can't we just pretend that the admins are one big happy family? <3 — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they're happier than the U.S. Congress. Go Phightins! 00:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's really a low blow. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think it's more like the Taiwan Parliament than anything else! =D KTC (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4][5] That's all I have to say. Go Phightins! 00:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More like the ancient Roman senate and the Curia Hostilia. That structure was destroyed when two factions in the Catiline conspiracy faught outside of Rome and caused the death of Publius Clodius Pulcher. They brought his body back to Rome, rioted in the Senate House and used all the senator benches to create a funeral pyre that ignited the Senate house and burned it to the ground. I am seeing a lot of parallels here.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm going to make one quick comment here and I'm back to my self-imposed one article exile. A lot of people here, and I won't say who specifically, because these people should know who they are, need to calm down. I will be very honest and say that I'm finding cries of "abuse" very upsetting and hard to stomach, and it has nothing to do with my being an admin or who I agree or disagree with. I've been working on an article about someone subjected to actual abuse on a level so horrifying it's quite literally impossible to imagine, and I can't begin to understand how flare-ups that in the grand scheme of things are such minor, trivial problems, are causing so many vicious comments and hurt feelings. Our work together here should be our armor, not some sharp, angry, burning sword. I would strongly recommend that everyone here find an article to work on for a while; not the cliche "random article", but something that gives you a nice tug at the heartstrings. It feels great to be out there doing work on something you genuinely care about, and I assure you it'll help you regain the sense of why you're here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we quote that and put it on top of a page somewhere? Seriously speaking. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, go ahead; not really sure where it'd fit, but if you find someplace go for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade, that's lovely, and it's going on the top of my userpage. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of some random essay that dealt with the topic (I'm sure there's one somewhere), but the userpage idea is a good one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also precedent of making an essay out of an awesome quote on its own. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to your original question — look here for an example. I wasn't thinking and violated 3RR, so I was given a routine 24-hour block, which was ended early when I confessed my error and pledged not to repeat. It would be quite problematic if admins weren't allowed or weren't technically capable of issuing a block in such cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but was there any reason it couldn't have been discussed at AN or ANI for a bit? The rules could be very strict: An admin would say "Is there any reason that I shouldn't block <admin X> for violating <policy Y>, or that the block shouldn't come from me?" Anyone opposed would then have a burden to show why the admin either didn't violate that policy, or can be rationally exempted from it. So no one would be able to say "You can't block him! He's my favorite admin!" or "Screw you, lay off on the blocks for once." (In fact, if I were to draw up a proposal for this, I'd probably include something allowing summary removal of any irrelevant comments.) I include the "shouldn't come from me" part since, for instance, it's wholly possible that Jclemens could catch Floquenbeam edit-warring (hypothetically of course, Floq), but I think we can all agree it'd be best he left the blocking to someone else. You could even have a rule that if no one replies within 15 (or maybe 30) minutes, the admin who asked can go ahead with the block.

Also, in my original post I was intentionally ambiguous about whether this would be a policy change, or a technical one as well. Now that I've thought about it, I realize that if, say, someone's just deleted the Main Page (oh wait, you can't - ok, deleted all of the most important templates) and blocked Jimbo and all of ArbCom, it's probably best that the first admin who notices be able to block on sight, without having to track down a 'crat, just to buy some time before the big guns swoop in and desysop. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're trying to reduce tensions, but I firmly believe that this wouldn't be helpful. Even when it's not a blatantly bad faith situation such as Robdurbar, we need to be able to block an admin who's engaging in blockable behavior. We shouldn't block if necessary, but the threat of blocking needs to be actionable. On the technical side, imagine two admins who are actively edit-warring at a minor article despite a warning; do you want them to be able to get way past 3RR just because we can't find a bureaucrat or steward? Meanwhile, if we require discussion beforehand, we're getting far into WP:BURO territory, and (although I can't find a link for it) we'd be making admins and non-admins into two radically different types of users. Finally, you'd have the issue of someone blocking an admin illegally simply because the blocker had no clue that the blockee was an admin. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

Can an admin head over to WP:RPP, there is about 8hs worth of backlog, Of particular interest is WP:RPP#2012 in UFC, protection here may stop some editors getting blocks for WP:3RR as WP is not a race. ✍ Mtking ✉ 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:VPT#Snotbot (or "Teh Dramahz break the wiki"). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done backlog cleared, sorry I haven't been there for a day :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A serious proposal to defuse the Malleus problem

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

By "the Malleus problem" I do not mean the facts that he is sometimes uncivil and that the community has not found a way to deal with that.

I mean the much more serious problem of the factions that have formed, the Friends of Malleus and the Enemies of Malleus, and the continual squabbling between them, which is divisive and damaging to the project. The issue comes up at least once a month, and immediately the predictable battle lines form and the atmosphere becomes so toxic that experienced and (normally) respected contributors behave like angry children, as in yesterday's disgraceful explosion. The resulting animosities are liable to spread and poison other areas, as could be seen in the run-up to the Arbcom elections.

My proposal is to invoke WP:IAR and declare that, as an exceptional case, Malleus has attained the status of "vested contributor", that he is exempted from the normal civility rules, and that in future no complaints about incivility from (or to) him will be accepted. This should be a formal announcement, perhaps from the new Arbcom, and any future complaints at ANI or other noticeboards would be speedily closed and the complainer referred to the announcement.

I do not see any downside to this. The situation is exceptional enough that we need not worry about setting a precedent. It would mean that Malleus can be uncivil without fear of sanction, but in practice that is already the case.

The upside is that we will be spared these interminable unproductive arguments and, most importantly, that the warring factions can lay down their arms and go and do something useful and, with luck and time, the animosities already generated will fade away.

JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"no complaints about incivility from (or to) him will be accepted" Won't that just mean an escalating war of words across Project space as "factions" war with each other using increasing insults? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else would be exempt from WP:CIVIL, only MF or people addressing him; what would happen, I hope, is that when he is rude, while somebody might reply in kind, other people would just say "So what" and move on, instead on having a great drama-fest about it. JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, M and his interlocutors can go on and on calling each other whatever all across the Project, and everyone else is forced to pretend they are blissfully unaware? Have you discussed this proposal with him, and how do you make known that we have one special rule for talking to one someone, that is not to exist anywhere else on the project? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose here is to stop disruptions. There is certainly no end to the problems that are caused everywhere by the issue: This proposal will do good so as to not drag the rest of the community into it. Half of the editors are having a bad taste in the mouth and some are considering even retiring/semi-retiring. And they werent even involved in this originally. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it stop disruption? It just perpetuates it. People who never come to this board are going to be involved in this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not directly involved in this discussion. I came only when I realised the huge block-unblock and verbal attacks going simultaneously at various places. Just keep it confined to Malleus's talk page and the pages of those who are involved. We are the 99%. Spare us. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you would limit this rule to User talk pages? What if it happens in other article or process forums? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They face sanctions as usual. We make it clear that this behaviour shall not be acceptable everywhere. Everyone, including Malleus, shall be held accountable for further attacks outside the talk space related to this issue. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk pages related to this issue"? User talk pages, is that what you mean? Will the community enforce bans of others from User talk pages, by the User, whose assigned that talk page? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the following comic looks appropriate - [6]. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, someone shut this one down. The pot has been stirred enough for now. The new year is just around the corner. Doc talk 12:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John - seriously?! Giant Snowman 12:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. I was afraid people would take this as a joke, or pot-stirring. I am dead serious. How would it be worse than the situation we have now, where dramas like yesterday's are a regular, useless, and divisive occurrence? JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earnest suggestion - Moderate the words. Do not make it look like Malleus is great and above all, and so we are doing this. Say something like- "Enough already. Due to numerous recent disruptive and disturbing drama incidents on the Wiki, the community has decided not to take any actions regarding the various civility concerns for Malleus. All editors including Malleus shall still be bound to all the other Wikipedia sanctions and the most severe cases of Civility Disruptions and Personal Attacks; but not for the rest." Do not make it look like Malleus is priviledged so he is exempt. Rather that WE DONT CARE. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John - it completely refuses to deal with the situation - a situation we do, unfortunately, have - and would set a precedent whether you want it to or not. Giant Snowman 12:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project is not going to openly kow-tow to one editor on civility. If it comes to an epic standoff, he will lose. See the writing on the wall. Doc talk 12:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project already has. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for as stupid as this idea sounds, it doesn't actually seem half bad. Save the drama, Malleus can have his incivility, and everyone's the better off...except perhaps Malleus, who while now being able to call someone a [insert incivil name of the day] would also be subject to people shooting it right back at him, which could hopefully cause him to refrain from calling editors [insert incivil name of the day]. On the other hand, I can also see a potentially very large downsides, so I'm unsure of what to think of this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slipperly slope, and I can see the insults escalating quickly. It's the equivalent of saying "that kid punched you? Punch 'em right back" - we end up with a full blown fist-fight as opposed to the peace we are aiming for. Giant Snowman 12:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Isnt it a fist fight here already? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's the main problem I have with this that I was having trouble putting into words. Other than that, it generally does seem decent. I think on the whole I lean towards that being an insurmountable flaw in this idea, but it's at least not an idea that's worthy of instantly being trashed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a broken window theory problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheOriginalSoni - yes, there is, which is why encouraging both sides to throw more punches is a silly idea. Giant Snowman 13:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything except blocking all the involved users going to stop those fist fights from happening? I doubt it. Will this stop the rest of us from a sour mouth? Certainly. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic concept is not without merit. I feel that we have two objectives here, other than our over-riding basic imperative to preserve and to improve the encyclopedia. Objective one is to retain Malleus within the project, which I personally believe would be significantly beneficial. Objective two is to prevent other editors from withdrawing because of uncivility, be it real, perceived or anticipated, from him. both could be achieved if a greater degree of mutual tolerance could be established, poreferably by agreement but by policy if necessary. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't our objectives. Our objectives are, frankly, to provide whatever solution produces the greatest good. The question is ultimately this: does malleus produce more good stuff than he does drama, vitriol and incivility? Do his content contributions outweigh the past, present and future contributions of everyone he could drive away and has driven away from contributing? If the answer to that is "yes", we can all shut up. If the answer to that is "no", he should be banned. The fact that we've got as far as a carte blanche proposal you're legitimately considering is pretty conclusive proof that a "greater degree of mutual tolerance" cannot be established. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happened when that (blocking) was tried. As long as half the community is there, Malleus cannot be banned (not by users or admins at least). Ban atleast half of the community, and we might be able to solve the problem. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this: we're not being asked to say "de-escalate drama". What we're being asked to do is create precedent that for time immemorial, Malleus can be mean to whoever he wants, whenever he wants, to whatever degree - that he can insult people who were never aware of this conversation or quite possibly not even around to participate in it - and that, should they show up, we'll tell them that we don't care enough to actually deal with it. That they have to sit here and be insulted, or leave. That's not de-escalating drama, that's turning future threads from "should we/should we not ban malleus" to "wait, people decided what in 2012?! Are they crazy?"

At the same time, as suggested above, we'd be setting the precedent that all you have to do is divide the community enough and we'll let you do whatever the hell you want. That's not workable in a collaborative environment. That's not a principle of any project I want to be involved in. This is essentially a proposal to solve short-term drama by pledging to stick your fingers in your ears and sing a happy song when the long-term consequences inevitably crop up. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that the status quo already, anyhow? --Conti|✉ 13:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it seems to me that we are asked to make the current practice a formal one. I strongly object to it, but I can't say that it's not the current practice. It is the case that Malleus is excluded from compliance with one of the five pillars, so might as well either a) struck that pillar down for everybody or b) formalize the fact that one or more contributors are exempt from following it. I for one feel that we should be just tagging WP:CIV as historical. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis and so should policies. I propose that we don't specifically exempt Malleus from this policy but rather tag the Civility policy as historical, remove it from the 5 pillars and move on. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe we need to just reach a conclusion on this one way or another. If the current group of participants can't reach a decision on something that impacts on, well, anyone Malleus or any future exempt editor could run into, there's an easy solution: widen out the conversation. Bring more people in. What's stopping us from just doing a straight up/down vote through securepoll: should the civility policy either (a) remain in force and enforceable through the normal plethora of admin and community powers, or (b) be deprecated? Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "one pillar" vision is more enchanting to me.[7] Since no community exists, with no mission, and 99.99% of the content is shit. Build it anew on one pillar. The brave words of a fearless leader with a plan to take us into the realm of unbridled excellence! Doc talk 13:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "pillar poll" is misunderstanding the root problem, which is that there is no clear answer to the question "What constitutes incivility?" Sure, some incivility is blatant, but many people here cannot distinguish between using rude words and being uncivil (and there are cultural differences too - I get the picture that Americans seem to be far more sensitive to the use of "bad words" than Brits, for example). A much more insidious problem than the use of bad words, in my opinion, is the masses of "polite" incivility that goes on - I've seen someone saying "You'll find my words impeccably polite" while engaging in chronic incivility, for example. And I've seen plenty of occasions when people are uncivil to Malleus but without using "bad words", then he replies no more uncivilly but using "bad words", and he's the one who gets slagged off. Pin down the answer to the question of what constitutes incivility and get a consensus, and then the poll proposition might have a start. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I may listen to what you have to say once you've graduated primary school, which you obviously haven't." Of course that is not directed at you, Boing!: just an example of a random response that any editor might make under the new rule. This is gonna be fun! Doc talk 13:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a very good point - in fact, I'd go further and say there is much more subtle incivility than that which seems to be accepted even under the current rules. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, it'll be the Wikipedia's version of the Larry Bird rule. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can have an "Early Bird rule" too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to polish up your bon mot skillz a bit, as that doesn't even make sense. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? the "early bird rule" in NBA compensation, which came from the "Larry Bird Rule." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose Right now it appears Malleus does not face sanctions for poor behavior. What he does face is drama. Anytime he acts out, the community throws a hissy fit. As sad as that might be, it's still somewhat of a detterant in and of itself. No matter how much Malleus pretends to not care, I can't imagine how much worse it'll become if the community is sanctioned for his behavior instead of himself. No, this is not the solution. As divisive as it is, the community must face this problem until the community is ready to solve it.

Further, I am incredibly concerned with the shift in tactics by the supporters of Malleus. Betweeen "Malleus has attained the status of "vested contributor", that he is exempted from the normal civility rules" from JohnCD and Basalisk's "wikipedia is better off with an insulting and gruff Malleus than without him at all." it scares me because Malleus' supporters are finally accepting that he is uncivil but they still refuse to address it. No no, there can be no agreement until folks on both sides compromise. As Malleus has made it clear he will no, there will be no solution ever. JohnCD - I accept that you made this proposal in good faith, but you only appealed to the interests of a single point of view in this debate. If you want a workable solution, you need to find something both sides can agree too. You have as much luck in that as the US Congress does on a federal budget. You need to compromise, not tell the other side how it's gonna be from now on.--v/r - T P 13:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suppose we can compromise about? Specifically, one side feels policy trumps Malleus, the other feels Malleus trumps policy. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of solution thus face doesn't mean one doesn't exists, only that either no one has thought of it or the community is not courageous enough to do it. But a one sided solution is not a solution. This will gain zero ground. If we want a "vested contributor" category, then open an RFC and determine who else falls into it. Are you a vested contributor too? Let Jimbo know, he'll likely be one too and I think he might have a few words when we start making people a "big deal." (Oh no, I didn't; yes, I totally did invoke the almighty there)--v/r - T P 13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. What I see is one side thinking that incivility only consists in using "bad words", while the other side thinks there is a chronic problem with "polite incivility" (and then there's the side that thinks X, and the side that thinks Y... it's just not the simple binary question that you seem to think it is) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You speak about hypothetical situations where you say both were uncivil. The handy thing about hypothetical situations is that you don't have to back it up. In the recent incident, do you think Malleus was being uncivil? Yes or No? In the recent incident, do you think Cornellier was being uncivil? yes or no, provide diffs for both, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of real examples, and they have already been discussed at great length in various forums - I'm not going to drag them up again, because the people involved in them have already been subject to enough stress. I'm also not going to comment on the current example, because I have not examined it and because this is not an discussion of that specific case. But I will offer and answer a few questions of my own. 1) Has Malleus ever been uncivil to others? Oh yes, certainly, and I would not seek to deny that. 2) Have others ever been uncivil to Malleus? Most definitely, yes. 3) Have there been occasions when Malleus was the worse offender in an uncivil exchange? Yes. 4) Have there been occasions when someone else was the worse offender in an uncivil exchange? Yes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to discuss the current example? It's the current example that is causing the issues; I could see nothing showing Cornellier being uncivil, but perhaps I missed it. I will rephrase the question. Keeping in mind the current incident, have their been incidents where Malleus was the only uncivil person, yes or no? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the usaul admin action for incivility by only one person of this severity? What would your proposed solution be for future cases where only Malleus is being uncivil? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, see Basalisk comment on this very page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and the fact that we disagree on what the problem actually is proves that your simplistic statement of it is false. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, most would consider me a "friend of Malleus", but I do not think that "Malleus trumps policy" - so you are certainly wrong in at least one example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm no, there's a misunderstanding here. I don't think there's any relevance to terms such as "friend of Malleus" or "enemy of Malleus". I would hope that people try to judge stuff on their merit, not based on friendship. There's obvious differences of opinion in what constitutes incivility: that's natural and understandable. I never meant to imply that you or somebody holding your opinion would be thinking that "Malleus trumps policy", but some clearly do think so. That is the big division. When people talk about net positive, about better having an incivil Malleus than no Malleus, they are saying that he trumps policy in my opinion. That is the big divide. To me, you seem to think that "Policy trumps Malleus" is the way to go, just disagree with me or somebody else that on what constitutes incivility. That seems fine to me, I was trying to outlay a bigger divide that it seems to me has happened in this community. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes, I think I'm understanding you better now. I think the two positions you posit do actually exist and that there are people who hold each - and yes, it is divisive. But I also think there's a spectrum of opinion between them - for example, I think a deeper appreciation of the underlying issues should trump a superficial application of policy (which might be a clumsy way of putting it, but it's getting late here), so I think there will be cases were "X trumps policy" and cases where "Policy trumps X", but no generalisations with regard to X. I also think that there are people who think there are more important aspects to the problem which would, if they could be addressed, make the "Malleus vs Policy" question moot. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should make clear that I do not make this proposal as a "supporter of Malleus". I have had no part in the Malleus civility wars. I make the proposal as someone who thinks that episodes like yesterday's are extremely damaging to the community, and believes this is a way to prevent them. JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD, probably DOA, don't know its validity, but it does have a certain pragmatic beauty -- effectively letting the air out of the balloon, removing all tension. (I do think your proposal has a mechanical flaw though [if I understand it correctly] since wouldn't it draw like a magnet extra-viscious verbal attacks towards Malleus? Simple fix though ... just don't exempt others from normal CIV when working w/ Malleus. This would put editors "on their own" when interfacing with Malleus, subject to whatever he might say according to his own standards [which, afterall, are considerable; and which, afterall, is the way it should be; and which, afterall, is the way it currently is!].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. I felt that exempting Malleus from WP:CIV while requiring others to obey it even when replying to him would be felt too one-sided; if he can dish it out, he should be able to take it. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not "too" one-sided, entirely one-sided.--v/r - T P 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, I think that is perhaps missing the point ... "Fairness" is always a nice and good value, but this is a case (a proposal) which seeks a pragmatic value (removing tension/drama) as its only justification. (So, if "fairness" is sacrificed, it goes against our feelings of fair-play, granted, but, so what? Does it destroy the pragmatic value sought? No. In fact, it makes the idea possibly workable, whereas without it, it will draw extra-viscious attacks on Malleus, and that makes it not workable.) It could be argued that JohnCD's proposal is itself "unfair", by creating a special case, not accessible to others. The reason JohnCD's idea is radical (thinking "out-of-the-box") is that it goes for its pragmatic result, over instincts for "equal for all", doesn't it? So taken one step further, is not an inconsistency, and, it allows the idea to perhaps work, instead of fail. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...it will draw extra-viscious attacks on Malleus..." I think that until Malleus is willing to come to terms with his own behavior, that these are essential to curbing his own. The idea fails because it gives Malleus a tool to get rid of editors he dislikes. He can game it by viciously insulting others and then seeking a ban when they retaliate. It raises him on a huge pillar. We already place Raul on a pillar as the director of FAs, and while Raul has been a kind ruler of our best content, I do not think we'll see the same benevolent dictatorship from Malleus.--v/r - T P 15:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so ... Your argument is based on assumption, that Malleus would adapt his behavior to exploit JohnCD's policy. (JohnCD's idea is an exception-policy crafted for the case of Malleus. So it seems consistent then to take what we know about Malleus into account. Your assumption doesn't do that. Malleus has his own standards for his behavior based on his own firm ethics, he goes by his own standards regardless [if policy agrees, fine; if it doesn't, then ...]. Do you honestly think adapting his behavior to exploit a special policy with his name on it would pass his personal ethics standards?! No way!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, no one is forced to work with Malleus. And if Malleus didn't like working with someone, he would tell them (in his own way), and that would be the end of it. So what terrible different future are you worried about? (And indeed, that is how things work today, isn't it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment on the way we handle incivility. I think one of our weaknesses as a community is that we don't properly consider the reasons why an issue leads to incivility - we just address the symptoms of what is often a deeper, but not immediately obvious, problem. As an example, I was recently involved in a spat with another editor who I thought was being uncivil. But here's what I did wrong - I reacted to the perceived incivility, and I failed to think to myself "Hang on, this is someone I respect and actually quite like, so I wonder *why* he is acting in a way I see as uncivil? Maybe there's a misunderstanding here that *I* have contributed to too?" It took a third party to spot that and point it out to me, and once I'd realised that we were indeed involved in a misunderstanding, then it was easy to de-escalate, and we're friendly again. How much of that is there in our big civility bust-ups? I think probably quite a lot. How do we address it? I really have no idea. But that was just a thought. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility isn't like NLT or other behavioral issues and really requires digging and discussion to resolve, and not everyone is good at that. Part of the problem is our culture here to quickly fix problems, which works great for most problems, but not incivility. If we have learned anything, it is that blocks are not a cure-all solution for our civility woes and often just make the situation worse. Like you, I have no idea how to fix this problem, and the community has been torn into two over it. I'm personally tired of hearing both sides label the other as "enablers" and "civility police", which is (of course) incivil. And like you say above, the passive-aggressive type of incivility, thinly veiled with sweet words, is more destructive than the blunt comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "If we have learned anything, it is that blocks are not a cure-all solution for our civility woes and often just make the situation worse." Have we learned that? How? As one has never stuck and been allowed to have any result, I don't think we know if they are effective or not on Malleus. Here's a counter proposal to JohnCD, let's block Malleus for 1 month and see if it fixes the problem.--v/r - TP 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed - MF should be treated like any other editor who is uncivil - a series of escalating blocks ending in an indef. GiantSnowman 15:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't work. Look at the record. The situation has become too polarised. If anyone blocks him for a month, there will be another immense drama, with threats of resignation and attacks on the blocker, and someone will unblock him within 20 minutes. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What record? The record of it being overturned? We do not have a single block on Malleus to point to and say "Ok, we gave that a chance and it didn't work."--v/r - T P 15:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think some people around here just need to accept that what goes on behind-the-scenes here (keep in mind how small the # is of Wikipedia users who dive into article talk pages, and smaller still who get into our Byzantine bullshit like ANI and Arbcom) is more Wild West than a Victorian-era ladies' tea social. You will never get anonymous people to be polite to eahc other when there is no compelling reason to do so, and no actual enforceable repercussion when they do not. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. There's no compelling reason for me, in RL, to hold the door open for an old lady walking into a public place. She's just some anonymous person! She'd probably shut the door in my face too. I like the way this is going. Doc talk 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous Seriously, this might be the most absurd proposal I've seen since I joined the project. The notion that allowing Malleus unlimited incivility is flawed. How on earth does anyone expect to retain new (or old) editors who face incivility from Malleus and are told that the community decided he could do whatever he wanted. If people don't want to deal with the drama, don't take part in the discussions. If a Malleus issue comes up and you work somewhere else on the encyclopedia, as far as you are concerned, drama never occurred. I'd hate the following idea, but if allowing incivility is the only option, then it would need to occur by getting rid of the fourth pillar for all editors. This includes new accounts and IP editors. Ryan Vesey 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, it seems to me you're reacting emotionally to the idea, rather than evaluating it objectively. (Look at how you name-call it in the first two sentences. That's evidence of emotionalism, not argument.) First, think if the rule were implemented, and a newbie went to Malleus for help with something. Would Malleus's behavior toward the newbie be any different because the rule was implemented? Not at all. So then, what case are you worried about? (Cases where Malleus has told someone where to go? Well, that is what happens today already. So what unforseen undesirable future are you worried about then, that I didn't cover?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, we already do allow him unlimited incivility. The last three times he was blocked, it took 16, 5 and 7 minutes before someone unblocked him. The question is, do we continue interminable wrangling about the situation, or do we formalise it and move on? JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I assumed the proposal wasn't literal, although not completely sure of the goal, to be honest. I don't think we have the authority to do that anyway, even as a community, unless we changed the five pillars to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The civility policy is a community-approved policy and we do have the authority to change it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Probably, but only within the bounds of the Wikimedia:Terms of Use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The proposal was literal. I wish I could convince people of that. It is calling in the fifth pillar, IAR, to resolve a problem with the fourth. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I don't think we have the authority to exclude ONE person from it, that was my point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then consider it a category of persons, a category that consists of one member. (As soon as he's cloned, there will be two.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The last time people tried to create a category of Wikipedians that aren't Wikipedians (several times) it kept getting deleted, even though there were several people in that category. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh? (JohnCD's proposal is a special-handling rule for a Wikipedian, no one suggested anything about "non-Wikipedian".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So 39 FAs is the magic number? Well then hmm, it's a good thing that I write road articles, because I can get 39 FAs too - I already have 2, and have come up with 3 potential candidates in the span of three months. I want my exemption! --Rs chen 7754 15:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the number of FAs is fairly irrelevant. If YellowMonkey showed up out of the blue and started being uncivil, I doubt you'd get the same reaction from people and he'd have to face the music. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know. Sounds discriminatory towards Rschen, myself, and other content contributors. Just slip the exemption to us quietly. We won't say anything. Well, not about that anyway.Wehwalt--15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me try and help you all out here. That Ironholds went blocking bonkers yesterday is nothing to do with me, and whatever is decided here (likely nothing at all, as is the Wikipedia way) will make absolutely zero difference to me. And a final piece of advice; stop treating your contributors like naughty children. Nobody gives a rat's arse about all this blocking/banning nonsense. Just look at the recent examples of Rlevse or Jack Merridew if you believe blocks solve anything. Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere (structural change)! (@JohnCD, how much *more* fuss/drama/time/disruption would be saved, if there were *no* deliberations/cases about blocks, if blocks were eliminated? Answer: lots & lots.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous proposal. No amount of content contribution should give any user a free pass on behaviour. I've opposed such nonsense with Jack Merridew, A Nobody, Colonel Warden, and now Malleus Fatuorum. When considering behaviour, the only thing that should be considered is the behaviour, and content contribution should be considered only when the topic is content. I'd rather see people discussing severe sanctions for admins that undo valid blocks based on personal whim. Floquenbeam's unblock spree yesterday was the source of the difficulty. If SnottyWong, Drmies, and Malleus Fatuorum had each served out the terms of their blocks, we'd be in a better place today. At the very least it would be a consistent place that stood a chance as being perceived as fair.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone said the new Arbcom has a profile that is less poised to support such blocks, so, what straw are you sucking from thinking more blocking has any realistic chance of being more than wishful thinking on your part to address the problem JohnCD has described? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Occasionally the community reaches the correct decision despite Arbcom. It's not so common that I would bet in favor of it, but it has happened in the past, and likely will again.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The person who wrote what I read about the new Arbcom profile, felt the new Arbcom accurately reflected the voice of the community on issue of civility enforcement (recent Arbcom election). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is a troll, right? It has to be. I can't believe that someone would seriously propose going directly against the principle of 'no vested contributors' and creating a user with rights even Jimbo doesn't have - the right not to be blocked for incivility. The day that happens is the day I quit Wikipedia, since it'll be the day we formally accept that not all editors are treated equally. A better proposal would be to outright abolish WP:Civility - I don't agree with that proposal, mind you, but it would be fairer than proposing to exempt one editor from it while everyone else remains subject to it. Robofish (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear to I think everyone here except you that JohnCD is serious/sincere in his proposal, so to suggest his proposal is a troll makes it look more like your comment is a troll (or did I miss something with that logic?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. Your "abolish CIV" idea has some attractive logic, IMO. (Could you please ask Malleus what he thinks of it? He's a pretty smart guy, yes?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Proposal

Taking this "vested contributor" idea a step forward, can we decide on a bright line where an editor becomes a vested contributor and then once we have such a bright line: The blocking of a vested contributor may not be done unilaterally by a single administrator, it must have X hours of discussion in an appropriate forum. This will address the concern that there are underlying issues that are unresolved with blocks, because they will be discussed first, and it'll also address the issue of administrators unilaterally unblocking because they'd go against community consensus. Further, blocking would not be off the table but it'd be left to community discretion. Alright, I'm ready for unanimous opposition: GO!--v/r - T P 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea in theory, however, a determination of how vested is vested is unachievable. We don't use a set of metrics at RFA for a reason, and a metric to determine when they can skirt being a dick isn't going to happen. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Proposal

I like out of the box thinking. While I don't think the original proposal will fly, let me suggest two modifications which may make it more palatable:

Identifying a specific individual is problematic. I suggest that the term "~~Valued~~Vested contributor" be applied to anyone who has over 75,000 edits to article space and has contributed in more than 100 FA nominations.
Rather than just ignore incivility by a "~~Valued~~Vested Contributor, anyone seeing it (except on the VC's talk page) should simply remove it with an edit summary "removed remark of VC".--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that more palatable? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold is way too high. Really, it would be a good idea if most blocks were discussed first. The threshold should be high enough that a new contributor has been given plenty of rope to develop into a problem editor and be blocked, and to make it as hard as practical for anyone to make a super sock, but not so high that it only applies to one editor, or a handful of editors. I would consider 2000 edits and a year of activity as a more appropriate threshold. There are probably some block reasons that should be excepted, such as bright line 3rr violations. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the name "Valued contributor" sucks; it implies other contributors might not be valued. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, fixed.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It may be me, but i start to smell Citizendium here - As long as you have some "Qualifications" you may do as you please but otherwise you are expected to obey the rules and god help you if you don't. If we are going to have a set of rules they should apply to everyone, without exempting people who just happened to be around somewhat longer, regardless how valued they might be. I don't mind giving extra leeway to long term editors since a nudge can often work wonders, but if people consistently go over the line i don't see why that should be accepted. So either enforce this line, redraw it somewhere else of remove it altogether. I don't care which, but the line should be equal for everyone. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is more palatable in that it avoids singling out one editor. Anyone can qualify, it just takes a lot of valuable contributions.
It is more palatable, because it doesn't declare that incivility has to be left and ignored, it allows removal. It simply avoids the useless drama associated with blocks.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Alternative

Call this the "Don't be a productive dick" sanction. Contributors valued for their content despite habitual incivility are placed under the following regime:

Any verbal abuse directed at other editors will be subject to a 5-day block, without consideration to the contributions or any past abuses that have not been sanctioned (the Don't be a productive dick clause)
If the abuse was caused by baiting, broadly construed, the baiting party will be blocked for 10 days. This includes misuse of processes for vexatious or disruptive litigation (the Don't poke the bear clause)
If the block for verbal abuse is deemed illegitimate, the reporting party or blocking admin will be blocked for 5 days (the don't be trigger happy clause)
All above blocks are treated as an AE block and cannot be overturned absent an overwhelming community consensus. Admins ignoring this provision will be blocked for 10 days and subjected to desysopping proceedings if they persist. (The don't unblock without consensus clause)
Once the discussion of the specific incident triggering the first block is closed, any reopening of it on any forum (including Jimbo's talk) will be subject to a 10-day block (the stop stirring up drama clause).
Any gaming of this sanction regime will lead to a minimum 6-months ban.

Instead of placing an arbitrary number of edits as the threshold, a simple consensus on AN is enough to place any editor under this regime. None of the above precludes any actions for disruption caused outside of WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA. What does this regime offer? It stops the immunity from sanctions for productive editors who regularly flare up, while providing a path to keeping their contributions. It cuts short on the drama and prevents the unblock and noticeboard drama. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you aren't conjugating irregular verbs properly. It's "I am honest, you are baiting, he is disruptive." Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we should not hand out blocks as if it were. Gaming is an incredibly broad concept, and almost anything could be counted as gaming because gaming, if done at all well, looks almost identical to normal editing. Likewise, all sorts of perfectly legitimate things could also be baiting depending on the motivation of the person making the edit. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Concerns of severe BLP violations

I have strong reasons to believe an editor is intentionally and maliciously including outright misinformation in article about Japanese video games people, aiming to start and spread false rumours.

The user in question is G-Zay. On his userpage you can see links to a few of his most commonly edited BLPs.

Questions were raised at WP:VG as to the existence of a source he used for claims on Hiroyuki Ito, and it was determined that the claims were at best unsourced, and that the source proposed by the editor was non-existent. It was removed quickly following that discovery.

The user, G-Zay, admits to being a frequent GameFAQs user; one of the usernames he admitted to using is GZay2Stay. You can easily read in this thread he also uses Galvanization as a username. Under the Galvanization username, he explicitely admitted to falsely planting rumours about Hiroyuki Ito by citing made-up sources and watching the "firestorm" evolve from it, even admitting being disappointed by the results.

I believe intentionally introducing deliberate misinformation in a malicious way to BLPs to be extremely severe actions and not only do they possibly expose the WMF to consequences, it harms Wikipedia's reputation throughout the general public, and personally disgusts me immensely. Salvidrim! 14:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took us a while to find the intended text, but it's there. Please continue to discuss G-Zay's behavior.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/619315-final-fantasy-xiii-2/61390125?page=2 doesn't go anywhere useful.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes exactly where intended, however there is a lot of irrelevant text -- what you're looking for is this bit, posted under the username Galvanization: "I'm trying to move on with this new account and put my time as GZay2Stay behind me.", hence confirming the identity; a myriad of other users in the same thread also confirm it is the same user but without his own confirmation that carries even less weight. I know it isn't the most rock-solid of proofs, but I believe it is an otherwise evident deduction and even without these off-site admissions, the action on-wiki are still highly concerning. Salvidrim! 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not on the page in question (I've used Ctrl+F and looked through with my own eyes), and it's not on the previous two pages either. Did you mean to link somewhere in pages 4-16? Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel stupid, I just realized that the page numbers depend on the user settings for posts-per-page. From my point of view, there are 4 pages. With default settings it is on page 14. Sorry! Salvidrim! 18:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link; I would have looked at more pages, but I was short of time. I can easily see the text on that page, but I'm not right now going to comment on the underlying situation. Now for a little more confusion — ?page=14 is actually page 15 of 16. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, not exactly ideal. I amended the link in my post to reflect "default settings" that most editors would likely encounter. Salvidrim! 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Salvidrim says, the user appears to be intentionally introducing false information into biographies of living persons articles. I asked the user to participate in the discussion on WT:VG and to provide proof of the interview. The editor has continued editing Final Fantasy related articles but has not responded to any discussion. It worries me that the editor may continue adding made up information to BLPs, and I am concerned that the editor is not responding to discussions. At this point, I think we need to engage in a discussion with the user or else the user must be stopped from editing. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I purposely didn't reply to this discussion as I didn't want to engage in any debate/arguments about my account or actions. I only joined Wikipedia to edit and improve a very select number of pages related to the Final Fantasy series that had incorrect or outdated information.

I will try and explain the matter of the recent edit to the Hiroyuki Ito page. On GameFAQs, I am "notoriously" known to be a big fan of Hiroyuki Ito. This has been the case for years and is what allows other users to identify me if I ever change my username. The reason is because I create passionate threads about Hioyuki Ito possibly directing Final Fantasy XV. There was also a rumour I created in July 2012 about GamesMaster magazine revealing Final Fantasy XV having already been in development for 4 years with Hiroyuki Ito as the director. The rumour spread around the internet but was eventually debunked once the deputy editor of the magazine confirmed the rumour was not published in the magazine. However, my intention making that rumour was not to mislead people, but for the rumour to eventually reach Square Enix so they could publicly debunk it themselves or provide statement about it. After all, many Final Fantasy fans on GameFAQ (and around in the internet) are wondering what Hiroyuki Ito is working on and if he'll be involved in Final Fantasy XV.

Anyway, a few weeks ago, a received a PM on GameFAQs from a user who said they were based in Germany and saw an interview with Hiroyuki Ito in a German magazine called iOS GameZone. They provided me with a translation (but not a scan) and I took their word for it and added it to Wikipedia. However, when I asked them for a scan in a later PM, they replied saying that they made up most of the interview as they knew I was a big Hiroyuki Ito fan and they wanted to get back at me for the rumour I created back in July 2012. Frankly, I wan't even upset about this as I know the Final Fantasy GameFAQs community has me notoriously known as big Hiroyuki Ito fan. The user told me that the interview was real but they exaggerated and modified certain points to build up my hopes. Upon requesting it, they provided me with the actual interview and name of the magazine. They said this was actually true and so I edited the Wikipedia page to reflect this. In other words, my addition to Wikipedia was not made up by me but provided to me by another member of GameFAQs.

Having said that, I hope people are not overlooking my contributions to various Final Fantasy pages and how they are all referenced. It would be a shame if I got banned despite my earnest contributions. Regards. --G-Zay (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to this thread. As a collaborative encyclopedia, it is often useful, and sometimes necessary, to publicly explain one's actions, so please do not hesitate to participate in such discussions. I see two problems with your actions that you must avoid in the future: (1) adding dubiously sourced information to biographies of living persons. This is a serious issue. If you can not confirm the facts in a reliable source, first hand, then I don't think it's appropriate to include such information in a BLP. (2) using questionable sources. You did not confirm that the source existed or that the information you were receiving was actually in the source. When writing citations, it is necessary that you cite where you got the information. For example, if you were reading an article on BBC and it referenced an academic journal article, but you did not actually read the academic journal, then you must cite the BBC article and not the journal article. In this case, you would need to cite the user on GameFAQs as the source for your information. But clearly he is not a reliable source, so the information should not be added to the article. Please review the WP:BLP policy and WP:RS policy, and please be careful when editing sensitive articles such as BLPs. I don't think any further action is necessary. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior by Earl King Jr. (AN #2) and Neutrality of The Venus Project

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Earl King Jr. has been disruptive on the article page of The Venus Project.

1. His first disruptive behavior incident noted that "he repeatedly accuses Ijon of being biased because Earl King claims that Ijon is a member of the group itself.--Bbb23" and informed him that, "Sorry, no, you dont remove other peopoles talk page comments twice on a whim. Thats grounds for an immeidate block! If you gfel it inapprooproate ou should discuss it or take it here.Lihaas" and "Earl, your repetitive comments about Ijon's supposed non-neutral position are not helpful.--Bbb23"
2. He reverted a constructive article edit containing encyclopedic information about the project's history that was verifiable and properly sourced with page numbers, paragraph information, time spots, and quotes, back to his incomplete and inaccurate version with the edit summary of "Remove new wordy promo version. More like propaganda from the group than literal information," which suggested a group member contacted the sources (Miami News, Lionel Rolfe, WTVJ/Larry King, and William Gazecki) to publish propaganda on their behalf.
3. A review of his contribution history since March 12, 2012 shows his edits primarily, if not entirely, consists of reverting and removing information from various articles surrounding the same topic. He was repeatedly informed on his self-created clean up section on the article's talk page to cease disrupting article improvement.
4. He reverted another edit with critical commentary by New York Times back to his incomplete and nonrepresentative version with the edit summary of "same edit, different name. No. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional mouth piece for any group or company." He was informed in the article talk page that the encyclopedic information was notable work (the Lionel Rolfe source references Madman Muntz's half million commission, Fresco's Air Force patent, Forest Ackerman nominating him for president, as told by Jack Catran), which he afterwards described in the talk page that "an exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it" which suggested the enecylopedic information belonged at an unnamed, somewhere else and aforementioned sources haven't detailed the project.
5. Conveniently, Bobrayner would revert the article to Earl King Jr.'s edit twice (equaling King Jr.'s own two times) using King Jr.'s promotional line in the edit summary of "Seems to be far too promotional." If the history/background of an organization or company "seems to be" "promotional," every Apple, Einsten/scientist invention, etc article should be reverted to their earliest, incomplete and unrepresentative edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Ijon was topic banned from this area due to disruption? You seem to be going to AN over a content dispute. That's not the purpose of AN. Special:Contributions/NotDeletable and this account appearing looks like a potential DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1-No, as I'm primarily concerned with article content and good faith edits being disruptively removed. 2-I'd say since his disruptive behavior was brought up in ANI before, that part belongs here, but I'll move this over to disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles around the Venus Project, and Fresco, have historically had severe problems with promotion & spamminess (which has occasionally leaked out into other articles, so some of our articles on economic stuff would have lengthy praise of stuff which is obscure and fringey in the real world). We won't get neutral articles by cherrypicking from sources and then framing it as positively as possible. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the information is promotional, which I have done, it is best to remove it. When an article sounds spammy or indulgent to some official or party line to an organization or if it reads like it is praising/extolling/glorifying the subject, then it is not credible. The current edit of the article is neutral. Neutrality is key. Since most of the article is dealing with a subject which is self sourced its important to keep the entry neutral. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help me explain

Editors may copy/paste their own work without attribution. Attribution is for other's work. Jgmikulay is doing fine work in that regard. Misunderstanding/misreading by OP -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed Jgmikulay was drafting several articles in succession at User:Jgmikulay/WSPA and then copy-pasting each to its respective article. I explained why this was a bad idea at here, yet s/he is still doing this two days later. Please help me re-explain this concept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify, is Jgmikulay copy pasting any content contributed by editors other them themself? If there are no contributions by other editors being copy pasted the primary reason why copy paste moves are a problem vanishes. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." Is this actually a problem? These are the user's own drafts. The Interior (Talk) 18:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are correct. My eyes must have glossed over that part. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a "her", by the way; Prof. Mikulay is somebody I've been a Campus Ambassador for, and actually one of our outstanding contributors (specializing in public art, among other topics) and mentors of new editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marcus Qwertyus

Marcus Qwertyus has been going down a list on my User Page and moving articles I've created - some of them years old. Whether or not they should be moved, and understanding there is no ownership on Wikipedia, the fact that he's using any user's sandbox to do this is un-nerving. It started with a page I created this morning. Granted, he may have seen that pop elsewhere. But after that, he's been going down the list on a user's page. And given the conversation above, I think I'm not the only one he's dong this to. It borders on stalking. — Maile (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver actually [8]. I sometimes notice users who have a pattern of mis-titling articles. Is this really something that needs to be dragged out onto AN without first attempting to work something out on my talkpage? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you dropped a note at Maile's talk page explaining? Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No, Rich he didn't. And you only have to go through the link to my page above and his user contributions. First he went through the schools, and within categories on that list. I would like him to stop. There must be something else he can do to contribute to Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is as yet no substance to this complaint. Is there anything actually wrong or objectionable about the moves themselves? Please provide diffs. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember the message that appears above the edit window on all pages: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Moving a page from your userspace definitely qualifies as doing those things in accordance with our terms and conditions. Granted, it's not particularly courteous in most cases (no comment here, since I've not looked into the details), but if you're fiercely opposed to the idea in general, perhaps you should write them in Notepad and save them on your hard drive rather than writing drafts in userspace. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not moving pages from userspace but Maile incorrectly thought I was using one of his subpages to get a list of pages s/he had created. The articles in question were already published. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Maile, but not only is it not stalking, it is good practice. There are some types of errors, in this example, title conventions, where the observation of one issue raises the entirely understandable question, "Does this editor have other examples?" If the editor chooses not to follow up, well they are a volunteer, but if they pro-actively decide to check other contributions of the editor to see if there are others needing fixing, that deserves kudos, not brickbats. While this type of activity can cross over into stalking like behavior, that isn't close to what happened here. Instead of complaining, you should be thanking Marcus Qwertyus for the improvements, and, if you don't understand the rationale behind the moves, asks. I'm sure Marcus Qwertyus will be happy to explain.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOLfan112 unblock request

Per UTRS #5662, WOLfan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is requesting unblock via WP:OFFER. I have reconfigured his block to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WOLfan112/Archive and a good memory convinces me this would be a bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis. Also, only four months have passed. Let's see what WOLfan112 has to say. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Standard offer is 6 months w/o socking. Not 6 months since the block and 4 months of no socking.--v/r - T P 19:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry for my previous behaviour. I promise I will not do it again - I am also very sorry for making all those sock puppets. During the past few months I have learnt to act formally, control my emotions and to not lose my temper. I also believe my spelling and grammar has improved significantly. It is a new year, so what not give a last chance as a final act of good faith? UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on here, what? How is the editor unblocked to edit here? As per SOP, they may ONLY edit their talkpage, use {{helpme}} to have it copied over here to AN ... there's no way in heck they should be editing anything like AN directly. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely answering the how: Special:AbuseFilter/201. KTC (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute idea, but not how we do things. He's now got full access to everything else on this page too; not kosher (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was allowed to edit this page. Sorry, I didn't know.UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For users who haven't been known to abuse noticeboards, I don't consider it a problem for him to have access to the entire page, with the understanding that he is not allowed to edit other sections. My policy is that if you try to abuse this privilege, then you get immediately reblocked and your appeal dismissed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have reconfigured his block to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)". It says "as well as this page". So could you please consider my unblock request and give me a last chance?--UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "heartfelt apology" followed by repeated and continuous socking is something that has happened over and over again. Why would this time be any different? I feel that an unblock at this time, or any time within the next three years, would waste a significant amount of volunteer time and provide absolutely no benefit to the project. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... A question here. Have any of these disruptive behaviour occured "AFTER" any single heart-felt apology from him? Or was he never re-considered once he was blocked? Your links seemed to be dubious in that ground, so I thought I would ask. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated sockpuppetry occurred several times after these "apologies". -- Mrmatiko (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind me asking for some links before I believe that? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rest of this page. He/She already gave the links above. Compare that with the times where socks in the SPI archive operated. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more salient question in my mind is, "What are you planning on doing should you get unblocked?" I and others (notably User:Moe Epsilon) discussed this with WOLFan112 yesterday on IRC, in the help channel. One of the things you discussed there was the deletion of all your contributions. As I recall, this is something you got into trouble about before, as well. Do you accept that, even if you are unblocked, you will not have free rein to delete all your previous contributions? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete any of my previous articles, pages or useful edits. I accept I do not own wikipedia.UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This time I have had a long time to reflect. 4 months is 120 days and in the past I often had over 30 useful edits a day. I believe I have changed and proved I can keep away from WP for over 100 days if I wanted to.UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you missing a word in your reply or did you misunderstand Writ Keeper? Salvidrim! 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask this because the incident involving you (or in this case, User:Deathlasersonline, one of your socks) that sticks the most in my mind is this one, and especially this page (quickly deleted), which you created after your deletion requests were denied. Since you asked yesterday about deleting all your contribs because your friends would find out about them (paraphrase), the same exact issue and rationale that caused the prior incident, I'm thinking this may still be an issue for you. This kind of conduct on your part was outrageously unacceptable, and I'm not sure you're quite over it yet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOLfan112 has not met condition 1 of the standard offer, i.e. no sockpuppetry for six months, but there was confirmed sockpuppetry going on just four months ago. WOLfan112 has been warned that repeatedly requesting to be unblocked before the six months was up would not reflect favorably on any future unblock requests, and I'm afraid that this request demonstrates that maturity is still an issue. This request should be declined and the user should be reblocked at once. —DoRD (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WOLfan112 and his socks have caused a lot of work for other editors and abused our assumption of good faith. As the thread Writ Keeper links above shows, there has also been an extreme display of childishness. What besides "aw come on, it's a new year" do you have to convince us to unblock two months before "standard offer" would apply, let alone the solid year that I believe many of us recommended you take before attempting to return? Do you have, for instance, a solid record of editing constructively on another Wikipedia to which you can point? Unless something really compelling is presented, my answer must be no. LadyofShalott 02:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock per WP:ROPE. I'm not one for calendar watching, and I feel the spirit of WP:SO has been met here. Blocks are cheap and easy, especially for someone with a history like this. --Jayron32 04:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock per Jayron32, with the understanding that if he screws up, he will have a much harder time persuading next time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock First, they have not met neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:OFFER - especially as they were specifically and intentionally advised NOT to request unblock before 6 months after their most recent socking. Second, they say their intent if permitted back onto Wikipedia is to delete all of their work - um, you licensed it to the project to do with it what it may, so that might not be a good idea. Overall I'm not convinced by what I'm reading of any sincerity in understanding their block, nor that this editor is going to be any better in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock - I do not see why the user ought not to get a second chance. 4 months is long enough already; and even if her reneges, no harm will be done (As already explained by other users) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't be a "second" chance, it goes quite a way beyond that.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock Lack of actual indications that they have changed, too many "second chances" (per the messages and Mrmatiko's diffs). Insufficient time has past for the standard offer. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we are considering an unblock based on socking, would WOLfan112 voluntarily submit to having a checkuser run for sleepers? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they haven't been used to edit in three months, there will be no data. Or is this just to see if he'd object? Look, we are told to AGF. An editor has returned after a fair period of time (and the "six months" did not come down on stone tablets or golden plates) and he's being very polite. A block is not difficult to impose. Let's get on with building the encyclopedia and see if he's with us or against us on the only issue that counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? Too late for him. You don't actually know if he's had a break for 3 months (he was caught at the end of august socking), and there is no reasonable expectation that he has considering the mass of sock-puppetry and "apologies" that have occurred again and again. There's assuming good faith, and then there's having the cop on to deal with a situation where someone abuses that continually. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock, pending meaningful and substantive responses to LadyofShalott's remarks. This unblock request doesn't evince any clear notion or plan for what WOLfan112 would do – or would like to do – on this project if unblocked, nor any work on other projects to demonstrate a remarkable increase in his editing skills. In other words, this request has plenty of I'm tired of waiting and I want to play on Wikipedia but is lacking in I've thought about the problem, and here's how I will help to build an encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I lost my temper, it will not happen again. And I will not delete any more articles - I now understand articles I write don't belong to me, they belong to enwp. I truely believe I have changed. As for my socks, they were a reapeted attempt to become a constructive wikipedia editor, which I now realize I shouldn't have made.UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock too many second chances already, no indication this user's presence would be a net gain for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for a second chance, I am asking for a last chance - with certain restrictions if necessary. Or maybe I can be unblocked on a trial period with lots of restrictions?UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock. There's no evidence here that WOLfan112 has made any actual changes in his approach. He's been "very sorry" many times, and promised to behave many times. He usually even tries to do so, but his impulse control is not up to the task, and generally that ends in the disruption worsening when he doesn't get his way. To support unblock, I would need to see more than the "right" words being strung into a sentence - I'd need to see actual behavior that indicated he believed and understood the words. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I will do to build enwp if I am unblocked

Wikify articles
No more vandalism reverting
No more competition
Suggest improvements on talk pages, without replying to avoid argument
Add sources
No countroversy
No new articles in the next month, make stubs after that and keep improving them. Don't move on until it is GA class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add wikilinks.UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision?

OK, give me a final decision as to whether or not I will be unblocked. Even if you refuse, I will not make anymore socks.But please, recommend some alternative websites.UserWOLfan112 Talk 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a conspiracy article

So I recently came across this article Samson_Option. Which is basically a conspiracy theory turned into a wikipedia page. The sourcing is awful ... I've made some notes in the talk page, and most of the article needs to be scrubbed.

However it was recently mentioned on Reddit,[here] after someone used his top comment status to start posting crazy conspiracies.

Anyway I messaged some mods who also agreed that it needs to be fixed and we are going to try and work it out. They suggested that I post here to let you all know about it since it has the potential to get controversial.

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing looks pretty good to me, and this isn't a 'conspiracy theory' given that experts on Israel's nuclear weapons have written about the topic. I'm not seeing any need for admins to step in here. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick ... I'm sorry but you need to look again. I went over every single source and the results are in the talk page. The mods I spoke to originally about this article wanted to delete it entirely. I suggested instead we tag it and let people have the chance to fix it. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for semi-protection. People are not even allowing the tag to fix this article to stay up. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed reading the current version. This thread should be moved to the NPOV noticeboard as we are dealing with POV pushing. Some joker has decided to paint the country of Israel as the craziest group of nutcases on the planet by cherry picking quotes and highlighting rumors and innuendo. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue closure

Closed that one and a couple more. Plenty more left for members of Category:Admins with nothing to do. JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This CFD has been sitting open for twenty-four days with a consensus to delete. Why the hell has no one closed it yet? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those damn CFD closers are slacking on the job again. Dock them all a week's pay. (Seriously, though, we're all volunteers here, maybe bring it to people's attention a little less harshly?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking merely for myself as a regular at cfd, the holidays have distracted me some. Hoping to be a bit more active in the near future : ) - jc37 04:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!! A CfD open for 24 days!!!! It's no wonder I felt the entire structure of Wikipedia shaking earlier today. Let's go, admins, close it up, chop chop - TPH has spoken and you must obey. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl. - jc37 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is "why the hell do we still allow TPH on Wikipedia with an attitude and lack of situational awareness like this". But BMK has a point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal attack by User:Sagapane

Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N. R. Narayana Murthy topic ban

Moved from WP:ANEW

– With some minor modifications. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: N. R. Narayana Murthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User: Tib42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

09:31, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "restored (constant disruptive behavior)")
04:34, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529644837 by Rtat (talk)")
06:04, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "do not change the top para since it was there from the very beginning")
05:42, 26 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529722850 by Tib42 (talk)")

Comments:
This is not a breach of 3RR but a battle that goes back further than the above diffs. I am involved. The main content dispute is over which awards to list in the article. User:Tib42 wishes to list more awards, and other editors, including Kkm010, wish to list fewer. It goes back a long ways. I've been involved in it (although no longer directly). User:Dennis Brown tried to mediate it. The last person who tried was User:Ryan Vesey. I left a message a couple of days ago on poor Ryan's talk page (it's a thankless job) to see if he has the time and is willing to get back into it; I don't think he's around right now. Meanwhile, Tib42 persists, and Kkm010's knee-jerk reaction is to revert. Kkm010 and a completely different editor seem to have worked out the secondary dispute, but I really don't understand why Kkm010 saw fit to revert twice before doing so.

Honestly, I don't know what the right "solution" is. Kkm010's recent history of reverting other editors is not a constructive one. An article ban for both Kkm010 and Tib42 might be a longer-term solution, but that can't be obtained here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys its been discussed so many times but unfortunately user:Tib42 simply refusing to give up. From Dennis Brown to Bbb2 everybody tried their best to explain the matter to user:Tib42 still he seems to be so adamant that I have to keep an eye on this article. However, If any misconduct has been done by me I apologize for my behavior. As far as my point of view is concern too much "awards and honors" looks odd and disgusting. Great people won thousands of awards but that doesn't mean we have to list every single awards.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, if you look at the talk page for the article you will see that I have explained my rationale for each award/honor. I have presented these arguments twice. I have also posted on Kkm010's page to discuss this on the talk page. I am happy to discuss this with Kkm010 and come to an understanding but he/she refuses to discuss this. Please note, Kkm010 has not articulated why he/she does not agree with the list of reasons provided on the talk page. Instead, he/she consistently undoes my changes and refuses to discuss these changes in any way. It is unclear to me why this person would object to honors from TIME magazine, Fortune, etc. whereas he/she does not uphold the same standard for other articles that Kkm010 actively edits (such as Ratan Tata, Dhirubhai Ambani, etc.). Why are not those awards 'odd and disgusting'? Why is an honor by TIME magazine ranking this individual's contributions with Mahatma Gandhi 'odd and disgusting;? It does not seem like Kkm010 is being objective here. This is unfair. As the records on the talk page will note, I have been constructive and I have tried to work with Bbb23 and Ryan and it only when they did not raise objections to my arguments that I saw fit to commit these changes. I did not do so unilaterally. Kkm010 has misrepresented the truth and the talk page for the article will show it. I did not get deeply involved in this discussion about honors and awards when Dennis looked at it back in June. There was another editor (AnimeshKulkarni) who was making the case for the honors/awards. It is only in the past few months that I have been involved and I have presented the case for every award. I am happy to elucidate further and make my case. ---- Tib42 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Bbb23 points out, I mediated a discussion trying to find resolution on this article. From my perspective, I see Tib42 as an SPA that has edited tendentiously but has gotten a little better at communicating. I think Kkm010 has generally tried to communicate, but recently become more combative in dealing with Tib42. I'm not aware of any other issues with Kkm010, I think they are just pushed to edge with Tib42's behavior, something I can actually empathize with after dealing with them for weeks. Of course, that doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does explain it. The problem is actually both of them, equally, for very different reasons. I do not think blocks will solve any underlying problem or prevent disruption in the long run, and may actually antagonize the situation. I would support a topic ban for both editors for this single article at WP:AN, and think that is the best solution for all involved, and ask that someone refer (or move) this case to that board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Dennis Brown, yes, I am very interested in this article because he is my hero. But so what? My interest in this person got my to wikipedia in the first place. Who is to say that motivation is wrong? In the due course of time I would like to edit articles for the few heroes I have. If you look at the talk page for the article I have articulated for each and every honor/award why I think it makes sense. If kkm010, you, or anybody else disagrees I am happy to discuss this further. But without even a response from any of you to my arguments, how can I be blamed for being tendentious? I would imagine if you responded to my arguments and I am being stubborn about it and not listening to reason only then would you call me tendentious. When pages like Hilary Clinton can list an exhaustive list of awards from very similar sources nobody seems to have an issue. But why in this case? I have come to understand that I must engage collaboratively and discuss these issue. I have tried to do this, as the records shall reflect. But I don't see a response from the other side except an irrational roll back. --- Tib42 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dennis Brown and Bbb23 you guys are far more experience than me or Tib42. You know that listing awards which are not notable looks odd. Great businessmen like Bill Gates or Steve job's article, editors haven't list awards the way the Murthy article been written. Anyway its upto you what's good for this article. I have already sated my point of view and hope that some justice shall be done to this article. If you guys want both Tib42 and me to block from editing this article you can go ahead, but make sure that the issue get resolved.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose both Tib42 and Kkm010 be topic banned from the article N. R. Narayana Murthy or any article where Mr. Murthy is the subject matter for an indefinite period of time. This is a more effective way to prevent disruption by two editors that have not had problems outside this one article. For the record, I have mediated discussions on the content of this article but have not made substantial edits to the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although it's been quite some time, I was more involved in the content dispute before Dennis's mediation attempts. I think Tib42 is sincere but is stubborn and repetitive in their arguments. Even though an award may be rejected as non-noteworthy, Tib42 persists, sometimes with a rehash of their old arguments, and sometimes with slightly new arguments. Once in a while they may even have a valid new argument, but it gets lost in the dizzying shuffle. Essentially, someone less partisan needs to be involved. I have less sympathy for Kkm010, whom I see as passive-aggressive/disruptive. They are inclined to battle but then back off when chided, but that initial tendency to battle is concerning. My recollection is they were difficult to deal with because of this behavior. Regardless, the article will hopefully be better of without either editor, and the resources spent by Dennis, Ryan, and me dealing with the issues are significant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was also hoping that this issue could be resolved with a regular and civil discussion at the talk page, but it turned into multiple disruptive revert-chains. I have also less sympathy for Kkm010, who was in my eyes not only aggressive to Tib42 but also recent to Rtat. See User_talk:Kkm010#Narayana_Murthy_2 and related article reverts. I'm not involved in the content dispute. I only requested twice a temporary page protection. SchreyP ^(messages) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was hoping to see a more lowered solution, but if both Bbb23, Ryan and Dennis were unable to achieve this, I see that a topic ban is the only way to prevent this. Also, I'd add that the ban may not be lifted (or requested to be lifted) in at least six months. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and fairly strongly (long but please read) I suppose quite a bit of the blame lies on me because I keep attempting to start discussion, but it's a topic I'm not entirely interested in and I've been unable to complete discussion on. When I closed the first discussion, there was consensus to include 7 awards found at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Award list listed under Notable Awards. Unfortunately, Tib42 did not return during that discussion, so no consensus was made towards any of the "possibly notable awards". This means no consensus was made to include them, and while it was determined that consensus should be sought before adding any of the other awards, no consensus was made to exclude them. Tib42 has restored the material without going to the talk page. In two instances, I initiated talk page discussion and Tib42 engaged in discussion in each instance. There is a concern to the effect that Tib42 continues to use inherent notability arguments (i.e. someone important has received this award; therefore, it should be included). Nobody else has engaged in discussion. The difficulty I have had is that Tib42 is attempting to restore 10 awards at once. They have widely different degrees of significance and I have been unable to engage in discussion on all of the awards at the same time (my previous involvement had only been to close the first discussion and my only action on the article was to make the initial edit to make the awards section in line with the closed discussion). Now it is clear that despite the failure of all involved editors to come to a consensus on the talk page (through lack of discussion), there is clearly not consensus to include all of the awards that Tib42 wants to include or we wouldn't be here. But I still disagree with the notion that there is consensus to exclude all of the awards, I would be among the group that things some of them should be included. A better solution would be to bring this issue to a more structured mediation forum (possibly Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution) and/or discuss only one award at a time. Ryan Vesey 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lucid summary of the content dispute, but it doesn't really address the conduct issues. I have a few questions. First, what about a voluntary agreement by the two editors not to edit the article while mediation is ongoing at DRN? Second, and probably more important to the editors, what state do we leave the article in while that discussion is occurring? Normally, that shouldn't matter barring policy violations, but we should be clear as to what we're doing. Finally, what if there is no consensus at DRN? My overarching concern here is to prevent further disruption to the article, not necessarily to "resolve" the content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article, or at least the awards section, certainly shouldn't be edited by either of them while the dispute is being resolved. That was in my mind, but I didn't type it out. I believe the article should be left in the state with fewer awards while the dispute is being resolved. If no consensus for anything can be found at DRN, then it would stay in it's current state. At this point, consensus needs to be found to add any material. Ryan Vesey 19:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – No matter who is right about the underlying issue, the continued reverting is disruptive. I support the article ban on both parties. If one or both of them believe that a solution has been found, they can return to WP:AN and ask for the restriction to be lifted. I understand that this ban is only from the article, not the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, the least amount of restriction that will do the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but non-indefinite. For Tib42: a SPA is not necessarily something I object to. If someone only cares about one battleship, say, and is incrementally helping it reach FA status, hey, more power to them. But when I compare the article from when Tib started and the present day, the net benefit of this article's "improvement" is outweighed by many orders of magnitude by the black hole sucking in editor hours. Has this situation been a net benefit for the encyclopedia? Let Tib42 focus on other things for a while, then get back to it. I really don't get Kkm010's motives here but through looking at situation it appears, in my opinion, like (s)he has long since passed WP:BOLDness into WP:OWNership and think a break is needed. Not indefinite, just a break for the both of them. Gears are locked, the admins hold the grease, please apply. PhnomPencil (✉) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

fine, if you guys want to do this,, go ahead. But don't do it in the name of fairness. I have abided by a consensus decision in the past on a cofounder issue for this article. Once you both decided on the final word, on the cofounder issue I abided by the decision. In this case nobody had presented an argument before for the awards and I presented it on a case by case basis. I also dropped awards that I realized there would be no consensus on. I have provided citations references and arguments for why. In response I still don't understand what you object to content wise. You have still not explained why you object to honors by Time magazine and it's ilk for this person but you have not don't so for peoplemlike Hilary Clinton or bill gates. The precedence that this decision sets is that we must all hold all biographies to the same standard and eliminate any credible list of awards. That is the message you are sending by leaving this article incomplete on this particular issue. Since there is no consensus or let alone a rational discussion, I am being bullied on this issue and I have choice but to accept. --- Tib42 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is a holiday for much of the English speaking world, leaving this discussion up for an extended period may be appropriate to allow a full discussion. It is a strong step, warranting more than a few comments before acting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this topic from the archive for further discussion and hopefully a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 856: / Line 856: @@
 *No new articles in the next month, make stubs after that and keep improving them. Don't move on until it is GA class.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WOLfan112|WOLfan112]] ([[User talk:WOLfan112|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WOLfan112|contribs]]) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 *Add wikilinks.[[User:WOLfan112|<font color="gold">User</font><font color="green">WOLfan112</font>]] [[User talk:WOLfan112|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
+===Decision?===
+OK, give me a final decision as to whether or not I will be unblocked. Even if you refuse, I will not make anymore socks.But please, recommend some alternative websites.[[User:WOLfan112|<font color="gold">User</font><font color="green">WOLfan112</font>]] [[User talk:WOLfan112|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 == Editing a conspiracy article  ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards