Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 29 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 84 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 64 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 58 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 48 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 35 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 31 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 30 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	64	0	73
TfD	0	0	15	0	15
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	2	33	0	35
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 66 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 65 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 62 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 59 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 59 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 56 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 55 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 54 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 51 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 50 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 43 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 42 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 42 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 40 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 38 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 32 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 32 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 29 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal

(Initiated 433 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.

• The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
• The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
• The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
• The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.

So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Ah you've convinced me. I was being a bit too cautious and it was slightly counterproductive – sorry to take your time! I'll perform the merger, thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 80 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 52 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

(Initiated 8 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 4 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Need closers for WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC/1

The first round closes around midnight EST on Tuesday. I'd prefer just a little discussion of how the closers want to approach this before the actual deadline, since a theme here is that the standard RfC format hasn't worked for this problem, and I (and the voters) will be looking for your ideas. I was hoping for 3 closers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this comment as I was about to post a reminder message to WP:BN. I take it no one's offering?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I offered before and that stands, but only as part of a panel. Something this major will require deliberation and discussion, not a unilateral decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, was just about to ping you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to serve as part of a panel. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I offered as well, and it too stands, but I would also recommend this be a panel because a close this big needs collaboration to ensure absolute neutrality.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're offering, Cyber, but this is an unusual RfC: after the first closing statement, the voters will decide whether they want you guys to stick around for the next close ... because you guys are charged with coming up with a good (or least-bad :) compromise later on, and "selling" that compromise to the voters is part of your job. Since there was an objection when you offered before, let's see if we can get 3 closers who don't get any objections. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I'm ok with that. I'm just here to contribute to Wikipedia and help out.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since everything seems to be running smoothly and we have at least two closers, I'd like to back off and allow the RfC to morph into whatever the participants and closers want it to be. Are you guys okay with asking the participants if they're happy to keep you as closers, after your first closing statement? Are you on board with the idea of trying to craft a compromise that you believe the voters will be able to support? Are you willing to discuss the approach you want to take to the RfC with the voters? If so, then I'm outtie. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Big job for just 2 this. I think you should get another Admin. closer to help share the workload. Leaky Caldron 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No argument from me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Leaky here. I would go as far as adding a fourth to the list of closers.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd numbers are generally preferable. No, it's not a "vote", but an intractable two-against-two split would just mean that we'd have to find three to five more people and start over. It would be better to prevent that from the start by having either three or five people involved. That said, I don't think I'd want to wish any RFA reform discussion on any of my friends.

(ArbCom should start handing out these discussions as sanctions: "You were rude, but it wasn't bad enough to desysop you, so instead your punishment is to close the next three policy-related RFCs." ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree on the odd number, as we don't want to reach a situation where we have a deadlock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Round One was due to be closed 8 hours ago. Also ... you guys are on board with the basic structure of the RfC, right? - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's something that not many want to close but, would rather get involved in. Perhaps it's time to look at some possible closers that aren't completely objection free.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to the two current closers; hoping to get some resolution today. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If it prevents a clearly unsuitable candidate from closing the RfC, I am willing to offer my candidacy, but only if there are no better candidates (and I'm serious). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've hatted the RfC; proposal is at the top of it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you just call me "clearly unsuitable", or was that a general statement?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that's a general statement, cyber. I'd be willing to help close this as well, if needed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yay ... but we may have lost one as well, Basalisk's talk page says he doesn't know when he'll be back, and he hasn't responded so far to email. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, odds are good this will be covered by Seraphim, Ed, and either Basalisk or possibly me. See the RfC page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So just to clarify Seraphim, Ed, and Dank are closing.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No response from Basalisk yet, we all want to give him a couple of days before I step in. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing topic ban violations by Apteva

As documented here since Jan. 10, Apteva continues to violate the topic-ban that the community overwhelmingly supported, which said (see [1]):

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, and his pushing of the theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles, has been disruptive. Based on the consensus reaction of the community, Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for an immediate block and/or a request for arbitration.

Unfortunately, the closer's statement of the ban to Apteva left him too much room to test the boundaries, by omitting mention of the part that I bolded above; he wrote:

Based upon both the below discussion and the linked RfC/U, it is clear that Apteva has exhausted the patience of the community in this area. On these grounds, the following is enacted: Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion.

On Jan. 10, the closer User:Seraphimblade clarified:

For my own thoughts here, I would say that this edit is clearly related to Apteva's activity in the area of dashes/hyphens, and that this is both a violation of the ban and that no extension of the ban is necessary for it to be covered as such. I would see this as a clear attempt at gaming the ban by not technically mentioning the previous dispute subject.

Apteva's latest violation of the community-imposed topic ban is yet one more attempt to modify a policy page to not say that the MOS is applicable to TITLE styling: this diff – not just by advocating his approach, which would be banned behavior, but actually modifying the policy page! (I reverted)

This time, an enforcement block is unquestionably needed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply an editor who loves to disrupt Wikipedia to make a wp:POINT being disappointed that I was not blocked. The discussion on my behavior wasted countless hours and occupied 134 pages of text (about half a million bytes). Apteva (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that User:Dicklyon is continuing a relentless push against Apteva, and I advise to consider an interaction-ban between Dicklyon and Apteva, perhaps to include a MOS-topic-ban against Dicklyon. This endless pattern of Dicklyon dragging Apteva into ANI, RfC, AN, ANI, etc. is becoming too much. Dicklyon has been in over 130 talk-page disputes or debates with Apteva (see talk-page intersects). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you escaped a block (and "merely" received a topic ban) should hardly be read as condoning your behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, this looks rather to be an editor who likes to WP:GAME the project by testing out the exact limits of their community-imposed topic ban, whether out of spite or just for the hell of it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly did learn from the experience, and have no intention of gaming or testing. I am here solely to improve wikipedia and no other purpose. Apteva (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Continuing to toe the line this way, after coming so excruciatingly close to a block last time around, is a remarkably foolish thing to do. Enough of this at ANI, I think a block is needed. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love it how people quote topics that sound applicable but are not. "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." My edit was solely to improve the link and make it more useful. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. Your Wikilawyering notwithstanding, the standard, applicable definition would be "...using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for a desired outcome." It seems you haven't given up your desired outcome which, no doubt, you consider "improving Wikipedia". --Calton | Talk 09:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• What exactly is the allegation here? I'm not seeing anything particularly controversial about the edit which was allegedly the cause of this thread... Carrite (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The offending edit removed the see-also link "* Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article titles) – for guidance on styling of titles", replacing it with just a generic link "* Wikipedia:Manual of Style", which was a step in pushing his disruptive agenda to say that the MOS does not apply to TITLE styling (see the bold in the resolution that the community overwhelming supported, above). He has been at this for many months, wasting megabytes of disruptive discussion at many venues, but refuses to ackowledge that consensus is against him. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) This is part of the continued WP:IDHT problems discussed at the RfC/U and the topic ban. Although with this edit Apteva did not explicitly mention dashes and hyphens, it's part of the same dispute, from what I can see (and similar to what prompted Seraphimblade's clarification quoted above). The final clarification/warning from Seraphimblade has apparently not had much of an impact, so unfortunately we are left with blocking as the next measure. As they have not previously blocked for violating the topic ban, I would suggest a 24-hour block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate that I think this behavior is clearly part of the problem that led to the topic ban, as "Does MOS apply to titles?" was a common topic of contention during it, and Apteva's involvement with that question was overwhelmingly as relates to dashes. I don't have any particular opinion as to what the answer to that question should be, but it was an area Apteva was involved in as regards dashes and hyphens. I'm not impressed with the behavior here, and would not object to rewording the sanction if we need to do that, but the idea was to stay away from that area, not try to nitpick at technicalities. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think a 24 hour block would be appropriate here. --Rschen7754 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarifying that I would support all the way to indef, as it has been proven that Apteva is not willing to listen to consensus. However, the community isn't at the point of supporting an indef yet. --Rschen7754 06:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Apteva may have violated the topic ban by filing this AE case against Noetica. The comments by Noetica were given in the context of whether to include the Hale–Bopp comet in a list of article titles on the relevant policy page. It was clearly a discussion over the en-dash issue and reporting Noetica for comments made in that discussion would seem to run afoul of the "broadly construed" aspect of the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Let's see if I can summarize:

1. Changing, not removing, a see also link is pushing a disruptive agenda (per Dicklyon)
2. Even if the topic ban wasn't violated, the user should be blocked (per Paul Erik)
3. Apparently using AE is against a topic ban (per The Devil's Advocate)

It seems this can be closed as no admin action needed (except maybe some very large trouts). A few individuals need to find something more productive to do, it seems. --Nouniquenames 04:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that is not even remotely what I said. It is about the fact that he is using AE to report an editor for comments in a discussion about using en-dashes, an editor with whom he has disputed the use of en-dashes. Personally, I think discussing someone's conduct in a discussion about use of en-dashes falls under the "broadly construed" part of the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• It's not what I said either. I do think the topic ban was violated; Seraphimblade's clarification explains why. The intention of a topic ban is that the user disengage entirely from the topic, which Apteva is not doing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Block, fairly clear attempt to circumvent exact wording of topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Enough already. Apteva has been disrupting WP:MOS and WP:TITLE pages since October with his unique theory about dashes and comets. The theory got no support, and everyone else has moved on, but Apteva continues to disrupt MOS and TITLE. —Neotarf (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Without advocating a specific course of action (I'll leave that to others) these actions represent an unambiguous violation of his topic ban. The idea of topic bans is to allow a Wikipedia user to use their talents in areas far afield from ones that encourage them to have behavioral issues. Apteva is showing no signs that they wish to comply with this idea; indeed their actions seem to consist of testing the boundaries of the ban, which is a clear sign that they have no real intention of obeying it in the long term. --Jayron32 06:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Concur with Jayron32, SarekOfVulcan, Paul Erik, Rschen7754, et al. (And see below for an issue no one's noticed yet that is blockworthy in and of itself.) Even without Seraphimblade's clarification that this activity is in fact directly covered by Apteva's topic ban, it would still be WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYERing to skirt the exact wording of it. Furthermore, even after the hopefully forthcoming block expires, the topic ban should be extended to cover the Manual of Style and its applicability more generally. Apteva (a.k.a. Delphi234 a.k.a. Oakwillow a.k.a. 199.125.109.*) has been arguing, tendentiously, disruptively and in an unbelievably parent- and forum-shopping manner, about style matters, from hyphenation to capitalization, at MOS, at RMs, VP, everywhere, for months on end, and not only has not slowed down after being RFC/U'd and WP:AN'd and partially topic banned, but has stepped up his pace, even disrupting WT:AT with off-topic rants, and trying to modify the wording of WP:AT against consensus, etc. It's long past time for this to stop.

  Some editors simply are not temperamentally suited, or knowledgeable enough, for collaborative editing and consensus building on style matters, because they are brow-beating prescriptive grammar holywarriors who believe they are "Right" and must "win" to address a "great wrong", by campaigning everyone else half to death, with the aim of simply wearing opposition down until nothing is left of them but a bloody stain. Such editing patterns become the end-in-itself of editing WP, instead of improving the encyclopedia when left unchecked, as Apteva's has. {{em|It's an unfortunate oversight that the topic ban was so narrowly worded, and this should be rectified}, as it was with PMAnderson (general MOS topic ban; he was eventually blocked permanently for abusive sockpuppetry used to evade the ban.)

  Another, now-obvious, alternative is an indef-block of Apteva and an application of such an extended topic ban to his Delphi234 sockmaster account. See this barely-escaped ban/block for deceptive sockpuppetry: User talk:Delphi234#Usage of multiple accounts. The Apteva account was permitted to continue to exist only after this editor clarified that User:Apteva would only be used for editing solar-power articles and related (and Delphi234 would not be used overlappingly). Yet here we are, with User:Apteva moving further and further away from such article writing toward WP:SPA-like, anti-MOS wiki-picketing and editwarring. The editor continues to use both User:Delphi234 and User:Apteva almost every single day to edit solar/wind/nuclear energy articles in a way that makes it seem like two independent editors, despite being administratively warned twice (on pain of loss of one account and a possibly long-term block of the other) against doing so, as impermissibly deceptive, by admins Lucasbfr (now Luk) and Wknight94, over four years ago. That seems like entirely separate grounds for indef-blocking the Apteva account, as well as for a temporary but not trivial block of the Delphi234 alter-ego (which the user says, at that user-talk discussion, is his main account). I repeat what several of us have been asking, at WP:AN and WP:RFC/U: How long is this user going to be permitted to abuse Wikipedia for his own entertainment and POV-pushing? (Reminder: We've been tolerating it, for no reason, since at least October 2008!) The similarity of all this to PMAnderson's pattern of abuse is striking (though his soapboxes tended to actually be considerably more reasonable than Apteva's). PS: For the record, I think Apteva/Delphi234 does good article writing and sourcing on topics he knows a lot about, such as solar power and the energy grid. Style in English-language formal writing, and how WP operates at the policy level are decidedly not among those topics.
  — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  This requires more careful review. Delphi234 and Apteva's contributions have not been directly overlapping -- one edits nuclear/wind, the other solar, and every time Delphi slipped up and posted to a WP-space discussion instead of using the Apteva account, they self-reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• The solar/non-solar energy editing is a hair-splitting distinction only Apteva is apt to notice or care about, since energy topics overlap (few articles on solar power never mention any other kind of energy, or vice versa). He's obviously using the two accounts to pose misleadingly as two different people editing energy topics, something that two admins told him to stop doing several years ago, or lose one of the accounts and be blocked for a while on the other one. His privacy claim is moot, since his attempts to hide the fact that both accounts are the same person failed dismally over four years ago. He also promised to use the Apteva account for nothing but solar editing, but has instead repurposed it for massive anti-MOS disruptive forumshopping. Either of those admins, or any other admin, would be within their authority to indef block the one account and block the other for some non-trivial amount of time on these bases alone. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The correct response from Apteva would be something like "Hmmm, I did not think that would be a problem, but if people here think it is, I will make sure to give edits like that a very wide berth in the future". Examples of wrong responses are as shown above: accuse Dicklyon of disrupting Wikipedia, and talk about previous discussions wasting countless hours and taking half a million bytes. That latter point (the amount of time/space taken to discuss Apteva's behavior) would be sufficient to convince most editors to stay a long way away from the topic, but it appears that Apteva is made of sterner stuff than most editors, and more blunt instruments will be required. The next violation should invoke an indefinite block until a convincing reassurance is forthcoming. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like that conversation has already taken place: [2] —Neotarf (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per blocking policy, blocks are not punitive but preventative and none is warranted as I obviously did not consider that an infraction or infringement in any way of the ban which I am under. I would like to call everyone's attention to the recent warning on my talk page, and suggest that is sufficient. I apologize for the trouble that edit caused. See also links do not have explanations, as what is an explanation for one editor is meaningless for another, and so bare links are all we use. So yes, sorry, and I do promise to do better in not making anyone think I am doing something that I am not in the future. Peace and happy editing. Now all of us I am sure have better things to do. There are certainly 4 million articles and a lot of other issues more important than this one, which has already been dealt with. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you say, per the blocking policy, blocks are preventative and a block here would be to prevent you from continuing to violate your topic ban. Precisely because there are 4 million articles to work on, why don't you take the hint from your topic ban and move on to non-MOS related stuff. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Be more than happy to. The best way to accomplish that is rescind the topic ban, or at least not issue a block. There is clearly no chance of my violating the topic ban though. Apteva (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• You've done little but violate the topic ban since it was implemented. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Block for 1 month. Testing the edges of a broadly-construed topic ban is a great way to get the ban widened. 1 month block to see if it sinks in. Then offer some WP:ROPE. User has a habitual habit of promising not to be interested in something to avoid sanction, then returning to the same behavior after the waters have calmed (see my user talk). (Noting, as usual, that this does not mean that others involved in this dispute should not be blocked/banned; simply that this user should.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block - sigh, following on from the topic ban proposal which they show minimal respect for. Also, I still don't understand why this user has 2 accounts, and I still don't see how they think they will ever pass RFA with this kind of behaviour. GiantSnowman 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A long block like that would not serve to do anything other than hurt Wikipedia. I recently brought a third article to GA, and would likely a fourth in the next month, which would be delayed a month should a long block like that be administered. This would be a classic case of biting your nose to spite your face. Look. I get it. I do recommend though, dealing with the incivility at the MOS. Not by blocking everyone or topic banning anyone, but by treating the talk page as a DR page and only edited if a DR volunteer is present and issuing warnings to anyone acting incivil, in particular, violating wp:FOC or WP:NPA. Apteva (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia will cope without you. Even on articles that you WP:OWN and that clearly no-one else could be capable of working on. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That misses the point. Wikipedia is unstoppable, and with or without anyone will do just fine. However, it is not to our advantage to ask anyone to delay their work needlessly. I do not own any articles, but I am expert in a dozen subjects encompassing several hundred articles and I do focus most of my attention there. Apteva (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question - would such a block apply to the Apteva account, or to this editor's other account(s) too? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Both/all - though as stated above I fail to see why they need a second account. It appears to be one used for the disruptive editing, and leaves an ill feeling in my stomach. GiantSnowman 16:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I too would question the good hand / bad hand accounts, especially as they're clearly being used quite contrarily to how they proposed that they would use them. However that is a separate question. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, both/all - topic bans apply to editors, not accounts. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block very clearly a repeat of the tendentious behaviour that led to the topic ban. Suggest 1 week, to escalate as normal if issues recur. Block should be implement on both accounts and I would endorse an examination of the Delphi234/Apteva overlap--Cailil ^talk 17:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block and suggest dropping the topic ban altogether. --Nouniquenames 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block. No idea why the editor's continuing test of the boundaries of the topic ban would lead one to conclude that the topic ban was the problem here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  It seems the problem is not just one editor. --Nouniquenames 19:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  I can only refer to my topic ban as the letter k ban, but it is a fact that it was imposed to get me to stop bringing up the letter k, even though I had already agreed to a voluntary moratorium, yet the very editors who wanted a topic ban keep bringing up the letter k themselves, as if now that there is one less vote they might be able to get agreement on the topic. So yes, vacating the topic ban is a valid proposal (and even vacated I would still honor the self imposed moratorium on bringing up the topic). Apteva (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Psychodramatic histrionics like this refusal-to-get-the-point nonsense are not going to win you any supporters here, only cement resolve against your "righteously" indignant disruption. You're basically trying to hang yourself with rope you don't even have. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  (to Nouniquenames) How is the problem not being just one editor a reason not to fix the part of the problem that is just one editor? We can block no disruptive editor until we can block all disruptive editors in one indivisible action? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  Imagine an area overrun with both snakes and rats. Both are annoying to the property owner, but a sort of balance is achieved between the two. Now imagine if only the snakes were removed. Basic biology tells us the place will be overrun with rats. --Nouniquenames 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Of course, how silly of me. Apteva's disruption was holding other users' disruption in check. Ridiculous. It is my opinion that the Wikipedia editor population is not analogous to snakes and rats, and your basic biology rationalization is just that, a rationalization. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first thing that needs to happen here is to limit this editor to one account. Regardless of whether they're legitimate per WP:SOCK, if we have an editor under a topic ban who's continuing to test the boundaries, I don't think we need to force the community to track the edits of two separate accounts. AGF only goes so far. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What for? If I try to test the boundaries let me know about it. It is not going to happen. One warning is sufficient. As pointed out I am very careful not to conflate the issue or violate policy, and self revert when necessary. Apteva (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You've already tested the boundaries more than once, and once should have been enough. Certainly before this thread, I knew that the Apteva account was under a topic ban, but had no idea there was a second account and I'd bet that applies to many other editors as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) "One warning"— you mean other than the RFC/U and numerous noticeboard threads you've been the focus of? In which you did the same shameless "sorry sir, won't happen again sir" backpedalling that you've been doing in this thread? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Neither was a test. Both were made under the clear understanding that there was nothing wrong with the edit, as they did not conflict with the letter k topic ban. The RFC/U was before the topic ban. Apteva (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block: The grounds for the block, as supposed violation of the prior topic-ban, are baseless. An edit to the policy wp:TITLE to re-link a see-also link to "wp:Manual of Style" is not a discussion about hyphens/dashes. Instead, the argument to block for a proposed topic-ban is a "straw man fallacy" of highlighting a different paragraph as if it were the actual topic ban. I hereby declare the improper topic-ban as vacated and request an uninvolved admin to unblock User:Apteva. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account

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

---

Several people above have commented that Apteva should be restricted to one account. There's no need for the community to monitor several accounts of a disruptive, topic banned editor when they edit on the same topics. Both the Apteva account and Delphi234 account have recently made edits to renewable energy topics. Diffs: as Apteva and as Delphi234.

• Support as proposer. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is a solution in search of a problem. All solar articles are edited with this account and no solar articles are edited with any other account. All other energy articles are edited with the other account. No MOS edits are made by that account. None. The only three items edited with this account are WP:RCP, WP:RM, and Solar, as well as any WP guidelines or policies. There is a very clear distinction and no problem with doing so. Apteva (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone possibly need one account for editing solar power articles, and another account for editing wind power or renewable energy articles? This is far from "a very clear distinction", in account terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not a legitimate use of an alternative account. And is actually an admission of violating WP:SCRUTINY. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as original proposer, above.  :-) The distinction Apteva is claiming is basically one that only he will notice, as energy/power topics overlap. Apteva/Delphi234 is clearly masquerading as two independent parties, and was warned not to do so, particularly in energy topics, by at least two admins, yet has continued to do so for several years, and this editor promised that the Apteva account would only be used for solar power topics, but has instead repurposed it for MOS-related disruption as well as pretending to be someone else while editing energy topics. The privacy claim made at User talk:Delphi234 is moot since that talk page and the sockpuppet case both make it clear they are the same user. If there was no evidence of disruptive editing by either account, no big deal, but the opposite is the case. Both userpages' talk histories consist largely of complaints and problem reports, which is always a bad sign. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support They can't even be trusted with one account. As they're not an editor in good standing - and it appears that they have indeed used both accounts to edit the same subject area, fully support this restriction (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Bwilkins and my personal perspective of this situation. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Bwilkins. --Rschen7754 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Apteva has no real reason for using two distinctly-named accounts; the ones he provides are not necessary to productive editing and have the potential to be further misused. dci | TALK 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support reasonable restriction --Guerillero | My Talk 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The extra difficulty caused by the second account far outweighs any benefit (no benefit?) created by the second account. Ryan Vesey 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The promised clear purpose for each never happened. Patience has been exhausted far too much with just one account, we certainly don't need two to watch. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - no clear evidence that multiple accounts are a problem here. --Nouniquenames 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It has long been policy that alt accounts should not edit in the same topic areas as a user's main account. therefore, using two accounts to edit different articles in the same topic area in an almost identical manner is a problem, and that Apteva is doing so is clearly demonstrated above. And in case it is not clear I support this restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as one who has been frustrated in attempts to tighten up alt-account practices on en.WP. Alt accounts, except where admins really need them for a narrow range of purposes, lead nowhere good. Tony (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see why xe needs two accounts, and that fact that xe appears to use them as good cop/bad cop is unsettling. GiantSnowman 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The second bullet point in response to this proposal is from Apteva who could only offer "This is a solution in search of a problem" and "no problem with doing so" as reasons to oppose the restriction. After all the community time and effort spent dealing with this user, a good reason for running two accounts would be needed, and none exists. Given all the fuss, one account is more than enough for the community to monitor. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, editor can't be trusted with one account, as Bwilkins observed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as well. Blackmane (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I was initially unconvinced until I ran a wikistalk of Apteva and Delphi234 - the overlap is considerable on the renewable resources topic[3]. In light of this the policy issue for me is that it is unclear from the User:Apteva page that this is an alternative account. And while the User:Delphi234 age does clearly link to Apteva as its alternative account the other does not. Someone just viewing User:Apteva will have no idea that Delphi234 is the same person. This is made worse by virtue of the fact that Apteva has far more edits than Delphi234. And since there have been numerous pages where this overlap occured WP:LEGIT has been broken IMO. In view that Apteva has nearly 6,500 more edits than Delphi234 I suggest limitting them to the Apteva account--Cailil ^talk 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see obvious links flagged between both accounts, "above the fold" on both userpages. As I'm unaware of a formal requirement to use any particular style or template to indicate this, then I see no breach. I also see only a trivial overlap between their edits. The claimed distinction is obscure and nit-picking, but has broadly been followed, such that I wouldn't claim it has been breached. Despite that though, I favour "de-alternating" this editor (specifically an indef ban on one account, without other prejudice). The reason is that although there has been no clear breach of policy on alternates, neither has any value been demonstrated for them. Alternate accounts exist, some use them, many dislike them, but our broad position is one of rather grudging acceptance. Yet to be accepted, they have to demonstrate some tenuous claim of need. The default position is not that everyone should have as many as they wish, unless proven otherwise. It's up to the editor wanting one to give at least some justification for this. Apteva is failing to do so. They're not an editor in sufficiently good standing to be given quite such free rein as is usually granted: they had that privilege once, AGF kept it for them despite repeated provocations, but enough's enough. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we're going to let them back and edit in a while – but it's also the encyclopedia where many other editors run in circles after this sort of pointless editor-created malarkey and there is no inalienable right for one editor to keep generating more and more of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Whatever the circumstances were that prompted the allowance of the co-existence of the two accounts at the time, there appears to me to be no reason now to allow it to continue, considering Apteva's behavior. Further, I would recommend that an CU be run to be certain there are no other accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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

• Oppose one-account limit. There is insufficient evidence to show improper use of the 2 username accounts (Apteva & User:Delphi234), as somehow acting as if being 2 different people in deciding issues. Perhaps discuss this 2 more days, to see if any credible evidence arises; otherwise, remove the one-username restriction. However, I advise to check for collusion between several of the above editors who seem to dogpile in accusations against Apteva, then discount those "Support" !votes as being co-involved editors trying to force the outcome of a POV dispute. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  You've missed the point. There is insufficient evidence to show proper use of multiple username accounts. Several of the editors being familiar with Apteva's disruption is evidence of sentience, not collusion; that you categorize their actions as a "dogpile" is evidence of your assumption of bad faith, not of their collusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not an "assumption of bad faith" but rather, it is just "bad" when 7 or 9 co-involved editors support an unrelated sanction against an opponent editor, all within a period of 11 hours, when non-involved editors state there is no evidence of multi-account violations. -Wikid77 (talk)

Apteva blocked

I have blocked Apteva for a period of 2 weeks. His actions are an obvious violation of the spirit of his topic ban and there needs to be no ambiguity in his mind that the topic ban requires he stays away from editing in this area. I believe the comments in the main section demonstrate support for a block. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the alternate account? GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Although permanent resolution should come from the sub-section above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So the ongoing discussion about a block above including suggestions as short as 24 hours was just taking too long? Seriously. What. The. Crud. --Nouniquenames 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In cased you missed the policy, nouniquenames, a BLOCK applies to the person, not the account. As the editor in question has multiple accounts that they use in the same areas I merely made an identical-length block to the alternate account as per policy. Its final viability will be determined above. It was NOT indeffed because, as I noted, that's being discussed above. I think I now better understand your cryptic - and poorly-thought-out message on my talkpage now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder why Nouniquenames keeps turning up every time Apteva and his anti-MOS WP:TAGTEAM are under scrutiny, supporting them and running interference against everyone else's attempts to rein in their abuses. I also note a history of snarky, incivil edit summaries like "oppose another stupid idea" and "apparently no one has anything better to do", coupled with an excessive focus on lodging complaints against other editors, including handing out WP:TROUTs right and left. "Apprarently" not having "anything better to do" isn't something Nouniquenames has taken some time to self-reflect about. Hint: When consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that the behavior patterns exhibited by an editor – Apteva in this case – are consistently and undeniably disruptive, tendentious and system-gaming, one is exhibiting a refusal to get the point problem oneself by throwing up repetitive, not-a-snowball's-chance verbal shields in efforts to defend the disruptor. PS: Yes, yes, three times yes, this has been taking too long, and the block was overdue (I also firmly predict it will be too short and will have little to no effect). Apteva has been at this WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality campaign of MOS-attacking for months, and has been at abusing multiple accounts to deceptively edit energy articles for years. Very few editors get away with demonstrable patterns of disruption and sockpuppetry for this long. Delaying yet further while he continues to blame everyone else and insist he's doing the Right Thing, without any signs of understanding the views of others, and, well, blatantly lying about his willingness to stop, isn't going to help anyone or anything. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, taking too long. By about four months. Your early close of this enforcement request (which I reverted) didn't help matters, really. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By that point it didn't matter. The blocks were put in place already, despite the open discussion. Cowboy tactics in the worst way. Hatting was intended to show that there was no need or purpose in continuing the discussion (as the end result was apparently determined already). It's not that I doubted supports were lacking when compared to opposes, it's the blatant disregard for the very processes intended to promote a workable atmosphere. The Jamaican Bobsled Team clause, if you will. People should be screaming from the rooftops on this, but there's essentially silence. It's very disheartening. --Nouniquenames 07:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The sanction might be enough to cause him to sit back and be more circumspect for about 24 hours after the block expires. What's more of a joke is that one or other account should have been indeffed for engaging in deceptive socking, but was blocked only for the same two weeks. Long live socking [sic]! -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 10:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The false claim of "deceptive" is violation of wp:NPA. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

PC2 for Mangoeater targets

After this thread started, Francophonie&Androphilie had his username changed to PinkAmpersand.

As anyone who monitors AN/I, SPI, CSD, AFD, or even, lately, RFA [4] knows, de facto banned Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has been incredibly persistent in his disruption, generally in relation to articles on NYU Poly (promoting it) and Cal Poly Pomona (trying to minimize it). It got so bad that two weeks ago Reaper Eternal full-protected Polytechnic Institute of New York University and List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people‎ until March 28 and March 6, respectively. To me this seems unfortunate (though I completely understand and agree with Reaper's decision), especially as both articles are in serious need of improvement. So, I was wondering if we could discuss the option of implementing Pending Changes Level 2 protection (in conjunction with semi-protection, probably). While there was never any community endorsement of its use, neither was there, as King of Hearts pointed out at AN/I recently, explaining his decision to apply PC2 to 1948 Arab-Israeli War, any consensus against its use, meaning that there's nothing to stop the community from making ad hoc IAR decisions to apply it to certain articles. (Elockid has since applied PC2 to First York, Transdev York, and York Pullman.) Clearly it's better to let users edit an article, subject to review, than to not let them at all, and both articles are monitored by several reviewers and admins. Furthermore, Mangoeater has been active since May, had his first sock blocked in July, and has been indeffed since October, so there's no reason to believe he won't just start up again come March. I suggested at the Arab-Israeli War AN/I thread that we hold future discussions PC2 discussions here, as AN/I can be so hostile that well-respected community members steer clear of it, limiting the degree of consensus that can be achieved on anything policy-related. So, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Thoughts? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Not because I don't think putting PC2 on as an alternative to full-protection is a bad idea to protect against banned socks (etc.) but because the community consensus in the PC RfCs doesn't endorse PC2 and use of it is likely to lead to accusations that we are setting off down a slippery slope, on an express train through some undemocratic wasteland. So, yes, support in theory, but in practice it seems like the community will excrete a brick. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the previous discussion I mentioned can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ? Everyone who commented agreed that PC2 was merited, simply leaving the question of whether the community allowed its implementation. The only objection to KoH's decision was by The Devil's Advocate, who himself noted that he supports PC2; considering that this managed to fall off the board, it's clear that no one, even at AN/I, had a serious enough objection to raise hell in the ways you describe. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Both PC2 and full protection are game-able by socks, but this won't be substantially easier for them, while this will be substantially easier for good-faith editors than it would be to force them to use editprotected requests all the time. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per IAR, even though I believe it would be more optimal to gain consensus for its use to avoid any possible shenanigans. I would also think an edit filter would be a good alternative in many cases, but here it seems that the behavior is not truly consistent enough for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this seems to be one of those cases for which IAR exists. --Nouniquenames 04:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note, if anyone would like to reference the note I ended up leaving on the talkpage of the article referenced above, that kind of note should suffice to explain the reasoning for the PC2. As long as we don't go PC2 on everything, I think it's okay for a very select few articles. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A little ironic, because I like PC2 and detest PC1, but with the amount of dishonesty that went on with the original implementation of PC, I think anything that even smells of going against community consensus needs to be avoided. The primary opposition to PC was based on "slippery slope" style of arguments, and this just feeds them.—Kww(talk) 04:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is ridiculous. Maybe Elockid added PC2 by accident, but either way this should not be getting implemented like this, period. It can only create confusion for admins and reviewers. So I implore any admin to immediately remove the PC2 protection from any articles that have them. As far as I know this would just be the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, the Transdev York article, the First York article, and the York Pullman article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• How do you suppose it will confuse admins or reviewers? --Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know it confused me to see an article on my watchlist (1948 Arab-Israeli War) with PC2 protection when I knew the RfC did not get consensus for that level of protection. You may also have the old "other people are doing so it must be acceptable" reaction and then have admins imposing PC2 protection like any other protection under the impression it is now legit. Not to mention that we don't have a clear procedure set out for reviewing changes of the sort PC2 is being used to stop in these ad-hoc cases. Although not related to the above, the whole notion of half a dozen editors using AN/ANI as a workaround for an RfC that involved several dozen editors is not the sort of thing I endorse.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't understand your last sentence; could you clarify what you mean? Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe TDA is listing the four articles currently under PC2 protection (according to the relevant category; it's possible that others are, but haven't been tagged with {{pp-pc2}}, which auto-categorizes them). In response to TDA's general points, though, I, like, Jasper, don't really follow: This is about as visible a forum as it gets; if it's good enough to ban and unban users, I'd think it's good enough to apply protection to a single article. So I don't really understand what could be confusing about this. I don't see what's ridiculous about trying to stop a lone troll from permanently stalling the improvement of two articles in need of substantial cleanup. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• You may find this astonishing, but plenty of people edit Wikipedia without paying any mind to cesspools such as this page and certainly many edit without looking at it on a regular basis. Circumventing a broad and lengthy community discussion involving dozens of editors by using AN because you want to thump on the socks is not appealing to me at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not circumventing consensus; I'm seeking it. Circumventing it would be to find some out-of-the-loop admin and email them to ask if they'd mind downgrading it to PC2. Starting a thread at the board that we use for some of our most substantial discussions is seeking it. "No consensus" is not a valid reason to oppose a proposal, for rather obvious reasons. If the consensus here is that this really needs to be done by RfC, so be it, but WP:PC2012/RfC 1 closed as "No consensus", so it's really not circumventing anything to start a discussion in a prominent community forum as to whether we should apply PC2 to a particular article. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd normally agree with you that you can't subvert a "no consensus", but since the original PC trial was marred by such blatant dishonesty and efforts to bypass our normal consensus process, I think we need to tread especially carefully.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been a firm supporter of using PC2 in limited circumstances, and this is certainly one of them. But the PC debate has been a feculent clusterfuck of drama in large part because of the failure to end the initial trial on time. As such, doing *anything* new with PC, including any use of PC2, without an explicit and broad community consensus, seems foolhardy due to the risk of disrupting the community. It's "cheaper in the long run", to do this right, even if it means a few full protects in the meantime. Want PC2? I'll be there at the RFC supporting it. But not until. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Moving to Support in view of listing at WP:CENT, which I believe will reduce the probability of bad splashback. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support In this case, I believe WP:IAR applies. This is a wayyy better solution than full protection here since good faith editors don't need to make edit-requests all the time. It also protects against socks. It's a win-win situation, and it works extremely well here. Vacation9 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Gives editors in good standing better leverage against likely POV changes from socks. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Use this as a test case if necessary but the more countermeasures we use for persistent socks the better off we will be.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this is definitely the case for PC2 to be implemented on. A little concerned that PC2 had no consensus at the time of PC implementation, but in this context, I like it. Let's see if the community is willing to play ball. -T.I.M^(Contact) 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if we were to every use PC2, this would be the type of case. But A) there is no consensus to use it at all and B) as Kww and others have said, there has been way too much drama around this in the past to open up this can of worms now. Fully protect it if needed, but PC2 is a really bad idea as it will create more drama and work than it will save. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. PC2 has never been approved for use on Wikipedia (outside of the trial a couple of years ago). That it was approved was one interpretation of the close in June to the big PC RfC, but during the September RfC specifically on PC2, the case was convincingly made that neither the voters nor the closers in the spring had given PC2 much thought. PC2 would be something not only new, but revolutionary, on Wikipedia (creating a class of Wikipedians whose job it is to decide which edits of everyone else are good enough to stay and which aren't), so turning it on would require consensus; the RfC was closed as no consensus. To use it now is to say that developers and not the Wikipedian community have the authority to decide how we protect pages on Wikipedia. Reading quickly, I don't see evidence that any of the supporters above have considered any of the problems with PC2 that were pointed out in the September RfC. In particular, this is a critical stage for PC1, which is new and unexpected for most editors ... and now, as a result of allowing the use of PC2 here, an editor has just changed the table which is supposed to describe PC1 back into a table giving two PC2 options, which is going to make it even harder for people to get comfortable with PC1. Having said all that: IAR is policy, and I'm always in favor of non-disruptive experimentation. If this were just treated as a lone experiment, with discussion about possible positive and negative consequences and requests for alternatives that might be better than PC2, and if there were no changes to the main PC page, I wouldn't have any strong feelings about it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd totally support changing it back when there are no article space pages with PC2, but it appears there are a couple currently [5]. Monty₈₄₅ 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've respectfully reverted you, Monty; if this proposal is successful, I'm planning on adding a few footnotes explaining that there've been a handful of IAR applications. But considering that the abbreviated table already links to the full one, I think it's unnecessary to revise policy based on the minority of cases. I'd like to make it clear to all who've opposed that I very much feel that a large-scale implementation of PC2 should only be conducted through an RFC, and that this noticeboard is not the place to establish binding precedent. Anyways, Dank, if I clarify that my intention, at least, as original poster, was only to, as you say, treat this as a lone experiment (and, looking through the support !votes, it appears to me that this is the general sentiment among those who support), would you perhaps reconsider your !vote? You make some very good points against PC2 in general, but you seem to concede that it could be effective here. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• When this turns into an actual experiment ... with the supporters agreeing that the point is to try new approaches to a difficult problem, discussing pros and cons and alternatives on the article talk page, rather than taking the position that this is an approved protection tool that needs no discussion ... I'll strike my oppose, if this thread hasn't been archived. Note that a form of protection that would be obviously superior to PC2 (if used only for these rare cases of very determined socks) would be to make some pages require 50 (or 100 or 250) prior edits by new accounts; that wouldn't create a special class of editors charged with ruling on everyone else's edits, but it would succeed in frustrating the socks, and would make it easier for us to identify them, possibly before they can even edit their target pages. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean as a sort-of ultraconfirmed usergroup, and corresponding ultra-semi-protection? gwickwire^talk_edits 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• You could think of it that way, though I'd want this to remain rare enough that it wouldn't make sense to talk on-wiki about a new "class" of Wikipedians ... just have the code exclude edits by people with less than 100 (or whatever number works best) contribs, for a handful of articles. Obviously not something we'd want to apply often, but it beats all hell out of PC2 ... particularly in this case, where PC2 is being used to let reviewers rule on whether edits are coming from socks ... when reviewers aren't being selected or encouraged to do any such thing, reviewers are supposed to be checking for vandalism and BLP edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There exists, as of this posting, 125,500 active users, of whom only 7,000 have reviewer capability(reviewers + admins). Only 3600 editors are watching this page, and obviously many of those are admins. Even if we assume there are zero admin or reviewer watchers, that means only 117,000 or 3% of active editors are monitoring this page. To disable the effective editing capability of 97% of Wikipedia editors without notice is disruptive to the editing process. NE Ent 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow: Currently, there are only 856 users who can edit these articles, and very few of them probably ever will; if we implement PC2, any user (or, assuming we combine it with semi-protection, any autoconfirmed user) will be able to; yes, their edits will be subject to review, but I think it's safe to say reviewers will be very cautious before rejecting submissions that wouldn't fall under their purview under PC1. (In fact, we can explicitly mandate this, if desired.) I hate removing editing access to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit as much as the next guy, but that's why I'm suggesting this: Nothing less than PC2 will have any hope of being effective while Mangoeater's out there, and full protection is... awful. The question here is should we leave an article un-edit-able for three months over philosophical objections to the general theory of PC2? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Full protection provides a clear and well known interface; PC2 does not, it provides a "fake edit" interface that makes it appear to autoconfirmed editors they're editing the current view of the page, but they're not. FPP is good because we know it's painful, which mitigates the temptation to overly apply it; because PC2 appears to be cheap there will be a tendency to use it more and more. Long term normal editors will have to become reviewers or the reviewers will have to spend more and more time reviewing. Now is the the time to address the question how will this scale? "Four" articles becomes 40 becomes 400... NE Ent 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Philosophical objections? Replying on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would support using PC2 on the pages only if we agree that it is a test case and the protection is temporary. (Having worked with Dank on some of the recent PC RfCs, I agree with many of his views on the matter.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Kww. Let's not go down this road. We just finished a seemingly interminable process involving multiple RfCs and much contentiousness. Enough is enough for a while. While it may be tempting to make "just one exception" here, exactly how long would it be before someone wants another exception, and another, and another? And if the rationale given in those subsequent requests is compelling, what then? Somehow we got by for more than a decade without PC1, and we seem to be doing all right without PC2 now. Anyone who'd like to modify a fully-protected article can make an edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the condition that every registered (inserted edit - I meant autoconfirmed) user is given reviewer rights. Otherwise Oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe this is just a case of somewhat-too-deadpan reductio ad absurdum (in which case, well played), but granting all registered users "reviewer" status would not only make PC2 identical to PC1, but reduce both of their protectiony-ness to below that of the current PC1, since it would allow non-autoconfirmed but registered (and therefore reviewer) accounts to bypass the protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I knew I should have wink-smiley-faced it. One of the reasons PC2 didnt gain consensus was the argument that it would create another layer of trusted users/permission levels/senority, however you wish to word it. Setting the reviewer bar as low as possible would eliminate that concern. However I did mean 'auto-confirmed' in the above, not merely 'registered' so have clarified. But I was only semi-serious. I would support admins ignoring the lack of community consensus regarding PC2 only if the reviewer bar was low, as accusations of power-gathering/protectionism are irrelevant at that point. Otherwise if the 'community' is not going to be made reviewers, then effectively the lack of consensus should stand, otherwise its just another wedge between admins and non-admins. Either respect lack of previous consensus, or hold another PC RFC (yes yes, another one). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not usually a big fan of slippery-slope arguments, but in this case, it's compelling. We as a community have seen fit to keep PC2 from entering the admin toolbox. We've had one instance of PC2 slipping under the radar already; here we're asking for another. At what point are we admins just overreaching and ignoring the consensus of the community? I don't think this instance puts us over that line, but it's a line that we should be staying far away from. If it's not in our toolbox, we don't get to use it, period. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously. WP:PC2012/RfC 1. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• So a lack of consensus is reason to oppose an attempt at getting consensus? Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With respect, I think you've got it backwards; it appears to me that the opposers are doing the things normally associated with trying to get consensus, such as pointing to past discussions and weighing pros and cons. I'm not saying that supporters don't know what they're talking about, and don't believe that ... but if I'm just looking at what's on this page, I don't see evidence that the people who supported before I weighed in were either considering past arguments or encouraging people to treat this as an experiment. OTOH, I'm not on board with "just say no", either ... the September RfC closed with a recommendation to look at this again in six to nine months, after we had sufficient experience with PC1 to be able to say something intelligent about where all this is going. Let's make it six months, and let's spend a couple of months looking at PC1, PC2, and alternatives to PC2. My preference, based on what I've seen so far, is stated in my thread above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There's no problem attempting to get consensus, there's a problem with claiming consensus for so fundamental a wikitask as article editing on a page which bills itself as "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators ... Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." (emphasis original)NE Ent 18:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • But this does affect administrators because this thread is about a specific dane-braimaged sock and trying to effectuate countermeasures to halt him. Yes, Dank, my support statement above encourages this to be an experiment but one that needs done now not in one or three months. Mangoeater is wasting too much of our time and we are looking to halt him ASAP. This limited use on what, maybe 10 articles(?), probably would affect less than 100 regular editors. I'm not part of the discussions on PC and hold no particular opinions on them but my ears have perked up at the idea of seeing another tool in grasp for ridding us of some of the worst problem children.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose' even though it might make my specific job easier. I am currently dealing with an edit request for one of the related articles, which I am answering in good faith, though it is made by a new SPI, and consists essentially of a request to restore the old and inappropriately promotional material. It is I think easy to justify my edits and non-edits, but I am editing through protection, which is always an uncomfortable position. The reason for my oppose is very simple: irrelevant to the merits of PC2, doing it now is hopelessly confusing. We have enough problems with PC1 being unfamiliar. Let's learn to use it first, and then see if the community wants to make a trial of going to the next level. If the PC1 experience is good, they probably will, so what we should concentrate on is getting PC1 to be part of the accepted and understood routine. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a one-off test case. Much of the opposition to PC2 (IMO) was more about "let's not do this kind of complicated thing yet", with a three-month delay suggested before reviewing the issue again, rather than "absolutely never". The expected flood of articles listed at RFPP for PC did not materialize. The couple of times I've checked, the entire queue has had a single-digit number of changes yet to be reviewed. The predicted endless complaints haven't materialized (well, I haven't seen any, but I am behind on my watchlist, so perhaps I've just not gotten to the pages where the whole world is freaking out). So I think that reality has proven less dire than predicted, and we could probably cut short the planned three-month system for such an appropriate use. (I don't think that I'd support its use at this time with anything less than a significant discussion here at AN.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Four other articles have PC2 protection so this instance would be expanding from several others.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Those of you who read F&A's linked discussion may or may not have noticed that my question was never answered. Now, I freely admit my ignorance: I am not very familiar with Mangoeater1000's case, and I don't know much about blocking account creation, but before I weigh in, I'd love to hear an explanation for why a hard block doesn't or wouldn't work on Mangoeater1000. Is he circumventing an account creation block, or is there not one currently in place? Full protection or PCPP 2 both seem excessive when they're essentially only there to thwart one persistent user. I can't disagree that semi-protection is probably insufficient here, but why is further protection the only answer? —Rutebega (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just realized I can see the user's block settings in his block log, sorry. He's justifiably been indef hardblocked since December, which does raise the question of how he's been circumventing that to keep on socking. I'll wait for further comments on this before I cast my !vote. —Rutebega (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Account creation blocked" only applies to the user account itself, and to its last-used IP address when autoblocked. However, after the autoblock expires, more socks can be created while logged out. Although CheckUser can help prevent this by find out and hardblocking the underlying IP address(es) for extended periods of time, IP hopping can and does occur.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Pretty much everything has been tried. Skimming through a random sampling from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000, it appears that all (or almost all) of the 79-and-counting socks have been hardblocked. And according to the SPI archive, Avi and DoRD have now blocked at least 6 ranges. I don't know if those ranges were softblocked or hardblocked (or softblocked with account creation disabled), and I see that earlier on there was some hesitation to hardblock an NYU range that Mangoeater was using; if a CU is at liberty to comment on the degree to which IP-blocking actions have been pursued, I think that would be helpful to editors like Rutebega who want to be sure that PC2 is the only feasible alternative to full-protection before they consider supporting this. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose until consensus for PC2 is achieved first. 01:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineerFromVega (talk • contribs)

Comment: If anyone is wondering my rationale for applying PC2 + semi, here it is. As you may or may not have known, getting autoconfirmation is extremely easy. So easy in fact that a number of blocked and/or banned users have decided to take advantage of this ease of attaining autoconfirmation and bypass semiprotection. In some cases full protection has been applied to deal with the disruption, but from what I have seen, editors tend to opt for allowing at least some people (not just admins) to edit an article. There are really no other more feasible means of preventing the disruption while minimizing collateral. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Many school articles--I would say almost all school articles-are edited mostly or entirely by students or alumni. Obviously, they're the people most likely to be knowledgable & interested. We just can't rely on a 16-year-old high school dropout(PinkAmpersand)--Unitskayak (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 for Unitskayak. 72Dino (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• That's a fucking low blow, Pablo, even for you. If you comment here again, I'll initiate proceedings for a formal community ban with the additional rider that talkpage access be summarily revoked for all of your sockpuppets, provided that they're CU-confirmed. I don't know what else we can do to make it clear to you that you are not welcome here, since you persist in this delusion that you'll be able to show up here at AN or at SPI, insult me and/or other editors, and come up with lies to defend your own actions, and wind up with anything other than yet another block. Incidentally, if you're aware that I'm not attending school at the moment, you're also aware that I'm clinically depressed, in which case you might want to take a nice long look in the mirror, and review your priorities here, and in life in general. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (the grandson of a former NYU School of Engineering professor, by the way)

• Too many comments here seem related to the use of PC2 as a standard form of protection. There's no consensus for it's use in that way, but it's use on certain articles may be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Maybe it can be used in some circumstances, but in each case should be reviewed to determine whether it's the most appropriate form of protection. Certainly protecting poor quality articles (such as Transdev York, which has now been nominated for deletion) isn't the best solution. Peter James (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The use of PC2 exclusively to prevent blatant sockpuppetry from autoconfirmed puppets (assuming this is what is going on here) seems useful, and a good application of WP:IAR. (I really don't think such protection should be for an indefinite duration, though.) Any further use of PC2 (such as to prevent edit warring) should not occur without broader consensus, as there are broader issues at play in those cases. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Two comments (nothing more, since I already spoke above) — first, Unitskayak's opposition is by itself a good reason to support this move. Second, I'd say that we should only use PC2 when full protection is the only other option; we might as well let reviewers edit as well as admins. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for the requested articles only. I believe that this discussion has been widely enough advertised (e.g. on WP:CENT) and open long enough that if there were any objections to using PC2 for this specific set of articles – rather than general concerns about a slippery slope – they would have been raised by now. I share the slippery slope concerns, and I hope that however this is closed, the close will not be interpreted as a mandate to adopt PC2 as a standard tool without a broad community mandate for it. But I think that the community, as represented by the editors interested enough to comment here, has the right to give this tool a try to address this specific problem. 28bytes (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support PC2 for one and only one article, to be selected by consensus. PC2 was originally put on hold pending data on PC1, now let's put it on hold pending data on PC2. A "trial run" of 3 months or so will allow us to better determine its efficacy, especially in juxtaposition to another article with similar issues. After a set period, we analyze what happened on each of the two articles and determine whether PC2 is worth using. —Rutebega (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support time-limited trial run on these specific targets, followed by a community discussion of the results. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Although I've been vocally opposed to PC2, I seriously want to thank everyone ... I believe people are doing a good job with this. We do need tools to help with Mangoeater ... I sure wish the Foundation would give us different tools, but they haven't and it doesn't look like they ever will. If people want to experiment and come up with guidelines that minimize some of the downsides, I'm on board. The one thing I'm concerned about ... I don't want to set up a two-month "experiment" in which we apply PC2 to one or two pages without experimentation, then declare it a "success" after nothing happens. If no one objects, I'll ask over at WT:MIL what they'd like to experiment with ... I really have no idea what they think about this issue, and I'd like to know, we have a lot of people who are very clued-in on dealing with persistent, obnoxious socks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Since this thread is a vote, in part, when I ask for comments over at WT:MIL, I'll ask them not to vote in this thread. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment as an aside: Cat Creek, Montana might be another article that could benefit from this, as it is the long-term target of sockvandtrolls, apparently from a California high school, who continually return to the article (and get it repeatedly fullprotected) after gaming the system for autoconfirmation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Paid editor actively spamming

Hi, guys. We not a note via OTRS that Shark Internet Marketing is actively spamming people with their article-writing, link-adding service. Might be worth keeping an eye out for increases in promotional editing, in case some of their recipients take them up on it. (Why anybody would respond to - and thereby encourage - spam is beyond me, but somebody must or surely people would stop doing it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to figure out who that lady in the video is so we can AFD her article. <evil grin> §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, just trolled their live chat feature for a bit to see what we're up against. It appears that the claims of a legion of editors who can help in editwars and AfDs is BS. Which means that all they're really doing is creating articles that meet our content standards... while I don't condone paid editing, it reminds me a little of a comedy bit I once saw about a bank robber whose ingenious plan is to simply work for a bank for a few decades, thereby stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars - at some point, "pulling one over on us" just becomes doing exactly what we want. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I always find it funny that companies/people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a Wikipedia entry when there are so many of us willing to write one for free if the person is notable. Considering the writing style of the page, I'd be surprised if any companies ever shelled out the money asked. Ryan Vesey 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will try to be careful not to publicly out the man behind SharkIM (although all the needed information is public), but after some research I've managed to identify him... hell even got his phone and address! Guess all those years as a collection agent really honed my cyberstalking skills... A quick search for any wiki articles or accounts for him or associated companies/ventures turns up nothing, so at least that's one concern resolved. Might give SharkIM a call tomorrow, ask for a sample of their work, see if it's actually good or real cause for greater worrying. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to connect to the Shark Internet Marketing website. Have they folded their tents and stolen away into the night? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I still see live? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I just tried again with a couple of other browsers and still couldn't connect. Perhaps my firewall is blocking it for some reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD question

If an AfD gets no comments, should it be relisted or treated as an uncontested prod? nableezy - 01:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Current consensus is that it should not be treated as an uncontested prod (except for certain exceptions); it should be relisted a limited number of times and after relisting, if no participants join the discussion, eventually treated as no consensus, defaulting to keep. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain that a bit? I dont see how it is functionally different. nableezy - 02:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Occasionally I see a proposal on a noticeboard or village pump to treat no-participant AfDs as prods but as far as I can recall none of them have gotten very far. As Reyk notes below, the closer has discretion to do this per WP:NOQUORUM, but doing that by default is not something that's gained consensus as far as I'm aware. (I could of course have missed such a discussion; links welcome.) 28bytes (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the only part that's really different is the relisting part. According to WP:NOQUORUM, when there are no participants admins are just as free to soft delete as they are to default to keep. This is essentially the same as PROD, where admins won't delete if they disagree with the PROD rationale. It's just that in AfD, admins will usually relist in the case of low participation, unless the debate has already been relisted twice or more. There's nothing in the guidelines to say that they can't use one of the other options instead of relisting, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is functionally different, since an article which was kept can only be renominated if new circumstances have been discovered why this article is not suitable for Wikipedia, whereas if the article was left as no consensus it can be in principle renominated at a later time with the same arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but has that ever happened before? ZappaOMati 02:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahira Amin. nableezy - 02:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOQUORUM, they can be treated as an uncontested PROD, but the closing admin has a lot of discretion. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reyk has this correct. The closing admin has a lot of leeway here. That's why they get the big bucks. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• If there has not been a contested PROD before and the nomination brings forth a credible rationale for deletion, then I would tend to soft delete the article. If there was a previously contested PROD, I would relist once, and if that doesn't help, close as "no consensus" with NPASR. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with this; it doesn't make sense to soft-delete something if a PROD has already been contested, so I would also tend to relist in these cases. Additionally, if there is already a contested PROD and the AfD has been relisted twice or more, I tend to leave a comment rather than close the debate or relist it again. I have been automatically relisting debates with no participants, but after this and the similar thread above, I think I will switch to soft deleting rather than relisting if the deletion hasn't previously been contested and I agree with the rationale. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can't ever recall an AfD going for three relists without any comment from anybody at all. I would say that if after a number of relists, then if there really is no comment, then the community is not interested about the article, so close as "no consensus" and leave it. When in doubt - don't delete! If that leaves an unsourced ten year old BLP on here, somebody will surely notice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The trouble with that position is that you do have a !vote for delete even in that case - the nominator's. So a "no consensus" is technically closing against consensus.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • A consensus of one? 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, it's still one-nothing for delete! Obviously it would depend on the strength of the nomination of course - a WP:JNN nomination could easily go for no-consensus, while a well-argued "this is why" would be a firm deletion. (And UBLPs would always go in the round file.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• My general rule of thumb is "relist twice then WP:SOFTDELETE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

XKCD alert...

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

---

...for Star Trek Into Darkness. [6] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both capitalization versions have been SPP'ed and FMPP'ed, I FPP'ed ~*~StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs~*~ just in case sincee XKCD readers can be rather creative. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've salted the mouseover text suggestions as well - ~*~sTaR tReK iNtO dArKnEsS~*~, xX_StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNess_Xx and Star Trek lnto Darkness. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness

Moved from WP:ANI

Moved from ANI to consolidate discussion NE Ent 13:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the film article Star Trek into Darkness, there has been a very extensive debate about whether or not to capitalize "into" for the article title. I know, I know. There was a discussion to move the article to Star Trek Into Darkness that lasted from December 11, 2012 to January 9, 2013, and the discussion was closed as having no consensus. The discussion continued after the closure, but to me, it seemed to be winding down to accepting a modification of the lead sentence until we could find new evidence to revisit the article title. The discussion was posted at XKCD here, which led to an inflow of comments, mostly in jest. I assume this is what ultimately led to a new request to move, created by DillonLarson (talk · contribs), who previously had not edited since November 6, 2012. I do not think this new request is proper because there is no new evidence, and the arguments will be the same as it has been for the past two months. It stirs the embers when they were just cooling off. I wanted to see if there was a possibility of speedily closing this new discussion for being premature and very unlikely to be productive. Hence my request here for admin intervention. (EDIT: It's possible that the XKCD posting would lead filmmakers and linguists to comment on this issue. That's the silver lining I'm hoping for.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse Erik's request for a speedy no-consensus close of the move discussion. It would appear that maybe because of the coverage this page has received, non-regular and new editors are being attracted to this discussion. I know it isn't WP:CANVASSING, but it seems to have had a similar effect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll also endorse Erik's request. It's far too soon for this to be started up again. douts (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'd also like a speedy conclusion to the move discussion, it will solve nothing. Coverage of the discussion is now starting to spread to other websites (gizmodo, for one) and will only bring more people into the argument. And for "more people" read "trekkies", who will die for the cause. I think you'll find that this will simply run and run until "Into" is capitalised. Nsign (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the parallel I made to WP:CANVASSING, as it brings with it a bias. We need to shut this down now. It is clear that a lot of the "new" contributors are not that familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and are paying little heed to previous discussions on the matter. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the real name of this move "Star Trek into Darkness", or is it "Star Trek: Into Darkness"? As in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" rather than "Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion with a note that discussion should be reopened before long. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend! Hopefully external assessments will be forthcoming. Bugs, my impression is that the filmmakers are using the title in different ways. They indicate in some promotional materials that "Into Darkness" is a distinct subtitle, yet in the official synopsis, they say in a sentence, "...Star Trek Into Darkness." So it's variations on this and the capitalization guidelines and people wanting to make exceptions because no outside coverage has used lowercase "into". Not to mention that comparing this title to previous titles may not be accurate, as it is a rebooted franchise. I think that's kind of it in a nutshell; the discussion is a lot of elaboration (and I do mean a lot) on all these different points. Hence why we need new evidence to establish consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the filmmakers use an "implied" colon in their titling. I note the silliness of "E.T. the Extraterrestrial" when it's "E.T. [....] The Extraterrestrial". It's funny how wikipedians ignore sourcing in favor of their own obsesson with their own manual of style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I think the discussion has covered implied colons too. :) I certainly hope readers are like, "HAHA, Wikipedia is silly... hmm, this is a pretty informative article about the film..." Erik (talk | contribs) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness for XKCD. It's from them that we get the wonderful effort of Malamanteau Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely close this down! As someone who was is pro capitalisation, I believe this move suggestion so soon after the old one was closed due to a "No consensus" (although with more people saying yay than nay and consensus defined as a majority, I don't see how this was the case, anyway, I am going off topic and mumbling, see what this has done to my mind?) to be borderline disruptive and not in the best interests of the article. Yes, there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but there are better ways to go about it and the waters need to calm before being disturbed again. This comic (which to be honest I don't quite get how it is funny feel free to drop by and explain) has further inflamed the situation with editors with no interest in discussing the change dropping by and being disruptive, both Annon and account holders. MisterShiney ✉ 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• The RM speedy close was ill advised. That RM was for a different option to the previous, was made by a previously uninvolved editor, there were new arguments, a significant number of new people joining the discussion, and the people calling far a speedy close were involved. It tastes like OWNership by the previous talk page regulars and is unwelcoming to new faces. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you see things my way. DillonLarson (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy closer here. This is nothing of OWNership; I'd never even heard of this movie before I saw this ANI thread. If I'd been attempting to cast a supervote, I wouldn't have asked that it be reopened before long. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The OWNership thing is that previous talk page participants have decided what future talk page participants may talk about. Who said anything about "supervote"? If you did anything wrong, it was a too-quick close /admin action. Did you follow WP:RCMI? What explicit or implicit "speedy close" criterion did you follow? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because this was going nowhere fast and wasn't going to end up productively, so there was no point in keeping it going. It's just a common-sense thing, not a specific "suggested by point _, subpoint _, clause _ of policy page _". Your objection in your final sentence made me think that you believed me to be overruling consensus in order to force my opinion on everything, when really I had no opinion at all about one side versus the other; my only opinion was that the discussion was becoming disruptive (through nobody's fault; that's how it had just transpired) and that we'd do better if we stopped and waited for a little while. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Just wait a while? Are you following the page? I think WP:RM needs some simple instructions that simplify things for non-RM regulars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly following it; I only went there because of the furor here. If this were an RM that I'd closed as don't move or even as no-consensus, I'd probably advise that the waiting period be in the order of months. Since I closed this purely because the move itself was hitting the news, I definitely don't advise that we wait that long; just please wait until the news is elsewhere, which will probably be just a few days. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really know what this place is or why I have been called here, but I thought perhaps you would like me to say something. I do not know if this is some sort of court, as there have been numerous accusations launched against me, but I feel it is in my best interest to respond diligently to them in any case.

• "The discussion was posted at XKCD, which led to an inflow of comments, mostly in jest. I assume this is what ultimately led to a new request to move by DillonLarson (talk · contribs)." No, neither xkcd nor "jest" led me to do anything. I saw an area of the encyclopedia I thought I could help improve and I tried to do just that.
• "DillonLarson (talk · contribs) had not edited since November 6, 2012." What does this have to do with anything?
• "I do not think this new request is proper because there is no new evidence, and the arguments will be the same as it has been for the past two months." I must admit that I was not aware until recently (and obviously did not take part in) the previous discussion. I saw that there was a discussion that failed to reach consensus regarding a change that I do not believe would have even helped. So, you are incorrect in your blatant assumption that there is "no new evidence" (or at least no evidence that, in this request, was being applied properly (or at least no evidence that, in this request, was actually introduced to solve the specific issue at the heart of the request)). I should know; I made the request.
• "It stirs the embers when they were just cooling off." I've heard this from a few people. Again, I was not aware of the great personal toll the previous debate took on those involved. I was only motivated by my love for the encyclopedia. I apologize if anyone misunderstood my motives.
• "As much as I'd also like a speedy conclusion to the move discussion, it will solve nothing." This was my stance during the discussion--if that is what you can call a number of considerate editors attempting to discuss something while being yelled at by a few boorish trolls. Ultimately, however, I understand if the community was not ready for a fresh, constructive discussion. I just came home a few minutes ago and was going to request that the request be withdrawn and put into hibernation for a while. I see that someone took the liberty to do that for me.
• "DillonLarson (talk · contribs) is disruptive." No, that was not my intention at all. I understand now that some people mistake change for disruption. Again, I apologize if my actions appeared to be anything but the work of a concerned editor.
• "DillonLarson (talk · contribs) is WP:POINTY." No. The point of POINTY is that open discussion is better than abusing the encyclopedia. My request was simply an attempt to generate meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, other editors clearly wanted to hinder the discussion to avoid being called wrong; if that isn't POINTY, I don't know what is. (At this point, the trolls have succeeded in getting the discussion halted, so this is a non-issue.)

Again, I apologize if my creation of the move request was misconstrued some sort of political or otherwise unsavory move. This was not my intention. Like I said before, I was in support of pausing the discussion until a suitable time came to revisit it; it appears this has been done for me (Thanks to whomever was able to make that happen). Although I do not know if this is the appropriate venue for a quick bit of thought, I'll try anyway: Regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" in the Star Trek question (And, honestly, how much does it matter?), I encountered some really nasty things in that discussion. If you are one of the few editors in the discussion who could not refrain from being a rude, loutish fool (you know who you are), I suggest you either (a) follow the guidelines of this encyclopedia and choose to be WP:CALM, learn to not be WP:POINTY, and realize that Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING or (b) expel yourself from this project--Wikipedia needs caring, thoughtful team players. And, with that, I suppose I'll go. Perhaps I'll take one of those WP:WIKIBREAKs everyone's been talking about... DillonLarson (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dillon. Don't worry, you are not on trial here. At WP:AN and WP:ANI, we are supposed to notify editors that we mention. I felt that the new request to move was premature. I did not cast a specific !vote in the previous RM discussion because I could see where everyone was coming from. Though I excused myself from the circuitous debate, I kept track through this because it was the most active talk page. We are dealing with three variations here: Star Trek Into Darkness (official), Star Trek into Darkness (applied MOS assuming no subtitle), and Star Trek: Into Darkness (MOS assuming subtitle). What I meant by the lack of consensus is that even though Star Trek: Into Darkness was not officially mentioned in the RM template of the first request, it was still discussed as part of the trio. In short, it did not pop out as the title that beat both Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness. When the new RM discussion started, I could see all the same arguments being re-hashed. My perspective is that there was not a new case being made, especially not one that would solidify a consensus at long last. I understand that you thought that yours was a new case, but I feel that the resulting comments repeated those of the previous RM discussion. Beyond your request, I do think that there is a set of editors on that talk page who could recuse themselves from a future RM discussion (especially one that can reference outside commentary about capitalization without being tongue-in-cheek). It would be useful to revisit with a new set of editors. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If we know that it is going to ultimately go "Capital I" anyway, um... why is anyone trying to keep it not-capital-I. (please list reason below ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected

Apparently semiprotecting is not sufficient (an autoconfirmed editor just added "by pedantic drones" to the lead section) so I've fully protected it for a day. Seriously, people. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Unproductive page activity was really up that high that you couldn't just rv? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got no objection if someone wishes to revert the protection. 28bytes (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

...and the full protection is apparently insufficient as administrators are now carrying on making into/Into edits through protection. Ah well, what can ya do? 28bytes (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to request fuller protection, but that doesn't exist. If we can't trust the administrators to abide by the rules on an article, it shouldn't be closed to other editors. I've requested a protection level reduction. Ryan Vesey 01:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm ignoring all rules, as is Manning Bartlett, because the situation is an utter catastrophe. Hang me afterwards if you like. Protecting it was the completely wrong move as it left the article in an utterly broken state. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You changed the lead sentence on the protected page on your own. It's now inconsistent with the article title. Why not go ahead and make the move? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because page moves are messy and hard on the database server when there are lots of revisions. I thought I'd wait and see how much I got yelled at first. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

NB. The article is protected, not the talk page. I misunderstood and almost got a bit upset. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious from a common sense point of view that this article should be titled with a capitalized "Into". Just google it, and see how everyone else capitalizes it. I would like to unprotect the page though, so I want to see agreement on the title first. Prodego ^talk 01:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideally we should look for people that have never even seen a Star Trek movie to make the most unbiased possible decision. —Soap— 02:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• shyly raises hand* I've never seen a Star Trek movie (so I really don't know why I jumped into the mess, probably because we were being ridiculed for enforcing a non-existent title style on a movie). Ryan Vesey 02:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would really like to open up a new move discussion; however, the one opened up earlier today was quickly closed by consensus here. Had I known the first one existed before I was informed by xkxd, I would have weighed in. In any case, I opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#COMMONNAME should take precedence. Ryan Vesey 01:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that we don't have enough policy, the problem is we have too much policy. No more rules, use common sense. Prodego ^talk 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The article should be unprotected and immediately moved to its correct (yes, correct) title Star Trek Into Darkness. If we're going to diverge with reality then the burden is on the people leading us into the great unknown. To prove I'm a good sport I'm willing to undertake both actions. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Or we could desysop you for editing through protection when no consensus exists and violating a long-standing guideline to do so. Don't like the rule that we have prepositions of less than four characters in lower case? Get consensus to change it. Don't abuse your bit to get your way and hide under the cover of IAR to do so.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but far from hiding I believe I'm acting in plain sight. Call it abusive if you want but I refuse to allow the misuse of process and policies to bring the project into disrepute. If you disagree with that line of thinking then that's your own lookout. If you think I've acted abusively open an RfC and get consensus for that view. By all means, continue this absurd charade. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, that it is so obviously wrong to use "into" that I think Mackensen's action can be justified. The manual of style is not and has never been a set of rules, it is just a list of common practices which should be used if there is no reason not to. It is a guide, not a rulebook. Prodego ^talk 02:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was so obviously wrong, we would have consensus on the talk page. If there was a consensus to use "Into", then his edit would have been fine. There wasn't. He edited through protection in accordance with his personal opinion, not consensus. That's flagrantly wrong.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I believe there was consensus to move the page in the first RM, and thus consensus to move the page. Prodego ^talk 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I tended to think so as well, but the move speaks for itself. We could make a movie about this and call it Wikipedia Into Madness. Should be a thriller. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus. That is not true. A small majority favored "Into" of "into". This move violates the policy of consensus. A few editors are all upset over a cartoon so you have abandoned policy to try to make Wikipedia look better. Shame on you. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring your comment. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? I'm angry with what you have done and I think the claim that the original move debate had a consensus for a move is utter nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we're a community of editors and there's no call for profanity, though we've all done it and worse. Anyway, unless I'm to be site-banned discussion should be confined to the article. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion of your misbehaviour should be handled here, not on an article talk page.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to; I tend to think the article is more appropriate. I made an edit to a fully-protected page; I had not previously edited the page and was not involved in a content dispute. I believed the edit had consensus, although I had reason to believe it would be contested. Otherwise, I moved an article not moved within the last several months after the article was unprotected. Anything else? Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that talk page, how did you come to the conclusion that there was a consensus strong enough to warrant editing through protection?—Kww(talk) 03:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because one edit was backed by policy and sources and one wasn't. There was also local discussion about the lede (from today), and no real disagreement the existing lede was a disgrace. That's why I thought so. It's possible I was wrong about that, but I acted in good faith and did not edit war. Nothing in WP:PP was offended today. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll strongly disagree there: we never match title capitalization to sources, never have, and no policy basis forced your hand. You acted because you decided one that one side was right and chose to favor it. It blatantly violated WP:PP in both letter and spirit. I'll wait for other admins to chime in, but I hope to see consensus that your misbehaviour was blatant enough to warrant action.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"[A]cted because you decided one that one side was right and chose to favor it"; I don't agree with your wording, but that's more or less how consensus works when administrative action of some sort is required. That's what Anthony Appleyard did when he (wrongly) closed the earlier requested move as no consensus. He decided that he thought no one was right, and that the existing state of affairs didn't offend policies (or didn't enough to justify doing something about it). I'm having difficulty squaring your comments with your expressed views at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29#File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png, but that's perhaps beside the point. You say no policy basis forced my hand. I'm not sure what that means. Policy never forces you to do anything. However, if policies did force hands, then WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and we generally follow it. You're making some pretty serious accusations and I think you need to back them up or consider stepping away. Mackensen (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It was clear to everyone, except a few editors who had lost perspective, what the correct title was. Lots of editors were dying to do what Mackensen did; he was merely the first to be bold enough to do so. He certainly did not act alone. There are a few editors who disagree with what he did, of course, but it doesn't look to have been so far beyond the pale that any kind of immediate administrator intervention is needed or appropriate. Mackensen obviously believes he acted correctly and is not going to change his mind because a few editors are carping at him. If those editors feel so strongly about the issue that they require further action, I do think that RfC would be the appropriate venue, not any further discussion here or at the utterly beleaguered article talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Compromise suggestion: "Star Trek oghounto Darkness". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia INTO Lameness NE Ent 03:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur that Mackensen's recent actions appear to be in-line with policy and directed towards converging on consensus. (I was reading along and commenting at the time, and came to roughly the same conclusions). --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether Mackensen was right or wrong, I sincerely hope no one files an RfC or ArbCom case over it. Randall Munroe has pointed out in his inimitable way how silly it is to generate kilobytes of text angrily arguing about whether an "i" should be capitalized, so let's not do more of that. 28bytes (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't care about the "i". I'd tend towards "Star Trek: Into Darkness", myself. My issue was solely with editing through protection.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. But as the admin who placed the page protection he edited through, let me just say that I wasn't thrilled that he did it, but I don't think we'd be well served by going down the RfC or ArbCom paths over it. If he made a habit of doing that, of course, I'd feel differently. 28bytes (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User reinstating RM after being told not to

User:Ryan_Vesey keeps trying to (re-)start a Requested Move on the talk page. This seems horrendously ill-advised to me, since it was an RM that caused the media blow-up in the first place. If people keep reinstating RM's then the situation will never resolve. I'd like to go to bed now. Can someone else convince them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

And now reinstated by a 2nd user. [7] . Am I the crazy one here, or is this behavior crazy? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it seems weird to me that there's a move request "to" the current title, instead of away from it, but it also seems a little odd to me to that you are calling for BRD when you know the page was indefinitely full protected just after the bold move. No non-admin can move it back. How exactly is Ryan supposed to perform the "R" in BRD, if not through a move request? 28bytes (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Page is not full protected. I do note a move protect. I recommend this protection be removed within 24 hours. You are not required to literally revert in the BRD procedure. You may directly contact the person who made the original move instead. (In this case: User:Mackensen).

Even if a move request was the only option, it is now known to be a really really bad option here as we have seen, and should thus not be used. Discussion by other means is a better idea. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

An admin moved it after the move request was made. Ryan explained on the Talk page [8], and mentioned in an edit summary [9] that he felt an uninvolved editor should close it, rather than someone who'd taken part in the discussion. —Frungi (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the story. I initiate a move request, Kim Bruning says the other move request "blew up", calls me a scientist [10] and removes the move request portion of my move request. The move was performed unilaterally; however, contrary to Kim Bruning's opinions, my move request was in fact a move request, and he shouldn't have been changing it. I can't imagine that his actions didn't fall under refactoring. The page was moved unilaterally, but I restored the move request for the reason I laid out in this comment. He removed it again, and I got a little angry [11]. He removed it a third time, and I was about to restore it, but decided to let it go. On my talk page he has implied that I am insane and left an explicit warning [12] where he stated the previous RM "blew up"; therefore, "We will not do another RM here". His reasoning here is unambiguously flawed. He went on to say "If you continue to reinstate RM, without discussion, the correct action is to get you blocked on the obvious grounds that we do not want another blow-up". Apparently, attempting to use Wikipedia's processes for achieving consensus is grounds for a block. Frankly, I'm a bit ticked that a) this all occurred and b) I've been brought to AN for it so I'd like to see some boomerangs or trouts, but I'd be willing to settle for this to be put to rest. There are very clear reasons that we have processes for getting things done, and that's because when things are done according to process, issues like this are avoided. Ryan Vesey 04:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't even realize he'd implied that I was insane here in addition to on my user page. Ryan Vesey 04:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a quote by Einstein. If you do the same thing twice (here: ~same move request, on same page, for ~same reasons), you should expect the same outcome both times.

Regardless of the hypothetical reasoning you supply, the empirical outcome was known.

Reaching consensus is a good idea. It is probably a good idea to use a *different* procedure to the one that has been empirically shown to fail to reach consensus. :-P That's what User:Mackensen was up to, you see. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, overriding previous consensus and action unilaterally is not a good idea. I understand that it was a quote, but you were clearly implying that my action was insanity, which it was not. We have a policy here on Wikipedia, which says that consensus can change. The previous move request got bogged down into irrelevant issues of subtitles and the like and was closed 3 weeks ago. I initiated a new discussion to see if consensus had changed. Furthermore, your allegation that the RM procedure has been empirically shown to fail to reach consensus is incorrect. A vast majority of requested moves do reach consensus, so there was nothing wrong with the procedure, the issue was the discussion. Ryan Vesey 05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, I wouldn't worry too much about the "insanity" quote. It's a pretty common phrase, I doubt anything derogatory was meant by it. 28bytes (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 28bytes I didn't mean to imply you were personally insane. (though our behaviors can appear insane to each other when we work from different basic principles, of course ).

I think it is globally established (as in "the entire world now thinks" ~literally) that the RM procedure on the particular page, with regards to the capitalization of a single letter, has definitely failed. Spectacularly.

I reject that there was a valid "previous consensus" on this page.

See: Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus for more detail.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm not getting through, can really no one help?

• Given that a page title change RM somehow blows up and makes the news (and XKCD).
• is it then not horrendously irresponsible to start a new RM practically back-to-back to the old one?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus what a bunch of dumbasses. --التنغستن كاربايد (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Where to post an RfC about Reviewer privileges?

Hm, I expect to be answered and trouted rather efficiently, but I cannot seem to find an answer; I'd like to propose that editors with the Reviewer flag, in addition to having their edits autoreviewed, would be able to edit FPP'ed pages. An alternative would be to have an additional protection setting, restricting edits to sysops & reviewers (for example, that wouldn't be used on MediaWiki pages and such).

In any case, I doubt this is the correct venue (although if it is -- good!), so please just point me in the right direction and it'll be a pleasure to direct myself wherever needed. :) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:VPPR is one possible place, though a separate RfC page in the project space would also suffice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I can't remember where it was, but I'm pretty sure there was something a little while ago to try to split out some sort of "edit protected pages" right. It was a very sensible suggestion, but like most attempts to change anything related to admin, it hit the usual immovable wall. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any chance of any proposal like this succeeding - there is always too much "No, that's not my pet solution, we should be doing X instead" opposition. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I got the idea from reading answers to questions in the current RfA. I find it a tad silly for an obviously experienced content editor to have to get the "full admin package" just to be able to bypass making edit requests. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 10:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• The ongoing big RFA RFC is likely to cover unbundling as a possible solution; it might be worth holding off any other specific suggestions while that's going on. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, category 3 in that RfC includes unbundling, and Round Two should be starting soon. Also, the ongoing discussion about PC2 suggests that the second RfC is coming sooner rather than later, and your suggestion feels more like a PC2 thing than a PC1 thing to me ... I wouldn't object to throwing that on the pile of things to discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the recent discussion about granting selected non-admins the right to edit protected pages can be found here. Graham87 12:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for interaction ban-lift

About two months ago, I accepted a ban on interacting with User:Tristan noir.[13] Tristan noir volunteered the same.[14][15] I volunteered for this, because the user had been harassing/undermining me on numerous articles, and seemed to have no other purpose on Wikipedia (almost every edit the user made was to this end). I figured that if I just got him/her banned from following me around various articles, he/she would probably stop editing Wikipedia entirely, and then I could go about my normal practice of improving Wikipedia articles on (classical) Japanese literature. My assumption appeared to be correct, as once the ban was in place the user refrained from making any edits at all.

This worked until about two weeks ago, when I happened to edit[16] an article that I wasn't aware the user had also edited two months before.[17][18][19] The user almost immediately posted a message to the admin who had put the ban in place, and complained about my edit.[20] My edit had nothing whatsoever to do with his/her previous edit, and I made no indication that I was attempting to undermine his/her edit. The user, though, appears to have been watching my edits (or at least that page, although that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban) and waiting to get me blocked if I ever edited that page.

The admin sent me a warning[21] and told me that, even though the original wording of the ban had been to refrain from editing articles that the other was "working on"[22], this now applied even to edits made two months after the other party had made a minor edit to the article. I had been very clear[23][24] when I initially took the ban (I stress voluntarily) that I did not expect to be treated like I had been banned for disruptive behaviour; the admin's applying harsher restrictions on me over a month later, when I had not in fact breached the original ban, therefore seems inappropriate. I understand that the admin may have misunderstood the situation of the article in question, and it is not his/her fault in the matter.

Apparently emboldened by the belief that I would be automatically banned from ever editing an article that he/she had touched, the user then became active on Wikipedia again, and set to work making mostly minor edits to numerous (13 and counting) articles on classical Japanese literature, which is my preferred field.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] The user had previously only ever edited such articles in order to insert references to otherwise non-notable modern American poets, and as far as I can remember those articles could be counted on one hand, but he/she suddenly became highly prolific when told that I was not allowed edit any article that he/she had ever touched. When I made some edits to a couple of those articles, the user immediately told on me again[38], and I was blocked for 24 hours.[39] The admin also further emphasized the new strict restraints on my ban.[40] While it might look like I followed the user to the latter set of articles (though not the first one, so the initial warning was essentially invalid), the fact is that my edits[41][42][43] were all completely benign and did not mark an "interaction" with the user in question. They had no impact whatsoever on what he/she wrote, and in fact, one of those edits[44] was primarily made to wikilink a relevant article I had just created, and I even took care to maintain his/her prose despite it not matching the article I had started.

I requested[45] an unblock, given these circumstances, but my request was rejected by a second admin based on my having been in breach of a technicality in the interaction ban.[46] The first admin did, however, recommend that I come here to request a lift of the ban.[47]

So here I am.

I am not in any way interested in going back to "interacting" with Tristan noir. However, I need this interaction ban to be lifted (or at least lightened) so that I don't have to check every time I edit an article in my preferred field to see if he/she has edited it first, and don't have to fear getting blocked because of minor technicalities. My interaction ban was initially imposed because I asked for it, and I have since come to realize that it is having the opposite of the positive impact I expected. It is preventing me from fixing these and similar articles, and in fact allows Tristan noir much more freedom than it does me (I have no interest in going around "claiming" articles in his/her special field), despite the ban initially being proposed in order to restrain his/her activities. Most of Tristan noir's recent edits have been benign or somewhat positive. If he/she keeps up this kind of edit, I would be happy to edit the same articles as him/her in a peaceable manner; but under the current ban, I am immediately blocked every time I edit an article that Tristan noir has ever touched.

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: as far as I am aware, interaction bans normally do not prohibit the accidental and non-controversial editing of the same articles. Why was this one interpreted/enforced in this uncommonly strict way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, but apparently it was not Tristan noir's, so when he complained about my edit to Mokichi Saitō, Drmies told me off and reverted my edit, even though that edit had been both accidental and non-controversial. In reality I think it was more of a breach for him to be closely following my edits and to immediately complain when I did something he didn't like. But the technicalities of this ban means he is allowed do that and not get blocked, while I am not allowed to edit any of the above pages unless I want to get blocked. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through contributions, I note that with the exception of Uta monogatari and two related articles, Tristan hasn't been editing pages that look like Japanese poetry until very recently. Were that not the case, your argument would collapse, but it strongly buttresses your case. Meanwhile, you're editing in topics that I can see you were doing at least as far back as 2008. More interestingly, Tristan violated the ban by editing the Mokichi Saitō after you'd done it; complaining about an interaction ban violation and immediately proceeding to do the same thing is a good indicator of lack of good faith. His request to Drmies to sanction you is a good enough warning to himself; I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating his ban. Now: why would he be aware that you'd edited these pages if he weren't watching you? And why would he begin to edit in a completely new field so suddenly? The first question means that he's not leaving you alone, and the second means that you're right about him trying to block you. For this reason, I support unbanning you but leaving his ban in place. Nyttend (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nytend's proposal, undo the topic ban on Elvenscout only, leaving the topic ban on Tristan in place. My analysis is the same, Tristan violated the ban, not Elvenscout. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing Elvenscout's interaction ban and retaining Tristan's, per Nyttend's analysis (with which I concur). I would also recommend increasing Tristan's block to indef, for wikihounding and gaming the system. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Nyttends proposal. Pass a Method talk 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Nyttend's analysis, with the admonishment to elvenscout742 to continue staying away from initiating interaction with Tristan as he/she has been doing. Zad68 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I was not made aware until now of any violation by Tristan. If I had, I would have taken the exact same action I took against Elvenscout. You'll note that the terms of the ban included not editing the same articles (not the same field) because that was part of Elvenscout's original complaint (and it's still part of his complaint--the "undermining" references). Let me add something, if I may: that the ban was voluntary, certainly on Elvenscout's part, is immaterial for the terms of the ban, but shows Elvenscout's good will (which I never doubted), and I was and am more sympathetic to their side than to Tristan's, whose good faith back in November I wasn't completely sure of, but the way the cookie crumbled at ANI, for better or for worse, was the interaction ban with no further actions taken against Tristan. (I hope I am remembering all this correctly, and EdJohnston looked over the terms of the ban as well.) If, as it appears (haven't looked at the diffs yet), Tristan broke the terms too (whether they did it first or not is immaterial) then a block is justified, of course. If I missed, somehow or somewhere, that it was brought to my attention, I am very sorry for it.

  So, if the consensus here turns out to be that Tristan is in fact hounding Elvenscout (something which I did not disagree with at the ANI thread and in conversation with Elvenscout) and their behavior is disruptive enough for an indef block, possibly a ban de facto or de jure, I have no problem with that (or with a continued injunction for Tristan to stay away from Elvenscout, and not vice versa). And let me point out, speaking of crumbling cookies, that the ANI thread could already have ended with that had more editors/admins weighed in. As it was, Anthonyhcole agreed with Elvenscout's charge, but that isn't enough in an ANI discussion to lead to such a drastic solution; the proposed and agreed-upon interaction ban was reasonable given the discussion. We've already had more admin commentary here in less than a day than we had at the ANI discussion that ran for two weeks. I could give you my thoughts on why that went the way it did, but that's mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, it looks to me as if you were fed a rather disingenuous story by Tristan — you didn't know because he didn't tell you. Another sign of bad faith and gaming the system by Tristan, it seems to me: Elvenscout is giving the whole story (I investigated and found nothing substantial that was missing or misrepresented), but Tristan gave only the tiniest threads necessary to show that a ban was violated, with nothing about what he happened to be doing or why he happened to know about Elvenscout's actions. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, Nyttend, and I wish that we had had more involvement in the ANI thread: Elvenscout had suggested to me some problems with Tristan's editing (which included a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor--don't remember the name, but I'm sure Elvenscout does, and again I hope I'm remembering this correctly) after we got to work on Tanka in English. BTW, the situation on Mokichi Saitō is not so simple since Tristan was indeed the first of the two to edit it; it was Elvenscout revert of those edits that prompted my first warning. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been avoiding further comment here to avoid jinxing it (this is the first really positive input I've had with a problem that has been bugging me since September, and I thank you all!), but I need to clarify something: My edit to Mokichi Saitō was not a "reversion" of TN's edit.[48][49] I mostly just cleaned up the refs. This is why I complained when Drmies reverted my edit, although I understand that TN was probably the one who misled Drmies into believing my edit had been in bad faith (it wouldn't be the first time). My edit was not an "interaction" with TN. TN's more recent edits, however, were obviously made in direct response to mine. Therefore, it seems reasonable that their edits should be taken as at least as much of a violation as mine. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• One-way IBANs don't work. A broad TBAN for Tristan would be a better solution. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• No objection to that. Whatever's the best way to un-sanction a good contributor without permitting additional disruption from a problematic one. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just for clarity's sake (if someone can do this better in terms of lay-out, go ahead and tweak). IBAN for Tristan, supported by Nyttend, GregJackP, Yunshui, Pass a Method, Zad68. Indef block for Tristan: Yunshui. TBAN for Tristan: Nathan Johnson, Nyttend. I support any unban of Elvenscout and any kind of ban for Tristan at this moment. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban as well as/instead of an IBAN; Nathan's argument makes sense. Am I really the only one angling for an indef block? God, I'm an inhuman monster... Yunshui 雲‍水 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it means anything, I'd support an indef block. Tristan noir has essentially been following me for five months now, and the only edits he ever made to Wikipedia before that were to an article he created that I can't even show you because it was blocked for being a blatant copyright violation. But honestly a poetry ban would probably work just as well, since he'll stop editing altogether once he is told he's not allowed hound me anymore. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting of all bans on User:Elvenscout742 and imposing topic ban on User:Tristan noir. Nyttend's analysis looks watertight to me, and it seems clear that Tristan noir has been hounding Elvenscout742 and laying traps in the hope of either provoking an inadvertent interaction ban breach or preventing the editing of a large number of items. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response: My comments here may be wasted effort. It appears that Elvenscout742’s request above to modify or lift the interaction ban that we mutually volunteered to accept has now, through the zeal of various editors, been transformed into a general indictment of this user. That nine editors have cast a vote before waiting for my reply strongly suggests that any argument I offer is destined to fall upon deaf ears. I did not intend to try the patience of those present by my tardiness but my appearance was briefly delayed by my being placed under a 24 hour editing ban by Nyttend within one hour of Elvenscout’s opening of this appeal at WP:ANI. That troubled me briefly, as it seemed effectually to grant Elvenscout 24 hours to build a consensus while I struggled to dislodge the gag from my mouth, but c’est la vie where, in love as in war, all is fair. Nevertheless, let me attempt a summary, in good faith, of the situation as I see it.

1) The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.”

2) Elvenscout violated these terms, as he himself admits, with an edit to Mokichi Saitō. He asserts that his edit was benign and that there was no cause for this user to complain to an administrator. What he conveniently neglects to report is that my complaint involved two edits. The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. In the past few days, Elvenscout on his talk page here, here and here might be viewed as having violated the interaction ban yet again by referencing this user by name and recycling old personal attacks against me.

3) One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. It appears that said editors are merely blindly accepting Elvenscout’s allegations at face value. The diffs I offer immediately above and below this paragraph show that if anyone is guilty of hounding or gaming, it is Elvenscout.

4) Elvenscout’s representation that I followed him “around various articles” is made without evidence. His recent 24 hour editing ban, however, came about as a result of his following me directly to five different articles, not one of which he’d edited previously, as documented in my complaint here. This is the same behavior that Elvenscout exhibited with me previously and is one of the chief reasons I volunteered to accept an interaction ban originally. Without dredging up the entire, sad history, I offer only a few examples of Elvenscout’s pre-interaction ban hounding. I attempted to disengage myself from earlier controversies with Elvenscout with an edit on Sept 18 of Haibun but was promptly tracked there by Elvenscout with this edit on Sept 21. Similarly, I offered an edit on Oct 6 of Prosimetrum but was shadowed there, within hours, by this edit of Elvenscout’s. In each instance, Elvenscout had never edited the articles previously and in each instance he engaged this user, and other participating editors, in lengthy talk-page debates that, with subsequent Rfcs and dispute resolutions initiated by him, further disrupted progress on the articles in question.

5) Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. He is entitled to his speculations, of course, but I don’t see why his idle daydreaming should be granted any particular weight in this discussion. No one is required to do more than they wish to do here at Wikipedia; all editing is voluntary.

6) Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban (and specifically Drmies’ decision that neither party was to edit an article the other editor had previously edited) somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. I’ve edited 13 articles (by Elvenscout’s count) since imposition of the interaction ban. A look at his edit history will show that he has edited considerably more. I will allow him to be his own accountant. My point, however, is that I’m thereby restricted from a much larger group of articles than is E. due to E’s prolific editing. And I am not whining about it.

7) Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind and, where editors other than Elvenscout have worked upon the same articles, I’ve had no complaints (and no controversies). No article on Wikipedia is the possession of any party, and much less does anyone hold a deed to his preferred field. Classical Japanese literature is somewhat larger, by my estimate, than a modest 13 articles and Elvenscout has room, and more than enough of it, to edit to his heart’s content.

8) Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Is seniority a factor in determining the issue here, viz., whether or not an interaction ban should be lifted or modified?

9)The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. As an aside, while Nyttend subsequently reverted my edits at Mokichi Saitō, he allowed the offending edit by Elvenscout to stand (since Elvenscout had unilaterally taken it upon himself to revert Drmies’ previous revert of the same). That, along with the timing of the block that has delayed my response, call into question Nyttend’s neutrality in this matter.

10) Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked.

If I’ve neglected anything in my comments, I’m confident that I can rely upon my old friend Elvenscout to point it out.Tristan noir (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to points where you mention me. (8) Elvenscout obviously was editing in this field before the ban, but you essentially weren't. I brought it up simply because it's part of the evidence that you're following him around and trying to get in his way. (9) You got Elvenscout blocked for editing an article you'd edited; what do you expect to happen when you edit an article he's edited? Who created the page is irrelevant; it's the fact that you're sticking to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit, a course of action that's generally seen as problematic. One final thing: I know absolutely nothing of Japanese poetry; the only reason that I got involved here was this thread. I was convinced that Elvenscout was in the right and you in the wrong, both because of Elvenscout's arguments and because I investigated and saw his statements to be true; I've never heard of either of you before, as far as I can remember, so I couldn't be biased or think better of one of you beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I don't know why I even need to bother at this point, since everyone present knows what's going on, but I will attempt to briefly explain TN's above misrepresentations anyway.

• • • The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.” Yes, I read it as meaning what it says: if TN "has been working on" an article, I am not allowed show up suddenly and begin editing it, which would be a clear interaction. One short series of edits several months earlier does not count as "being working on", and my making a benign edit to clean up the citations a bit does not count as an inappropriate interaction. At least in my reading.
    • The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. I didn't mention it (except in a parenthetical statement) because I felt it was irrelevant to my request to be allowed edit articles on classical Japanese literature. (Did I not say "that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban"?[50] I also provided the diff, so that anyone reading could judge TN's words for themselves.) I did, however, point out that TN's noticing my edits to completely unrelated pages indicates that he spent the two months he was not editing articles closely following my edits. The fact is that it was not a violation of an interaction ban with TN, because it was a direct response to another user who brought TN up without knowing the facts. That user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing/threatening me.
    • One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. By my count I have provided 33 diffs in my above post. TN's edit history clearly indicates that, when told he was not allowed interact with me, he stopped editing for well over a month, and his first edit upon returning was to complain about me. Shortly thereafter he started editing prolifically, in an area he knows I am interested in. He must also recall that I created the article on uta monogatari, and he recently attempted to block me from editing the article on the second most famous uta monogatari, Yamato Monogatari.[51][52][53] Why did TN suddenly become so interested in classical Japanese literature when he was told I was not allowed to edit articles that he have edited? And why, when he had only edited around 10 articles in his previous four years on Wikipedia, did he suddenly edit 13 such articles in the space of a week?
    • Elvenscout’s representation that I followed him “around various articles” is made without evidence. I provided plenty of diffs evidence that he had only started editing Wikipedia in order to unilaterally ban me from editing articles on my favourite topic. Additionally, for a discussion of TN's history of following me prior to his effective retirement in November, I would point to my summary here. Basically, well over half of the pages TN edited were first edited by me, and his edits served exclusively to undermine me. TN mentions two pages where he tried to post spam/fringe theories, and I opposed him. He neglects to mention how he followed me to Tanka in English[54][55], Haiga[56][57], Glossary of literary terms[58][59], and Renku[60][61]. On most of these pages his activities were limited to attacking me on the talk page, and he has never actually contributed to the articles.
    • Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. One has to admit, it is suspicious that between August 2008 and September 2012, TN made only about 30 edits, all to the same article, then when I edited that article he suddenly started editing on an almost daily basis, interacting with me constantly, and then he suddenly stopped editing for close to two months.
    • Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban ... somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. Yes, I do. And I specify the reason. I am not interested in "claiming" articles that I am not interested just to spite TN. His actions over the last few days clearly indicate that he is. Therefore, while TN is not prohibited from editing in his favourite area (apparently modern English poetry) at all, I am currently banned from touching the 14 or so articles on Japanese literature that he has edited.
    • Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind Which other editors has TN allowed to edit? The early history of the article at Uta monogatari clearly showed (at least until it got blocked for CO violations) that while TN will allow edits he likes, he will not allow edits he doesn't like. And this post clearly indicates that he doesn't want me editing these pages, regardless of how benign my edits were. Did he intend to add a link to Tōnomine Shōshō Monogatari to the article on Fujiwara no Takamitsu himself? Or would he have allowed another user to introduce that wikilink at some time down the line (who knows how many years that could take)? What is wrong with me introducing the link immediately? Given that the previous article I created was shortly accused of being an orphan, surely it is natural to want to link the article to its most obvious partner?
    • Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Actually, I agree that seniority is not so important here. That is why I didn't point out that actually my first edit to Wikipedia under this account back in 2005 (I edited anonymously for a while) was about Japanese literature (interpreted broadly, if the Kojiki is literature). However, the fact is that TN only started editing these articles immediately upon being told that he could block me from editing them. I don't know why he thought he could get away with such blatant gaming of the system, or why he thought I would not appeal the ban under such circumstances.
    • The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. Ummm... actually, as I have stated numerous times now, my initial edit was not a violation because it was an accident. It was made two months after TN's most recent edit.[62][63] The edit that got TN blocked, however, was made nine hours after my most recent edit, and not long before he contacted Drmies making it clear that he was aware of my most recent edit and was unapologetic about editing the article nonetheless.[64][65][66]
    • Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked. I have already posted on Drmies' talk page about that. Basically, he was confusing TN's meatpuppet Kujakupoet with the now-banned user who bizarrely cited TN in a dispute I was having with him, User:JoshuSasori.

And that, my friends, is why the previous ANI (and numerous other earlier attempts to deal with this problem) failed: TN posted a massive diatribe against me, taking various facts out of context, forcing me to respond in an equally lengthy post. It's a good thing some good admins were able to follow this problem before this happened this time. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• My misremembering an association with a blocked editor (Elvenscout has cleared this up on my talk page already) has no bearing on this dispute: if Tristan had been associated with such an editor that wouldn't change the facts of the matter. I mentioned it to indicate that early on I was already convinced that one side in this ongoing dispute was more right than the other, not to taint the other side. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Break for convenience

Regarding the block, I don't generally see this kind of situation as an interaction worthy of a block, but in this situation, Tristan had seen it as an interaction, and since everyone should be treated as equals, I decided to respond to the situation on Tristan's terms. I would have hesitated anyway if I'd not been convinced that Tristan was editing in bad faith. Can we declare right now that Elvenscout is unbanned and then return to Tristan? Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to revoke Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger

I saw this mentioned in a discussion (where they were attempted to be used to object to him photographing camera equipment he happened to own, which is, it must be said, outside any reasonable interpretation of the topic ban anyway), was a bit surprised, and reviewed it. I honestly don't think these serve any non-punitive purpose anymore, if they ever did serve a purpose. As it's been a year and a half, unless anyone has good reason to continue upholding them, I think it's time to lift them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I read it a bit different. What I see on that page is:

1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds

2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed

Could you please give a link to the discussion where you stumbled upon, leading you to review these topic bans? The Banner talk 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As you wish: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Canon_EF_40mm_STM_lens_(focus_stacked_version). I don't think its mention in that thread was justified, but I do think, frankly, that Tony forgot about it is probably a good sign he hasn't done any behaviour that was worth reminding him of it in the 18 months since. I sincerely doubt he'd have been allowed to forget about it had he carried on in such a manner that would justify bringing it up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you the the mention of the topic bans there was a bit harsh. On the other hand, it is easy to read "uploading images about himself, broadly construed" as "uploading images about himself and his possessions." (as the discussion also mentioned the many pictures of prizes posted on his TP). The Banner talk 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lift ban 18 months is long enough to give the user another shot. (Note: I participated in that discussion as User:Atmoz.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I notified 28bytes, who closed the discussion at Archive706. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Nyttend noted above, he let me know about this discussion; I'll let others weigh in on whether the topic bans are still necessary, but for the record I think it's quite a stretch to say that a topic ban preventing "uploading images about himself, broadly construed" could cover objects like this. I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the topic ban, even considering the "broadly construed" bit. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Lift ban per Nathan Johnson. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• (e/c) The featured sounds process is dead and has been for yonks, so a topic ban on participation is otiose. If FS does start up again, it will require a lot of discussion about how to do it in order to avoid the problems that led to his demise, and I see no particular purpose in pre-emptively banning TTT from potential future discussions about "WP:FS Mark II". I agree that the topic ban does not cover photographs of an item of photographic equipment that he happens to own. Having said that, I see no particular merit in keeping the ban on "uploading images of himself, broadly construed" at this time; if the lifting of it proves to be problematic, then the topic ban can be easily reimposed. Bencherlite^Talk 21:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• As some context for my comments in that review (which is what Adam is getting at, I think), Tony has been repeatedly nominating images of his camera equipment for FPC over the last couple of weeks. These images largely haven't been in the article for a week as is required, and there has been a strong consensus that they don't meet the FP standards. I'd commented on several of the previous nominations, and raised the potential topic ban issue only when Tony kept posting these doomed nominations (other editors had previously asked that he cease these nominations given that he appears to be using them as means of getting feedback on his photography, which isn't the intended purpose of FPC). In short, I think that this pattern of behaviour violates - at very least - the spirit of the topic ban. The image in question here was nominated the day it was uploaded and didn't have a chance of passing as the lens is lightly covered in dust (a specific concern raised in some of Tony's previous recent camera equipment FPCs) and the lighting is clearly a bit off. His other recent nominations of his camera equipment are at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Tiffen UV filter Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (version 2) (note that in several cases Tony uploaded completely different photos during these nominations after receiving negative feedback about the photo which was originally nominated, which is also violates the requirement that nominated images have been in the article for a week). This is basically the same pattern of behavior which led to the topic bans being instituted in the first place, and so I oppose lifting them at this time. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The OTRS team needs help!

OTRS is receiving an increasing number of emails, and we are greatly in need of more volunteers to catch up and help prevent backlog. OTRS volunteers choose how many emails they'd like to answer and have access to a large number of templated replies that can be used or modified to speed up processing. Your private information would not be exposed to the public; replies are issued from a shared Wikimedia email address.

We are looking especially for people who are strong in any or all of the following areas:

1. Familiar with processes on Wikipedia and able to answer routine questions about them (some common responses include refdesk referrals; explanations of deletion processes or how to edit. The kind of thing you might run into at the Teahouse or Help desks);
2. Familiar with acceptable licenses for images and text and willing to handle correspondence related to permissions (many routine, but some issues include unclear statements of permission or permissions issued by people who can't be clearly connected to the source);
3. Familiar with policies regarding living people and organizations and able to assist article subjects with lightweight needs (updating logos, correcting small information) or serious concerns (allegations of gross inaccuracy; bias).

For more information about volunteering, please see m:OTRS/Recruiting. This is a great chance to be part of the public face of Wikimedia. We can't always help people, but we do our best to leave them impressed with our professionalism and responsiveness. Please consider helping out, and please spread the word to others about the need.

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact the OTRS leadership team members. Thank you! Rjd0060 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Dmitri1999 for having contributed content to the site.

Seriously, now? Having professional photographers contribute their work is now grounds to delete his userpage - less than a day after the point was first raised, and before anyone could have dealt with it - see User_talk:Dmitri1999 for rather shocking unilateral behaviour on User:Hoary's part - and go around removing his photos from English Wikipedia because he dared to contribute high-quality photos, then mentioned "I can do this kind of work"?

One may say that's unfair. However, given the precipitous behaviour of deleting the userpage instead of treating the person like a human....

Look, no matter how bad the userpage was, the slightest bit of working with the individual would have likely kept us a talented photographer. Instead, it's already got to the point where he's asking for all his work to be removed, because of the systematic harassment campaign dedicated to removing his work.

Is this really what we want to do here? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I am not surprised that he is pissed off. This could have been handled better.--ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is not atypical on Wikipedia, it's widespread; I've seen several somewhat similar situations in just the last few days. We really need to change the way we deal with good-faith editors when we think they're doing something wrong. The reaction we shouldn't take is immediately kick them in the nuts with the justification "well, policy was being violated, I had to kick them in the nuts. Please show how they weren't violating policy". Have the policy discussion first, and the nut kicking will, 90 times out of a hundred, become unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that some professional photographers may come here not with the primary goal of improving the encyclopedia, but because they see Wikipedia as a powerful promotional medium - and we do not allow that usage. (Of course it's not only photographers who thinlk this way, many businesses of all sorts attempt to use us for their own purposes.) To me, the key is this: if the person involved has it explained to them what we are about and how they can help – as seems to have happened here judging from their talk page – and instead of sticking around and contributing they take their ball and go home, then they were never here for the right reason to begin with. We do indeed need professional photographers, and experts of all kinds, but we need them on our terms, not on theirs. I see no "harrassment" here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ken, WP:AGF.

Chemical equation

{{subst:Chemical equation}}

Correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equation

Greetings! Please remove protection or correct mistake (url) on Web-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equation

External links

• Master of Chemical Equations - Real chemical equation balancer.

to

External links

• Master of Chemical Equations - Real chemical equation balancer.

Many thanks. Angorohovski