Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Block duration for KW: I don't think you're doing him any favours in your arguments, frankly.
Eric Corbett (talk | contribs)
45,616 edits
→‎Block duration for KW: repeating lies doesn't magically make them come true
Line 454: Line 454:
*1 month block, with appeal allowed after two weeks and indefinite topic ban of RfA excluding !votes (i.e. allowed to vote, but not to take part in threaded discussion). Whilst I can plausibly believe that the "implications" of the comment were not intended, it was still an unacceptable comment and personal attack.--<span style="">[[User:Gilderien|Gilderien]] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">[[User talk:Gilderien|Chat]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Gilderien|List of good deeds]]</span></span> 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
*1 month block, with appeal allowed after two weeks and indefinite topic ban of RfA excluding !votes (i.e. allowed to vote, but not to take part in threaded discussion). Whilst I can plausibly believe that the "implications" of the comment were not intended, it was still an unacceptable comment and personal attack.--<span style="">[[User:Gilderien|Gilderien]] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">[[User talk:Gilderien|Chat]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Gilderien|List of good deeds]]</span></span> 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
:*Unfortunately, KW's comments off-wiki make absolutely clear what implications he intended. He posted to a discussion of this incident saying "''If an editor were a sexual predator'', what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?" (emphasis added). He offered involvement in [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]] as his first suggestion. Classy. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
:*Unfortunately, KW's comments off-wiki make absolutely clear what implications he intended. He posted to a discussion of this incident saying "''If an editor were a sexual predator'', what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?" (emphasis added). He offered involvement in [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]] as his first suggestion. Classy. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
:*:That's an obviously deliberate misrepresentation of what he actually said, and goes a long way to support the idea that you are the one who should be blocked from interacting with him. I believe that he has already agreed to an interaction ban between the two of of you? And to perfectly honest I'd also be prepared to agree to a similar interaction ban, as I find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick I'd prefer never have to deal with again. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 00:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*Do not underestimate Kiefer. This sequence of events was utterly predictable, intentional and carefully crafted by Kiefer himself to generate this exact response. Kiefer carefully contorted his words to fool the minds eye so he could later point out we foolish we all are for misinterpreting them. Not all of us were fooled. He intentionally created disruption using the English language as a weapon, although not as cleverly as he thought, and he has been hoist by his own petard. More than anyone else I have given him every benefit of the doubt, often to the chagrin of others, but this attempt was so tediously obvious, so arrogant that it removes all doubt as to its intent. Whether you call it [[WP:POINT]]y, "suicide by admin" or simply self-destructive the result is the same. What Kiefer needs is an epiphany. Unfortunately, I know of no fixed period of time can ensure that happens. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] / [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] / [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|©]] / [[Special:EmailUser/Dennis Brown|@]] 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
*Do not underestimate Kiefer. This sequence of events was utterly predictable, intentional and carefully crafted by Kiefer himself to generate this exact response. Kiefer carefully contorted his words to fool the minds eye so he could later point out we foolish we all are for misinterpreting them. Not all of us were fooled. He intentionally created disruption using the English language as a weapon, although not as cleverly as he thought, and he has been hoist by his own petard. More than anyone else I have given him every benefit of the doubt, often to the chagrin of others, but this attempt was so tediously obvious, so arrogant that it removes all doubt as to its intent. Whether you call it [[WP:POINT]]y, "suicide by admin" or simply self-destructive the result is the same. What Kiefer needs is an epiphany. Unfortunately, I know of no fixed period of time can ensure that happens. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] / [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] / [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|©]] / [[Special:EmailUser/Dennis Brown|@]] 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
* From my understanding, he actually was blocked for 2.5 weeks out of his last 1 month block. I think enforcing anything less than 1 month is rewarding him for bad behavior. I also agree with the blocker that anything more than two months would be too much because on the whole, as I understand it, he is typically a good editor. So, I'll stick to my original suggestion above of six weeks, but I'll add the option to appeal after a month. After reading the above discussions I also feel that some kind of topic ban on RfA and probably RfB discussions is probably in order. I would think that three months would be reasonable at this time. [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]] ([[User talk:Technical 13|talk]]) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
* From my understanding, he actually was blocked for 2.5 weeks out of his last 1 month block. I think enforcing anything less than 1 month is rewarding him for bad behavior. I also agree with the blocker that anything more than two months would be too much because on the whole, as I understand it, he is typically a good editor. So, I'll stick to my original suggestion above of six weeks, but I'll add the option to appeal after a month. After reading the above discussions I also feel that some kind of topic ban on RfA and probably RfB discussions is probably in order. I would think that three months would be reasonable at this time. [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]] ([[User talk:Technical 13|talk]]) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:42, 5 June 2013

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

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

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

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

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Preemptively commenting that I have been sick for the past couple of days: not seriously, but enough that I feel like I haven't had the mental energy to give this the attention it deserves. It has not slipped my mind. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.

      (Initiated 10 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 7 September 2024) Restored from archive. Admin closure requested. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Done by StarMississippi. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

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

      (Initiated 105 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:National Rally#RFC: What words should appear in the "political position" line of the infobox?

      (Initiated 88 days ago on 20 June 2024) RfC already expired on this very controversial article and a formal closure is needed to prevent future edit warring. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 85 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 70 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      (Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 9 August 2024)

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article?

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Algeria#RfC on ethnic groups in the infobox

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 26 August 2024) Greetings closing admins, I would like to request a closure of RfC discussion of Algeria Algeria RfC discussion as the discussion has stabilized and it is due for closure. --Potymkin (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Potymkin: It's not due for closure, as it's been open for 19 days not 30. The last comment was four days ago, at 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC), so I also don't think that it's stabilised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      okay thank you for your output and also for correcting my form, I apologize for mistakes i made in the template on this form as this is my first time. I have made wrong judgement when I read " 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." I fully trust your judgement that the discussion is not yet ready for closure. the person who started the RfC @Kovcszaln6 said in UserTalk Page " In order to avoid any future trouble (see WP:INVOLVED) I decided that it's best if I don't close the RfC myself. As I have stated, I'd suggest that you request the RfC's closure at WP:RFCL" so what do you recommend I do next ?
      Delete the Template and I restate it in 11 days ?
      or keep the templete until it ticks 30 days have passed ? Potymkin (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Rename and re-theme ITN: request for an early close

      (Initiated 4 days ago on 12 September 2024) There is almost unanimous consensus to close this RfC early, but I think this needs an uninvolved closer. There's currently an ongoing RFCBEFORE discussion in anticipation of a workshopped RfC on the future of ITN, so a quick review of this close request would be greatly appreciated. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      5 to 9 (just counting heads) is not "unanimous". Neither is a list of several opposers supporting close (with one supporter "ambivalent", and one of the RFC opposers opposing the early close). And a rename proposal doesn't interfere with whatever other discussions you may be having. If some future discussion does even more - great - consensus can change, after all. RFCs run for 30 days. And this one should too. - jc37 21:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was referring to the discussion about an early close being nearly unanimous, not the RfC itself. A closer here will weigh the arguments and make an appropriate decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:New South Wales Police Force#RFC - former police officers Rogerson and McNamara crimes in 2014

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 August 2024) Hello. Could an uninvolved editor please summarise and close this discussion. Thanks Melbguy05 (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
      CfD 0 0 8 12 20
      TfD 0 0 1 4 5
      MfD 0 0 4 5 9
      FfD 0 0 1 1 2
      RfD 0 0 27 19 46
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_9#All-Star_Batman_and_Robin

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 22 July 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 28#Category:Education scandals and controversies

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 28 August 2024) I think this is an easy one, both to close and to implement – {{db-xfd}} is your friend for non-admins :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2#Category:LGBT YouTube celebrities

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 2 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

      (Initiated 285 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

      (Initiated 133 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 111 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 109 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 99 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

      (Initiated 78 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Attribution for offensive text that was oversighted but screencapped by subject

      Normally when an article is vandalized with horrible things about a BLP, it is oversighted and not mentioned again. In the case of Anita Sarkeesian, she took a screen capture of it (http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/), and allowed it to be published in Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/). Since it is technically free and since it illustrates the topic (where the vandalism of Wikipedia itself is a topic of discussion), I've included it in the article (File:Anita Sarkeesian - Wikipedia Harassment.png). The problem is, how do I give attribution to edits that are currently oversighted revision-deleted but featured in that image? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Just for accuracy's sake, though it doesn't make much difference to the question at hand: the edits in question were revision deleted, not oversighted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh. It appears that a BLP includes a section on how the article was vandalized, with a screenshot showing what a terrific job the vandals did. I can see that a case could made to justify this extreme violation of WP:DENY, but I find it worrying. The fact that the subject has attracted vile abuse may have some encyclopedic value, but I don't see why Wikipedia should cooperate in that endeavor. Perhaps the section should be heavily trimmed (no illustration), with just a mention of what two reliable secondary sources have written? Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, just remember that WP:DENY is an essay: we cannot "violate" it as if it were a project policy or guideline. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I would say Wired violated DENY when they published the screenshot. WP vandalism made the news in a reliable secondary source, we're reporting on that reporting. If we wanted to cork this and save face we should have done so before it saw re-publication. It's silly to not use the screenshot, as it is free and clearly explains the topic. We can't reasonably say that we're protecting the BLP by editing it, when she published the screenshot herself, continues to host it on her website, and provided it to a magazine for further publication. The edits were rev-deleted, so we can't be seen to be co-operating in the slander, just acting as our own tertiary source. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't seem to me that any of the responses above deal with the actual question. As I see it, Wired actually broke the law by publishing that image, because it contains text from Wikipedia and they did not comply with Wikipedia's licensing terms (which require a specific kind of attribution). Since the image itself is technically a copyvio, there is no way of attributing it that will make it cease to be a copyvio. However this is a very unusual situation and it seems unlikely that any sort of legal action would be taken. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the case could be made that any image of a Wikipedia page that contains the title of that page is effectively providing the attribution. For example, this is an image of a WP page that is titled Anita Sarkeesian. One could reasonably assume that Wired readers would know that the attribution would be located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. Regardless, this is covered under fair use, as they are discussing the vandalism specifically. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Johnny. The "source" line for the image should read something like [insert Wired URL here], modified from a screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. The little date addition to the bottom right corner isn't really enough to attract separate copyright in my opinion, and it's not particularly relevant to the situation, so it should stay but could easily be removed should someone challenge it by saying that we're infringing on her copyright. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • She can't claim a copyright violation, all WP text is share-alike, meaning that any derivative work is the same license. She pixelated the image and added the date, but her additions are automatically CC-BY-SA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I tend to share Johnuniq's concern, above. JohnnyMrNinja replaced Sarkeesian's Kickstarter image with the vandalism screenshot, and less than a day later asked for the Kickstarter image, which had sat peacefully in Sarkeesian's biography for the best part of a year, to be deleted under CSD F5. That seems a little over-eager! I've reinserted the Kickstarter image for now; its removal had not been discussed. The screenshot of the vandalised biography is available in List of Wikipedia controversies (now linked from that section of the biography), and given what it is, I'd say that article is a better place for it than the biography of the person who was the target of the abuse. I've started a talk page section at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Kickstarter_Image_vs._vandalism_image. Andreas JN466 02:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • If by peaceful you mean a no-consensus deletion discussion and if by over-eager you mean marking the unused fair-use image with an unused fair-use image tag. That non-free image is now listed at FfD as it now has free replacements. That is more of a content issue than an admin one, and none of this is related to the original question, which has been answered. Unless there is any other issue with the image's attribution, perhaps it would be more productive to move further comments to the FfD or talk page and let this section archive. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal to move on

      WP:IAR successfully applied for the sake of everyone's sanity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pjc747 a different kind of case came up. Editor was blocked for VOA a while back, which he claims was a compromised account. Edits before that were fine. Original account was User:Pjc747 and it was blocked 3 December 2010. He started a new account User:Spartan7W the next month in January 2011 and spot checking his edits, I didn't see anything problematic. The only reason he was discovered is he used the old name in his current signature, so he wasn't trying to hide anything, he just wasn't aware of the policy, which is plausible. Technically, it is socking now, meaning he should log in to the old account, request unblock, or wait 6 months for a WP:STANDARDOFFER but he would rather use this established account. Forcing standard process seems overly bureaucratic in this one particular case. A unilateral decision by me seems inappropriate in this circumstance so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. This is one of those rare cases where I think Wikipedia is better served if we ignore the rules as a community.

      I propose we move on, let him edit unrestricted, and build an encyclopedia.

      I see a reasonable idea, community support, etc. for doing this. I believe there's consensus. However, I have notified blocking admin Dreadstar on his talk page of the situation and discussion and invited him to comment prior to acting. If he objects prior to tomorrow morning I will hold off until discussion converges again. If he does not I intend to unblock and resolve this discussion tomorrow morning ish. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems reasonable to me. Had the block been more recent or more contentious (or memorable) than a routine VOA, I would have notified at the start. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The editor would prefer to use the new account, so I don't think the unblock is required, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There'd better be a permanent linkage between the accounts, if that's the case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses

      Relevent discussions before I get into details:

      At the reference desks, there has been what appears to be recently uncovered someone who is, for all intents and purposes, violating the spirit of WP:SOCK by using multiple personal identifiers including the following:

      • Wickwack
      • Ratbone
      • Keit
      • Floda

      None of these is a registered account, but they all edit from the same Australian service provider (Telstra) with a highly dynamic IP address, and they always sign their posts using one of those monikers, though they have never formally registered an account, they have clearly represented themselves as four distinct personalities. There is some compelling evidence, however, based on the style and overlap of editing, the fact that they all edit from the same geographic area, all sign their posts in the same manner (though they use different names, the way they sign their name to their IP posts is the same), and that they frequently show up to support the others when a conflict arises is quite disturbing. There are even instances where more than one of the "personalities" will edit in quick succession from the exact same IP address. Not everyone in the above discussions is fully convinced of the connection, but a decent case based on diffs and other evidence has been built by User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Modocc. I'd rather not copy the entirety of their evidence here, as that would take this post into WP:TLDR territory (If I'm not there already), but I'd like to ask that as many people as possible review that evidence, and then vote on the following ban proposal. If you either a) disagree that the evidence is compelling enough or b) agree that the evidence is clear, but still do not support the ban proposed below, please feel free to oppose it. If, however, you think this type of WP:GAME behavior is disruptive and dishonest and should be stopped, please consider supporting it. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Addendum: I know I am supposed to notify the user in question, but they edit from a very dynamic range of IP addresses, changing randomly. I have no idea what the most recent IP address they have used is, but they do actively monitor WT:RD and other parts of the reference desk, so I have left a notice there hoping they will see it. Any other suggestions as to how to meet the notification requirements are much obliged, I have every desire to hear this person's side of the story, but I am at a loss as to how to more efficiently notify them than I have already done, so any help in this department would be appreciated. --Jayron32 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I put a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.178.49.220 --Modocc (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Topic ban of IP editor known as Wickwack and other aliases

      The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages.

      • Support as nom. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support due to manipulative use of "alias". -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Having been gamed, I'm inclined to delve into the archives to see what other misconduct might have occurred that might warrant a full site ban. -Modocc (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Unless the editor is willing to register an account and provide some rationale/alternative for their behaviour.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I'm generally a supporter of a lot of things WickWack says, but Jayron has convinced me that his pretty obvious messing around with aliases is a big breach of at least the spirit of what we're on about here. He says some very constructive stuff on the Ref Desks, and he has a ready solution if he wants to stay with us. Register. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Support But without enforcement until after he has posted on WT:RD or W:RD, and had a chance to have his say (if he doesn't, then the lack of a ban makes no difference, but he should have the chance to comment to stop it coming into effect, rather than to remove it). MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      But do you see the problem? He is not registered. His IP address changes frequently. (Not his fault. It's how his ISP operates.) So how can we communicate with him? (Personally, I think we should force editors in such situations to register, precisely to avoid the problem we have here.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My point is that there should not be a presumption of guilt until it can be reasonably assumed that he has at least seen the argument. When he posts on WT:RD (or on W:RD, which will probably cause someone to point him here), we can safely presume he has seen it. If he doesn't post on either, then the topic ban makes no difference anyway. In practice, it makes little difference, I'm just more comfortable with him defending the ban before it comes in than trying to revoke it once it is in force. MChesterMC (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support but conditional on not registering; i.e. he (?) should be allowed to register an account and no longer be bothered by this, but looking at the evidence allowing the continuation of the ip socking outweighs the benefits of their frequently useful answer on the RD.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question/(Non-administrator comment) I'm curious, if this editor is unregistered and has a dynamic enough IP address that it is causing an issue confirming that they have received notification that there is an issue with their style of contributing, how is a topic ban going to help in protecting the community? Short of blocking the wide range of IPs the editor edits from, what is going to stop them? I see such a wide IP range-block as doing more harm than good keeping out multiple other good editors that follow all the rules in an attempt to stop one stick in the mud. Forcing everyone to register goes against what the spirit of Wikipedia is, and I would never support it (as I'm sure most others wouldn't as well). I am simply at a loss for words and ideas that might actually prove useful to prevent this kind of damage. Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I presume this is why the ban is "enforceable by reverting their contributions". Mind you, if he stops signing his name(s), we open up a whole different can of worms when we try and decide if a post is Wickwacky enough to revert (or should that just be whacky?) MChesterMC (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wickwack signs his posts because he wants people to know that he posted them - despite an every-changing IP. Forcing him to be truly anonymous and to gain no credit for his work would be a genuine punishment that would hurt him. He could pick another name to attach to his IP posts - but as soon as we realize that this is another sock - he'd have to change it and start over with building a good reputation. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I could accept that. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - The IP-hopping creates additional difficulty for us in monitoring his activities. He is not compelled to IP-hop, and there is no reason for us to view that as extenuating. If he creates an account and stops pretending to be multiple people then he can ask to have this ban reviewed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You haven't read the thread properly, have you? It's his ISP, the biggest in Australia, that does the changing of the IP addresses. It's not the editor's choice. While I too support sanctions, I get cross with posts that are poorly informed, apparently by choice. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - It's going to be tough to impose a punishment that will stick - but doing nothing at all just gives permission to any malcontent with a rapidly cycling DHCP address to run riot through our encyclopedia. If Wickwack (et al) is handed a block - then we can at least delete contributions that are identified by that set of monikers on sight. Since these activities seem most common on the Ref Desks - where a small community of editors is easily able to monitor all posts - that's not an unreasonable consequence. I get a sense that Wickwack takes pleasure from being credited with his posts - which is why he signs them - and I doubt that he'll become a totally anonymous IP poster...so a seemingly symbolic punishment might have more teeth than one might at first suspect. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last chance per Medeis, ie unless he commits to an identity and stops socking. His contributions were often good; his chosen format was a pain but within the rules. I fully support the principle of IP editing, but a topic ban doesn't force him to register to edit any area where he has no problematic history. If he's genuine, he'll appreciate why this is required in view of the diffs. If it turns into Whack-a-Wickwack, at least we'll know where we stand. I really hope he registers. - Karenjc 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Partial oppose. I haven't heard compelling evidence, and I know sometimes Wickwack gives good answers. The proposed remedy is that we delete his stuff on sight, but since we might not know for sure who it is that could mean discarding good content by a new volunteer. I would suggest we simply give ourselves broad latitude to remove comments by him we think are abusive, but also the freedom to leave anything that seems helpful. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is the smoking gun I am copying it from the Ref Desk Talk Page linked to above and archiving it since it's a quote and to make it stand out. Another bold inset format would be fine if someone wants to edit it.

      TenOfAllTrades' smoking gun evidnece of gaming the system copied from the Ref Desk Talk Page

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

      By themselves, those instances might be explained away as (admittedly rather implausible) coincidence. Damning, however, is that while editing from the IP address 121.215.10.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wickwack/Ratbone appears to have inadvertently slipped up, first editing this talk page and signing as Ratbone, then about half a day later, posting a rather mean-spirited comment on WP:RD/Sci while signing as Wickwack. Either he forgot to reset his router between posts, or Telstra left his IP static for a lot longer than usual.
      If Wickwack/Ratbone just liked to use different names from time to time, it might be no more than a mildly-irritating eccentricity. Pretending to be two or more separate individuals to try to win arguments on the Ref Desk, or to try to protect himself from sanctions on this talk page rises to the level of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And here are a few more. A very quick search through the archives finds
      ...and I'm losing interest in looking for more. If you do a Wikipedia-namespace search for pairwise combinations of Ratbone, Keit, Wickwack, and Floda, anyone can find dozens of Ref Desk pages where they show up together, often to offer mutual support and endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

      • Just to ping someone reading; this has been open for a few days now, at least 2 have gone by without any further comment. Can we get an uninvolved admin to evaluate the discussion? --Jayron32 03:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks as if the 'Supports' have it, but there is strong consensus too for a last chance. However, rather than giving him more incentive to game the system, I would suggest simply deleting their posts (with edit summary 'IP sock') very quickly each time until he gets fed up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Support. Just do it already, if we have another Jarlaxleartemis/Colourwolf/Bambifan101/Kagome85 or anything even remotely like that again I'll probably chalk it up to a "another attempt at being a Jedi Sock Master." 173.58.58.122 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think the intent of the Last Chance votes is to effectively ban the user now, with the condition that if he registers there'll be no problem with that use under good (i.e., non-sock) behavior. In other words, a ban wouldn't extend to a registered account unless the other behaviors continued. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Issues with relisting (and, occasionally, closing) AfDs

      This is to other admins who use the closeafd.js script to help them close and relist AfDs. I've noticed recently that apparently, when relisting a discussion, the 'View log' link on the AfD does not update to link to the log the discussion is relisted to anymore - it remains pointing to the original log that the discussion is no longer in, even after multiple relistings. In addition, on occasion (although not regularly) it fails to remove the AfD template from the article when closing, so please check the article after closing to be sure it did (Anomie's linkclassifier helps with this). - The Bushranger One ping only 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The script still seems to be working fine.[2][3][4] (Note: I am using User:Timotheus Canens/closeAFD.js, which is Mr.Z-man's script with a few tweaks.) The issue you describe usually happens when you try and relist a whole load of AfD discussions in a short time period. The script doesn't have any edit conflict detection, and if it encounters an edit conflict it just doesn't make the edit to the log. This is a pretty common occurrence, as the daily log pages are huge and take a long time to save. The answer is either for admins to wait until one discussion has finished relisting before starting the script on the next one, or for someone to write a batch relist tool that can do a whole load of relists at once. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for the long delay in responding, life got hectic. Well, I understand that, but that's not quite the issue I'm referring to. I've experienced the "not removing/adding to the log" thing just like that, and resolved it the same way, but what I'm referring to is the 'View Log' link on the individual AfD discussion page. See for instance this AfD; originally listed May 17, it's been relisted on May 24 and June 1, but 'View Log' still points to May 17th's log. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I have just observed this too, and I was not relisting a batch, only a single AfD. I had to update the "Log" link by hand. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow

      NOT DONE
      There is clearly not a consensus to lift the topic ban at this time. It is also worth noting that in a discussion of a sanction on a user that has now been open for five days there is not one single comment here from that user. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      After some discussion with TheShadowCrow on my talk page, I would like to request a partial lift on his topic ban related to creating BLP and Armenia(n) related articles. Despite an initial BATTLEGROUND start to that discussion, I believe that this user has come to a realization that no-one is "out to get them" or holding any grudges against them. I believe that at this point, something similar to the article creation restriction of User:Doncram by arbitration process, which states: "He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review." I believe that a one month or twenty-five new approved article threshold would be reasonable to demonstrate this user's intention to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner and awareness of identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability. I think that this would make a reasonable prerequisite for an overall lifting of his topic ban in demonstrating good faith to properly edit existing articles on the topics. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Isn't this the second or third request of this nature is a very short span of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is my first request on this users behalf after his second previous request on his own behalf requesting a full revocation of the ban of which he withdrew. This request, I would like to emphasize, is a request for a partial lift to facilitate reviewed new article creations offering him an opportunity To prove his claims of having learnt his lesson. Due to a technological restriction, I am unable to post links to the orginial discussion and previous requests for revocation for his ban, but would be happy to do so in the morning. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe not an issue, but I notice the user has already made Armenia related edits to his sandbox: [5], [6]. This would be technically in breach of: "edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed". Now I don't think that would merit any sort of sanction, but it might be premature and indicative of continued impatience, along with the multiple appeals, and postings to user talk pages such as User talk:Dennis Brown pushing for support in his appeal: [7],[8] etc.
      That said, I'd actually support a relaxation of the topic ban to allow him to work, initially, on a single article at a time in his sandbox - which would need to be reviewed by an editor with good BLP experience before being moved to mainspace. He'd need to find someone willing to do those reviews. If that works out, then the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. If it doesn't, then the original terms are easily reinstated. I don't like the AFC idea at all - AFC reviewers shouldn't be expected to do what could essentially amount to mentoring a topic-banned editor. Begoon talk 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a good proposal. Support. NE Ent
      That seems to be a reasonable counter-proposal. As a reviewer at AfC, I would be happy to ask around and see if there is anyone that has good BLP experience and see if they would be willing to take this user under their wing and mentor them. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Update: I've made requests at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user#Requesting an adopter that is... and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Requesting a reviewer that is... as promised. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, quite frankly that reduces my support somewhat, because one of the big concerns here is the "pushy" nature of the appeals to date. Did you not notice the multiple uses of the word "premature" in this section? That should have been a hint. Editors worried that this was being pushed too hard and too fast will hardly be reassured to see you attempting to make arrangements for something that only one editor supports, and 2 admins have opposed, in an unfinished discussion. I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't, imo. Begoon talk 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how requesting a relaxation on a three month topic ban that was imposed seven weeks ago (one week shy of two months) which is over 50% of his sentence being carried out with a mentoring that would be set to last no less than a month (putting him one week shy of the original three months) is premature. Can someone explain that to me, please, as I really do not understand it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll try. I tried to explain my comment when I made it. I came back and tried to clarify it a couple of times. It's a perception thing. My little girl knows that quite often the best way to get something from me when she's been forbidden it or abused it is to stop asking for it back every 5 minutes. She knows that constantly asking the same question in different ways is not going to work out for her. So she behaves for a while, smiles sweetly, and gets what she wants more quickly. Sometimes she forgets, and keeps holding onto the stick. That doesn't work out for her, ever. Not a perfect analogy, and sorry if it doesn't help. Begoon talk 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Are you kidding me? This was withdrawn as way too premature, not because you offered to have a chat. There cannot be relaxation of the TB this soon, seeing as he wholly misunderstood what the topic ban actually meant. Bringing this up now risks a topic ban against requesting relaxation of their topic ban - bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as per my thinking at the last discussion from a few days ago - too soon. Wait for the full 3 months and then we will re-visit. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's hard to see how editing in a sandbox would be disruptive. I can see the reasoning behind wanting a three month break but the editor may lose interest altogether than then we've lost an editor (we have a shortage of those). NE Ent 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        (Non-administrator comment) I've seen a lot of editors being pushed away unreasonably recently, and based on my readings of previous incidents that seems to be the way it has always been. This is sad that there are people that want to help and improve Wikipedia as a whole, but may be a little misguided in doing so and for that receive excessive blocks or bans from Wikipedia. Now, I realize that there are a lot of stupid bots and people that intend to do harm, but honestly, I rarely see any of those formally attempting to follow protocol and come to ANI or any other venue to request reconsideration. Most of the bots and those wishing to do harm to the project don't bother, they simply create a new spa or make their atrocious edits anonymously. Now, Wikipedia has many venues to help new editors, Help desk, Teahouse/Questions, Adopt a user program, AFC, and the list goes on, but there seems to be a broken link in getting the people that are having troubles and are here in ANI to these programs and help areas. Instead, there seems to be a let's block them for half a year and maybe they will be more mature and absorb all of our guidelines in the meantime even though they don't have the opportunity to practice any of the things they are suppose to be learning. I see lots of flaws in this, and hope that there can be a way to discuss this out and come up with a better "rehabilitation" program of sorts to get people hooked up with the right resources to help them make better edits on Wikipedia. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      People are rehabilitated here all the time. Many admins started out by getting in trouble and then learning to fit in. It's a community, it's established, and at the end of the day it's a lot harder to change the monolith than change yourself. You need to be a part of it to effect change from within, and change from outside isn't going to happen, generally. I've been "mentoring" an editor who was indefinitely blocked, and saw no prospect at the time of his ban of ever getting out of the hole he was in. It's taken not weeks, or months, but much longer, and it's ongoing because it still benefits him, and me. Now he's a valuable member of the community, productive, and a lot of other editors respect him. I hardly need to do any "mentoring" with him at all now, but I'm still around for him if he wants to talk. Sometimes he "mentors" me now, on topics he knows better than I do. And I'm nothing - have a look at the mentoring work editors like User:Worm That Turned have done. Simply awesome. Sure, we could do the "mentoring" thing better as a community - but please don't think it doesn't already happen. A lot. Officially and unofficially. It's just not a "10 steps to heaven", tick all the boxes, model citizen in a fortnight program. But if you come up with one, I'm all ears. Begoon talk 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologize if I failed to make myself clear in the fact that I understand and respect that there are a few people that are rehabilitated with the way things currently work. My point was that if a person takes the time to discuss what they did, or what it was perceived that they did (I'll admit that I don't agree that there were initial violations in all of the cases I've seen on these noticeboards, but that may be my lack of understanding of all of the circumstances or whatnot and I've not the time or interest in dredging up all kinds of old "cases"), and someone feels it worthy to request a modification of the sanctions that are proposed on a user based on the discussion and all previous discussions that indicate others feel that the user is remorseful and truly has good faith intentions, than it isn't unreasonable to allow some modification of the sanctions from "you can't do" to "you can do, but supervised" and I think it benefits Wikipedia more in the long run to encourage participation in any of the programs I listed or implied that are designed to improve the editing skills of the editor and offer some kind of reward (in these cases, lightening, not removal, of the sanctions against them). Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And as you saw from my support above, and Ent's, you're not alone in believing that we should work in that way. We also need to show respect for the community's time in dealing with these matters though, and, like it or lump it, serial appeals and constant pushiness rubs people up the wrong way. Always. I've used up my self imposed monthly ANI word count just in this discussion, though - so good luck. Begoon talk 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      As promised last night, the links to the previous discussions are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please remove my ban. → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal

      • To be fair, his dabbling in his sandbox was my idea. That shouldn't be held against him. I felt it was a way to allow him to demonstrate the ability to do so properly, while limiting the reach. During his long block some time ago, I showed him how to hat discussions to allow him to work on article drafts on his talk page, so I've been involved for some time and used my best judgement in determining what would not cause disruption, balanced with trying to help him get up to the standards expected by the community. If the community wants to hold me to account, that is fine, but it would be unfair to hold that against him when deciding. On the topic ban as a whole, I'm reserving judgement at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I hadn't realised that, so wouldn't have even mentioned it had I known. Mea culpa too. I'm pleased I actually supported a very gradual relaxation for one article at a time in his sandbox in that case... What made me nervous about anything more liberal was the overall appearance of impatience to just get the whole TB scrapped, with posts like [9], while this discussion was happening. Of course, that could also just indicate enthusiasm, but there do seem to have been an awful lot of words wasted on this matter, and that comes into play too. Begoon talk 05:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose due to this editor not understanding the reason for the topic ban in the first place. Like the previous two requests, this request is just too soon. BearMan998 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • BearMan, I need to ask you, do you feel that your opinion here is completely neutral? I mean just a couple months ago when the topic ban was decided upon your seemed to be flaming this user pretty hard saying that he was personally attacking you. If you have gotten over that and this truly is neutral (which AGF says I must assume that is the case), then I apologize; however, if that is not the case, I would have the utmost respect if you were to withdraw your opposition. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point me as to where I was flaming this user pretty hard saying that he was personally attacking me? If this did occur, I honestly don't remember it. That said, if TSC doesn't understand the reason for the topic ban I can't understand why it should be lifted early. There are situations where a user shows remorse, takes complete ownership of his/her actions that led to a ban, and takes time to review and learn policy so that further violations don't occur. In those situations, bans can be relaxed, but I'm just not seeing it here. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Your tone was quite condescending in my opinion, not to mention it shows an obvious assumption of bad faith on your part. Based on your experiences with this user, I'm not sure that I could blame you entirely for assuming bad faith, but I would be cautious as to how much I had to say in discussions relating to a user I could not assume good faith in. I've seen remorse in both of his personal attempts to request the ban be completely lifted as well as remorse and good faith in his discussions with me once we got past him expecting me to scold him on my talk page. I can't see how it would do any harm for him to create a couple new articles to be reviewed before going live to make sure he gets it and can properly source BLPs. In the time since this discussion has started, I've spent some time learning about BLPs myself and would be willing to mentor and adopt this user if it would easy concerns about possible damage or disruption to the project as a whole. Would this be acceptable for him to write drafts in his userspace that myself (or even Dennis or NE ent or any of the previous supporters of a complete lift on his ban) would review before going into article? As was seen in the discussion with Jax 0677 elsewhere on this page (may have been archived by now), if it turns out that I am wrong, and TheShadowCrow really is NOTHERE, I would be the first to bring it back to ANI and recommend a full reinstatement of the topic ban to last no less than six months. I feel pretty confident that this won't be necessary though. Technical 13 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My support above would be contingent on a "mentor" with good BLP experience over a long period, and demonstrated good judgement in advising in areas like "dropping the stick" and respecting consensus. I think you had recent, similar issues, albeit early in your relatively short "career" so you can probably understand the problems it causes. Do you think that is what would make you suitable for the task? Possibly it does, but I'm interested in your thinking. Begoon talk 12:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm afraid I can not offer a "lot" of experience with BLPs, but I am familiar with them and the need to cite reliable sources. The best I can offer as far as my ability to demonstrate good judgment in advising is my Teahouse answer record and my contributions to WP:VPT the notifications discussions and my interactions on this page itself. I understand your concern about the apparent brevity of my editing record here on Wikipedia itself, although the fairly short duration of that incident itself may offer some insight on my ability to work together with the community and I've intentionally left that incident on my talk page as a way to aid in reducing the hostility of other users that may be having issues by being able to point to it and say hey, I understand what you are saying as I was there not long ago myself. Then I point them to take a peek at User:Technical 13/Feedback and tell them that despite being blocked myself a couple months ago, I've managed to adjust my editing habits appropriately and become much more respected in the community. Like I've said a few times in various discussions on this forum, people learn by doing. That being said, my attempt to help user:Jax_0677 is an example of me being able to drop any sticks and know when an editor I'm trying to help has figured out that the horse is dead and ready to be helped. Like I said above, if it turns out that I am wrong, and TheShadowCrow really is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, I would be the first to bring it back to ANI and recommend a full reinstatement of the topic ban to last no less than six months, I still feel confident that this won't be necessary though. Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Possible administrative power abuse by Admin:Beeblebrox

      EC while boldy closing this via WP:IAR in spite of involvement, before someone's feelings get hurt. Consensus is that close was within policy, everything else has been cleared up. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Exactly five minutes after the most recent post on the topic with no requests for close this administrator closed this discussion because the editor in question hasn't commented on the topic. I think this closing is a little premature since we were still discussing it and as far as TheShadowCrow not commenting, this was per my instruction in the discussion on my talk page and shouldn't be held against him. I've opened this a new section below to discuss Beeblebrox's possible abuse of power to close an active discussion based on an unfounded accusation. I think the last two comments between Begoon and I were constructive to the matter and not disruptive. I really hate to assume bad faith on Beeblebrox's part especially since most of my previous interactions with him were fair (even if not always in my favor or I agreed with his POV). So, I'm going to assume it was the MediaWiki software that failed to give him an (edit conflict) warning and he was unaware that I had just responded to Begoon while he was closing the discussion. I request permission to continue the possibility of me mentoring this user and allowing them to create a couple new articles on the topic of their ban in their user space as Admin:Dennis Brown was already apparently allowing them to do without anyone else's knowledge. Technical 13 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Non-admin can close discussions, too, so it really isn't even a consideration for admin abuse. He did make an important note that TheShadowCrow has failed to add even a single comment, which may be why so few have bothered to respond here. It has been entertained for days now, and often 3rd party requests are rejected out of hand. Most processes like this are wrapped up in a day or two, but this has dragged on much longer without much support. Viewed objectively, the whole process has been handled rather leniently. It is fine if you disagree with the close, but it is clearly not abuse. As for the sandbox, as no one has objected to my "exception" which I clearly declared (and it was on my talk page, so it wasn't in secret) so I assume there is no objection for continuing. Mentoring doesn't require permission, and I would encourage that. If I were to take anything from this discussion, it would be "wait at least 90 days". I thought it was too early as well, but refrained from voicing that concern as to give him every chance to persuade the community, yet he never showed up. In this case, I concur with the close, with no prejudice against TheShadowCrow himself requesting for a lifting of the topic ban in the future, preferably in 90 days or so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I think you need to read the whole discussion again T13. Beeblebrox's close is good and fair. And really? Abuse? Think about it for a while, and realise that you're letting your disappointment at not being able to steer this the way you wanted colour your judgement. Also think about how much good this does for the user in question. Much less than none, I'd suggest. Begoon talk 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, as I stated in my opening statement for this discussion, please do not hold the fact that I asked him to not participate in this conversation against him.
      • @Dennis Brown:, what it looks like you said is that the "exception" to allow him to work in his sandbox is okay. If that is the case, then my request is approved because that was all I was asking for at this time. Perhaps my request wasn't as clear as I had thought it was.
      • @Lukeno94:, having a point is NOTPOINTy by default. I'm not disrupting anything on Wikipedia to make my point. I simply pointed out that closing a discussion with a comment that was barely five minutes old that offered details in response to a question I was asked and asked if my details were unreasonable was premature especially since he apparently did not take the time to follow the initial link to the discussion I had with TheShadowCrow or he would have found my plea for the user to not say anything in the conversation unless I asked him to and closing it because there was no feedback from the user.
      • @Begoon: My major concern here is the fact that five minutes after I replied to your question, the discussion was closed without any confirmation that you had gotten to read my response or offering you the opportunity to respond. Technical 13 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite Technical13 failing to notify me as required, our fancy new notification system let me know about this thread. So, I've seen it, I've read his concerns, and I have absolutely nothing to add as this complaint is without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggestion of Admin abuse is wholly without any merit - does T13 not recognize the damage that he's doing to TSC with crap like this? The section above needed to close, die a horrible death, and be archived ASAP ... days ago even. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      RFPP unprotect requests

      User:Webclient101 added 26 requests to the unprotect section of WP:RFPP. I looked at a few of them, and they are all related. In 2011, User:Dabomb87 semi-protected the articles indefinitely because the pending changes trial was over. Webclient101 wants to reenable pending changes. Dabomb87 hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of last year, so they can't be consulted.

      My recommendation is we unprotect the pages without pending changes. Indefinite anything needs to be justified, and it's not clear to me why these articles have been semi-protected for two years, or why we should continue it, even with a lower level of protection. Obviously, if editing becomes disruptive on any article, it can be taken back to RFPP and an admin can evaluate whether protection is warranted.

      If there's agreement with my recommendation, I will go through all of them, insure they fall within the same pattern, and unprotect them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      For the sake of prudence, I would say change SPP to PC1 for the BLPs, and unprotect the others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree with Salvidrim here. As this would in line with the request, it wouldn't be contentious to do so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) Template:2c Some of these were semi'd before the trial for BLP violations. In my opinion, those should remain as-is. As for the rest, they should probably be unprotected. WikiPuppies bark dig 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Indefinite PC1?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I will admit a bias that says all BLPs should have indef PC1 at a minimum, so that would be agreeable with me, yes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh, I was unaware of that bias. I'll wait for more comments, but if there's a consensus to keep some sort of protection on the BLP articles, that's fine, but I wouldn't take the laboring oar to implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I also agree with Salvidrim. However, pages like toast and sound will always be a popular target for vandalism. Why shouldn't those pages have pending changes enabled? Webclient101talk 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If they're subjected to a large amount of vandalism, they will be protected as needed. Looking at the page history, neither of them have been vandalized for over 6 months, so protecting them is a solution waiting for a problem. WikiPuppies bark dig 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Six months from when? They've been semi-protected for two years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) These are the diffs I am referring to...although I should have said "one year". [10] [11] WikiPuppies bark dig 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Both edits were (obviously) done by auto-confirmed accounts, so their significance is marginal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, but both accounts were autoconfirmed through the vandalism. WikiPuppies bark dig 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      PC for high-traffic pages rarely works out well. We cannot know if they would be frequently edited by non-(auto)confirmed editors due to the two years of SPP. If, once unprotected, vandalism becomes too much to reasonably handle with reverts, it is never too late to apply protection again; at least, then, we'll know for sure that it is absolutely needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      While I tend to prefer, as Dennis, the idea of some level of PC for BLPs, I'm not sure that some of the BLPs wouldn't be best unprotected. As one example Michael Hastings (journalist)'s moment in controversy has probably passed us by, he very well might do fine unprotected. In the general case, the PC mechanism we have now functions more poorly if too many articles are put onto it, and/or if high-volume articles are put onto it. Obviously Michael isn't a problem there either way, but I think there's some argument for being selective about the use of PC. For the non-BLPs, I'd unprotect most of them, but each should still be assessed individually, there's some odd history to Wheely Willy, for example. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I would note above that the lack of recent vandalism lately doesn't show that protection isn't needed, only that protection has worked, since they have been protected. I think it is clear from reading above that each article will likely have to be decided on its own merits, and likely a blanket level for all of them won't be optimal. I am still of the idea that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs, but that doesn't mean they all must be protected as a rule, as the consensus doesn't support that, yet. I would say just use your best judgement for each individually. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

      For history, the articles were indefinitely semi-protected because of an Arbcom overstep. When the PC1 trial was over, I was actually blocked and taken to Arbcom for exercising judgement in the removal of PC1. The mandate from Arbcom was to replaced all PC1 protections with semi-protection of equal length. The result is that many articles wound up with indefinite semi-protection when no protection at all was actually justified.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Any level of "protection" is a deviation from the intended design, done only because of abuse. When people don't know what the status of an article should be, the default choice should always be to make it fully accessible, then watch what happens. It should further be stressed that Pending Changes has become a mechanism whereby articles are less accessible to edits than semi-protected articles, thanks to a long-planned and ostensibly unintended "feature" that editors with accounts can still have their contributions held up behind an IP. Many people are not going to put up with this and just not do anything to the article, and since articles still usually improve, that is worse for the "LP" than if we allow open editing. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Support unprotection per Bbb23's original post and Wnt. NE Ent 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wnt focuses too much on the "anyone can edit" part and misses the part that matters, the fact that we are an encyclopedia. We have a duty and missikon to get things right. If we focused on the "anyone can edit" issue, we wouldn't have any type of protection, pending changes, or blocks/bans. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there has been no recent problems and no solid reason to believe there are Huns at the gates, I'd say unprotect. Pretty much per Kww and our actual policies on such things WP:PROTECT. And SirFozzie, your statement is what scares a lot of us about pending changes. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Azerbaijani people

      Content issues should always be discussed at the article talk pages. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Hi, britannica Encyclopedia Say: [12]/ Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. BUT Verdia25 Say Turkic-speaking people. and Not accept Azerbaijani people is Turkic people--'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Please discuss that at Talk:Azerbaijani people where Verdia25 has now opened a thread. Unless there is disruptive editing or edit warring going on, it's nothing that needs the attention of our administrators. We don't control the content of our articles. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Entries in Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves

      • This category is for suspected cut-and-paste moves. But the majority of the entries that I have seen in this category so far, are requests to history-merge page X to page Y, where page X has only one edit and that edit is a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Interaction ban proposed

      I would like to propose an interaction ban between User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz on the one hand, and User:GiantSnowman and User:Demiurge1000 on the other hand.

      Things like this have been proposed recently in a non-binding manner, e.g. here and here, following a long history of problematic interactions (often involving other users as well, but these three seem to be the more constant factors in this). Earlier problems have lead to blocks (e.g. my block of Kiefer Wolfowitz on 6 May 2013, explained here and discussed over the next few days).

      Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2, with another rather uncivil discussion between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Giant Snowman, and with Demiurge discussing Kiefer at User talk:Lukeno94, which lead to a rather problematic reply by Kiefer Wolfowitz.

      Without going into who is to blame, who is right or wrong, or how this all started (it goes back at least two years, probably longer, but I don't want to start discussing old history again; examples can be found in e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring), I think it is time we put an end to this, preferably without further blocks or too much drama.

      Therefor, I propose an interaction ban between Demiurge and Giant Snowman on the one hand, and Kiefer Wolfowitz on the other hand; no discussing one another, no linking to statements made by the other, no replying to each other, no nominations of each others articles for deletion, no participation in a GA or FA discussion where the other is one of the main contributors of the article, ... The only allowable interactions would be normal forms of dispute resolution about each other (one may start an RfC or ArbCom case about the other; they shouldn't start discussing in a third-party process though). They would still be allowed to all !vote in discussions like RfA, but without replying to each other or referencing each other's !vote. Fram (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Woah woah woah, Kiefer and I have a difference of opinion (which is pretty much all it is, as far as I am concerned at least) at a RFA talk page and suddenly there's call for an interaction ban between us? Jesus. Let me go further - while Kiefer and I may have had a few disagreements at various noticeboards over the past few months, I for one do not feel the need for an interaction ban. It seems to be making a mountain our of a molehill, finding an issue where there isn't one. We edit in completely different topic areas and our paths rarely cross; when they do, sometimes we disagree and sometimes we don't. I think/hope Kiefer is of a similar opinion. Sometimes things get heated, sometimes they get a bit uncivil, but we both have thick enough skin not to let it bother us. GiantSnowman 13:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      When this was suggested by Fetchcomms c. my RfC/U, I accepted the proposal, and I remain agreeable to an interaction ban including GiantSnowman, who was baiting me on my talk page recently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Kiefer, please can you provide diffs to comments of mine that you feel have been 'baiting'? GiantSnowman 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)GiantSnowman, this is hardly the first such "difference of opinion" you two have. E.g. from early May, a link I gave above as well; [13], move up a few sections to "personal attacks". And it goes back a long way, I also already gave Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring. Perhaps you don't need an interaction ban, I may be wrong with the whole proposal or by including you, but acting as if this is only about one recent discussion is not really the most convincing way to make your case. Fram (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't feel the need to make a case in my defence; and as far as I am aware Kiefer has not requested this interaction ban either. Why have you taken it upon yourself to police our relationship? GiantSnowman 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose this is an overreaction. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation, going back for years, which has lead to blocks, bad blood, and recurring disruption? We can give more and/or longer blocks, but is that really the best way to treat these editors and to improve Wikipedia? Having this interaction ban won't suddenly solve all problems, but isn't it worth a shot? Fram (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • What problematic situation? How has Kiefer and I's interaction been "going back for years"? Where is the "recurring disruption"? As far as I recall the first interaction we had, positive or negative, was when Kiefer actually supported my RFA back in February 2012! Nothing until the ANI in October 2012 (8 months ago, we both acted poorly) and then a disagreement at his talk page in May, and a further run-in on the talk page of a RFA earlier this week. Using talk pages to discuss matters? My word, indef us both! GiantSnowman 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The situation has been going back for years. Your involvement with it seems to be more recent and may have been less frequent than it at first appeared (and may have been colored in my meomory by other things like this February 2013 comment by Kiefer Wolfowitz[14]). If others agree with you that I have unfairly included you in this interaction ban, I'll remove you from it and restrict the discussion to a interaction ban between Demiurge and Kiefer Wolfowitz only. But I'll wait for more input first, these kind of things are rather complicated and it is hard to get a correct view of the whole image sometimes. Fram (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fram, you say "the situation has been going back for years" yet you have not provided any evidence. Note that I am talking exclusively about the proposed IBAN between myself and Kiefer. Do I feel I have been unfairly included? Absolutely. As WormTT says, other users have had more run-ins with Kiefer than I have - yourself included Fram! GiantSnowman 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was asked to come here by Fram as my talkpage was mentioned. I can't really give a vote due to the fact that I get on quite well with GiantSnowman, and find Kiefer infuriating, although Demiurge and Kiefer possibly should have an interaction ban, as that pairing is, to my mind, more problematic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I oppose a formal interaction ban between GiantSnowman and Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I don't see the bad blood, or a long running dispute which would require an interaction ban. Indeed, I believe I have had more unpleasant interactions with KW than GiantSnowman has, so unless we fancy handing them out very liberally I think it's a poor idea. Regarding the other interaction ban, Demiurge1000 and Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I support it in principle, but I don't think it is the solution. The long term bad blood has spread off-wiki, to a certain forum and to IRC. The only way it will work is if both parties genuinely agree to the interaction ban and take it to heart - quitting all discussion of the other. I do not expect this to happen on either side, making the entire sanction redundant. Furthermore, I'm not keen on the formation of the interaction ban - I'd prefer a more simple text. WormTT(talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)I no longer support a two way interaction ban even in principle, it will do no good. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So far, only WTT has raised a concern about an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself, and he supports a ban. Is there consensus for a standard interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Patience! The discussion should stay open for at least 24 hours and have some more participants (e.g. giving Demiurge a chance to respond may be a good idea). Fram (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, most kind! I do understand the annoyance you may feel here; you block one disputant having previously blocked the other, another admin unblocks them without discussing it with you, that disputant then repeats the problematic behaviour, the other disputant then comes to your talk page moaning about it, and so on and so on. Having said that, though, if you do choose to get involved in "policing" particular people (as GS puts it), you shouldn't be too put out when the people being policed keep turning up at your police station's front desk questioning one thing or another. And, more to the point, if Dennis had not overturned your 6th May block without discussing it with you, then the disruption at the RfA would not have happened, nor would KW's comments aimed at The Rambling Man and Luke, nor would my informing Luke of the existence of the earlier RfC/U, nor would KW's questionable comments after that. So, you ask, "how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation", the answer is that you had it right the first time, and you were over-ruled! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we established below that the issue was GiantSnowman's choice of words and he has admitted as much, not KW's participation. Even if someone didn't like his !vote, it should have just been overlooked. To assign all the drama of the last few days with my unblocking of KW some time back stretched credulity to the breaking point. I forgot to add, I do believe that I unblocked you once after Fram blocked you, but you didn't complain about an early unblock there.  ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The block was set to run until a couple of days from now, I think. If you had not overturned it, the comment would not have been made, and, more to the point, the following problematic behaviour would not have happened either. We're here because you overturned the block in the belief that the behaviour would not repeat; you were wrong. You may feel the !vote should have been overlooked, but others don't agree; it's not at all unreasonable for other editors to reply to a comment that belittles the efforts of an editor just because of their choice of topic area. (This sort of attitude was mentioned right back in 2011 at the RFC/U - KW agreed to try to fix it - has he?) Yes, GS did not make that reply in the right manner, and has apologised for it; but he was certainly not the only one to share that concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Oppose. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [15] [16]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?).

      Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had anything to do with me - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to cause drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise.

      I also Oppose the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, is this some kind of accusation of grooming Wikipedia editors? "his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia".... This needs serious intervention now, as KW's wild accusations have crossed the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a horrendous accusation and needs to be oversighted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's worse than horrendous, KW should be blocked for accusations of this nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I read it that KW is saying that User:Demiurge1000 is taking advantage of the editors inexperience to recruit them into some conflict with others. There is no sexual implication in the comment. John lilburne (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What the actual fuck did I just read? Apart from the sheer idiocy of Kiefer assuming that I am in any way affiliated with Demiurge (I am not, and never have been), and the fact I've used the IRC here about 3 times, all when the servers are down, that has to be one of the most disgraceful accusations I've ever seen, regardless of any sexual nature (or lack of) in the comment. Kiefer should be blocked, and blocked for a while, for that comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. Anyone that empathises with KW's grooming comments needs close inspection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will note here that Luke has never attempted to contact me in any way ; and my only contact with Luke has been my one post currently visible on his talk page, the purpose of which I describe in detail above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm also going to note that Lilburne is here after KW canvassed multiple times at an off-wiki forum (including, now, complaining about being indefinitely blocked there), where KW did indeed use the g word, and where he also had some more-than-unpleasant comments to make about Luke. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh sweetheart, this page has been on my watchlist for a long long time. I just don't normally comment here unless something really dumb happens. And the only one that has used the word grooming here is The Rambling Man. John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose Spirited, emphatic exchanges don't violate any policy. NE Ent 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      GS and KW

      • Kiefer, please provide diffs from the RFA of my failings as an Administrator (impossible, I didn't use any tools), as well as examples of my incivility and personal attacks? GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to say, without having a horse in this particular race, that the notion of an Administrator not using tools and therefore not having failed as an Administrator is a non-sequitur. Any Admin involved in any dispute uses judgement, the entire basis on which they were selected as an Admin. Just because tools are left at the door in a dispute does not mean that Admins cannot fail in using judgement and that, in any situation - tools or not - is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is refreshing to read your responses. Perhaps a word with another administrator with hyperactive behavior at this RfA might be in order? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Stfg seems to have issue, per his comment at the RfA and I agree. The comment "Pure snobbery" was unnecessarily combative. Once it was explained that Giantsnowman was mistaken in how he interpreted the "Andy Capp" comment, instead of leaving well enough alone, his excuse was "As for AGF, I'm afraid it only goes so far with KW." I think Giantsnowman has lost his objectivity here. I'm normally against interaction bans in general, and have never supported one with an admin involved, but an air gap is likely the best solution. As for using the tools, it doesn't matter here. WP:NOTPERFECT states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. " It seems you have some animosity towards KW and I think it is clouding your judgement here. I'm not saying it is actionable, but GSM's actions were far from exemplary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you put it that way, I admit that some of my comments at the RFA talk page were not my finest and for that I apologise to all involved, especially Kiefer. I should not have described his attitude as "snobbery" and I should have tried harder to AGF. I would like to assure you that I do not have any animosity towards Kiefer; regardless of the outcome of this discussion (and I hope no formal IBAN is implemented, as I do not see the need for one) I will work on what has been raised. GiantSnowman 15:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a good thing. What you and I must remember is that when we push the limits on civility, most editors are afraid to speak out because of our "admin power". No matter how unimpressive it might be to you and I, others are intimidated by it to different degrees and many are unwilling to speak out. This is why you and I are both held to the higher standard and have to go the extra mile to insure we stay neutral, else we make bystanders feel powerless and unable to speak out. You have to reach back and remember how you felt well as a new user, before getting the bit. Of course, we are human, and we screw up like anyone else, and forgiveness should come just as easily for these kinds of things. Even without the interaction ban, I would still recommend keeping that air gap between the two of you, let time heal some wounds. Even if you don't feel them, I'm pretty sure KW does. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is why I think the air gap is needed. From my experience, KW is not one who wants to discuss or engage after an "event", so it isn't about you personally, it would be the same (and has been) in any disagreement. My experience with KW started at my RfA and has been checkered at times, but my experience has been that you just need to step away, as his wounds tend to heal on their own timetable. You and I are probably the opposite of KW in this respect, and would rather quickly bury the hatchet, but we are not universal in this. I recommend overlooking it and moving on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Dennis,
        How quickly do adults change personality or behavior? How credible is GS's sudden change, after months of complaints (from me and others)? His "wasn't my best" still falls short of accepting responsibility for his behavior. I have known too many nurses and social workers to engage in enabling behavior.
        I recently was pleased to accept an apology from another editor, whom I had previously criticized for "copping out"---i.e., that is, falling short of taking responsibility, on 2 occasions. That editor wrote his apology fully, quickly, and on his own volition. Nobody needed to push him to make a minimum apology, and he wrote a very generous and gracious note, indeed. Let him be an example to us all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the attempt, but wouldn't read too much into the reversion. It is KW, after all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Watch Carlito's Way and consider whether Benny was a hero. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't seen it. Doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but it has decent ratings, so maybe someday.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sound advice from you both. As stated at the very beginning, interaction between Kiefer and myself is actually minimal as we edit in completely different areas, so letting "time heal all wounds" should not be a problem. Up and Atom! GiantSnowman 15:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dennis has done a fine job of representing my POV, and I thank him for it. As almost always, I agree with everything he has written in this section. I don't know enough about the background to comment on whether an IBAN is a good idea, except to point out that IBANs don't work very well. They are too easy to game -- actually, they are an invitation to gaming. The current RfA and its talk page are grotesque, and this is a big problem, because when RfAs turn into slugfests like that, it disenfranchises the nice people by chasing them away. People shouldn't have to jump into a fire to have their say on who gets mops. From his comments above, I'm sure GiantSnowman understands this and won't rise to the bait again at RfA (I don't care what happens on their own talk pages). Does Kiefer understand the problem, and does he plan to change anything to help solve it? If not, I think the only way for it to get solved is for the community to impose a solution, unfortunately. --Stfg (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you made any other predictions, that would let us evaluate the worth of your surety? We would like to be able to pretend that it was better than your accuracy in recognizing baiting....
        Again, talk is cheap. GS has not struck through any of the inappropriate remarks at RfA, which he claims and you endorse to be now beneath him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't understand a word of that, but never mind. --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      KW blocked

      Lots of good blocks that can be used to make cool things.

      I have indefinitely blocked KW for this edit, which goes far beyond the bounds of acceptability, and really should be oversighted, or at least revdel'd (the edit summary is also a personal attack). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and I am not averse to the block being reduced in time (in fact, I will support a fixed length of time, once community consensus arrives at an appropriate length. This entire discussion has been acrimonious, but that is so heinous that someone who is not involved needed to step in. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It was revdeled, but has been restored. I can see it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What was out of line? John lilburne (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      KW's comment. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't be obtuse. Which comment? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The one he was blocked for. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't want to be taken for a fool stop acting like one. John lilburne (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How am I acting like a fool? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      John, it's the first link in this section. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I know that, and people are reading far more into it than what was actually said, are they not? John lilburne (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How do you interpret "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd read it in its context and interpret the above to be asking whether it is appropriate for a seasoned editor to recruit young and inexperienced editors to participate in a drama war against one's opponents. Now the question is whether D is doing that or not. I don't participate on IRC or the other hangouts so don't have an opinion. Though I do have the impression that when young editors appear on the drama boards with fully fledged opinions about editor X or Y. that D is somewhere near at hand. But that is only an impression, I may be wrong. John lilburne (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Overreaction to statement by politically correct Americans reading sexual innuendo into a statement. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Take out the Americans, please. I understood what he meant. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Color me American but I can't see how that was an appropriate statement. I like KW - he's the last man standing on readable RfA opposes - but this is not acceptable. If cultural differences are behind all this, then an explanation is in order before an unblock. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Colour me British. Colour me 'not impressed by KW'. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Color me unimpressed by the majority of this. Blocking was likely inevitable in any case. Doesn't mean it smells any better. Intothatdarkness 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block If this were the sole disruptive incident in his career I'd have said this was over the top, and have favored a more limited block, but given the long history of stirring up trouble for trouble's sake, this seems like the right move. Also, the egregious nature of these comments, carefully crafted to be provocative to the point of offensiveness, and yet deliberately containing enough circumlocution to give him some wiggle-room of deniability shows that he knew exactly the kind of effect he was going for in his comments, and that sort of deliberate manipulation isn't something we need at a place where our primary goal should be the building of knowledge. Any contributions lost from Keifer will be more than made up by other people who now won't be driven away from the project by behavior such as this. --Jayron32 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep the block and forward to the OS team. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block - the blocked for statements appear to be deliberately cruel. Note also, the personal attack apparently was not aimed only at one editor but other named editors, partly on account of alleged personal characteristics (age and gender). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exceedingly bad block, as per NE Ent. Colour me British, but I'm also exceedingly unimpressed by the behaviour and attitudes of Ironholds. Eric Corbett 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block - I've seen a lot of nasty personal attacks here on WP, but not at all subtely insinuating that a fellow editor is a child molester takes the cake. Far, far beyond the pale, and totally inexcusable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sound block. Deliberately inflammatory choice of language, of a sort usually used to describe extremely grave misconduct. Not explicitly calling someone a criminal or moral degenerate doesn't give one a free pass to use terminology so often (and almost exclusively) found in that context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the use of gender-specific language was not intended to imply any gender-specific immorality, then its use was stupid as well as being uncivil and a personal attack. At this point, my interpretation is that the blocked editor is trying to game the system by claiming that a gender-specific insult was not meant to be gender-specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was being a bit of a meanie and should apologize for any untoward implications, but can we please stop with all this "good block" silliness?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the point of this thread is at least partly to get consensus on the block, how is it silliness for those who agree with the block to say so? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Because the block was silly? Surely nobody in their right mind believes the "an indefinite block isn't infinite" bollocks? Indefinite blocks are used as cudgels to force apologies and repentance for perceived sins, and as such are to be abhored. Eric Corbett 23:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I'd like to see them prohibited.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good Block -- This user is extremely abusive and the edit in question is without question insulting. Looking over his edit history, he is skilled at talking his way out of blocks, which is rather unfortunate. Please keep him blocked, for the betterment of the project.Lettik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It took someone else implying the sexual angle to get even my internet-polluted brain to read the comment in that fashion. Seems an overreaction to me. Arkon (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment from blocking admin: One thing really needs to be addressed, because more than a few people don't seem to get why I dropped the hammer on KW. This whole kerfuffle (the most recent one, not the festering carbuncle which contributes to this whole sordid affair) was started by KW's comments on a specific editor's writing ability at that editor's RFA. Make no mistake--KW is an exceptional writer. In fact, he is far too good a writer for his specific choices of words in the edit for which I blocked him to be mere happenstance. He deliberately chose phraseology and verbiage which would imply that the specific editors whom he named in the post were involved in something more unsavory than simple votestacking. He chose the most inflammatory phrases possible, and worked them into his post in a way which (barely) provided some sort of cover. Were he a less proficient writer, one whose editing history was not littered with incidents of personalizing arguments in a nasty fashion, I might have decided to issue a warning or a limited-duration block. But when the last block issued (for similar incivility) was for a duration of 1 month, and it stood for 18 days before being lifted (with a promise that he wouldn't do it again [17]), I felt that a block was needed, and decided that the community was better suited to determining the duration than a single admin. As I noted above, I didn't intend this to be a permanent block, only one whose length was not yet defined. My personal opinion is that anything more than 2 months is too long, but if the consensus is that he should be unblocked immediately or that he should remain blocked permanently, I will not object. I don't think that either choice is the optimum decision, but of course, YMMV. Horologium (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That seems very reasonable and fair to me... I tend to agree that long blocks don't necessarily work well. Based on your comments alone, I would say that 6 weeks would be fair. It is a little more than the 2.5 weeks his block actually lasted out of a 4.5 week block. Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that in theory blocks aren't meant to be punitive, I just don't get this block-length argument at all. Why six weeks rather than four or five? What harm was being prevented anyway? Eric Corbett 01:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Blocks may not be punitive, but they can be corrective. They also protect the project from disruption and, in this case, may prevent other editors from leaving the project because they tire of being insulted, mocked, berated, ridiculed and accused of all manner of ill deeds. His last unblock was a failure of process, in my opinion. He talked his way out of the block using the same types of arguments that are advised against, full of equivocation and blame. We have a principle of escalating block lengths for good reasons. If someone can't get some clue after 10 blocks in a year and a half, then I doubt that shorter blocks will have an enduring positive effect for the project. - MrX 02:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        How can blocks be "corrective" if they're not also punitive? I take it that you're familiar with basic learning theory? I recently became acquainted with a parrot whose behaviour had been "corrected" by having the metal floor of the cage he lived in being electrocuted every time he bit. Is that what's going on here? Eric Corbett 02:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        First, thanks for letting me know how startled you are. Second, please see Operant conditioning. Correction does not only result from punishment. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology. Eric Corbett 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        And just remind me, what harm has KW caused to the project? One might even argue that disrupting RfA is of some benefit to the project, in that it might make some dinosaurs rethink their position on that ridiculous and dishonest process. Eric Corbett 02:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        All the time that is wasted on these notice boards and talk pages dealing with bad behavior would be better spent collaborating to improve articles, tools, bots, help pages, and helping new users. Do you really think that treating our fellow editors like shit is helpful to the project? How many editors simply walk away from the project in disgust because of an insulting edit summary? I don't think that disrupting RfAs make them better. I think open discussion, compelling arguments and seeking common ground are a good start though. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        How much of any of that stuff do you do? Eric Corbett 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What KW's behavior does is to drive away editors who would rather not be called paedophiles for disagreeing with him. As I noted above, the world is filled with people who will replace his potential future contributions, but won't be abuse fellow editors in the manner he has done here. --Jayron32 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot. Eric Corbett 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I love you too. --Jayron32 04:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block. Per Jayron. KW does not seem to have learned from previous blocks and apparently has no intention of improving his attitude within the collaborate spirit of this project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block- Agree with most of the above. KW's seemed to spend a lot of time griefing and insulting people, punctuated by bouts of ultra-defensive hysterical screaming. This sneaky accusation of pedophilia is the last straw. Reyk YO! 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block - I called for it, and to be perfectly honest, that edit should be oversighted. Utterly disgusting behaviour, a massive smear against myself and several editors (regardless of any sexual nature) and just the latest in a long line of bollocks from that user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it implausible, given the context, that the choice of words was anything other than intentional and there isn't an option to casually "strike the offending phrase" when it comes to such a blatant personal attack. I also don't find any reasonable excuse in dismissing it as a matter of "political correctness" or cultural differences... "Young boys" is not a synonym for "new editors." user:j (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block per Jayron 32's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block clearly was meant to be inflammatory. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bad block. While KW's comment could definitely have been worded better, it doesn't have to be interpreted in a sexual way. Inflammatory, yes. Worthy of an indefinite-block? No. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable, but incorrect block. I quite realise that I am in the minority here, but there's a much bigger issue than KW's behaviour here, much as he appears to be trying to earn himself an indef block by testing the boundaries. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The much bigger issue is? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the original title of this section (before KW got himself blocked) will provide you with the answers you need, as will my comment below. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      They don't indicate big issues, so no. But perhaps your directions were misunderstood.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Core problems addressed?

      Guys, are you sure these proposed interaction bans and recent blocks are addressing the core problem, or just the symptoms? Are there any behavioral problems by the three parties involved that need to be addressed besides imposing interaction bans? Is there any merit to the allegations being leveled by the parties against each other? Don't know? Then why don't you administrators do your jobs, investigate this situation total, and come to a conclusion instead of just trying to put a band aid over it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Because that would involve a little bit of work? Eric Corbett 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to admit that I have some real reservations on this. Admittedly I don't have time to research it all, but looking at the link provided by the blocking admin. ... could someone PLEASE tell me how "sex" was introduced into this topic? I'm not seeing it in the link provided by the block log. As much as I'm all in favor of "political correctness" .. I think some folks are really reaching on this. Could ya'all go back and revisit what was typed and rethink this please? — Ched :  ?  02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that there is a zero tolerance policy when you put sex, men, and boys into a sentence. If that had happened Kiefer would already be banned and locked. So obviously there's no solid allegation that it did. The first person to mention "sex" at all was John lilburne, a supporter of Kiefer, when he said "There is no sexual implication in the comment" at 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC). That may have started a diversion, but it started there! My comment after an edit conflict was it was gaming and baiting, and it was. I hope that helps with your question.--My76Strat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My statement was in response to The Rambling Man cherry picking a phrase from KWs post and preceding it with 'grooming', then adding "worse than horrendous" and Darkness Shines calling for oversight. take this advice skip don't try to invoke me in your perverted reading sessions - OK. John lilburne (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (EC)::Ched's comments aside, I think Cla68 was getting at the elephant in the room, that the substance of his comments is being overlooked in favour of jumping on the fact he made them & what they could be interpreted to mean etc. Ignoring the speculation on what KW was implying, if what he was referring to is accurate, it needs to be addressed *somewhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And what was the "substance of his comments"? They had no substance beyond the offensive suggestions as far as I can see. Paul B (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC
      Well thats rather the point, you (and others) find what you think he was suggesting offensive, and are ignoring what (he says) he was saying. Which while probably inappropriate should not be totally ignored. Although if the consensus here is 'KW is blocked, lets forget all about it' fine. Need a big rug to hide that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He isn't saying anything with any content at all. It's all smoke and mirrors. "Ooh, I wonder what they're getting up to...". But it's palpably designed to be suggestive and offensive, and that is, in practice, threatening behaviour, because if frightens editors off disagreeing with him, as Luke has already pointed out. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Only someone completely obtuse can miss the "grooming" implications of KW's comments, and it is ridiculous beyond words to act as though they were in any way innocent. The fact that he deliberately phrased them to be as derogatory as possible while leaving himself a "get out" makes the matter worse, not better. A simple naive outburst would be easier to forgive. It was one of the most obnxious examples of bullying I've ever seen, even from Mr Wolfowitz. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What "grooming" implications are you talking about? Eh? John lilburne (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Clearly we have people here who are not familiar with either espionage or police tradecraft or language. "Grooming" in that context is often used in the context of preparing an informant or source, especially if it's a false flag recruitment. What we actually have is a horde who sees a nice provocation they can use to get rid of an editor they disagree with or dislike. That's it. Nothing more to see. If the whole "driving people off" thing (which has been tossed out by some people) was applied across the board, there are quite a few people who would no longer be here, including some of those who are calling for KW's head. So just drop the hypocritical ranting and get on with it. Intothatdarkness 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What we have are laughable pretences to innocence, which are bad enough from Mr. W himself. But now we have disingenuousness piling up in layers. Your first sentence seems to derive from a fantasy world. You have a long familiarity with "espionage" do you? Is the Green Cow Flying Tonight? Paul B (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply pointing out that there are other uses for the term. Just because you haven't heard of that doesn't make it fantasy. But then again shame on me for trying to discuss with the mob. Carry on. I'm sure there are plenty of pitchforks and torches to go around. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course I've heard of them, perhaps you will be showing me a helpful picture of a horse-grooming combs next. Apparently you are the one ignorant of the fact that the word "grooming" was not used in the post in question (though it was used by KW in another post with the same obvious insinuation). What the post did say, transparently piled up language to generate suggestions of sexual misconduct. This point has been made repeatedly with by many editors. I expect you know it yourselfe. Further furrowed-browed professions of mystification will serve no purpose. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      According to many here this headline is intended to have us believe that some young fellow is about to be molested by his father. And presumably this fellow is about to be asked to get his kit off for the bankers. John lilburne (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That's obviously wrong, and it still doesn't explain KW's obsession with/tacit allegation of "[his] involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia". Not something we need here. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A fundamental breakdown

      I want to follow on from comments made to User:Ched above. The above threaded discussion has gone completely awry of the WMF's zero tolerance policy. Just as Kiefer would be banned if he had cast aspersions of pedophilia, it is as intolerable to make accusations against Kiefer that he did make such statements, if he didn't. I've seen a lot of very direct allegations that somewhere along the line, need to be corrected. I supported the block because I observed the disruptive behavior. And I observed that Kiefer did not cross that line into violations of "child protection" policy and zero tolerance. So how do we reconcile this?--My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I would hope by recognizing that KW likely didn't intend the aspersion. Folk with artistic temperaments often combine the ability to produce beautiful work with a tendency for thoughtless outbursts when they get emotional. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Although having never interacted with KW, I've read a lot of his contribs to various boards and he does have a tendency to get somewhat excessive in some comments. Colour me British/Australian/whatever but writing it the way he did was distinctly suspicious, given the climate of the world these days. Just the use of "young men and boys" would have many people sucking through their teeth and asking what he was alluding to. "New editors" would have put what he meant beyond doubt, but he didn't use it. And it especially didn't help when John Lilburne cast his "sexual" comment into the fray. Blackmane (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I have little doubt that KW intended the aspersion. Likewise, I have little doubt that his phrasing was specifically chosen to be inflammatory for this exact reason, while trying to create enough wiggle room for his supporters to try and weasel him out of the block. Resolute 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, possibly he meant a multilayered aspersion in the double or triple entendre manner. It's a risk one runs when in casting aspersions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reconcile? Probably has to do with narrowly construing a perma-ban policy but skating the edges is still bad form -- it can still be hurtful and it can still be damaging (plus in view of some reasonable observers one may have gone over the edge). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Block duration for KW

      The blocking admin has asked us to comment specifically on the appropriate duration to see where consensus lies so I will start that process below and hope others will comment as well.

      • 2 weeks block Considering the rationale provided below I have stricken my suggestion of 2 weeks in favor of maintaining the indefinite block.--My76Strat (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indef, with the understanding that this is not necessarily infinite. Reyk YO! 07:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2 weeks block, + a 3 year topic ban from RFA. The comment was so provocative it clearly demanded a block. If he manipulatively intended the innuendo, it warrants a permaban. But it seems much more likely it was driven by thoughtless passion, not intent to bait. KW has an inflexible but very strong sense of right and wrong, and that's why he often kicks off. It's only when KW is in a calm frame of mind that he's a brilliant writer. On the other hand, can't agree with comments above that the world is filled with folk who'd be just as good at building the encyclopaedia. In reality KW would be close to irreplaceable. Not 1 in a 100 have the scholarship to write like KW. And only a tiny fraction have the fortitude for sustained editing. Even as a big fan of KW, I admit his RFA contributions often seem to be inflammatory and even nonsensical. So lets try a solution that gets us the best of both worlds. Please lets not lose him from the rest of the encyclopaedia, where he's a huge net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2 week block sounds fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2 week block iff KW agrees to be more cooperative with others from now on. Otherwise, count this as an indefinite block vote. --Rschen7754 07:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm reminded that this isn't the first time that KW has used the word "grooming" in this manner. Pretty much every accusation KW has levelled at Demiurge1000, can be levelled at me - indeed he has in the past. A large number of the editors I have adopted were below the age of majority and the adoption program naturally attracts younger editors with the mentality of a teaching model for learning how to edit. In the same manner, the adoption process attracts those editors who naturally enjoy teaching. I've worked with Demiurge in the past and have never once found his behaviour towards these editors to be untoward or manipulative, and therefore find the accusations reprehensible. Therefore, I support an indefinite block from the encyclopedia until such time that KW shows understanding that these sort of accusations are unacceptable. I also agree with FeydHuxtable that an RfA topic ban would be a good idea. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have only actually seen him abusive on talk pages, but on article space he's one of the best editors we have. Two week block is plenty; it's a long topic ban I want to see - at least until he writes a featured article from scratch, or fixed length like a year or so. Perhaps our standard offer may apply?--Launchballer 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) Support extended RfA topic ban as he is very disruptive there. I'll take no view on block duration. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep indefinite for now but allow unblock appeal at 2 weeks, which should probably be accepted unless KW acts out of line during his appeal. I also support an indefinite RfA topic ban from a cost-benefit standpoint: the risk of losing or significantly alienating a user is higher than the value of KW's opinion at RfA. I would like to reiterate that he is an excellent content contributor, but he should know when he's stepped beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concurring again with another admin's comments, I think Worm sums it up well. Indef is the only solution here, because KW never takes his blocks seriously and regularly seems to find himself in the midst of drama - sometimes where his intervention may not necessarily have been needed and used as an opportunity to take more swipes at other users. The new discussion (which isn't the first one) probably won't advance either the situation, or change the consensus(es) reached here at AN - it will only prolong the drama. If nothing else happens but a topic ban from RfA, not only will the 'RfA Deformers' appreciate his absence from that area, but also a few future candidates of the right calibre may be more willing to come forward. There's also the fact that it's finally time to put an end to the traditional immunity from sanctions for good content contributors.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 month block, with appeal allowed after two weeks and indefinite topic ban of RfA excluding !votes (i.e. allowed to vote, but not to take part in threaded discussion). Whilst I can plausibly believe that the "implications" of the comment were not intended, it was still an unacceptable comment and personal attack.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, KW's comments off-wiki make absolutely clear what implications he intended. He posted to a discussion of this incident saying "If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?" (emphasis added). He offered involvement in Wikipedia:Teahouse as his first suggestion. Classy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an obviously deliberate misrepresentation of what he actually said, and goes a long way to support the idea that you are the one who should be blocked from interacting with him. I believe that he has already agreed to an interaction ban between the two of of you? And to perfectly honest I'd also be prepared to agree to a similar interaction ban, as I find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick I'd prefer never have to deal with again. Eric Corbett 00:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not underestimate Kiefer. This sequence of events was utterly predictable, intentional and carefully crafted by Kiefer himself to generate this exact response. Kiefer carefully contorted his words to fool the minds eye so he could later point out we foolish we all are for misinterpreting them. Not all of us were fooled. He intentionally created disruption using the English language as a weapon, although not as cleverly as he thought, and he has been hoist by his own petard. More than anyone else I have given him every benefit of the doubt, often to the chagrin of others, but this attempt was so tediously obvious, so arrogant that it removes all doubt as to its intent. Whether you call it WP:POINTy, "suicide by admin" or simply self-destructive the result is the same. What Kiefer needs is an epiphany. Unfortunately, I know of no fixed period of time can ensure that happens. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • From my understanding, he actually was blocked for 2.5 weeks out of his last 1 month block. I think enforcing anything less than 1 month is rewarding him for bad behavior. I also agree with the blocker that anything more than two months would be too much because on the whole, as I understand it, he is typically a good editor. So, I'll stick to my original suggestion above of six weeks, but I'll add the option to appeal after a month. After reading the above discussions I also feel that some kind of topic ban on RfA and probably RfB discussions is probably in order. I would think that three months would be reasonable at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zero seconds block. Shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. The fact that mediocre writers here are seriously considering blocking KW for months (and thus depriving Wikipedia of his significant contributions) just because he used the words "Young boys" is laughable. --5.144.173.122 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • All options are wrong. On the one hand, KW is agreed to be an excellent editor in mainspace. On the other hand, KW has a long history of personal attacks and incivility, and it is unrealistic to think that he will learn from this block when he has not learned from previous blocks, and the diatribe that led to this block was malicious, clearly meant to have sexual implications (why else did he refer only to male editors as pawns) but to be capable of being denied as a sexual insult. All options are wrong, because there isn't a mechanism for banning him from talk pages and keeping him in mainspace (and an agreed community ban from talk pages will be violated and we will be right back here again). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite, per Worm That Turned. As an aside, I find this kind of discussion utterly fragmenting and frankly a guarantee of no useful outcome to a blocking discussion. By saying "pick a number between 1 second and infinity" we pretty much ensure that it's impossible to get consensus on a time. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support indefinite per Worm That Turned and Kudpung. Kiefer has unfortunately had issues with several policies, especially with his history of incivility and personal attacks. To quote the immortal words of Wehwalt, "There are too many people here that think contributions excuse conduct, and that clever language, so desired in articles, is to be applauded on talk pages even if insulting regardless of the effect on the recipient. That is wrong." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite per my reasoning a few sections back; user has a history of tendentious behavior which has not gone away despite other attempts at less drastic measures. As a second choice, if this block is to be of a limited duration, then it should go along with an indefinite topic ban from RFA and all RFA-related discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, given that RFA seems to be the locus of the disruption. If KW is a good content contributor and we want to keep him around for that reason, then it makes sense to limit his participation from those areas that cause problems, but still allow him to help the encyclopedia. Still, my first choice is an indefinite ban given that he's demonstrated that he's not willing to change the way he interacts with others given prior opportunities to do so. --Jayron32 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite as the disruption has been piling up for long enough. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite, the comment is among the worst I've seen in my time here and shows that the user is not fit to be editing here. Snowolf How can I help? 14:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite Long enough history to justify it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Month at most - I think a month is the max. Lets remember that KW was not the only one that was an issue here and the problem included at least one admin, who as far as I can tell, hasn't been affected. So if you want to block KW that's fine but someone needs to also address tha other problem children in this debacle including the admin that was clearly baiting KW her and on his talk page. If you just going to block the editor, then your just being hypocritical. I also think this long wall of backpatting and editors voting for and against the block is nonsense. An indef block is clearly innapropriate but who cares right. Its just an editor. And people say I am crazy saying there is no us and them mentality. Its clearly visible right here in this very long discussion. And you people say I am unworthy for adminship. Many of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's worth pointing out that KW was blocked for the edit in which he made unsavoury implications about Demiurge, not because of the prior slanging match with GS. It's already been pointed out that GS's behaviour wasn't great and I don't think anyone is disputing that, but it's not worthy of a block anymore than KW's comments in that argument were worthy of a block. It was his comments here that got KW into this position. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the comment wasn't appropriate. I couldn't see it but someone sent it to me via Email. After reading it in context with the conversation though I think it was taken out of context and although not appropriate, wasn't IMO as bad as is being made out to be. I think there are some folks who are using this as an excuse to block KW. As such and since no one else bothered to do the right damn thing I left a note on GS's talk page myself. Of course I am just a lowly editor and not worthy to scold an amdin but I did it anyway because no one here had the moral courage to call him out on his clearly innappropriate behavior because their too busy jumping on the indef block KW bandwagon here. Kumioko (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Kumioko - you say (at my talk page) "I think your actions were especially bad", but what exactly have I done that is worthy of your comments? Saying one of his comments was "pure snobbery"? I've already apologised for that comment and my general attitude towards Kiefer at this RFA talk page, so I have no idea what good you think it will do any of us by raising it all again. PS you'll note I have deliberately stayed away from all the fresh drama here, so many thanks for dragging me back in so ungraciously. Your implication that my actions/comments got Kiefer blocked, or that I have baited him in any way in order to get him blocked are false and offensive and I would appreciate you revisiting/retracting them. GiantSnowman 15:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)That's fair enough. GS has already indicated that he's going to reflect on this and I'm sure he'll take your criticism constructively. As for KW...
      Not sure who made the comment above. There's no signature but to clarify. You acted innapropriately (as did other users) causing Fram to feel like an interaction ban was needed. Then before anythign can really be said about your activity in the mess, KW makes some inappropriate comments and gets blocked distracting the heat away from you. So, I made a comment on your talk page calling attention to the problem and calling you out on it. And you want me to apologize for scolding you? I do not feel that I need to apologize for telling you to act more like a trustworthy admin and less like a punk kid trying to get another editor in trouble. An apology just ain't gonna happen, because I am not the one who did something wrong even if you don't like the way I said it. Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It was Basalisk. You 'called me out' on something I had been already called out on over 24 hours previously. I apologized. You trying to shit-stir or whatever has served zero purpose whatsoever other than making me feel a bit worse and yourself a bit better. Kudos. GiantSnowman 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the length of time is fairly arbitrary, as fixed-period blocks have proven to be pretty much ineffective in the past. I agree with Dennis in that what KW really needs is an epiphany. I think the most constructive thing we can decide at this board is on a) the interaction ban discussed above and b) a topic ban for Kiefer relating to RfA. I'm not sure what wording would be best, but perhaps a restriction to simple, one-sentence !votes would be appropriate. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A 2 week block would be appropriate only if this was the first incident. It's not. It's the latest in a long line of abusive behaviour from Kiefer. The last block was a month long - why should this be shorter? This user is not going to change their ways any time soon, and they're clearly going to try and worm out of the block with a dodgy unblock request or couple anyway. Based on the user's history, it can only be an indefinite block. Anything shorter isn't going to cut the ice. Again, it's utterly irrelevant whether there were any sexual connotations or not: it's a gross personal attack and one of a long history of them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There seems to be some confusion in your mind: the mantra is "indefinite != infinite", so why are you apparently suggesting that indefinite is longer than a month? And if there were no sexual connotations, which there weren't, in what way was KW's comment a "gross personal attack"? Eric Corbett 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no confusion in my mind. The block needs to be indefinite, because it needs to last until Kiefer is convincing enough about any changes to their actions - which is going to be a heck of a long time. As to it being a gross personal attack - it casts completely bullshit aspersions about the motives and actions of several editors, in a way that was designed to be as highly controversial as possible (remember, we're dealing with someone who claims to be a scholar here) and anything that flies this close to suggesting pedophilia (whether it actually crossed the line or not) is just wrong. And it's not just this attack, it's the hundreds that the user has sent out during their time here. There were enough PAs or close-to-PAs during the RfA thread alone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite. There is obviously broad consensus that the tact and direction of KW's comment was decidedly inflammatory and intended to push readers in a specific direction. For as much as people like John and Eric try to argue there was no malicious implication in his statement, the very fact that so many saw it that way underminds their argument, and KW is not so stupid as to not be aware that people were going to think that. Consequently, until KW acknowledges this and agrees that the casting of such aspersions is significantly beyond the pale, he should remain blocked. In my view, the length is up to KW, and it is his decision whether to be unblocked today, tomorrow or never. Resolute 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite: If this were a clueless newbie with an otherwise clean record, not familar with how things are done here on WP, I might be inclined to let it go with a slap on the wrist. But KW is not a newbie, and he has a long history of being disruptive. Nor can it be argued that he did not know how this comment would be taken here on WP. Sorry, but whatever benefit might be gained by giving him some more rope is very unlikely to offset the harm that he will do to the project. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this leopard just ain't going to change his spots. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000. Whilst this was an understandable block, I don't think it was a good one. It is ludicrous to say "well, if you say something like that, of course it's going to be taken in a certain way". How about taking it exactly as it's written? No, it wasn't wise, but it certainly wasn't worth an indef. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see much point in kicking people off Wikipedia or banning them from RfA. I'd say - give KW the opportunity to apologize and clearly state that he'll be more careful with his words down the road and, once he's done that, unblock him. If he doesn't do that, then too bad. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Time served If we're going to start blocking people based on how badly their statements may be read or their intent inferred by those who either can't or won't understand either plain English or the principle of charity then we're going to have to block everyone who invokes WP:DICK in response to someone else's actions. I offer myself as a test case by hereby noting that I am justifying my argument against those who would keep KW blocked by invoking WP:DICK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite - For reasons best articulated by Jayron32 two sections up, Dennis Brown in this section and several others commenters. KW has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded our core standards of civility, in spite of multiple blocks, warnings, and attempts to coach him about how to interact with the rest of us mere mortals. Initially, I thought that a longish block might be appropriate, but after reviewing more of his interaction history and the way he craftily wiggles out of the hot seat whenever he's called to account, it's clear to me that a GAME is afoot. Dennis absolutely nailed it. While he may be a good editor, his ultimate goal seems to be to go out in a blaze of glory, leaving as many bodies in his wake as possible, and then kvetching about it at that other website. I also note, with disappointment, that there are some enablers here who find his behaviour excusable, or even laudable, but I suppose that's the nature of this social experiment. - MrX 20:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite the comment in question was way, way beyond the pale, and was certainly block-worthy. If it was an isolated incident I might be prepared to let it go with a block of a few weeks, but this editor has a long history of incivility. Given this, KW should not be unblocked unless he can persuade us that he is going to change his ways, and not until the block has stood for at least a few months. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but the burden should be on the blocked editor to demonstrate that they will behave if unblocked, not on the community to demonstrate that they should remain blocked. Hut 8.5 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite for exactly the reasons Dennis Brown points out. KW outsmarted himself. Net negative, as is evidenced by this thread.Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite as Pedro notes, KW has hoisted himself by his own petard. Net negative indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The "net negatives" are those who seem to live in this Hell-hole of vindictiveness. Eric Corbett 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What, Hertfordshire? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've decided not to poison the well by adding diffs from my early interaction with KW, so I'm stating an opinion, honestly held. Nothing more. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - To anyone stating that this should be anything less than a two week block (or even shouldn't be a block at all): look at Kiefer's comments over at Wikipediocracy. I'm not going to link the thread here, but the more you read of it, the more you begin to think that he did genuinely imply this sexual connotation, or certainly something incredibly shady. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's interesting because he has his real name on his user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't blame Luke, he is just a child. But when teenagers like himself start thinking they are center of the world, and being condescending to more experienced editors such as KW, they can truly become an annoyance. Luke has now established himself as an "admin puppy" who always sides with the admins, and who seems to enjoy calling for the block of other editors. I sense we will see him asking to be an admin soon. We will see. --Diogotome (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fiddlesticks. KW has been treating others with condescension for a long time now. People like KW are "admin pitbulls" who go around looking for a reason to try taking a bite out of the nearest admin they can find. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I don't know. I see a number of admins, myself included, who aren't taking Luke's side. I've no idea whether he wishes to run for RfA, but as a number of young hopefuls have found before, being regulars at AN/ANI have had the opposite effect at RfA than they expect. Don't you think? Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, don't worry, I lost track in about 1987. No, it's not about Luke or anyone else for that matter, I'm just getting the impression that certain issues aren't being dealt with even-handedly here. Keifer isn't exactly helping himself, but that shouldn't be the point. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Kiefer isn't helping himself, I agree, but there's a disconcerting degree of asymmetry here, which I'd be inclined to summarise as "I've never liked him and this is a good opportunity to get him blocked forever". Eric Corbett 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • One week This appears to be at the low end of the range of those who expressed a specific time (which isn't many). My impression, and I could very well be wrong, is that KW wasn't intending to make the charge implied by the careful wording, but intending to skirt close to the edge, to see how the community would react. Those types of posts often deserve trouts rather than blocks, but the history means it ought to be more than a trout. There's a bit too much hand-wringing over the implications.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite. I don't see any other reasonable alternative when taking this intentional personal attack with the lengthy history of disruption evident from their block log. I don't believe allowing an unblock request any sooner than two months from now would be acceptable, given how quickly this incident followed his most recent block, which was for a month (and he was unblocked early, just a few days shy of three weeks ago). Incivility, targeted attacks, and disruption like this do significant long-term damage to the community and, as a result, the project. user:j (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Which "community" would that be? The faux Ku Klux Klan who frequent boards such as this one in search of someone to lynch? Eric Corbett 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know this editor personally, I don't know his viewpoints. I do know he has a lengthy history of being blocked for disruption and civility, and I do know the personal attack he crafted in this case was particularly nasty. I really don't know what to think about your position that other editors taking issue with his behaviour is akin to Klan activity and your view that an indefinite block supported by community consensus is best described as a "lynching." But I don't think you're doing him any favours in your arguments, frankly. user:j (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite: This user has definitely not learned his lesson from his other indef-blocks. His attitude towards others at recent RfA's was atrocious. He harassed others, including me that did not have the same opinion as him. Maybe K.W can come back in 10-12 months showing better, but with many restrictions, but otherwise, KW should remain blocked. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indefinite please. His history of being plain disruptive is ridiculously long, and why he's still unblocked even more ridiculous. If he'd been a new editor, he would probably have been indefinite blocked more than a couple dozen times (Without unblock, I mean). Being a prolific editor must not come in the way of completely decimating and showing an utter disrespect for one of our pillars. No more editors running away because of incivility please. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Which editors have "run away because of incivility"? That's a cheap shot I think you'll find very hard to back up. Eric Corbett 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      User Talk page protected

      The combative discussions continued on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz so I've given it a days full protection. I've had a couple of requests to unprotect at User talk:Salix alba#KW talk page and Kiefer has emailed for it to be unprotected. I'm inclined to let to protection run its course, but if any admin want to change it that fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Um, so that other people don't continue the argument while he stands around helplessly unable to respond. T13 - you were asked to self-impose an AN/ANI topic-ban ... this question could have been asked directly to the protector (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Partially also so that I didn't have to change the main block. I didn't want an indefinite block on the talk page just a short one to diffuse the situation. You can't have different part of a block running for different times.--Salix (talk): 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      BWilkins is exactly correct. It was the best possible solution in a situation with no good options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      KW does not have email enabled...if he's blocked can he still enable it? Just asking since I don't know...and since his talkpage is protected.--MONGO 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that preferences are not affected by a block. We don't know when he disabled email, but I don't think it has always been disabled. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have revdel'd KW's original comment. Regardless of what it explicitly said, consensus is fairly clear that it contained a deliberate implication by Kiefer. If any admin disagrees with this, feel free to revert it; I won't take offence. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure it was required. I maintain the primary issue was intentionally crafting the words to be easily misunderstood for the purpose of causing drama, rather than the words themselves. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, and I very strongly object to the revdel of all edits made to the page between 20:39 UTC yesterday and 17:05 UTC today, inclusive. This revdel even removed postings to completely different top-level sections of WP:AN, as well as many posts in which members of the community expressed their views on the duration of the ban and suggestions concerning a proposed topic ban from RfA. --Stfg (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)When I read KW original post, it set my mind racing about Demiurge's conduct on IRC. I realised that that's not ok, as what KW said was baseless. We shouldn't leave those kinds of posts lying around to place suggestive images in people's minds. Stfg - thanks for raising it on my talk page. I didn't realise the post had already been removed and restored, and wouldn't have removed it again had I realised. I skimmed through the discussion here and in all fairness the only mention of it was from Darkness Shines. I meant what I said in my previous post - I did this because I felt it was the right thing to do, but if someone thinks this is a bad decision then go ahead and revert it; it's relatively easy to undo. I won't mind. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)Well, I disagree with the revdel, too, and I'll undo it, if there are no strong objections. There's nothing explicitly requiring revdel in the edits, and given that KW was blocked for what boils down to his choice of words (intentional or otherwise), it doesn't seem fair to him to remove them from public view, where they can't be accurately judged. (FWIW, Horologium appears to have restored parts of the removed text but nto actually undone the revdel.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Trout, self-served by db
      Ok, part of this was my fault and I may have given Basalisk some bad info in an email. But it is just a misunderstanding, of which I will share in the blame. Writ, if you will do the honors (I've never UNrevdel'ed before) I would be in your debt. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That isn't true, Dennis didn't offer me bad info. I simply didn't know about the previous discussion, which was my oversight. I've apologised to Prodego. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I should have caught it in the email and I didn't, so that is my fault. Too many distractions at work today and the internet isn't working right and a technician is on the way. Had I caught that, this wouldn't have happened. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Okay, the edit history is restored. I've left the comments redacted in the live version of the page (without prejudice as to whether they should be restored on the live page, too), as I don't feel as strongly about that as I did the revdel; his comments can be seen in the edit history at least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks everyone. Basalisk, I apologise for rasing wheel warring. I skimmed WP:WW, but didn't grok that it requires intent. I've never doubted your good intent. --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Page move assistance

      I need help moving Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer born 1977) to Andy Gray (footballer, born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer, born 1977) and fix Andrew Gray accordingly per Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Birth_date_format_conformity_.28second_round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Page Redirect

      Hello, Is it possible to make the following wikipedia page redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Soltz to http://www.bloomu.edu/president . Bloomsburg is an accredited university and it's more relevant to link to the external presidents about page as it's more up to date + relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow82x (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • No. Wikipedia pages can't redirect to external sources. If Mr Soltz is indeed notable and passes our notability policies for his own Wikipedia page then that link could be included in the article, however. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the OP might have been asking to replace the former red link to Soltz in the Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania infobox with an external link to his bio. That's not a great solution either per MOS, but it is done sometimes. In any case, I've created a viable stub for David L. Soltz. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow request and Beeblebrox premature closure request.

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

      Begoon, there was no need for vulgarity despite the fact that it was reverted for being against the rules of posting to a closed discussion. Anyways... All I wanted to say here is thank you to everyone that participated in the discussion. I found your input in someways enlightening. I'll be honest, I don't get sarcasm very well, and I don't understand asking the asking of questions that you don't want an answer to. I'm pretty sure there was a pillar I read somewhere that said it is always best to try and be as clear and concise as possible while remaining civil. I've made a note and apology on Beeblbrox's user page, as I really was not trying to attack him and I actually had an edit page open to send him the AN-notice template but everything happened so fast and I'm dealing with a baby trying to pull her playcenter over on herself (she's in her high chair eating lunch right now) that I didn't get a chance to submit and turned it into an apology instead. Anyways, thank you all again. TheShadowCrow and I will be back at some point to request a full ban lift, and it will be within a reasonable amount of time. I will likely be back in here much sooner with my (Non-administrator comment) and Template:Cue on other matters, and I hope that you will AGF and at least consider my future comments with neutrality. Happy editing all! Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think your well-intentioned, but poorly-executed thread above shows that you do not yet understand enough about Wikipedia's core policies and processes to make too many nao's and cue's for awhile yet. You're best to watch and learn for awhile before opening threads or commenting. This very thread alone shows you don't get it yet! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Looking for a few good admins

      It's that ole pain in the ass Beeblebrox with his giant policy RFCs again, looking for some volunteers to get on board to administrate and eventually close Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC, which has just opened. Potential benefits include harassment, trolling, and the near certainty that no matter how you close it you will be accused of some sort of wrongdoing. Sounds great, right?

      Actually I'm not sure this one will be so bad, its bound to be a cakewalk compared to the pending changes rfcs. I need somewhere between two and four admins or other experienced users to keep things under control and determine where consensus has led us when it is all over. I'd like to get that locked in now while we are still pretty early in the process, it's only been open for about a half an hour. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I would be happy to be a part of the conclusion of this RfC if you're not opposed to me wanting to help. Technical 13 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You voted in the RFC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I did vote after I made this offer, but am not participating in any discussions or really arguing for any of the possible outcomes as I really don't care. If that vote excludes me from helping tally up and determine the consensus, that is not a big deal to me and I have no problem being excluded from that task. As a side note, there seems to be too many options available and it is heavily diluting the voting pool and consensus may be difficult to pull out of it. I believe it is going to end up being that two or three options will be left standing out of the eight ten options and will those will need a second RfC to allow the people who supported one of the other seven or eight to refine their position. I know that is probably blatantly obvious to some, but sometimes seeing the obvious spelled out is useful. Technical 13 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I am not an admin, but I do consider myself part of the "experienced users" group. I also have absolutely no predisposition towards any outcome, as the ref desk isn't an area I've ever spent any time at. I have experience doing difficult closes over at Wikidata (or at least, as difficult as they get over there), and I'd be willing to be a closer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be happy to help close but not moderate. I have experience doing this - I was one of the three closers of the Muhammad images RfC and am assigned to close the Jerusalem RfC. I don't have any strong opinions about the refdesk or any other COI. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well finding volunteers certainly isn't seeming as hard as it has sometimes been in the past. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to pick and choose who does what myself, if you all want to organize a team of closers that would be great, but it might be good to have at least one person willing to keep an eye on the rfc and the talk page while it is underway as there is already some personal acrimony seen there. (and of course me and my motivations are being attacked, but I fully expected that so don't worry about it.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      More admin help needed at ITN

      A few days after I posted a request for admin assessment at ITN, there is another item with what appears to have fairly obvious consensus to post (but take that assessment with a grain of salt since I nominated the item) left languishing for >24 hours. It seems to be happening a lot lately with even the most obvious items sticking around 12+ hours, so I am thinking we need more admin help at ITN in general. There are several admins who often participate in discussions (which naturally makes us ineligible to post a given item). A couple admins who rarely discuss but often post haven't been around much recently, so more people willing to pop in once in a while and assess items would be helpful.

      The particular item in question is "FC Bayern Munich treble" found here. No special knowledge of the ITN process is required, just the ability to assess consensus. However, if desired, the general guidelines on ITN can be found at Wikipedia:In the news. In response to a question asked last time, ITN has a "normalish" standard of consensus - by the numbers, items are usually (unless support arguments are weak) posted when above the 60-65% level, and are occasionally posted even below 50% if support arguments are stronger than opposition. When potentially posting an item (i.e. when consensus is there), you also need to make sure the article is of adequate quality (no orange tag) and updated (usually at least a couple sentences on the news item). We don't usually close items before they go stale (are older than the oldest item on the template) unless they are hopeless and/or the discussion gets unnecessarily contentious.

      Posting instructions are available here. Note: we routinely post stories that are 2-3 days old if immediately consensus wasn't clear. Stories are sorted on the template by date, so a new item can be added to the middle, for example. If you are interested and have any questions on ITN, let me know (reply here or my talk). There may be an award to any "new" ITN admin who assesses/posts a couple items within the next week. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've posted the Bayern blurb. I'll keep an eye on this this week (you'll have to keep an eye on me to make sure I don't break anything). Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, will do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Free Given Rollback??

      No other admin action needed. Rollback removed per consensus and user request. (NAC) WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 00:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Hi User:WorldTraveller101, a new user on Wikipedia has received rollback privileges after being declined several times as seen here: [18]. Though declined he managed to get rollback privileges later without requesting. Even if this is Okay or not, he has been blocked 4 times for; Sockpuppetry, Hounding, Baiting, and Good Hand-Bad hand sockpuppetry. He has also made many mistakes using twinkle often reverting the good edits made by innocent I.P's. Most of his 2000 edits are on talk pages and user pages. --PrabashWhat? 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Just to add to this, he cannot identify vandalism correctly. 3 Examples here: [19] [20] [21] of me informing of this, also many others users have told him about the exact same issue, some but not all include [22] [23]. It goes without saying to an admin the ability to identify vandalism is crucial when using rollback. A quick look through his talk page shows he isn't ready for a tool like this. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He was informed right away, here --JetBlast (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)x2 Note: I notified the granting administrator, User:Graeme Bartlett, of this thread. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologize, I should have looked more closely than I did! I didn't notice that WorldTraveller101 was using an overflow parameter on the table of contents and failed to scroll its entirety. As they often say, "haste makes waste" and it certainly did in this example. Best regards.--My76Strat (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Listen guys, I know you guys are unhappy about this, but it is what it is. It is why I'm doing CVUA and adoption. Anyway, I only plan to use it for editors who have made multiple edits of clear-cut vandalism. I know JetBlast, especially has concerns about it, but I promise that I'll be using it wisely, and that Vigyani, AutomaticStrikeout, Nerdfighter, and others will be. Thanks guys. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, I requested reviewer, but the admin looking at it thought that rollback would be appropriate. Also, I'm not going to use it a ton (except for as stated above), until I've passed CVUA and perhaps, adoption. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      AutomaticStrikeout I didn't discuss the issue with the admin, but I did ask if I were eligible for rollback, she told me I have room for improvements, but shockingly WT101 gets rollback for free from that admin? was this even justified? Thanks --PrabashWhat? 23:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Guys, just do what's necessary, if consensus is for no rollback, then give me a few more weeks, 300-500 good edits and then try again? Whatever consensus is is fine by me. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What exactly did you mean by "I know you guys are unhappy about this, but it is what it is"? Prodego talk 23:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Um...what else would I mean? I e-mailed Vigyani and was hoping to address any possible concerns. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Usually "it is how it is" means that something is bad, but it cannot be changed. I do not understand how that fits in with what you were saying. Prodego talk 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Looking at his declined requests (some of which I declined) he was practically begging to have the right. Not exactly inspiring and borderline hatcollectorish. --Rschen7754 23:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Rschen, that is why I tried to show how I wanted to help. Maybe I'm not ready yet, but maybe just having it now and not using it much until the end of my CVUA and/or adoption sounds reasonable, right? I'm not compromising, I'm just curious. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That's textbook hat collecting. Wikimedia sites don't give out rights until you show that you need them and know how to use them. --Rschen7754 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Rollback is pretty useless, so why all this fuss? If it wasn't useless the admins would have kept it to themselves. Eric Corbett 23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is true. Prodego talk 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As much as reverting multiple edits is useful, it is pretty true. I'm going to talk to him. There is clear consensus that another 3-5 weeks of no warnings and 250-500 good edits until then. Let me open up a thread at his talk if no one else already has. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He has already been invited to the discussion here so keep the discussion here please. --PrabashWhat? 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I removed rollback rights from WT101. I'm not exactly thrilled with the way WT101, PBASH, or JetBlast have conducted themselves here. It seems to be a hat collecting competition between them. In particular the 'It is how it is' comment is not helpful. It is this response to the concerns raised here, not the concerns themselves, that I removed rollback. Prodego talk 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      WT101, 3 months and 1200+ good edits with zero warnings, there might be a chance that you actually earn the tool. Until then, keep your nose clean (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having just declined a previous application a few days previously, I was surprised about the according of the right. However, I generally assume GF on the part of admins and hence did not raise an issue over it. That said, this thread is a storm in a teacup and a lot of unnecessary intereference by inexperienced editors whose business it it not. I've mildly warned some of them for PA and refactoring other users' comments. There is far too much silly witch hunting going on against admins - even Eric Corbett is not worried in this instance. Absolutely no admin action needed here and this can be closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No. You've been asked many times to keep away from admin/meta areas until you have demonstrated that you can edit with appropriate maturity and completed your adoption course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, WT, you may. This is a discussion board for everyone Kudpung, so WT is welcome to contribute here. It may not be the best area for new editors to contribute, but if he wants to, he may. All editors are welcome to contribute almost everywhere. Prodego talk 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=558371227"