Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Brews ohare's topic ban appeal

Note: Moved from WP:ANI. –MuZemike 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Appealing user

– Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Tznkai's extension of Speed of Light sanctions as stated below:

• Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.--Tznkai (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Above ban reviewed and continued, available for another review four weeks after 10 December 2009. Discussion archived atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Brews_ohare_restriction_review.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor who imposed the sanction (consensus not required, nor obtained)

Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diffof that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. As I am blocked, no notification can be given. It appears that Tznkai is presently inactive, and returned to WP only after a direct request by ArbCom for commentary.

Statement by Brews_ohare

Tznkai indicated here the intention that these requirements were not intended to be long-term, and recommended that I undertake this appeal. The intention of these restrictions was to cut short debate over procedural issues. I had undertaken to engage on Talk pages about WP policies, and some editors viewed that engagement as somehow attempting to escape the original ArbCom sanctions about "physics-related Talk page discussions". I did not have such an intention, and I certainly pledge to avoid any policy discussion that could be seen as somehow pleading a case for lifting the SoL restrictions and doing an end-run around an appeal.

I wish to point out that in the recent action against Trusilver I have expressed my views in his support. I do not, however, consider that to be an obstructive or disruptive action, but to be a normal part of such proceedings. I was an invited party in this action.

Presently I am blocked by Ucucha as violating Tznkai's extended sanctions as a result of suggesting a change in wording of a resolution. He also has suggested these sanctions should be reviewed. I would assume that repeal of these sanctions also would result in lifting this block.

Statement by DESiegel

I have no view as yet on the merits of extending or lifting these restrictions. However should they be extended, since they include a prohibition on editing the Wikipedia namespace, and in line with the currently proposed Wikipedia:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations, I suggest an exception for edits to AFD pages of articles where Brews_ohare is a creator or major contributor. Reasons in principle for such an exception can be found at the linked proposal page and its talk page. DES ^(talk) 00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

With the proviso that such comments should be kept brief and to the point, this does not seem problematic. However, any tendency towards circular argument, Wikilawyering and so on will undoubtedly cause this to be reviewed again. I don't think Brews has understood and accepted the problem identified at arbitration, which was largely, to my view, about arguing the point long after it became obvious that he was in a tiny minority - WP:STICK applies here. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis. You're refighting the arbitration case. Again. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis again: you are not helping to fix the present problems, it's pretty clear to me and several others, including sitting arbitrators, that you are part of the problem not least because he seems to understand things a lot better than you do. With every word the "Brews crew" write you reduce Brews' credibility and chances of success. With friends like you he has no need of enemies right now. Sad but true. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Brews_ohare

I wrote some big replies to Guy which I have just removed. I originally though that Guy was serious, but that was not the case. I have inadvertantly added to noise here by replying to Guy's trolling, sorry for that. See the soapbox thread below about Brews started by Guy below for what I mean. The following subsection are more relevant responses. But perhaps it is more important to consider what Brews has recently done for Wikipedia:

(latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

05:42, 5 March 2010 (hist | diff) Attitude (geometry) ‎(add image) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (hist | diff) Strike and dip ‎(add image) (top) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (hist | diff) Lehmann discontinuity ‎(add image) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: adjust image size) 06:06, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: clear up origin of figure) 06:04, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(different source) 06:02, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(fix author's name) 05:57, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: rephrase) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add image; comment) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: more specific section title) 22:57, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(link in caption) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: link) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(extra period) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 22:52, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add to caption) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: rearrange links) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(re-order Earth sections) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: link) 22:42, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: add to caption) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(reorganize sections of Earth) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→P-wave shadow zone: add connection to seismic waves) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Lehmann discontinuity ‎(link) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(format text) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(add depth to caption) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(add url) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add figure for seismic wave velocities; source) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: extra 's') 18:58, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(link) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(note on Venus) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(more details; another source) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(correct terminology) 17:52, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(clarification on nomenclature) 17:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(Second LVZ & source) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) N LVZ ‎(Create redirect for LVZ) (top) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Mantle (geology) ‎(→Structure) 17:28, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle (geology) ‎(→Structure: link) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(delete repeated "the") 17:24, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(clarification) 17:22, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(word change) 17:19, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→See also: link) 17:15, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 17:14, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add source; alternative models) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Hawaii hotspot ‎(→Hawaii hotspot characteristics: link to lvz) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Valles Caldera ‎(→Geology and science: link to LVZ) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→See also: typos) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→References: See also section) 17:31, 20 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle plume ‎(template: spell out some details in present template on citations)

17:09, 20 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle plume ‎(→Role of the core: link)

Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're conveniently forgetting all the crap he's done because he can't abide by the terms of his ban, or refuses to back back down. Out of Brews 500 most recent contributions, THREE ([1], [2], [3]) were not related to his fighting his bans. A productive editor does not have a signal to noise ratio of 0.6%. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But most of that noise happens precisely because Brews trips over some procedural obstacle imposed after the original ArbCom case leading to a huge volume of discussions, like this very discussion here. My opinion is that in most cases nothing substantial happened apart from the fact that he crossed a procedural line drawn in the sand. You can then have endless arguments about that, which is precisely what is happening right here.

A simple solution would be to relax the namespace ban allowing Brews to contribute to essays but not on Admin and Arbitrator's noticeboards unless invited to do so. Then no one active on such boards has to cross Brews' path. If Brews agrees with this, then the problem is solved, I would think. A statement by an editor in which he promises not to do certain things is worth much more than trying to impose some sweeping rule.

If anyone is familiar with User:GoRight here, then I can assure them that solving the Brews' problem so that he can contribute constructively to articles is far easier than getting GoRight to do the same. E.g. so far no one has posted on Brews talk page to ask him what consessions he is willing to make to move forward. In case of GoRight there was a flood of Admins pleading with him to find a solution to address his endless Wikilawyering on Global Warming pages. I haven't heard any Admin complaining about the effort being invested there being a problem, though.Count Iblis (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If Brews wants to edit articles productively, then all he has to do is edit articles productively (physics ones excluded). However that is not what Brews is interested in, Brews is interested in fighting his ban and banging his drums at every possible occasion and framing himself as a modern martyr. Letting him edit the Wikipedia namespace means letting him soapbox even more than he already does.

This situation is akin to someone getting himself thrown out of a bar for disruption and told to not come back for a month, then going back there the next day arguing with the bouncer that he was unfairly thrown out. So he get thrown out again, and told to not show up for two months. The next week he sneaks in the bathroom window, and the bouncer catches him buying cigarettes next to the bathroom and throws him out. He protests, saying he's only banned from the dance floor, and that he should be allowed to buy cigarettes because it is legal to buy cigarettes. And so on and so forth.

If Brews wants to be allowed back in the bar, then all he has to do is stop throwing a hissy fit at the bouncer every day, while trying to find ways to sneak past the bouncer when the bouncer says he can't come in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews is also interested in contributing to articles, otherwise he would not have edited all those geology articles and made figures for them. Brews' main expertise is, however, physics. So, it seems to me that we could end this drama by simply talking to Brews and getting him to agree to some compromize everyone can live with till the end of this year when the topic ban will be completely lifted.

From your more sceptical perspective, you could think of this as "calling Brews' bluff". Why not do that and see what happens? Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Brews ran out of it a long time ago. I did, and I still do, support Brews productive editing efforts. I supported him when he wanted to edit mathematical physics articles even though someone wanted him to be blocked for it, I support him when he wants to edit geology articles even though one could certainly interpret the ban as to mean he's not allowed to edit these topics either. What is NOT productive however, is him (along with Tombe, Likebox, Hell in a Bucket, etc...) trying to "fix" Wikipedia because their editing style and views conflict with a low-drama environment (domination of talk page, incessant fighting of restrictions, trying to amend policies, comparisons to Stalin, Hitler, and other famous despots, comparisons to literary figures such as Inspector Javert, rants against Arbcom, Admins, and wikipedia editors in general, appeals to Jimbo, personal attacks, accusations of censorship, and so on and so forth). Totaled together, "Brews' side" has well over 50 blocks for disrupting, arbcom violations, edit warring, personal attacks and the like. So you'll pardon me if I and others have a hard time seeing this as the actions of reasonable people concerned with Wikipedia, rather than the actions of fanatics who sees Wikipedia as a battleground and who are trying to avenge their fallen comrade and canonize him as a saint.

You, and Brews, and Likebox, and Tombe, and Hell in a Bucket, and ... have been told several times now that the quickest way to get these bans lifted would be for you to back off, stop fighting the ban every two weeks, and cease being a bunch of drama queens. You chose to not back off, keep fighting, and create a bunch of drama. And so you've hurt your cause much more than anyone else ever could, and now the bans are probably there to stay for the rest of the original year. And you know what? If you keep fighting them, it's very possible that they'll get extended.

The ball is in your court. Play nice for six months, or keep ripping the scab off the wound. The former leads to Brews being able to edit physics articles and Wikipedia space, the latter to other ARBCOM cases, and very possibly blocks, including indef-blocks, and topic bans for people who didn't previously had any. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So far there has been only one initiative by Likebox to appeal the topic ban. So, this idea of a fight every two weeks to lift Brews' bans is nonsense. All the discussions at Admin or Arbitration level are initiated by Brews' opponents. In these discussions we also make some proposals. Sometimes David uses language that is inappropriate. But you cannot just point at that and then say that we all have to shut up and that only you can give your comments'.

So, no I won't shut up making statements along the lines of: "let's get Brews to agree to a voluntary topic ban on AN, AN/I and Arbcom pages and let him edit articles from some approved list of topics, physics related or not, that list being periodically reviewed". Such statements do not contain references to Hitler or Stalin. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IP writes: Brews really should be editing under guidance from a mentor

That was proposed by me some time ago, but rejected out of hand, and not at all because I proposed unacceptable mentors. I proposed that Headbomb or Finell could be his mentors. Then the IP goes on to write that I should not be involved with Brews, which is rather strange. I'm WP:AGF here and will assume the IP has read about the original ArbCom case form a biased source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Headbomb

This is all speculation. Why not discuss with Brews and try to get him to agree to some compromizes like e.g. that he will not start AN/I threads himself, that he will not comment on cases where he is not involved as an editor etc. etc. Then Brews can contribute to his and my essay in peace without causing trouble. Almost all of the perceived problems with Brews are cases where someone else referred him to AE because of an infraction but that would not be a problem at all had Brews not been under a restriction. Then Brews has to present a case and you get lots of discussions at ArbCom or Admin level about basically nothing. In this case it is Brews posting on namespace territory. But had Brews not been under a namespace restriction, there would not have been any problem at all, as what he wrote was not offensive or otherwise problematic.

So, I don't foresee any trouble if the ban is lifted. But if others are concerned, there are still ways to address those concerns (e.g. by getting Brews to agree to voluntary restrictions as I explained above). Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David Tombe

One of the main problems with Tznkai's additional sanctions is the fact that Tznkai is no longer active on wikipedia, and that one of his last comments on the matter suggested that the sanctions had run their course. The exact words are here.[4]. I know that Tznkai's words fall short of actually formally revoking the sanctions, but this needs to be balanced against the fact that no event has occurred that would have been likely to have altered Tznkai's intentions. And indeed when Tznkai made an appearance at the recent appeal to have Brews's sanctions lifted, he spoke very highly about Brews and suggested that everybody should shake hands with each other. David Tombe (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Yet again we find ourselves in the same situation we always are. Coming to contest a bullshit block that shouldn't have happened. When will arbcom realize that the process is flawed. How long until you make changes? This block is in answer to percieved usurpation of the powers directly resulting from the last arb case. If you want David, Count, Brews or myself to go away do something that makes sense and look in the mirror regarding your own behaviors and see the problems melt away. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Let's ask ourselves the question, "What edits would Brews make assuming the namespace ban lifted?" Given the long history of disruption, failing to get the point, and trying to change policies to accommodate his behavior rather than change his behavior to accommodate policies, I think is is safe to say that Brews' would use his newfound freedom to further soapbox against ARBCOM, ANI, behavioral policies, his topic ban, proposed new levels of bureaucracy to rectify the "great wrongs" that's been caused to him. Just look at his recent bans log. Blocked on Feb 28 for getting involved in a physics dispute and violating the namespace ban. This created a whole lot of ruckus with the Trusilver case. Then, knowing full well that he ban still applied, he went on vote in the de-adminship process (March 5), ranting against "arrogant admins". Then after that blocked was lifted, he again (March 15) went to edit the admin noticeboard, again as part as his campaign to right the great wrongs caused to him.

Brews et al. have been advised several times that the best way to get the ban lifted would be to drop the stick and focus on him being productive rather rather than thread all over Wikipedia screaming how much ARBCOM idolizes Stalin, that Hitler dreamed of having an army of Wikipedia-admins to enforce his policies, and that I'm some banana republic dictator hellbent on crushing dissent. Yet, they steadfastly refuse to do so, and keep fighting tooth and nail with a liberal amount of accusations of Stalinism, Tyranny, Nazism, invoking French literature, legal terms, philosophical essays on the nature of civilization, and the list goes on. Just ask JzG who first met them at Jimbo's talk page.

And this is what is happening with the current restrictions. If anything, we should consider increasing them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved 66.127.52.47 (talk)

This may not yet be the time to formally lift the ban, but I think the enforcement admins have been too hair-triggered lately, especially about article space. They do have discretion and Brews is making decent efforts to edit within his restrictions. If Brews is making reasonable contributions the admins might informally decide to back off a little bit. When those contributions appear intended to test boundaries (which some of them do) and the admins feel they have to respond, they could choose more proportionate responses, e.g. talkpage messages or short (6 hour) blocks, instead of the longer blocks that don't appear to have much preventive value, yet cause enough drama to be viewable as POINTy. OTOH, I have to agree with John Blackburne that Brews's activity at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bivector/Archive_1 was not pretty (I didn't examine the article edits directly, but I don't have any reason to think that the talkpage discussions are inaccurate). The "pseudoscience" arb finding about academically demanding subjects seems relevant there.[5] -- Brews should tone it down. Brews really should be editing under guidance from a mentor who would be able to interpret the restriction and have some authority to relax it, and also to act on behavioral issues even when they aren't under the formal restriction. Has that been explored yet? Also, he should dissociate himself from Count Iblis, David Tombe, and that crowd. They are not good examples for him to follow. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Likebox

Unban brews.Likebox (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Martinp

This whole situation appears to have sufficiently exhausted the community's patience that few uninvolved people are commenting here. (There do appear to be plenty of comments from those involved in the situation overall, some of which are not helping). The admin who placed the discretionary sanction is not around to shed further light on his(?) intent or provide perspective, and based on the dearth of discussion no one else is really following with an unbiased eye except for rather mechanical (not a criticism) AE blocks. So clearly the status quo is not working. The diffs brought up by Headbomb are in and of themselves not past the realm of normal wiki discourse and disenfranchising contributors from appropriately voicing their opinions in meta-discussions is not something we should do lightly.

As someone uninvolved, let me propose for discussion the following, based largely on the 1st para of Brews' statement and JzG's comment:

Brews' restrictions on discussions on physics-related topics are maintained at the present time(I know some people don't like that, but that appears contentious and I want something we can all work with). However, Brews' blanket restriction from commenting in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces is rescinded, with the strong recommendation that such comments should be kept brief and to the point, without any tendency towards circular argument, Wikilawyering, or "retrying the case".

Given that the current restriction has degenerated into much drama, if Brews proves unable to participate in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces productively (or self-police himself to avoid participating if he cannot), the only reasonable solution will be a community ban. On the other hand, if Brews does participate at an appropriate level and productively, this may lay the groundwork for further relaxation later.

As an infrequent contributor and nonadmin, I cannot offer to follow through on any monitoring, so by posting this I am primarily hoping to restart stalled discussion towards a win-win solution. Martinp (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Brews_ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The preceding is cross-posted by yours truly from [6]. Tim Song (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I would suggest that we simply extend the Brews_ohare topic ban to a full Wikipedia space topic ban. I've seen enough from this user in the recent weeks to fully support this. I therefore propose the following restriction.

"Brews ohare is placed on an indefinite topic ban by the Wikipedia community. He is banned from editing any page in the Wikipedia namespace along with any page in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Further, he is banned from discussing on any page anything related to physics, broadly construed. Should he break these restrictions, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up to one month for repeat violations."

Discussion

• There, that should be relatively unambiguous and stop many of the problems we've seen. Support. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as utter bullshit a non reasonable extension. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we please have a list of diffs that shows exactly what is so disruptive about Brews' edits in recent weeks? To place things in the right context, what do we make of Guy's thread below about Brews that attacks me and Tarc? Is that ok. because Guy has a licence to engage in soapboxing on Admin noticeboards? Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per RyanPostlethwaite. Although I doubt this will make any difference, considering this is simply restating the existing bans, which Brews et al. are fully aware are still active, and which Brews keeps violating every chance he gets, while being encouraged by the et al to do so. IMO, an indef-block is in order. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose continuing or strengthening the ban on Wikipedia and Wikipedia namespace participation at this time, no opinion on the Physics part. Examining Brews' recent contributions at WP: and WP talk: does not seem to uncover anything which would be clearly disruptive (one can hardly call commenting on an RFaR in which you are a named party disruptive...) (I went as far back as Feb 17). In view of the mess around this situation, I would err on opening the door to see what happens rather than continuing something which has become rather Kafkaesque, even with the best of intentions. See my suggestion going the other way above. Martinp (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hell in a Bucket. In addition, rebound sanctions for all those proposing pointless sanctions, following the ancient wisdom of I'm rubber, you're glue.Likebox (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Melesse

Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi. You earlier had a report on this user here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive602#User:Melesse

She recently deleted a photo I'd uploaded and she doesn't restore it (don't know if admins can). I told her about it here [7] and then she deleted another one of my photos ([8]) which I had disputed on that photos talk page (can't find it anymore). She didnt reply at all so I'm bringing it up here. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should probably take requests to have the deletion reviewed directly to WP:Deletion Review. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

-sigh- not again. This hasn't been the first time Melesse has been making questionable deletes. Not long ago she was prematurely cleaning out C:CSD#Dated deletion categories based on her own time zone, a practice which went unchallenged for months. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File deleted in error

File:BBC_World_Service_Big_Ben_1-1-2009.ogg was deleted in error. Reason given for deletion was CSD#F7, but this states "... may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability." Justification was given using {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}; justification was "The BBC World Service will always be copyright of the BBC." Also, the file should not have been tagged for deletion in the first place as the file can never be replaced by a freely licensed alternative. This is because, in general, anything recorded from the radio is copyright. Finally, the administrator who deleted the file was the same one who tagged it. I don't know the guidelines on this, but this seems wrong as it does not allow a second pair of eyes to review the decision. Anyway, could we have this file back please? HairyWombat (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally, you would contact the deleting admin first -- that's Melesse (talk · contribs). However, since Melesse was both the nominator and deleter, you should probably take this directly to WP:Deletion Review. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably best. The file as a whole certainly isn't technically replaceable, but it's probably not supportable under WP:NFCC either. It would be easy to get a free recording of the Big Ben chimes for use in January 1, and I don't see how the sample is really necessary in BBC World Service either. It fails WP:NFCC#8, as far as I can see. Black Kite 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fairly inappropriate. If you nominate something for deletion, and another editor disputes the nomination and adds the appropriate tag to it, you really shouldn't be the one deciding it. This seems to be a fairly common practice of this admin, and it needs to stop. –xeno^talk 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that there's another thread on WP:AN about user:Melesse (here). Also, Melesse had not been notified about this thread; I have now done so. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The reporting user did inform Melesse of the therad, here. –xeno^talk 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the two threads. –xeno^talk 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a little disappointing that the user has not taken the time to respond to either of these threads, but found the time to delete 283 pages this morning (including at least three out of process). –xeno^talk 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have disruptive editing, misuse of admin tools, and refusal to communicate when asked to. I appreciate that admins are expected to behave to lower standards than are required of non-admins, but surely a block would now be in order? DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about a block, it would seem a little punitive at this point, but from what I can see, if Melesse won't communicate, it might be time to involve ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully ArbCom is not necessary at this point. I left them a warning. –xeno^talk 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty following exactly what this thread is about. If you think it's inappropriate that I delete files that I've nominated for deletion, then I won't do it anymore. I have never refused to communicate, I looked at this thread yesterday and saw that other people had responded to the initial questions asked and figured my additional input wasn't necessary. Melesse (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read the CSD criteria and ensure you are following the proper procedures, not just with respect to disputed fair use, but ensuring that proper notfiications have been done and the appropriate time has elapsed. –xeno^talk 12:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Melesse (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I too have been involved in a recent image issue with Melesse and I was given no notice to an impending deletion. It wasn't until I impressed upon her that the image could be fixed that the image was restored. Comments about other images potentially in the same predicament were given the "ignore" treatment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it odd you're singling me out for "ignoring" you because any willing administrator can fill an undelete request, would you also say that every administrator is ignoring you? Melesse (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'm singling you out for is the fact that you will not restore them. Other admins are not willing to get in a "Wheel War" over these deletions. It's obvious that both admins and general editors, have issues with the way you've done deletions. If you'd just fix the problems and say, "Oops, my bad," I think everyone here would just say, "Oh ok." and just walk away. We should want any/all encyclopedic images on Wikipedia/Commons as long as they meet our criteria. If the sole reason an image was removed is an administrative error and that error can be fixed, why are you unwilling to restore them for a limited time (i.e. w days) so those corrections can be made? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to restore any images that a user feels were deleted out of process ^{or to allow them to bypass the reason for the deletion}. It will not be wheel warring because it's still only the 2nd action. Just give me a list. Generally agree that a deleting admin should do so as well without question and take it to FFD if there's still concerns. –xeno^talk 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) ^{annoted. 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)}

I believe all the images you inquired about were missing license and/or source information (and contrary to what you seem to believe, public domain images do still need to cite a source) and I don't believe they were deleted out of administrator error, so I'm not willing to restore them, but perhaps xeno will be willing. Melesse (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoring an image isn't necessarily admitting it was deleted in error, it's giving the user a chance to fix the omission or problem that lead to the deletion. If they don't fix it, then it can be speedied again, or sent to FFD. Refusing to give them a chance is just being needlessly difficult. –xeno^talk 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Melesse (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Agreed. Now how do I get the images she deleted back on? Must this case be presented elsewhere aswell? Sandman888 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Flyguy649 suggested WP:Deletion Review above. Melesse (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But you could easily restore them? Sandman888 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me a list and I'll take a look? There is no need for WP:DRV if the problem is easily solved. –xeno^talk 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored File:CesarRodriguez.jpg because the subject is deceased, and the deleting admin was also the nominator of a rfu that was disputed (no prejudice to WP:FFD). File:Nunez.jpg may be replaceable as the subject is not deceased. There was no FUR statement. The deletion was out-of-process because the nominator was not notified 48 hours prior to the deletion, but I think the end result is probably appropriate. Willing to consider arguments otherwise, however. –xeno^talk 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I think this is the first time you and are are 100% on the same page...look out for four horsemen...

Re: "...contrary to what you seem to believe, public domain images do still need to cite a source..." I find nothing in policy about this supposed requirement. If I were claiming it was PD because the author released it, I would certainly concur that proof of said release would be apropos, but in this case, the image itself cannot retain copyright as it was declared PD in 1923 by the US government. A faithful 2D reproduction of said 2D work cannot gain copyright in the U.S. and, ergo, is PD. Would such a description on the page be useful instead? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious where in the policy you're reading that no source is necessary for public domain images, a source is what indicates whether an image is public domain or not. And here and here both indicate that copyright holder info is necessary. In this case of 3d art (I don't even really want to get into that, you're already in a discussion with some people on your talk page about it) with an unknown artist, that would fall to whoever snapped the photo, and there's absolutely no indication of who that is. Melesse (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: sources you provided: #1 doesn't state that a source is required it merely states how to show a source. #2 Simply shows how to annotate a compatible license. Your last assertion in the first sentence is false. We can determine what is PD and what is not in many cases without a source: example: this image, even without a source, is PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, it says on there that the source is you, so... And besides that, it's not the same. I know designs made purely of text are generally agreed to be ineligible for copyright because they're deemed "not original enough," and could be theoretically recreated by just about anybody. Do you think that tile painting is unoriginal enough to be recreated by just about anybody? What about paintings by Piet Mondrian? Melesse (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments were a general comment that your assertion is both wrong and not backed up in policy. My comment regarding the 2D image is that it is still PD no matter who took it. While I would like to give credit to the person who took it and the place it came from, it is still a PD image without that information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

hi; photo edit

hello there good admins. I just edited the template Template:Feeding, to replace the photo [[:File:Hawk eating prey cropped.jpg]] with the photo File:Cebus albifrons edit.jpg. sound good? thought someone here might find that interesting. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

hey, how do you post a link to a photo file, without displaying the photo itself? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

[[:File:Example.jpg]]. Why are you posting this here though?--Jac16888^Talk 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

well actually, i felt the photo choice related kind of basically to our scope as an encyclopedia. I felt a little editorial choice and notification was in order, just to help us head off similar issues in the future. so i just wanted to kind of mention it in some sort of general forum, where it wouldn't set off a whole set of needless debate. so this seemed like a good forum for that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe leave an explanatory note at Template talk:Feeding? – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this, since that image was being used just last week to vandalize Pakistan-related articles. I'm sure this is just a coincidence. Woogee (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a featured picture and it's easy to find as it's used a lot. The 117.x vandal just found it like that, don't think there's anything to be concerned on that front. —SpacemanSpiff 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

errrm, yeah. you mean the monkey is in trouble for something around here??!?!?!!! Sheesh, some days you just can't win!!!! :-) LOL! (all kidding aside, I chose this only for its helpful subject matter.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Hi. As expected, some people are arguing to restore the photo of the eagle eating the bloody head of a mouse. can anyone here please stop by and offer some guidance? I will of course yield to the community consensus on this. I personally believe Wikipedia should not be using pictures which are gratuitously and needlessly gruesome. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't censored. We don't use unsettling photos just for shock value, but if an image has any encyclopedic value and helps an article, we'll include it, even if it is violent, contains nudity, or might seem otherwise disgusting to you. As the policy states, "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." -- Atama頭 17:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Masters of the Universe controversy of mergers and deletions

I am trying to avoid controversy and have accusations of hating articles if I nominate them for deletion or try to merge. I believe that as I stated on Wiki Television Project.

I really believe some of these issues need resolving and discussion these are my ideas I thought I better ask otherwise it will likely go into an edit war again.

I feel that Horde Trooper and Horde Prime should be merged into Evil Horde. Tung Lashor, Snake Face, Sssqueeze into Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) and Double Trouble (She-Ra) and a few others into List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters and episodes such as Teela's Quest should be merged into List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes I feel also some other characters should be merged or deleted.

• Mosquitor,Modulok unless third reliable third person information can be found it should be deleted or merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters

• He-Ro unless third reliable third person information can be found it should be deleted or merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters

• Zoar (He-Man) should go into Sorceress of Castle Grayskull

• Snout Spout unless third reliable third person information can be found it should be deleted or merged to List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters

I have discussed infinitely but nothing seems to done or resolved [9] [10] Dwanyewest (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few of the articles and saw merge tags sitting for months without much response. If you don't mind waiting a day or two, I'll check all the articles and suggest a course of action. If you're in a rush, you could go ahead with the ones I saw per WP:Be bold and WP:Silence and consensus, but I recommend just waiting a few days. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Flatscan I will leave it in your capable hands. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re Brews ohare

I propose as follows: User:Likebox, user:Tarc, user:David Tombe, user:Hell in a Bucket and user:Count Iblis are banned for a period of two weeks from commenting on issues relating to the arbitration case involving user:Brews ohare, broadly construed.

Otherwise the poor sod stands no chance of ever getting a proper hearing, the signal to noise ratio is simply too low. Brews is trying to be heard above the Greek chorus but it's not really working above, we need a period of time free of his fanclub.

1. Support as proposer Guy (Help!) 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Support--they are really not doing the Brews situation any good in any context. I've followed the saga on and off because Brews's buddy Likebox co-inhabits some math articles I've been involved in. I think the "fanclub" is a big part of Brews's problem and you might want to add a few more of them to your list. Brews might be reformable but the fanclub members are bad influences on him. Brews should find better examples to follow. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

   Followup-Tarc and Likebox have been added. I haven't thought of Tarc as part of the fanclub, but I don't exactly keep careful track. So: support adding Likebox, no opinion about Tarc. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

3. why only 2 weeks. They really aren't helping and some new cheerleaders might be more helpful Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What is needed to to block User:JzG and User:Spartaz for bringing up crap like this. These Johnny-come-latelies have latched on to the Brews case as soon as they sense the political winds changing, but they have not done the difficult work of bringing it to the community's attention when it was unpopular. Now they think that their political sonorousness is needed to make this case flow better, and they would like to ban those who fought very hard for months to get this case reviewed.Likebox (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to include you, no need to feel slighted, feel free to add yourself. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry--- let me say that again in simple english for the ESL speakers: Brews ohare's bans stink, they always stunk, and , and anyone who read the evidence and the case would know that. But two months ago, nobody would have ever said anything, because they were too intimidated by the blocking and banning. But then a bunch of weirdos, such as myself, Hell in a Bucket, David Tombe, etc, made some noise, and now that the political winds are changing, JzG wants to take over and pretend that his political instincts are necessary to carry the motion.

Hey, Guy, you're just a Johnny come lately. Your help would have been useful two months ago. Your help is certainly not necessary if you are not respectful towards those who were active long before you.

In addition, this type of grandstanding on Administrator Noticeboard pages is beneath contempt, and should be discouraged in some way. Threatening people with frivolous threats of administrative actions is the scummiest play, and there is no policy which can be used to adress it.Likebox (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Er, may I ask what edit or edits of mine led to being listed as a party to this? I have weighed in on this matter from time to time, but purely on the angle of supporting a desysop of Trusilver. When asked, i.e. User talk:Tarc#Unblock by Trusilver I have made it clear that I have no opinion on the original block of Brews ohare. This is very puzzling. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I will add support iff your name is removed from the list :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've agreed that the others named...though unlike the two, Iblis at least maintains a respectful tone...have added more to the problem over time, and I'm asking Guy on his talk page to remove me. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, this whole thread is inappropriate here. Till now I restrained myself from commenting here. I actually thought that Guy was an Admin until yesterday and was shocked to see this thread. I then checked to see if he is indeed and Admin and I found out that this is not the case. I now think I wasted my time yesterday by giving detailed replies to Guy in the more serious thread above. This thread here is pure soapboxing by Guy who doesn't seem to like the fact that sometimes others can dominate a topic in an area he normally dominates.

The fact that he names Tarc and has so far refused to retract his name speaks volumes. It proves that he doesn't base his objection to others being involved in Brews' case on objective facts about the conduct of these other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am taking a break from sysop tools, you will see from the logs that I have been a very active admin in the past and might well be again in the future. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see! Well, I do hope that the Wiki community realizes that a thread like this is a real example of disruption. Note sure what your aim was. Perhaps to cause a big drama here by me and the other listed people so that you could point to this tread to make your point. I guess we need to update WP:POINT to write about "higher order" pointy behavior where you create the issue about which you want to make a point first. Count Iblis (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sarcasm always helps, of course Guy (Help!) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure the sanction is written as well as could be, but something must be done to discourage further disruption. These accounts aren't exactly meat puppets, but their behavior is somewhat analogous and highly problematic. The long term, persistent disruption needs to end. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jehochman, you are contributing to the very disruption you perceive by re-opening this nonsensical proposal and commenting here, instead of coming up with some concrete proposal in the thread above that would allow Brews to contribute constructively to Wiki-articles. Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• My god, what the fuck is going on here? I have nothing to do with the people named above, apart from commenting about the Trusilver desysop in which they did as well, and I do NOT even share their opinion on the matter. There was no overt antagonism, hostility, or anything of the sort in any of these posts. I do not know brews ohare. I do not care about brews ohare. Guy drops here this baffling ban suggestion out of the blue, but when I and several other uninvolved editors point out how I have no connection out this, both here and on his talk page, he just stands there with some middling, meandering "its part of the background noise" non-answer. And now Hochman is here with with, of all things, meat-puppet allegations? Tarc (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• @Jehochman, as you are so fond of telling others, sounds like it's time for you to start an RFC. Arkon (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to desysop Jehochman, and permanently restrict his contributions to WP namespace. Why would you look to ban someone who has broken no rules? That's not behavior we expect from administrators. )(disclaimer: Jehochman has sanctioned me in the past).Likebox (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• No idea about Tarc. The real names of the others are Randy, Andy, Brandy, Mandy, and Candy. They are not all the same person but they come from the same town. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP, SPAs, a proposal

Per the investigation and discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations I propose as follows:

1. user:John Quiggin and user:TimLambert are cautioned not to edit articles, especially biographies of living individuals, where they have a pre-existing off-Wikipedia dispute with the subject. Suggestions for improvement, comments regarding potential issues of editorial conduct etc. should be raised on the talk pages or appropriate noticeboards taking care to assume good faith and ensuring that comments about named individuals are kept neutral and supported by evidence.
2. The individual who has edited as 99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.144.192.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.141.252.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is a single-purpose or agenda account and is banned from commenting on or editing articles in respect of or relating to user:John Quiggin (John Quiggin) or user:TimLambert, including John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), John Quiggin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This topic ban applies to the individual not the addresses and will continue to apply should the user choose to register an account.
3. Serenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose or agenda account and is banned form editing the article John Lott, constructive suggestions for improvement to the article may be made at talk:John Lott iff supported by reliable independent secondary sources.

---

• Support as proposer. I know the IP raised a partly valid concern but he did so in a way that was grossly biased, tendentious, failed to recognise obvious issues with his own conduct, failed to follow the normal processes for dispute resolution instead going straight to escalation, was reported in an inaccurate manner, and at the same time engaged in conduct which was also indicative of an undeclared off-wiki agenda. The style and substance of the complaints mitigated against speedy investigation and resolution, and no credible attempt was made to address the issue with the user directly beforehand. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have gone unnoticed, but I did discuss this issue directly on Quiggin's talk page on March 2. Quiggin was not interested in discussing the topic.[11] As to your other concerns, could you offer a diff as a supporting reference? Thanks. Also note that the listed contribs for me are anything but SPA and show a broad and rich edit history, as did the contribs I provided, including article creation. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be a sensible solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - There's a clear conflict of interest concern, and when we have BLPs at stake that makes it much worse. -- Atama頭 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose #1, but support #2. COI, even if it exists, does not preclude the editing of the relevant articles - guideline (not policy) merely states that the COI should be disclosed and that the edits still need to observe NPOV etc. Yes, care should be taken to cite all relevant text to reliable sources and to maintain a neutral tone. But cautioning John Quiggin and Tim Lambert not to edit articles is an overreaction.radek (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Matthead

Resolved

 – closing this; evidently no consensus to overturn block, and rapidly becoming moot since the block will have run out in a few hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Matthead. NW (Talk) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Appealing user

Matthead (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) –  Matthead  Discuß   00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

48h block, see above and [12]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise.

Great, a bullet-proof catch22 for blocked users. Cunning. Whats the point of filling out this bureaucratic form here anyway? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sandstein notified. NW (Talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Matthead

As stated on Sandsteins talk after requested to comment, I am the victim of repeated provocations by User:Loosmark, including Loosmark bringing up "Nazi-Germany did (like for example murdering 6 millions Jews" at a talk page about Olympic medals, which violates Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned, which was ignored by Sandstein. Sandstein should have sanctioned Loosmark, not me, or at least have recused himself for his frequent involvement with Digwuren and EEML topics, blocks and bans, including in regard to Loosmark, as logged on Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#2009. This is the second lopsided act by Sandstein against me, as he in May 2009 sanctioned me, but not Radeskz, who later turned out to have been active in the EEML, where acts against me were coordinated at the time (and later, too). While it might have been a bad luck judgment by Sandstein in 2009, his current block of mine is inexcusable and biased, as Ignorance is no excuse this time. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

The reason for the block is this edit in which Wikipedia is treated as a battleground for nationalist conflict (WP:DIGWUREN#Wikipedia is not a battleground). The reaction by Matthead in his statement here and on my talk page is typical for such cases, in which the battleground editor continues to attack other editors instead of addressing his own conduct. I do not quite understand why Matthead believes I may not sanction him merely because I have previously sanctioned other people in this area of conflict, including Loosmark, who is Matthead's opponent in this instance and who I previously topic-banned for six months. As an administrator active in WP:AE I have had the occasion to sanction editors on all sides of the various Eastern Europe-related conflicts.

As regards the perceived uneven treatment of Matthead's and Loosmark's grievances, I normally prefer such matters to be raised and discussed in an open forum. So I normally refer editors to the appropriate noticeboards if the alleged problem is not immediately evident from the provided diffs and would need closer examination. But admins are expected to help the community with their tools upon request and not to be overly formalistic, so I do at times take direct action if it is requested on my talk page in cases where a problem is evident without the need for extended investigation. However, if the community prefers that AE requests should be raised on WP:AE in all cases, to prevent perceived admin-shopping and backroom dealing, then I would be very happy to refer all AE requests made directly to me to the noticeboard from now on. This would hopefully reduce the number of time-consuming inquiries I get from editors who want me to sanction their opponents (see currently [13] and following sections), which tends to make a nationalist battlefield of my talk page.  Sandstein  06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Matthead's initial unblock request was made with the edit summary "Siëch, elendr", presumably intended to mean Siech, elender in some German dialect, which translates roughly to "miserable wretch".  Sandstein  06:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Matthead

• Um, is [14] this really block worthy? At first sight it doesn't seem that OTT but maybe there is a subtext here I am missing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that it is entirely block-worthy. Pretty much classic battleground language on a topic covered by the Digwuren arbitration case. Matthead's appeal statement doesn't even try to defend it, taking instead a line that others should have been blocked as well. CIreland (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Provocation tends to be considered a mitigating factor in any sensible community; whether or not Loosmark's comment(s) rose to the level of provocation is a separate question. But if another user should have been blocked as well, then I'm not seeing why only one is being blocked. The block log indicates that uneven enforcement has been a problem in the past too.

• I'm uncomfortable with this block being made by the blocking admin due to a couple of inconsistencies. Sandstein previously acknowledged that Loosmark breached a restriction, but did not block Loosmark on the grounds of his not being active in AE. [15] However, this request for enforcement was not made at AE, but again was made on Sandstein's talk page (and this time was made by Loosmark against someone else) - Sandstein actioned it but in response to concerns raised about Loosmark said "If there are further problems involving Loosmark they should be reported, with diffs, on the appropriate noticeboard". I'm not seeing a reason as to why Loosmark was not instructed to take his concerns to an appropriate noticeboard like everyone else. Some clarification would be useful here.

• At this point, I neither support or oppose lifting the block as I still would need to investigate more. But regardless, if we were to block any users on this, I'm not comfortable with the idea of Sandstein making such blocks, particularly due to the concerns raised about the EEML and the way this request was raised in the first place. Note, I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but I see no basis at the moment. I feel that some old wounds may have needlessly been opened due to the way this was handled. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC) updated. 13:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not necessary to direct all matters to a noticeboard, but where there is (even a real likelihood of) inappropriate conduct on both sides, it's better to have it discussed where more uninvolved input can be found (including input on what sanctions are going to be imposed). I appreciate that an egregious individual edit that is blockworthy (and not stale) may be hard to find on the other side; but really, not everything can be a textbook example, and we are experienced enough to address more complex issues. Our assessments seem to agree on the fact that there is some pattern of problematic conduct on the part of the other party; what appears to be in dispute is whether that precludes the use of tools for such behavior. I say that so long as we discussed this further on a noticebard, such behavior could've (and still can) be addressed with sanctions of their own. That is better than the alternative; letting the history continue where one editor's (perhaps more sophisticated) misconduct sadly go stale rather than being remedied; Loosmark's block log speaks for itself. Why is ArbCom or the community going to be reluctant to extend the Eastern Europe restrictions to cover West Germany if problematic conduct is occurring there (or has shifted from EE topics)? Even in the event that such restrictions don't pass, we can still propose (and use) ordinary community sanctions if it means getting it right; that is the best way to dispel any negative perceptions that arise from such situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• My block log speaks for itself? May I ask what the hell are you talking about? My block log is completely empty [16]. And for comparison here is Matthead's block log: [17], he was already blocked 8 times. So instead of trying to sell Alice in wonderland theories about "provocation" and "concerns about the EEML" or trying to get a sanction for myself for a perfectly valid and good faith edit I think you should rather try to figure out how to stop the behavior as exhibited in the edit which led to his latest block.  Dr. Loosmark  14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• "What the hell are you talking about": this is a good example of why you need to re-read WP:CIVIL. "So instead of trying to sell Alice in wonderland theories ... you should": this is a superb example of why you need to re-read WP:AGF. Is it that you are utter unaware of these policies or do you just think that they don't apply to you? Varsovian (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit summaries you use to reverted users you disagree with [18] i think you are the latest person who can give morals about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. edit conflict: Anyway true I should have not reacted like that, I am just stressed by continued attacks in the past 2 days. I apology to Ncmvocalist and everybody else on this board.  Dr. Loosmark  15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote Sandstein, "The reaction by Matthead in his statement here and on my talk page is typical for such cases, in which the battleground editor continues to attack other editors instead of addressing his own conduct." You attack me instead of looking at your own conduct. If you feel I should address my conduct, please post on my talk page the summaries you object to and outline why you feel they are inappropriate. Varsovian (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer Loosmark's questions (which were parcelled with inappropriate decorum), if you took the time to read my comment, it would make sense - when misconduct goes stale rather than being remedied, this can mean an empty block log. I'm not sure what theories you are referring to unless you were foolishly taking my comments out of context or not reading them in full. The behavior certainly cannot be stopped if you continue to edit in that area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What misconduct exactly do you mean? I reverted one edit which I disagreed with and no one has yet demonstrated that my edit was anything but perfectly valid. If that can be now considered a provocation then well I am being constantly provoked all over wikipedia. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't edit West Germany anymore but anyway to address any possible concern I am ready to stay away from that article for 6 months and not make any comments on the topic of whether or not West Germany and modern Germany are the same State or not, for the same period of time. I hope that Matthead will also be ready to take some steps but I will leave that to him.  Dr. Loosmark  06:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about one single revert or edit for that matter. In any case, that assurance sounds good. I too hope that Matthead would take some steps. I'd be fine with a voluntary restriction that is substantially shorter if you can make an assurance that you will totally avoid the areas you've specified for that period (meaning you won't follow what is happening on the article/pages either - it has to be a complete break that is self-imposed, otherwise 6 months would sound sensible to get rid of the frustration that you feel). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see no compelling reason for overturning this block. I had considered doing some block myself, but then decided I was too busy and wouldn't bother. It seems well within the reasonable discretion of an admin in Eastern Europe enforcement. Whether or not the specific things Matthead said in that post rise to the level of blockworthy personal attacks, fact is that posting to somebody's talk page with no other purpose than to make accusations of that type is almost always an unconstructive, WP:DICK-ish move, and as such part of the overall battlefield atmosphere, to which Matthead has undoubtedly a long history of contributing. As for Loosmark, his overall belligerent conduct is certainly testing the limits too, although I can't place my fingers on any individual edit that I find clearly blockworthy. He does need to watch his revert limitation though. His revert of Matthead would be a violation, if it wasn't for the fact that I've earlier argued on a different occasion that edits related to the "Western Germany" issue don't fall under the scope of "Eastern Europe" sanctions; his earlier edit to Sněžka [19] clearly was a violation, but is stale now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• No objection to any sanction against Loosmark on my part. From what I've seen on my talk page I agree with the "overall belligerent conduct" assessment, though I haven't investigated that in any depth and, like you, haven't seen any individual edit that clearly crosses a line.  Sandstein  07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• "I can't place my fingers on any individual edit that I find clearly blockworthy" How about: a blatant accusation of bad faith editing "your edit is nothing but a provocation." [20]); repeated accusations of POV pushing ("You have POV-pushed the following text into the article" [21] and "as you try to POV push into article" [22]); or lying about another editor's posts ("you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard"" [23], my statement is at [24])?
  Alternatively, how about repeated accusations of an editor making racist comments ([25] and [26]) before again repeating the accusation and challenging the other editor "So what are (you) going to do now?" [27] Varsovian (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Soon after I have reported Matthead to Sandstein, Varsovian appeared and wrote the above attacks. I have not yet replied because Sandstein advised Varsovian to take issue to AE. In my opinion Varsovian's description of events represent a gross misrepresentation of facts worthy of a block. I ask guidance by Admins whether I should reply to Varsovian's points above here now or will this be moved to AE? I ask because what he writes above has nothing to do with Matthead's block and his appeal but I am ready to reply here if allowed. Please advise.  Dr. Loosmark  10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"the above attacks"? That is precisely the kind of language which starts problems! My point was that your behaviour has contributed to Matthead's actions and now you display precisely the kind of attitude which suggests that you either don't know about or don't care about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. As for "a gross misrepresentation of facts worthy of a block", do you deny making any of the above statements? As for AE, I said I'd take a couple of days to think about reporting it and I will. Varsovian (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of telling lies, how would you describe that if not an attack? And no, my alleged "behavior" in the discussion with you has in no way contributed to Matthead's "actions". Matthead showed no interest in our disagreement nor has he mentioned anything about it. Anyway I will reply to all of your accusations as soon as the Admins indicate me where should I do so.  Dr. Loosmark  11:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not lies, lie. Not accusation, simply a statement of fact (unless you would like to give a diff showing me claiming "that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" "). You behaviour towards me and the editor you accused of making racist commentsis probably much like your behaviour towards Matthead, i.e. not what is required by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Varsovian (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Loosmark

Just a couple of brief comments, I totally reject the accusations that I have "provoked" Matthead. I simply disagree with his POV and if anybody would care to check I have expressed so on the talk page in the past. Basically Matthead seems to think that "West Germany" does not exist (which IMO is very nonsensical, the very existence of that article proves that the community consensus thinks otherwise) but instead of proposing the article for a merger with Germany or for a deletion or whatever he removes the parts he doesn't like and engages in battlefield behavior if somebody dares to oppose him. If anything I consider the block imposed by Sandstein to be very mild considering that he also reverted me by misusing the edit description: "Reverted 1 edit by Loosmark identified as vandalism to last revision by Matthead"[28]. So I am a vandal now? Thanks a lot... The case here is very simple, I reverted an edit by Matthead because I disagreed with it and as I response I got accused of: 1) vandalism, 2) accused of being on a warpath 3) accused of stalking him 4) accused that my edit was recommended(sic) by my Polish buddies on the EEML (when everything else fails this one always works and who cares i had nothing to do with the EEML) 5) "advised" me to retire. If this would be a normal place such a tirado of insults against a respected editor like myself would result in an indef until he withdraws them but of course this is wikipedia so here we are already discussing possible sanctions against myself. Here Future Perfect: I will voluntary avoid reverting Matthead for the next 6 months and I will avoid editing any article which he edits unless I have previously edited the same article myself.  Dr. Loosmark  10:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Matthead

Closing this with no action – evidently no consensus to overturn, and the block will have run its course in a few hours anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:B-Wuuu: Return of blocked sockfarmer

Moved here from AN/I, due to a lack of a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

B-Wuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On January 27, 2010, five accounts associated with a single sockmaster were blocked -- User:Cubert, User:Smokefree, User:2Misters, User:Somaterc, and User:Filmsnoir -- and a sixth, User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, had previously been blocked. None of these blocks has been lifted. Earlier today, a new account was created, User:B-Wuuu, by a user claiming to be the editor behind the blocked socks. I can find no sign that the user went through any appropriate process regarding a return to good standing, making this unilateral block evasion. All of the blocked sock user and talk pages have been redirectd to the new account's user/talk page, substantially sanitizing the user's history, which went back several years.
Given the user's history of dishonesty and disruptive editing, I am also concerned that the conspicuous self-identification on the new user page (name and photograph) may not be reliable, but instead may be intended to harass the person named/pictured there, and that the identifying content should not be allowed unless it is properly verified through OTRS. Second, given the blocked user's long and singular campaign of harassment of me, marked by extreme incivility and repeated bad faith accusations of homophobia and misconduct (eg [29] [30] [31]), I believe that if this editor is allowd to resume editing, he should be placed under restrictions prohibiting him from any interaction with/comments on any of the editors involved in his previous conflicts, as well as topic bans covering the articles he previously disrupted. I don't see any justification, frankly, for allowing the unblocking, given the short span of time since the blocks were imposed and the failure of the user to "come clean" or to demonstrate any commitment to editing appropriately, or to apologize to the several editors inconvenienced (or worse) by his horrid behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report regarding these accounts is here. It may also be relevant that User:Stifle handled an OTRS request Ticket:2010022310001371 concerning Helicon Arts Cooperative. Prior to HW filing this report, I had posted about this situation to User:Nuclearwarfare, the blocking admin, and Stifle, because of the OTRS ticket, but I don't believe either admin has been around since then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd alsonote that in the process of redirecting the user and user talk pages of these accounts, the block notices have been deleted, as well as the sockpuppet category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something this is a block evading sock of an indefinitely restricted account that was very disruptive only a month or so ago, he should be blocked, tagged and ignored and his redirects and edits reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• If the user is indeed willing to edit productively, I see no reason not to let him do so. The user should be warned that he is on a strict leash though, and that any reversion to previous behavior (or even editing the same articles) will be handled through blocks and reversions. NW (Talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing of any relevance has come up in the OTRS ticket; I haven't heard anything or taken any action since the last time it came up. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, NW. I'm happy to stay on a strict leash, and have no intention of editing destructively. I know things have gotten heated in the past but I do not believe my edit history will reveal any "destructive" edits. I want to point out, despite Ken and Hullaballoo's accusations, that I have never been found guilty of anything other than sockpuppetry, which is the same thing that Ken was found guilty of. He was allowed a fresh start, and to simply redirect his other usernames, so that's all I'm doing here. I apologize if there is a policy against that. Ken's other allegations against me were dismissed as baseless on the admin boards, despite his attempts to re-start them. Ken also has a history of attempting to (inaccurately) out me, which is a very severe violation of Wiki policy. I also suggest that he should be considered to be Wikihounding me, as he almost always visits each page I edit shortly after I do so, and either reverts my edits or makes unrelated edits himself. This edit is particularly telling of his bias; he erased information about a particular production of a play because "its acclaim was unsourced," while simultaneously leaving a paragraph right above it about another production that says it was "critically well received" but provides no source for this either. This is a pretty clear example of his pattern of contempt for particular filmmakers and actors which I like, and while he's entitled to his opinions, his opinions are clearly affecting his neutrality, objectivity, and ability to edit productively. If anything, I would suggest that all three of us be put on short leashes and prohibited from interacting with each other. B-Wuuu (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

B-Wuuu's charge of bias against me has no merit, however, after some consideration I believe he does have a point concerning my removal from the The History of Cardenio article of the information about director James Kerwin's production. I removed it because it was highly promotional in tone, and the source provided (Kerwin's website) did not support the specific claims made. I did not notice at the time the similarly unsourced information about the production in Evanston, Illinois B-Wuuu referred to above. To amend this, I have removed the language about "critical acclaim" about the Evanston production from the article, and I have also restored the basic information about the Kerwin production, sans the promotionalism. The director's website is sufficient as a citation to show the existence of the production, so it, too, has been restored.

This, of course, has no bearing whatever on whether B-Wuuu should be allowed to continue editing or should be blocked for blatant block evasion as the sockmaster behind 5 blocked accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that if I am restricted from editing any articles in which I have been previously engaged in wars or sockpuppetry, then Ken should be as well. B-Wuuu (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gee, I wondered when this argument was going to show up -- and here it is! In point of fact, there are more differences than similarities in our situations:

• I did indeed use several accounts to edit, but not at the same time, with the single exception of 8 housekeeping edits in the userspace of my original account. Although "abusing multiple accounts" is the reason given on the blocks of my earlier accounts, in fact what I did would more precisely be called "using serial accounts". I was undergoing some wikihounding which I felt was not and would not (or could not) be handled through policy, so in an attempt to edit without harrasement, I dropped one account and started editing with another.
• I never used my accounts at the same time, as you did.
• I never used my accounts to have "conversations" with myself to influence an AfD, or move a talk page discussion to a conclusion I wanted, as you did on several occasions.
• I did not try, as you did, to totally dominate and control a specific subject area, as you did with the film Yesterday Was a Lie and the articles about the people associated with it. I edit a large range of articles, around 10 or 11 thousand different ones at this point, and have contributed in numerous subject areas.
• My accounts were not blocked at the time that I created a new identity, as you have just done while your five accounts were blocked.
• And, most importantly, when my activities were discovered, I took part in a discussion, on AN, in which the community decided that I could continue editing. I did not unilaterally decide that I was due a "fresh start", the community decided that my activities, while in breach of the rules, had not been harmful.

I am very grateful for the chance I have been given to continue contributing to this project, perhaps the community will do the same for you, but, please, do not equate our situations, which are not in any way comparable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that while your attempt to turn the spotlight on me and off of you is understandable, this is not about me, it's about you, your behavior, your activities, your relations with other editors, and whether you should be allowed another chance. As my opinion on that matter is probably clear to all, I don't have anything in particular to add, and don't plan to participate in this discussion again. I certainly won't respond to any further attempt at deflection on your part. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think B-Wuuu's comments here demonstrate why allowing him to resume editing would be extremely imprudent. He refuses to acknowledge -- in fact, actively denies -- his extensive history of misconduct, including his repeated, deliberate efforts to insert false information into the Chase Masterson article, and his extensive posting and cross-posting of uncivil personal attacks such as describing me as a "homophobic assdog" [32]. I also note that this editor has significantly misrepresented the nature of the BMK edit which he cites as an example of bias; the "reference" used was a self-serving, self-published promotional page, although the text misleadingly described it as a "programme note," which it obviously is not.

B-Wuuu is a blocked editor. Rather than making an appropriate unblock request, he has created a block-evading account; when caught, he insists he be shown the same leniency the community, after extended discussion provided to BMK -- even though none of the rationales for that leniency are in any way applicable. Unrepentently misbehaving editors should neither expect nor demand clemency. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may clarify: In the BMK edit I was using as an example of his bias, I did not suggest that the paragraph he deleted should have been retained. I am pointing out that the reason he gave for deleting it also applied equally to other sections of the article, which he left intact, demonstrating that his intent was likely biased. (At the same time, I should point out that the reference cited re: the production's acclaim appears to contain easily researchable quotes from newspapers and magazines. It seems that the most productive thing for BMK to have done would have been for him to have simply changed the citation to reflect those original sources. Instead, he stated in his edit summary that the production's acclaim was "totally unsourced," which could have been an honest mistake, but considering his history it seems more likely that it was intentionally dishonest. Had I gone in there and re-instated the paragraph with more accurate citations, you can bet he would have edit-warred and accused me of COI.)

As for my "deflecting blame," I am doing no such thing. I am to be blamed for my previous rule breaking, absolutely. But another sockpuppeteer, edit-warrer, and attempted outer has no place throwing stones.

Bottom line: I could have easily just set up this new account, not linked the previous ones, and gone my merry way editing, with no one the wiser. Or I could have done the honest thing, and redirected the old accounts. I chose honesty. B-Wuuu (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged

WP:AIV currently has a backlog of reports. 3 are tagged for possible removal. Thanks! Hamtechperson 03:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I left two of those tags, 1 about 3 minutes ago and the other an hour ago. They'll get removed. The idea is that the person that filed the reports needs to have time to see them. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Backlog... Same place. Hamtechperson 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleared Hamtechperson 16:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd - Community sanction proposal

Having read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Abd, I've been persuaded to make the following proposal:

Abd (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction (probation) that consists of the following terms:

1. Abd is restricted to posting an absolute maximum of 1000 words per 48 hours to any discussion of a particular topic or article - this restriction covers all pages on Wikipedia except his userspace. The word count shall not include his signature/timestamp. Abd is advised to interpret this as a general maximum of 900 words per 48 hours, with an 11% allowance. Wikilawyering will not be considered.

2. Abd may occasionally request an exemption from term 1 to post a particular comment to a particular page, or in rare cases, be exempted from particular discussions altogether; these requests are to be made to the Arbitration Committee by email - granted exemptions will only be effective after being logged at User:Abd/Community sanction#Exemptions. Should the Arbitration Committee deem that an excessive number of exemptions are being made at any given time, this exemption term may be suspended for an appropriate period of time. The suspension of this term shall take place once a sitting unrecused arbitrator has posted a notice on his talk page, and logged it at User:Abd/Community sanction#Exemptions.

3. Should Abd make edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page, and it has been logged at User:Abd/Community sanction#Log of page bans. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. Should Abd violate this restriction, he may be blocked for a short period of time, up to 1 month in the event of multiple or repeated violations. Blocks are to be logged at both User:Abd/Community sanction#Log of blocks and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Log of blocks and bans.

5. The maximum block length shall increase to 6 months after 5 blocks have been used to enforce this restriction and/or the case remedy.

6. WP:AE is to be used to report violations of this restriction, or to make appeals regarding the enforcement of this restriction.

With respect to term 2, if ArbCom are unwilling to deal with this, or are not ready to pass it off to BASC, then we can come back and reconsider an appropriate mechanism for exemptions (with a group of editors or administrators) later. But I think this considers the more fundamental issues covered in every other term. Even if this doesn't pass, at least we can find what issues are in dispute (if not all). Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds a bit too complicated for my taste. I like simple sanctions. I am especially not sure whether it is a good idea to apply such a complicated and wikilawyerable sanction to an editor whose principal problem appears to be wall-of-texting and not getting the point. Can you imagine the long discussions about what is "one discussion"? A straight project namespace or site ban would be much easier to interpret and enforce, if this conduct by Abd is indeed widely considered to be disruptive. Also, procedurally, WP:AE is part of the arbitration process and should/may not be used for non-arbitration enforcement purposes.  Sandstein  06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If he wikilawyers or is unable to follow this last attempt, then as the sanction suggests, it will be to his own peril and a site ban will be all that's left to exhaust (as a project namespace ban cannot address the core issue). AE has been specified due to the unique interaction between arbitration remedies and community sanctions; I expect any reported violations regarding the case will also include violations about the community sanction, and I don't think it would make sense to create 2 separate discussions or bring too many arbitration matters over here. Of course, if ArbCom is not willing to deal with term 2, then it'd be like any ordinary community sanction and term 6 would also be ineffective. It's purely a courtesy thing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I honestly don't see the issue with him writing long spiels, he now tends to collapse the full text and leave a summary. No one is forcing anyone to read the whole thing, frankly I see some of the compaints in this area, not NcmVocalists which I believe is well intentioned, to constitute bad faith actions. Unomi (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Abd seems inept at sticking to any sanction put forward to him. He's been to arbitration and was given a tight restriction yet he's shown unwilling to work with it. Abd has now become a process time sink. Forget the additional sanctions, they won't work - go ahead with a full ban. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a problem with his long screeds? Yes. Collapsing them does not help because very often these long screeds include begging the question and other rhetorical devices, or include commentary that shows he has (once again) interpreted criticism as support or is (once again) making claims that have been rejected many times before. Frankly any dispute with Abd involved is going to take five times longer than one without, which is why the sanction was introduced. He seems to want to Wikilawyer round that sanction now, which is just more evidence that he doesn't things take on board. If he could just keep to article space everybody would be a lot better off. It's not time for the banhammer yet but I suspect we are now into escalating block territory. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• This is too complicated. Abd is already wikilawyering a relatively simple restriction. And this ban allows him to comment on any dispute he wants to, which is bad. He is supposed to go to quiet articles and work there constructively. If he isn't capable of doing that then he won't be able to comply with this restriction either. P.D.: The purpose of Arbcom's restriction was keeping him out of disputes, and this restriction does not do that. Instead, it gives him a wide door into any dispute of his choice. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears from your third sentence onwards that you believe this probation replaces ArbCom restrictions - it does not; these are additional restrictions. If he continues to violate the remedy in the ArbCom case, he'd still be blocked in accordance with the ArbCom case provisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I stroke that part. I think that this puts another layer of complication in the restriction, and would make it enforcement more difficult. I think the problems from the increased completion will outweigh the benefit. Others in this section have described better the problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• After looking at his recent behaviour on wiki, and some of his activities at WR (which I've not looked at before), it seems clear Abd isn't here for the good of the project. I'd support these additional restrictions as a second choice, with my first choice being an indef block. Verbal chat 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• One wonders how much thinner the community's patience can get before the seemingly inevitable happens. I think he's deliberately setting himself up to be a WR martyr, a rather foolish objective. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• What happens on WR should be irrelevant for any Administrative decisions to be taken here. My opinion is that Abd is a good editor and his leaving would be a loss for the project.  Dr. Loosmark  22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Abd has made his views clear on WR, and he has confirmed that both accounts are his. His editing and behaviour is enough to justify a ban, his WR descriptions of his activities here just confirm it. Verbal chat 23:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts? Guy (Help!) 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Abd's actions off-wiki are absolutely relevant, particularly when they include personal attacks, failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors (both things he was admonished for in the same RfAr) and even a recent attempted outing of an administrator in response to his most recent block. -- samj _in^out 15:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal, while understandable, is too complicated and will a> create more enforcement effort for other editors and b> give ample opportunity for wikilawyering. Abd has demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept his existing editing restrictions and unwilling to contribute uncontroversial edits. An additional project space ban may be helpful, but I think we've passed that point already. As such I'd support an indef block, at least until such time as Abd unambiguously states that he's willing to play by the rules. -- samj _in^out 02:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• That you can even suggest sanctioning someone for writing to much beggars belief, that you further propose that someone should be limited to a daily wordcount takes this into the realms of Stalinist era mock trials. You should be ashamed of yourself.Amentet (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapse digression.

Counter Proposals: MYOB sanctions for Ncmvocalist who has a long history of sticking his nose into other people's disputes just as we see here, and Topic ban Enric Naval from discussing Abd anywhere on-wiki to put an end to this continuing disruption and harassment. --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Stricken since this may be considered a disruptive comment, although I believe what I said on both counts. The actual disruption in this case was not caused by Abd, but rather those in pursuit of him. That's all I have to say on the matter. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Pot, meet kettle. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Geez, guy, the only thing more impressive than the sophistication of your arguments is the breadth of you vision. --Ludwigs2 13:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC) You really don't have a leg to stand on GoRight. Tossing this red herring in here is exactly the type of disruption MYOB sanctions seek to prevent. I note that you have just been warned by your unblocking admin for this very comment. -- samj inout 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC) GoRight may not be the right person to raise this matter, but don't shoot the messenger just yet. He may be on to something regarding Ncmvocalist and his long history of long proposals. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC) If that's the case GoRight should follow the usual process by raising it in a separate thread rather than making threats and distracting "counter proposals" - Abd/GoRight discussions have a strong enough tendency to veer off course as it is. Content length restrictions seem generally problematic to me and the best way to deal with WP:TLDR contributions is to ignore them. -- samj inout 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Yep, Yep, and Yep (except when they're in some context where you can't ignore them), in that order. ++Lar: t/c You're both right here, obviously. There is an existing request for enforcement against Abd, that needs to be dealt with first. Actually I think that simple enforcement of existing restrictions is probably enough to be going on with, especially since Abd seems to have no intention of abiding by them right now. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too complex and not likely to be workable. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Lar that these proposals are not workable. As arbitrators have commented, regrettably Abd does not yet seem to have found a quiet article or set of articles to work on. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Despite this being complicated it can work within a mentoring agreement. The official restriction will formally be that Abd is placed under mentorship. The understanding is then that the mentor will try to get Abd to stick to certain types of restrictions like the one proposed by Ncmvocalist, at the discretion of the mentor, in order to minimize disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum I

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged confirmed socks and sockmaster. IP's still being checked. JodyB _talk 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? The CU returned positive results on the accounts listed, and an admin intervention is required to stop disruption by the banned user. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of indefinite rangeblocks

Resolved

 – I'm going to go ahead and mark this tentatively resolved, as we've made a good dent in the number of indefinite rangeblocks. Some lingering questions remain as to whether the {{AOLblock}}'s are still necessary and whether the ones from 2006/7 are they still open proxies-perhaps someone can take a look and unblock if not. Thanks to all all the input. –xeno^talk 15:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like some input on the following indefinite rangeblocks found through WP:INDEFIP. Are they supported by WP:IPBLENGTH ("IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked")/WP:RANGEBLOCK ("make them as brief as possible")? Should some be lifted? (Please note the purpose of this thread is not to admonish any of the blocking admins, but to determine if the blocks are still necessary. I notified the ones who are still active as their input would be appreciated.) –xeno^talk 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked ranges

No. ↑ IP ↓ Admin ↓ Timestamp ↓ Reason ↓ 44 216.91.92.16/28 Nlu 20061027155527 Kellen Company's spamming initiative ban 45 217.106.166.0/24 Alphachimp 20061110044107 Heavy range-wide spamming from Amazon affiliates. 50 207.200.112.0/21 Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20061122204929 {{AOLblock}} 68 64.12.0.0/16 Pilotguy 20061222160306 {{AOLblock}} 70 67.18.0.0/16 Mangojuice 20061228131829 open prox - web hosting company ThePlanet.com, reblocking anon-only 139 81.28.187.0/25 Drini 20070124210432 spamming coming from several ips in the range 145 72.249.45.0/24 Dmcdevit 20070127063027 Select Solutions hoting company, used for anonymous abuse 146 72.249.44.0/24 Dmcdevit 20070127063110 Select Solutions hoting company, used for anonymous abuse 193 64.157.15.0/24 Dmcdevit 20070204013144 change to anon-only 224 69.64.64.0/20 Ryulong 20070220221231 Hosting range for Abacus America 234 208.70.72.0/21 Ryulong 20070311030913 AirlineReservations.com network 261 152.163.100.0/24 Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20070419221308 {{AOLblock}} 262 152.163.101.0/24 Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20070419221618 {{AOLblock}} 291 66.212.71.0/24 Voice of All 20070615030202 anon only 303 195.93.0.0/17 Ryulong 20070713085312 {{AOLblock}} 336 65.98.192.48/29 Yamla 20071016173957 Conflict-of-interest edits to Fellowship of Friends. Please have your network administrator contact me. See User talk:65.98.192.48/29 339 77.244.32.0/20 AzaToth 20071108192610 Spamming links to external sites: spambot network 348 64.40.32.0/19 Krimpet 20071211073120 {{anonblock}} 349 66.109.192.0/20 Krimpet 20071211141035 {{anonblock}} 364 67.15.0.0/16 Thatcher 20080201034238 Hosting company, see User:Thatcher/Ev1 365 66.98.128.0/17 Thatcher 20080201034505 Hosting company, see User:Thatcher/Ev1 368 64.124.215.0/24 Yamla 20080205151758 Static address range allocated to ogilvy.com PR firm engaging in inappropriate marketing, sockpuppetry, and spam 386 71.127.224.0/20 Mr.Z-man 20080402171920 This network has recently been used abusively. If you are affected, please e-mail unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org using the instructions provided on the block screen. 389 143.235.208.0/21 Ckatz 20080405071354 Abusing multiple accounts: Known current IPs for User:EverybodyHatesChris; no other non-EHC users in past year 401 198.22.123.0/24 Ryulong 20080530234428 These IPs belong to the Best Buy store chain's in-store computers. 413 72.137.197.0/24 Ryulong 20081010025354 Vandalism: Long term abuser 423 204.255.212.0/24 Od Mishehu 20081203154509 Reduce to anon-only - the reason for this block doesn't justify blocking registered users. Not an endorsement of the original block. 435 216.220.208.0/20 Versageek 20090307212923 {{anonblock}}: {{DynamicIP sidekick}} 464 64.202.160.0/19 Jake Wartenberg 20091104003416 GoDaddy software servers (going back to hardblock, gave IPBE instead)

I went ahead and unblocked some of the non-proxy ones. I would leave the proxy ranges blocked unless the IP range no longer belongs to proxy servers. Nakon 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the two I blocked (well, downgraded from hard to soft, Jpgordon made the original indefinite blocks) on this list, 64.40.32.0/19 and 66.109.192.0/20, see this AN discussion from 2007. Fran Rogers❇ 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the ones in particular I thought should be lifted. Just because the ISP is free doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to edit? –xeno^talk 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the block being lifted, personally. The community seemed to want at least a soft block at the time, but it's probably worth revisiting, especially since the technical measures in place to curb abuse have greatly improved since. Fran Rogers❇ 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at both those ranges. I'd think that if the block had been causing any issues for non-registered users, there would have been at least one request on one IP talk page, but there haven't been any in the admittedly brief checkuser time span, and there are no undeleted contributions from either range, period. (It appears to me that Special:DeletedContributions doesn't know CIDR lookup, since I just deleted the only contribution within checkuser time, a rather bizarre personal attack page against Lee Iacocca.) I'm just as biased against proxies as I was when I made my original comment regarding loosening these blocks; and just as ambivalent about this particular situation as I was then. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused what lead to the blocking of 64.40.32.0/19 which my tool apparently shows no edits from - was it because vandal accounts were being created from the range? And on the other hand, the 66.109.192.0/20 actually showed a fairly disproportionate (from personal experience) amount of positive edits from anons when they were able to. –xeno^talk 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember anymore. I imagine it seemed like a good idea at the time. Perhaps I saw something nasty in the woodshed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

K... Thanks for the input - I'm going to go ahead and lift these two and we'll see how it plays out (can always reblock if the wiki starts falling apart =) –xeno^talk 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

<- 216.220.208.0/20 was soft blocked because it (a mobile gateway range), was being used to create multiple batches of new accounts which were then used for vandalism. I have no strong opinions on whether or not it stays blocked. --Versageek 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think 216.220.208.0/20 needs (edit) account creation to remain blocked indefinitely...it's been over a year. Swarm^(Talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked this one as well, no prejudice to reblocking if mass-creation of vandal accounts resumes. (This may be covered by a filter now, so hopefully it won't be an issue). –xeno^talk 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeno, thanks for following up on these. The 143.235.208.0 range block was put in place to deal with an ongoing, highly abusive series of IP edits, sockpuppets, and the like from User:EverybodyHatesChris. (Said user employed multiple sockpuppets, edit warring, article ownership, abusive tirades, and even off-wiki "hate" sites directed at the admins who were blocking him. He even went so far as to use a sock account in an extended charade that involved tricking another editor into mentoring him.) The range block was instituted because of the number of accounts he was operating in that range, and the very low proportion of non-EHC edits that originated in it. EHC also used several other ways in, but it has been some time now and the efforts appear to have slowed. It is possible that he's still around but is avoiding the previous behaviour; alternatively, he may just take advantage of the opportunity to jump back in if the block were to be lifted. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - some of the fresher ones should probably be left alone. Thanks for the input. –xeno^talk 02:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themusicase.com

• This article was deleted days ago, so the discussion needs to be closed. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've done that. Just for future reference, this would've been an appropriate time to WP:NAC. –xeno^talk 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Portal:Current events/Calendar

Where is the odd text at the top of Portal:Current events/Calendar coming from, and why isn't it protected? Woogee (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I found it. But Calendar pages should be protected, hm? Woogee (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That specific page is protected to autoconfirmed users, and this code is producing the template: <noinclude>{{Template:Intricate portal subpage}}</noinclude> -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the page in question. Reverting it was as simple as clicking on the IP, checking their contributions, and reverting. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Block - Cuba

I would expect that:

• we have few editors from Cuba
• there are few ISP's emanating from Cuba

this appears to come from one. It appears to be blocked as a sock, but I'm not overly sure that all the problems are from actual socks. I fully agree with anon-blocks on this one, but with the limited ISP's, is blocking account creation a good idea? Note, I'm not questioning the actions based on the activity of the IP, I'm merely looking at overall policy based on the situation and stimulating discussion ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If there was a good amount of evidence from a sockpuppet investigation that showed many users doing this, then I would suggest Account Creation Block. Also, if Account creation is blocked, they can still go to the account creation team and an account creator can create the account. Just my 2 cents worth. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis

Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you keep him in both categories so everyone can be satisfied? Poland has moved its location around so much over the past 300 years that they could well legitimately have a claim for him. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably didn't explaine myself good, I am keeping both categories! They are the once who keep deleting the Belarusian categories from the Kościuszko article without any rational. I mean, he faught for Poland (more accurate, for the Polish-Lithuenian commonwealth), the place he was born in was a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I haven't deleted any of the Polish categories he has! I just added the Belarusian categories since ethnicaly he was of Ruthenian (today that is called Belarusian) stock, his native language was Belarusian, and he was even baptised in the Orthodox church as done by Belarusians. And about the Poles article... but the man wasn't an ethnic Pole, he was Pole by nationality, and the article talks about Poles as the ethnic group. Free Belarus (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is "they"? I don’t delete Belarusian categories or references, but you, 79.177.169.82, and Ales hurko keep removing Kościuszko from the Polish article and repeatedly delete his Polish identity. We have always shown him in Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian pages, which is as it should be. After you wrote the preceding remark stating that you are keeping both categories, you again deleted Kościuszko from Poles. You are vandalizing Poles and Tadeusz Kościuszko and you should stop it. Nobody is stopping you from mentioning him on your Belarusian pages. —Stephen (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What Polish identity?? He was Belarusian by ethnicity, and Polish by nationality, while you tried to label him as Polish by ethnicity thought he isn't, whoever want's to see the arguemtn beetwen us is on the Poles talk page. Free Belarus (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Today alone you and 79.177.169.82 have each reverted these pages over and over and have broken the 3-Revert rule. —Stephen (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And you deleted referenced information, and added to a collage a person who is not Polish ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)