Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 9 March 2011 (→Request unblock: unblock this user). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice


    Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation

    Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 22#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation were listed at WP:CENT and archived by SilkTork (talk · contribs). Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While I doubt that any user will be rushing to close the AfD RfC, I want to point out that it has a few days remaining in its 30-day listing period. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the correction. I withdraw for now my request to close the above RfCs. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I miscounted – the RFC bot delisted the AfD RfC yesterday. Thanks for creating this request. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead, would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC (initiated 3 January 2011) and Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition (initiated 8 January 2011). These discussions were also listed at WP:CENT and were archived a few days ago. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have moved this back from the archive. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Future timestamp appended so this will not be archived until the four above RfCs are closed. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

    The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

    The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

    Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

    If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

    For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this

    Tobby100

    Should these edits be rollbacked? They generally contain links to hedgepedia.com, which is unreliable as a source because it is an open wiki with various mistakes or lacking editorial oversight and useless as an external source because it is inaccurate and incomplete, as per its general disclaimer page. Should this site be blacklisted as well? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Domains added by Tobby100: hedgepedia.com (33).
    Looks like WP:REFSPAM. MER-C 09:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Roll back. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I rolled back ~20 top edits, all referencing the site and adding no other content. I undid several others that were no longer top edits. — Scientizzle 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, removed all links from the LinkSearch so far (save this page). He also seems to be editing from his IP, 70.31.247.188, according to the LinkReport. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tobby100 I have read your arguments regarding the hedgepedia postings. Here are some responses to your concerns:
    (1) With regards to the site’s disclaimer - Given that the site provides financial information, a disclaimer regarding to the accuracy of the data is common practice. Please have a look at the disclaimers of well established sites in the same field, such as hedgefund.net disclaimer, or absolutreturn-alpha disclaimer sited on Wikipedia
    (2) With regards to the quality of the information - the source of the information is a respected in the industry, quoted on the page of the article and verifiable for those who have access to the 2009 Top 100 hedge funds report.
    (3) With regards to the relevance of the information - The information provided relates to the ranking of each hedge funds by AUM. A fund's AUM is a key measure of comparison between funds in the industry and should be relevant to any the reader who takes interest in the industry.
    For those reasons, I believe that those additions made are relevant and if no further objection, should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobby100 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point. Why have you "cited" only hedgepedia.com? MER-C 04:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that page contains the 2009 list of the largest 100 hedge fund ranked by AUM. It therefore applies to numerous funds with a page on Wikipedia and I have cited their specific ranking on their respective pages.--Tobby100 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and why do all of your edits to Wikipedia involve inserting citations to this site? (Apologies, on reflection this is what I should have asked in the first place.) MER-C 03:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read your link about SPA and understand where your concern comes from. However, do you feel it makes the information posted any less valid or relevant? It is not redundant with any of the information already posted on the pages, it is unbiased relative to those hedge funds, and offers the reader with the key mesure of the relative importance of each hedge fund.--Tobby100 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help

    General call for help at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. This thing is like a Hydra. Polls keep popping up in what is supposed to be a discussion, attempts to steer or target discussion have failed. Admins or really anyone who thinks they can help rope this in and keep it on point, please jump right on in. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It ain't gonna happen. Once upon a time there were a number of Wikipedians who were willing to consider Pending Changes objectively -- if someone could provide things like proof that it works, in what situations, & how it should be to best implemented. But no one did: the "experiment" turned out to be a Trojan horse for turning it on permanently, & those of us who didn't have a strong opinion about it either way left to do more rewarding things. All who are left arguing about it are the true believers on either side who are willing to continue until their death -- or they are banned from Wikipedia. I, for one, don't want anything to do with this: IMNSHO, all of you deserve each other, & I hope this debate goes on inconclusively forever & the rest of us can enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in relative peace & quiet. -- llywrch (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a half-formed notion of a way out; noting that this is a very rough pre-alpha-pre-discussion-vague-thoughts-draft, see here. Could something like that, possibly, work? I could probably use help with it, if proposing it; my thought was to first come up with something like that, then post it on the RFC talk-page (not the RfC itself), and see if we could form consensus to at least put it forward. I'm totally against any further poll, but if necessary we could perhaps make such a proposal and insist upon "support" or "oppose" with brief comments (limited to, say, 300 characters or something) and we could move anything longer into a 'discussion' section.
    A very important point, I think, is that the RfC is generally getting decent discussion - so let's not mix up length problems with drama. Yes, it is long, and yes, it's been going on for a few weeks now - but PC is a complicated issue, and potentially (depending on deployment, scope, etc) quite fundamental to Wikipedia core values of open editing.
    So in other words - Llywrch - I personally think that it can reach consensus. Not easy, but I think it can...eventually. Maybe I'm naive, idealistic and overly optimistic - but I can live with that.  Chzz  ►  20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Protector of Wiki unblock request

    Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

    Protector of Wiki requests unblocking at their talk page. The last unblock request ended as no consensus on this page at [1] on 15th October 2010  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Support for unblock. When I read the unblock request, my initial reaction was "Why not? We can always reblock if they backslide". After reading the section regarding the email to the blocking admin, I suspect that the backslide may be more likely than not. However, why not unblock them and get it over with? Perhaps they will confound my expectations? So, on that basis... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to AGF here by my spidey-sense is telling me this is going to be a waste of time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock – Protector of Wiki has made many made good contributions and strictly follows our content policies, including recently creating two articles from WP:AFC on their talk page. The problem has been in getting along with the community, which is clearly essential. As one of Protector of Wiki's two mentors, I've observed a dramatic improvement in this regard recently, which seems to be driven by a high motivation to contribute. I don't know if this motivation will be sufficient in the long-term to maintain good relations with other editors. Protector of Wiki has been putting into practice many of the anti-frustration techniques that I've suggested. The only way to determine how well it will work is to unblock. If things go bad, it's easy to reblock and the project will at least have gained some valuable contributions in the meantime. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The username really is misleading as a position of Wiki Authority, so under WP:U it should have probably been blocked. However, if the user has made good faith contributions, then maybe requesting a username change before being unblocked, would be better fitting. IMHO. Who (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - For what admins granteth, admins may taketh away. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think any unblock should be conditional on a namechange and a prolonged period of supervision under strict terms which would result in an immediate, unconditional indef block (with the standard offer available) if violated. I still hold concerns from the last unblock request but admit to not having too closely followed his actions since then so if his mentor thinks he's ready, then I'll buy into that. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose The discussion at User talk:Protector of Wiki#My email to PeterSymonds from a few days ago is highly troubling. In it Protector of the Wiki appears to either be playing a semantic game with PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) (who was the blocking admin) by pretending to not understand his responses or is genuinely unable to comprehend Peter's clear posts. The thread finishes up with this attack on Peter which seems to me to be entirely unjustified as his responses were clear, polite and helpful and two other editors had pointed out that Peter's responses were fine. Rather worryingly, Protector of Wiki gave this thread as an example of 'good intentions' in their latest unblock request. Whatever's going on here, I think that this indicates that Protector of Wiki is not about to start editing collaboratively and the block should remain in place. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Definitely not. This kind of attitude and battleground mentality does not belong on Wikipedia and is not welcome nor ever will be. Reading over this user's talk page only convinces me of that. -- œ™ 06:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend that the unblock request be declined because it does not address the problematic behavior that caused the block (notably, the ALL-CAPS SHOUTING) and so does not convince me that it will not reoccur. In an older section on their talk page, the user states: "I think that everyone knows I've stopped using caps for emphasis and have adopted italics and bold, though I sometimes falter since it is a habit hard to break". This does not fill me with confidence, and neither does the user's generally confrontative approach to editing that is evident from the talk page and even the unblock request.  Sandstein  08:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Nick D pretty much sums up my opinions on the matter. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose That recent debate (about email) does not indicate a willingness for collegiate editing. I suggest any request should go to BASC.  Chzz  ►  17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, and remove talk page access while we are at it. T. Canens (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for what it's worth. Reading between the lines a bit, arrogance and condescension don't just drop from that unblock request, they practically gush. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The purpose of a block is the prevent disruptive editing. Editor has declared that he will be better in the future, and AGF tells me that he should be taken at his word. Better to unblock this account so his edits can be monitored, as the other choice is to deny his unblock request which will only serve to drive this editor underground. Onthegogo (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User page

    Please check user page User:Alexander "The Great" Talkington--Musamies (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Checked. Looks to me like it would need some pretty serious editing to become a Wikipedia article.  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This user page of a minor should be deleted per Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Current practice. Would an admin delete this page? Cunard (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll purge the identifying information. The rest should be okay. Dcoetzee 10:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional userpage

    Promotional userpage User:Maudimaadil--Musamies (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted, but, in future, try not to bring routine requests here. Just tag the page with {{db-spam}} and an admin will deal with it soon enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to my experience. My experience has been that users are allowed to have spam in their User space, and my MfD was rejected because it was a potential article. Corvus cornixtalk 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I do that all the time, at least once a day; you aren't allowed to advertise a business anywhere. That's why it's G11, not A11. The restrictions in userspace are somewhat looser, but that doesn't mean all bets are off. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Chasetwomey/Zoro_Tools. Corvus cornixtalk 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is not allowed in user space is blatant advertisement - anything that meets WP:CSD#G11 ";Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Just being about company does not make an article, or a draft, an advertisement. We want users to develop articles in user space rather than put them prematurely in mainspace and get them speedied. This one, as you can see, is purely descriptive, but it was speedy-tagged two minutes after first input. That is quite inappropriate for a userspace draft; the speedy was properly declined, and the MfD also declined to delete. It may well not be notable, but we do not need to decide that before the author posts it in the main space. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, as I've been told repeatedly in the discussion concerning this page, spam is allowed in User space, which is what I said above. Corvus cornixtalk 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquensock (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the definition of WP:CSD#G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." and WP:SPAM: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." The draft considered here is not spam. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And regardless of that (which is all quite true), it is not appropriate to come asking here, when you've been told elsewhere what was wrong with the deletion requests.  Chzz  ►  20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was something seriously wrong with the !voting in that MfD, when editors argued to keep a draft for which no reliable sources can be found. That's totally perverse. Fences&Windows 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you will look again, you will see that I did not being this discussion. Corvus cornixtalk 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and windows, a draft does not need RS.  Chzz  ►  07:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever you do (I really recommend just tagging the pages), don't make a new section with an identical title in a general noticeboard. That's a nuisance for anyone who edits on a mobile device and relies on the TOC for navigation. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somecoy take care of cheking

    Could somecoy take care of cheking show contributions of new accounts only of userpages, there seems to be promotional userpages and out of scope user pages and user pages that shall be move to sub-page. It's more easy way to clean up those pages than study me to mark right way. Thanks for co-opeartion--Musamies (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what the problem is. If you want it deleted, use CSD. If you want it moved into a subpage, be bold and do it yourself (and tell the user why!). If you aren't sure, ignore it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone help out with edits to animation pages

    This was posted on my user page after a report at AIV. Unfortunately I know nothing about this subject so don't know how to verify. If TServo2050 is correct these IP edits will need to be mass reverted and possibly blocked. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    78.155.239.29 and 24.218.241.94 - vandalism

    Here's a good example of what I'm talking about with this 78.155.239.29, the diff page for an edit to Gerald Potterton that I removed.

    Gerald Potterton never worked at Disney. This can easily be verified by his IMDB page.

    I first noticed this person because of very, very similar false information being added to IMDB.

    Another person to watch out for is 24.218.241.94. For example, look at this diff - this guy added a bunch of names of Disney crew members who absolutely did not work on "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends". This diff also adds false information claiming that this person worked on the same show, also mentioning a Disney animator who never worked on "Foster's" either. And he adds mention of the same "Destination: Imagination" title to the biography of Eric Larson in this diff - Eric Larson died in 1988, two decades before, so he couldn't have worked on it no matter what.

    This is just really frustrating for me, but I don't have the time to go back and remove all the false info added by these people.--TServo2050 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation mentioning this thread.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I should have thought to do that myself. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    New Twinkle blacklist proposal

    We are currently embarked on a large rewrite of Twinkle. The current method of blocking users from using Twinkle is difficult to use, prone to breaking Twinkle for everyone if an admin makes a mistake, prone to being bypassed by slightly savvy users, and changes may not take effect for weeks due to caching. The new Twinkle offers the possibility to implement blocking in a different way as a byproduct of the transition to using the MediaWiki API exclusively. One approach is that to block a user from performing Twinkle functions, an admin would create a subpage in the userspace of the blocked user of the form User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle and apply protection to the page so that it cannot be moved. This page could have any contents desired or even be blank. We can setup Twinkle to immediately disable all functions upon detection of this page. Deleting the page would immediately restore Twinkle functions. The performance impact would be minor because Twinkle would only query the page when actually performing an edit. The query would be embedded within other API calls that are already being centrally performed for all modules in the new version. In most cases, there wouldn't even be an extra API call made. The technique can even be sufficiently embedded into the regular processing so that only an expert user would be able to bypass it. A blocked user would still be able to bring up the Twinkle user interface, but all edits would fail with a technobabble error message. If we are to make this change, it would be easiest to do it now while the patient is still in the middle of open-heart surgery, so to speak, and before testing has started.

    Another alternative would be a central page containing a list of blocked users. However, this would have a minor performance impact and would be easier to bypass, although still not as easy as the current method. Yet another approach would be a protected tree at WP:Twinkle/blocks with one subpage for each blocked user.

    There are currently 28 users blocked from using Twinkle. I don't know if the low number is partially due to the difficulty of properly performing a block, or if abuse just isn't that much of a problem. We could also implement selective blocking for only the more advanced Twinkle functions, while still allowing users to issue warnings and use Friendly. I'm hesitant to go there now because I'd really like a decision within the next two days while the surgery on the impacted code is still in progress. To be clear, there is no problem with retaining the current blocking method if that is the desired approach.

    I'm raising this issue here instead of on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle because admins are the ones charged with controlling access to Twinkle. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    From a transparency standpoint, the central page would seem to be the best one (possibly a central list + subsidiary tree if that is more efficient). It'll certainly be interesting to see if taking permissions away becomes more common once it's easier to do - I strongly suspect that it will. Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would favour User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle. This seems far simpler to implement for checking than the central page (we will check far more often than we change) and has all the decentralised benefits of robustness. It relies on user subpage protection being simple and robust, which I understand to be the case. A central tree would have these advantages too, but it's just creating a new root to duplicate something we already have from the user: namespace. It also scales well for many blocked users and expands nicely for introducing per-feature access control to Twinkle, by embedding markup onto the control pages. If per-feature control becomes useful, that would drive a massive expansion of this feature as the multitude of unblocked users also had such a page. For that reason it should probably be labelled and discussed as "Twinkle access control" rather than "Twinkle block". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not keen on the User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle option, it seems a lot more open to abuse. From what I understand, I could create say User:Andy Dingley/No Twinkle (hope you don't mind me picking on you Andy!) - which would disable your Twinkle access. It doesn't sound like something that would be noticed to fix. Although, could the page be "noTwinkle.js" instead? Therefore only an admin or the user could create it. On balance, a centralised protected list seems like a much safer solution. WormTT 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very good point. A user could obviously fix such a problem by moving the page, but that's not a good way to go. Switching to User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle.js would fix the problem, assuming that admins remember to put on the .js. Then again, we could just create a new Twinkle function that would automatically create the proper page for an admin. I think this vulnerability makes the WP:Twinkle/blocks approach unusable because we don't have any equivalent way to provide protection like we do in userspace. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure we do, just fully protect it like we do with AWB at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users.  -- Lear's Fool 13:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We can do that, but then the contents of that page will need to be retrieved before a Twinkle edit is performed, which might slow things down a little. It also might not be as expandable to a finer grain access control mechanism.
    Huggle does a similar thing using User:UncleDouggie/huggle.css. We could say for now that the existence of User:UncleDouggie/twinkle limits.css will block all access and in the future expand this to a finer grain control if it's needed. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the idea of a centralized twinkle access control. If you centralized the twinkle page with subpages you could use the title blacklist to keep non-admins from editing or moving the pages. It seems to work well for Editnotices. User subpages are harder to keep track of and it would be difficult to see which users have access revoked. Alpha Quadrant talk 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A user actively bypassing a Twinkle blacklisting hasn't been a problem in the past, as far as I'm aware; if a user were ever found to actively avoid the blacklist and thus typically community consensus that his use of scripts in editing Wikipedia is disruptive, said user can and should simply be blocked.
    As you said, it has popped up from time to time that a user was blacklisted, but could continue to use Twinkle since he still had the old version of the script cached. It would be nice to decouple the blacklist from the base script to only allow a very brief cache time (down to zero, if so desired, performance impact would probably be negligible).
    If you're reworking the blacklist format I suggest adding fields/columns to note the date of blacklisting, a suggested date to lift the blacklisting, a permalink to the discussion leading to the blacklisting (if any), and a comment.
    But changing the mechanism isn't really that important, IMO. It's rare that an editor is abusing Twinkle to the point of blacklisting and can't be reasoned with, but is otherwise constructive. Amalthea 16:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I'd certainly favor a central blacklisting mechanism, either as one list (as long as it can be kept short, which should be the norm) or as subpages of one central page. Amalthea 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With apologies for sounding negative: I am not convinced the complication is worthwhile. I am aware of one user who circumvented a "twinkle block" (Amalthea - so yes, it does happen)...however...Twinkle does nothing that the user cannot do otherwise; it doesn't confer any rights. It makes things simpler, sure; but really saying "you cannot use Twinkle" is a bit of a false restriction. Twinkle (for non-admins) just undoes edits, puts messages/warnings on user talks, and reports them to boards. Users are responsible for all their edits, whether using tools or not. If a user is issuing inappropriate warnings, undoing good edits, or inappropriately reporting to boards - then surely that can be dealt with in the normal manner?

    Mostly, I'm worried about WP:CREEP - and people wondering what on Earth this protected page is all about. If it must be done, I'd certainly say centralise it, not put it in a user subpage - because that at least avoids the user or others wondering what the subpage is. Also concerned about help requests, "Why isn't Twinkle working?" and a quite complex extra thing to have to trace and debug. And, without getting into BEANS, if a user has worked out how to circumvent the current restriction method, it won't take much more for them to circumvent this new method.

    But, overall, I'd say it is an unnecessary added complication to our already over-complicated wiki. There's many many other tools...are they all going to start having custom config files and restrictions? If a user is doing things wrong, then surely normal warnings/blocks are fine?  Chzz  ►  17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Small technical point - users with "Account Creator" can also bypass the title blacklist.  Chzz  ►  17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well considering there are only a handful of them, I don't think that's likely to be much of a problem. Certainly any account creator who used the permission to get round a Twinkle block wouldn't have it for much longer.
    Twinkle allows editors to edit at a rate that is much quicker than it would be if they were doing everything manually and, in my experience, the reasons for blacklisting are typically a faster rate of editing combined by a lack of thought as to what they're doing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ACC - agreed; as I said, "small technical point", I was just correcting it.
    Twinkle does not allow editors to edit faster. It simplifies things. A clueful editor could just as easily script a tonne of API calls, and edit faster than Twinkle. Chzz  ►  17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, a centralized system is definitely much better, since it is easier to track and manage. Isolated user subpages are virtually impossible to track. Second, I agree with Amalthea that we need not worry too much about circumvention. Anyone who is found to be doing that will likely get a swift block - or, if we are feeling particularly lenient, we can blank and protect all of their skin js files. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it worth the hassle? Adding this check (to see if a page exists) will presumably add *some* tiny amount of time to every single use of Twinkle - and although I suck at maths, I do know that "tiny" times "lots" can be "quite a bit". Of those 28 users currently excluded, 6 are indefinitely blocked, and 4 haven't edited since 2009. Yes, I'm sure admins would add more people if it was easier...but is that a Good Thing? If they're being disruptive, can't we just ask 'em to please stop it? And if they don't, block - as per every other type of thing?Is this really worth the added complexity?  Chzz  ►  19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We can take out the blocking ability entirely if the admins don't see a need for it. The functionality is there currently, so I assume it was considered valuable at some point. An extra user was also recently blocked. The bypass issue is secondary to the other three shortcomings with the current method. We could greatly reduce extra queries to a centralized page by suppressing such checks for admins, account creators and rollbackers. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be a little bit aggressive (labelling the editor for a quite specific 'restriction' - and this is kinda what bothers me about this in general...making it a "big deal"), or even a bit of a troll-feed; I can picture a userbox now; "This user is not allowed to play with Twinkle!"  Chzz  ►  20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure it is worth the hassle however if there remain <100 users blocked from twinkle then I am also of the opinion that any solution which garners a performance benefit and doesn't threaten transparency is perfectly ok. I'm willing to endorse whatever the folks working to improve twinkle want to do. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't this just another example of administrators trying to exert their authority where no authority needs to be exerted? How can anyone abuse their use of Twinkle without also falling foul of one or other of wikipedia's policies? A blocked user can't use Twinkle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well that's presumably partly why there are so few people currently banned from using Twinkle. But it makes sense that there are occasionally cases where a block would be unduly heavy-handed, but a user is just too eager to click the "rollback [vandalism]" button (or whatever) where it's not entirely warranted. Being able to deal with that without needing to block them seems a useful option to have (and exists already, just not in a very easy to use way.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Twinkle isn't crack, users can just stop using it. I would have thought that just telling otherwise good faith editors to stop using Twinkle if its a problem, plus Wikipedia:People who are not currently allowed to use Twinkle tucked away somewhere would be sufficient. If someone has been asked to stop and carries on, just block them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a way to attract outside input for a controversial requested move?

    There is currently a hotly contested requested move (lodged by myself) going on at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. This request is the latest installment of a long-standing debate which has gone on for months to years at this point. The talkpage is "run" by a handful of "regulars" (myself included), who have taken sides and set up their respective barricades long ago (if you'll excuse the WP:BATTLEGROUND analogy). This environment is not particularly conducive to civility, and allegations of user misconduct have been raised in a recent ANI thread, which passed largely unnoticed and was summarily archived (a total of 27 threads at ANI have dealt with issues surrounding this controversial topic). Good faith and assumptions thereof often run dry here, making it exceedingly difficult to form a satisfactory consensus.

    I submitted an RfC not too long ago in an effort to break the deadlock one way or another. However, due to the apparently poor visibility of the RfC process across the project, my request attracted very few responses, and was soon taken over by us "regulars" and driven into yet another wall. Demonstrating the hostile and mistrustful environment of the talkpage, another user even questioned my intent in lodging the request, believing that it was an attempt to rig the vote in some way.

    Another user recently sought the personal opinion of a notable scholar in the area on the matter. This did not change the opinions of those involved much, and the discussion quickly disintegrated into debates over various interpretations of this opinion. Neither side has shown particularly willing to give up much ground.

    I wish to attract sufficient outside input from uninvolved editors so as to provide the most satisfactory end to the debate possible, without giving the impression of canvassing. I would like to make it clear up front that I have certainly contributed to the problems in this debate, and I accept full responsibility for my actions. My desire here is not to enforce my own POV, but to reach an acceptable consensus on the matter. Since the topic matter falls within the bounds of such cases as WP:DIGWUREN, it is necessary to exercise a certain deal of caution in dealing with this. The move request was an effort on my part to induce some kind of focused debate; what I believe to be necessary now is to involve people other than the regulars so that accusations of collusion or partisanship do not stick, whichever way the request goes.

    My question is, how can I involve neutral editors in reaching a final decision here? Do I file another RfC? Do I seek higher arbitration/mediation? Or do I simply continue with the move request and hope for the best?

    Thanks in advance for any help,

    Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the dispute is going in circles. You could submit a request for mediation, or I could offer to step in as mediator. Alpha Quadrant talk 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is already a discussion in motion, I feel that it is too late for the former. In retrospect, going to WP:MEDCAB is what should have been done instead of hastily submitting a move request; I fear this may only be feeding the flames, for the only "new" editors commenting at the moment have not improved the rhetoric and general atmosphere at the page. Both are presumably Russian and seem to have a friendly history with one another, which may draw claims of bias from some users. One of them has a history of less-than-pleasant interactions with several of the "regulars" and has been placed under WP:DIGWUREN restrictions in the past.
    However, I think that it would be immensely helpful if you were to provide some mediation services. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what there is to mediate. It seems we have a number of editors who desire moving an article contrary to Wikipedia policy. They are saying we should ignore WP:TITLE's direction to survey a wide variety of sources and instead rely upon the opinion of one single scholar in finding a common name, and to ignore WP:TITLE's direction to consider only English-language sources but instead also to consider the POV of Russian-language sources (though no one has actually furnished such a source). --Martin (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Martin, though I certainly respect your opinion, you must recognise that the way things are going, there is not going to be a satisfactory outcome for all parties involved. We have been see-sawing back and forth for months now without any resolution of conflict; something needs to be done. Since neither side trusts the other, and since nobody can seem to agree on the interpretation of WP policy, we require outside intervention. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well mediation may work, but even if consensus was achieved by a small group of editors on an article talk page in this particular case, it cannot override the wider community consensus on policy. --Martin (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The debate at the talkpage indicates that there are different interpretations of this "consensus". When such a dispute exists, it is best for it to be mediated by an impartial individual or group. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You could consider listing the move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, it could be that the topic holds little interest for other editors, the issues are too complex, it takes too long to read the discussion and editors may not wish to become involved in a highly controversial subject about which they do not hold strong opinions. However this is not the correct forum for this discussion - but then I do not know what forum is. TFD (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, if you request a move, then it is automatically listed at WP:requested moves. Check the log for March 6 if you don't believe me.
    Re "this is not the correct forum for this discussion": I never intended for this discussion to be moved here – y'all just decided to follow me here and turn what was meant to be a request for advice into another battleground. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To several above, the additional input of a noted scholar has not helped because the various parties interpret that source to suit their position, e.g., one editor states the scholar says Soviet "intervention" not occupation, while the scholar writes that the USSR "crushed" the Baltic states and occupied them. Or editors are focusing on the finer points of the Soviet annexation and making more far reaching contentions which are not fundamentally supported. The bottom line regarding the article in question is that it is a summary of a continuous period of three contiguous occupations by two invading foreign powers, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, focused on the policies and actions of both of those powers with regard to the rights and lives of the Baltic nationals (ethno-agnostic) subjugated under said foreign powers.
    IMHO, some editors appear hell-bent on expunging "occupation" wherever it touches upon the portrayal of the Soviet legacy under the false mantle of "NPOV" ("occupation" implies something "bad" happened, "bad" is judgemental, etc., etc., etc.). My perception only, of course.
    Regardless, there is nothing wrong with the title or article content or scope. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please save this for the talkpage, Pēters. I did not intend for this to turn into another forum. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the move is "controversial" because it is solving a problem which does not exist. We might consider some non-article specific forum for addressing these sort of endemic disputes so we don't recreate the same tedious argument at the ever-rotating well-trodden collection of articles "in scope." The current "dispute" has nothing to do with the specific article, the article is just a venue for rehashing the same old specious argumentation about Soviet occupation or not or to what degree of the Baltics. I would suggest a "Soviet legacy taskforce" to at least least keep it to a single conversation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandbox pages

    I would like to have these sandbox pages which i had previously gotten deleted brought back, together with their talk pages. I wish to work on certain potential articles, and bringing back the pages would save me quite some time and effort.

    Joyson Noel Holla at me! 19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All restored. Courcelles 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Informational post re: McDonald's & corporate communications

    I don't think there's any admin action required here, but this is something I thought would be of interest to admins -- if true, it's certainly a new take on how corporate communications departments might deal effectively with Wikipedia.

    An editor claiming to be part of McDonald's "communications team" - User:Egerstea - has in the last three months contacted three editors to thank them for their work on the McDonald's article, and to offer themselves as a resource should any information be needed. The comments are boilerplate - here's the first one.

    As you can see there's no request for any specific edits to be made, information to be added or deleted, it just looks like "bridge building". The only pitfall I can see is that any information coming directly from the McDonald's corporate communications people should probably be in the form of pointers to already published information, rather than stuff released specifically for use on Wikipedia - although, if they were to seperately publish any new information provided to us in a press release, that could alleviate that concern. In any event, I would think that anything coming directly from McD's should be clearly labelled as such, and, if possible, verified with third-party reliable sources, just to make sure that they're not shaping data in a way that's advantageous to their public image.

    I would never want Wikipedia to be an appendage of the corporate world, but it would be nice to be able to get information directly from companies when it's necessary to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Corporate publicity isn't something I know a lot about, but when I did have limited contact with public relations firms about ten years ago, some of the main services they provided was indeed collecting and organising pointers to already-published information about their client organisations. So there is more potential for this to be useful from a Wikipedia perspective than might initially be imagined - the sort of information that these people would collect pointers to, would quite often be exactly the sort of reliable sources that Wikipedia articles need. (With a little bit of natural bias thrown in, of course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Request for Special:Newpages

    The Twinkle feature that marks new pages patrolled when tagging them is currently down. Would an admin please add the following to the instructions:

    "The Twinkle feature that automatically marks pages patrolled is currently down. New Page Patrollers, please mark pages patrolled manually before tagging them with Twinkle."

    Thank you. N419BH 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean on MediaWiki:Newpages-summary? Also, any idea on how long it will be down? If it's just temporary, I don't think a note is really needed, but if it's a few days, sure. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Wherever the directions are edited is where I mean...and I'm not sure where that is. And it's already been down for several days. I have no idea how long it will continue. The twinkle bug report page doesn't indicate any timeframe for bug resolution. N419BH 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It will be down until the rewrite is complete, which will be several weeks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A question for Administrators (and others interested)

    I am considering advancing a proposal. Because it might increase the admin workload and perhaps create a new notice board similar to AIV and UAA I would like to first ask for some opinions here. If this is not appropriate, accept my apologies and remove the thread as misplaced. I think there should be a direct option, at some appropriate screen, perhaps the one when selecting (cur | prev), to request RevDel, for certain egregious examples which qualify for redaction. I would propose that when a user, presses Revdel, the edit is reverted as in rollback, and a report filed to a notice board for admin consideration. Of course the decision to redact would rest where it properly exists now, and abusive reporting should be discouraged, and carry consequences. But for the most blatantly obvious, which fit the criteria a mechanism for reporting could increase use of this perhaps underused resource. I would anticipate it as a good fit to bundle as a Rollbacker user right. Thank you and please comment regarding the merits of such a proposal. My76Strat 10:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I like the idea. There would have to be a confirmation dialog though, to avoid accidental requests. — Oli OR Pyfan! 10:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment): It is a good idea, but there is a possibility of misuse. I think a better way is to have a link that allows for easy access reporting to RFO for RevDel and Oversight. Instead of having to go to WP:RFO, click the link, fill out the email with the links, wait for a reply, rinse, repeat. Just a button for reporting, or something like that in TWINKLE or HUGGLE. Putting it in Rollbackers access would be bad. RevDel should only be for admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My76Strat wasn't saying that revdelete powers should be given to rollbackers, but rather that rollbackers should have access to a link that makes it easy to request an admin revdelete something. — Oli OR Pyfan! 10:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, gotcha! My goof. :S Then this is a definite good idea. Should be put into the other links we already have. The link should just forward the information to the RFO email address, with a checkbox for RevDel or Oversight to make it easier on the admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and to clarify I do not suggest rollbackers be able to RevDel, Only that perhaps the one button report should be part of their user right. Or as you stated it could be part of twinkle and available to a wider user base if that is deemed appropriate. Just like AIV and UAA, the action must be accomplished by an admin. I only suggest a streamlined mechanism to initiate the report. Thanks for your interest and response. My76Strat 10:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm slightly confused: how would this work technically? Or are you saying that you'd like to gauge interest and then find out if it would work technically? The idea sounds very good; my only hesitation is on the actual implementation side. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really gauging for the opinion of the user group most impacted by the possibility of an increased workload. I think the technical aspects are less daunting, but could be wrong. And the important considerations are likely to be highlighted from a discussion here. For example I hadn't considered, but acknowledge the importance of a multifaceted tool. One which could append the majority of reports to a noticeboard while allowing the necessary ability to divert some of the more sensitive reports through oversight. And the benefit of a redundant confirmation to reduce false reporting and accidental clicks. So yes, all of this seems within reasonable reach and I do appreciate every response. I know there is likely to be some valid opposition and I eagerly anticipate that as well. My76Strat 13:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a question to the techs on the IRC and this response seems to corroborate my assumptions: "It could be implemented in the software, but it shouldn't be too hard to do it in JavaScript, or even as a new feature in something like Twinkle". My76Strat 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a very good idea to me. Decreasing the visibility of RevDel requests would be a good thing; the current practice of posting them on a widely-read noticeboard is less than ideal for obvious reasons. Could all the requests appear on a Special: page that only admins could see? That would seem preferable to a public queue, if it's possible to implement it that way. 28bytes (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You could simply have twinkle send a report to AIV marked with !! or something similar. No separate noticeboard needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral on the noticeboard issue but adding an extra link to Twinkle when viewing diffs (next to the current rollback/revert links in red/green/whatever) seems reasonable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2

    Per an interim motion:

    The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

    On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this

    Sandbox page

    Resolved

    Please bring back the following sub-page, which i had previously gotten deleted:

    Thanks. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - in future you can ask for a WP:REFUND. –xenotalk 16:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru again - what do I do now?

    Ok, I'm at a loss. A while back I asked for a site ban on QuackGuru (talk · contribs) for deeply tendentious editing practices, which you guys saw fit to deny (that's fine, I bow to your judgement on that), but now I have no idea how to deal with him. The current issue - which is another manifestation of the behavioral problems I had with QG previously - is at the pseudoscience article. There is an ongoing tussle over the removal of a paragraph (you can see the RfC statement here, which contains links to the paragraph in question and the abstract of the source involved). The removal of the paragraph and source is a bit contentious, for reasons I have a hard time understanding, but I seem to be getting the basic point across to most people, slowly and painfully. However, I keep running into the following issues with QG:

    • He continually harps on wp:V and wp:RS, even though no one is arguing that there is a problem with the reliability or verification of the source.
    • He never addresses the issues of wp:WEIGHT and wp:SYN that are the core of the problem with the paragraph, despite the fact that I and others have stated numerous times that that is where the issue lies
    • He continually makes claims in the vein "...no editor has given justification for deleting text...", when in fact two or three threads on the talk page are filled with reasoned justifications for removing the text
    • He constantly accuses me or others of OR or other policy violations in edit summaries and text: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

    I can handle the content dispute perfectly well, for the most part - that's just a matter of walking people through the logic of it enough times so that they see the sense of the removal - but there is no way to handle someone who simple refuses to address (or is incapable of addressing, maybe) the pertinent issues. His attitude (as far as I can tell from his monomaniacal focus on wp:V) is that he is going to defend the use of this quote come hell or high water, completely ignoring any assertions that the quote is being misused, that the author is being misrepresented, that the source is being taken out of context... It's like being trapped in one of those funky, depressing existentialist plays where the meaning of language itself is denied.

    So, you guys want to keep QuackGuru around as an editor - okayfine. Now, tell me how to get him to use even a modicum of common sense and reason so that we can have a proper discussion on the page. I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly. We don't want that (or at least I don't), so give me another solution. --Ludwigs2 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors have repeatedly added/restored OR to the article while deleting source text and I have addressed the context issue. What are editors supposed to do when Ludwigs2 and other editors continue to restore text that failed V and delete text that is well sourced. Ludwigs2 and other editors are unable to provide WP:V when asked to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Given how the last discussion of this type ended (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Community ban for User:QuackGuru) I think the best thing we can hope for is that some of those who at the time were against a ban get involved at WP:Pseudoscience to get some first hand experience with QG's behaviour. Hans Adler 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans Adler, you blindly restored OR after it was discussed on the talk page and in my edit summary. Your controversial edit is being discussed on the talk page. Do you agree you won't restore the text that failed verifaction when you are unable to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of any problem with QG, L2 should be banned from any discussion which involves interpretation of policies and guidelines. I admit I've crossed paths with him, before, but he has a — interesting — interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) QG, I don't think it's a good strategy for you to ignore my detailed explanation after you responded to it.
    Also, since when do you refer to yourself in the third person? [7] How many accounts do you have? Hans Adler 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot explain away the OR and blindly ignoring my edit summary. But you can stop doing what other editors are doing. I asked here if you agree to stop restoring OR but you did not give a specific answer here. I don't think it is good strategy for any editor to continue to restore OR. Do you agree with any of my comments. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No substantive new material means this complaint is not going to get anywhere very fast at all. Like or hate QG's queries, the response to a question about whether precise wording is found in a cite is a matter of providing the precise wording found in the cite. Collect (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a clear and logical way of dealing with the situation, and as such violates long-standing community norms. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell this is basically a content dispute about whether a particular paragraph is WP:OR etc., and as such it does not need admin attention. Please use dispute resolution, for which this board is not a venue.

    But I am concerned about the following statement by Ludwigs2 above: "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly." That sounds like a threat to me. Threats are not an acceptable mode of dispute resolution. Ludwigs2 has previously been warned that they may be subject to discretionary sanctions if they violate community norms in the pseudoscience topic area. I therefore invite Ludwigs2 to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making threats against others.  Sandstein  21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree that there is a festering problem with QuackGuru's editing. He is delaying the development of the pseudoscience article by repetitious insistence on irrelevant trivialities. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    If there is a persistent problem with this editor's editing then the correct place to raise it would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru or, in this topic area, WP:AE (but only with solid evidence).  Sandstein  22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I wasn't aware of that thread. It seems that QG has been generating concern in more areas than this one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Looking at the talk page it appears the foxes are trying to take over custody of the henhouse. Thanks to Ludwigs2 for bringing the situation to wider attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely. Any chance of us ever making pseudoscience advocacy a blockable offense in and of itself? That would do the most to calm these contentious areas down.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Arbcom once passed this, but present-generation Arbcom has increasingly distanced itself from that view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Boris: hunh?
    @ Sandstein: with respect to this being a content dispute: no, this is a behavioral issue. The content dispute can be handled properly if QG can be convinced to discuss the matter rather that simply obstruct the discussion. However, If you you really think this is the wrong venue, say so and I will close this thread and move it to arbitration enforcement. I think I can reasonably ask for a topic ban for QG under the pseudoscience arbitration ruling.
    With respect to your other point: hunh? what are you talking about?
    @ kww: are you referring to me as a 'pseudoscience advocate' because I'm trying to remove synthesis from an article?
    @ everyone: please note that QG started right in here (at this thread) doing exactly what I'm complaining about: focusing on V and RS, ignoring other editor's comments, accusing people of policy violations. All I can do is thank him for the examples. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking for pseudoscience advocacy would potentially mean anyone proposing edits in any article that even looks like they think the subject is real could be blocked if enough anti-whatever editors are involved. That would be the last nail in the balance coffin. Why not look at the fact that QG is not willing to negotiate his position. Tom Butler (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom, they are not being serious. they are just trying to insult/intimidate me in the hopes that I will react badly. this is a standard tactic (one I experience all the time from these editors), so don't give it too much thought. --Ludwigs2 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Ludwig, I am quite serious. This particular event is a symptom, not the disease. QG does seem to be acting out of frustration, which never leads to good results. I simply believe that removing the source of the frustration is the best solution. To Tom: balance doesn't include treating pseudoscience as real. Never has, never will, and editors that believe that presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light is necessary to achieving balance don't have sufficient competence to edit.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with you. The source of the disruption is QuackGuru's incompetence. If you find a way of removing that I will be most obliged. Hans Adler 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More seriously, it's not Ludwigs2's fault, or at least only to a small extent, when editors fantasise that the removal of nonsensical claims that amount to saying that astrology and creationism are quackery and a threat to public health is "presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light". If you don't like pseudoscience, you shouldn't support pseudoscientific methods such as taking statements of academic sources out of context and make them appear to say things that are clearly absurd and were never intended by the authors. The real way to make pseudoscience appear in a favourable light is by turning the pseudoscience article into something that looks as if written by a kook. Hans Adler 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not withdrawn or addressed the threat with respect to another editor referred to above ("I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly"). Considering their block log, in order to prevent such conduct from reocurring, in application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, I am blocking Ludwigs2 for 72 hours.

    Everybody else, please remember that WP:AN is not a dispute resolution forum. Please take your concerns to the appropriate venues per WP:DR.  Sandstein  23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On Hans' comment @ 20:52 about people who opposed a ban:
    I asked most of them for help with QuackGuru at a different page last month, and the response was underwhelming, with all but two editors refusing to lift a finger. It left me with the sour impression that a majority of people opposed to a ban don't care how much QuackGuru hurts Wikipedia, so long as it doesn't inconvenience them personally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that Sandstein has decided to shoot the messenger, at least part of this mess is going to be looked at by Arbcom. Probably a good occasion to spend the effort necessary for solving the problem once and for all. Hans Adler 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandstein, I hope you'll consider unblocking Ludwigs. Our failure to ban QuackGuru is an example of AGF extended to the point of a suicide pact, but then the people who say no to the ban move on; they don't stick around to help deal with his edits. So Ludwigs brings it here, and ends up blocked because his language was a little aggressive. That seems unjust. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both QG and Ludwigs2 can be, for lack of a more discreet term, serious pains in the ass. (As can I.) But the block is totally disproportionate and Sandstein should be censured for such a hamfisted move. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unblock

    User:Ludwigs2 was blocked for his comments at ANI, "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly".[8] However, despite the administrator saying that he would block Ludwigs2 is he "decline[d] to respond to this concern if you do not do so within two hours of your next", he blocked him forty minutes later after he requested the administrator explain what comments he was referring to. Ludwigs2 has offered to redact his comments.[9] Therefore request unblock. TFD (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The words he used about shouting down another editor etc. (to wit: " if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly.") violates every principle on civility ever enunciated by ArbCom. His responses that he would seek desysopping of Sandstein was extraordinarily ill-advised. He appeared, at best, to be using a complaint about an editor when the issue was clearly one of a content dispute, and seeking action against Quackguru was inapt at best. I suspect that he will, indeed, not be unblocked, and may actually have his block extended. Collect (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm With your comment you gave the signal for the mob against Ludwigs2 to form. Don't you think it's about time for you now to acquaint yourself with the actual background? Quackguru's failure to communicate in a meaningful way is hardly a content dispute. He has even demonstrated his behaviour here at AN. Hans Adler 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG strikes again. I've got the article watchlisted and will keep an eye on it. N419BH 01:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the appropriate way to handle the situation: get more eyes on the article. Not with trying to get people sanctioned or making disproportionate responses to bluster. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't expect editors to cause disruption in order to get their way, no matter how nefarious the opponent is alleged to be. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully advise administrators to reduce block to time served. Penalty was disproportionate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Considering the user's statement that he will redact the comments that the blocking admin found to be a threat, adding that he didn't mean the comments to be a threat of disruption, the comments here by editors who support unblocking, and the fact that this block is a long stretch of the ArbCom pseduoscience restrictions, I'm going to unblock Ludwigs2. At this point, the block is punative, not preventive. Dreadstar ☥ 02:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=417890208"