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 Killiondude (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 2 June 2012 (→IPv6 surprise!: reply). 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

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

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

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

      Requests for comment

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

      (Initiated 133 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to mention that there has been discussion at AN to attempt to resolve the issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My headache came back just reading that. Thanks, I'll extend my wikibreak a little longer --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done (Special:Diff/1250934591) by User:Sandstein -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

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

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Yasuke#RfC on Yasuke Samurai Status

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 2 September 2024) Legobot removed RFC tag 2/10/2024 TarnishedPathtalk 01:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
      CfD 0 0 3 0 3
      TfD 0 0 0 0 0
      MfD 0 0 6 0 6
      FfD 0 1 3 10 14
      RfD 0 0 0 18 18
      AfD 0 0 0 1 1

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Interwiki link templates - inline

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 6 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 10#Category:Fictional witches and wizards

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 10 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#By-state law citation templates

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 13 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 15#Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 15 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hurricane Kirk (2024)

      (Initiated 11 days ago on 3 October 2024) Active for over a week and the draft is submitted, would be nice if we can close. Crete44 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Explicit. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 23#Template:Appalachia-stub

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 23 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 27#Category:Selena y Los Dinos

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 11 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 28#Category:Medical doctors in British media

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 13 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 22 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

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

      (Initiated 139 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List_of_New_Testament_minuscules_(2001–)#Requested_move_22_August_2024

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 22 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Ryan_Whitney#Requested_move_29_August_2024

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 29 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Stanisław_Potocki_(1659-1683)#Requested_move_30_August_2024

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 30 August 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Moggy#Requested_move_4_September_2024

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 4 September 2024) Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Block review requested for Historiographer

      Historiographer (talk · contribs)

      WP:ANI#Personal attack by User: Historiographer

      The user has been blocked after a complaint at ANI, I ask for clarification regarding consideration of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which has not been referred to by the original complainant or the blocking admin. It appears to have been overlooked, despite it's significance, which changes entirely what appeared as a npa into very wise advice. Penyulap ☏ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Whatever it is you're doing, you're not helping the user; posting unblock-requests on someone else's talkpage knowing full well they will be declined isn't good. Historiographer now has two declined unblock-request on his page, neither of which were even made by him/her. I suggest someone remove these so it won't give the wrong impression when giving just a quick glance. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks to me like someone with limited English skills (thought their English is far better than my Korean or Japanese) attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice. If I'm reading correctly, the proper response isn't a block, but some wikilove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I highly agree, has the blocking admin been contacted? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There's a lot more to this than one comment - heck, just look at his remarks after being mentioned on ANI. Too bad at English to contribute to discussion imo, so even if block removed he should only be doing edits that don't require discussion (whatever they may be). Egg Centric 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec)Actually, the block is for more than just some NPA-slip; this user has a history of edit-warring, attacks and other stuff. So it's not like it's made to look; there's more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The last edit war block was over a year ago. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      hm. I didn't know you had the right to edit-war once a year. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that it is not relevant to the current case, which appears to not be a case at all and just a mistake on the blocking admin's part. SilverserenC 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I was going to make the same point, but Silver Seren beat me to it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it is not a mistake. Why is this split across the two noticeboards? I commented on the thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know why it's split between two discussions, you might want to merge them. However, i've read your statement over there and I very much disagree with you. This block is significantly out of proportion. The next logical step, if a block was warranted, would be to go to 1 week, after the last block a year ago of 72 hours. But a block is not warranted here, a warning is. SilverserenC 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is split across two notice boards because a request for a block is viewed as an incident requiring quick action, and belonging on the incident page, while a review of a block is less urgent and belongs on the AN page. That said, the page instruction leave a lot to be desired. I've figured out what goes where mostly by osmosis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Moving my earlier response here from WP:ANI:

      @Penyulap: I am at a loss to understand why you would think the "Please, Don't mind too" part of Historiographer's edit [2] is relevant to the block reasons. That bit is of course harmless. What's not harmless is the fact that he was calling Japanese users Jjokbaries (a racist slur) and was describing them wholesale as disruptive social misfits who enjoyed damaging Wikipedia articles. If that was not the expression of a deeply entrenched battleground attitude, I don't know what is. Moreover, the block was also based on a review of his previous pattern of contributions (although these are mostly some months back; he's been inactive of late except for today's talk page post). Historiographer obviously knows too little English to interact with other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex POV disputes, and that means that his editing has been mostly restricted to blanket reverts of other users accompanied with edit summaries in broken, almost incomprehensible English. Such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is disruptive especially when it happens in a highly charged, contentious topic area such as this. WP:COMPETENCE is required.
      This is not to say that other users in the field may not also be deserving of similar blocks, or even more so. Historiographer's outburst against Japanese editors who "feels ecstasy when they bothering Koreans", while unacceptable in the way he expressed it, may partly be a sign of an understandable frustration, because, frankly, we have had a couple of Japanese users in the past to whom this description more or less applied. I don't know how many of them are currently on the loose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      And more responses to the comments above:

      • @SPhilbrick and others: I also cannot follow you at all in describing this posting as "attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice". I'll give you my own translation of the original post into proper English, staying as close as possible to what Historiographer apparently meant to say:
        Japanese users such as Kusunose, who restrict themselves to Korea-related articles, have always been annoying like this. I used to confront these troublesome jjokbaris [i.e. Japanese bastards] just like you are doing now. However, there is no definite solution to this problem, because anti-Korean Japanese users are otaku [i.e. obsessed] hikikomori [i.e. loners] and get their greatest joy out of annoying Koreans. Please ignore them. Truth will prevail on Wikipedia regardless of Japanese lies.
        There is no reasonable way of reading this posting according to which Historiographer isn't:
        1. calling Japanese editors "bastards/scum" ("jjokbari") – this is not within the scope of what he "used to do" but "is no longer doing"; he is clearly saying now that these people actually are scum;
        2. describing Japanese editors as socially impaired (roughly: "obsessed basement-dwelling nerds");
        3. attributing to Japanese editors a fundamental desire to harm Wikipedia;
        4. describing the disputes between Korean and Japanese editors as a matter of "truth" versus "lies" ("hoaxes");
        5. reenforcing the other editor's (a newbie's) description of Japanese editors as "vandals" (rather than trying to dissuade him of that mistake, as any reasonable experienced editor should).
      • @Silverseren: I don't take kindly to baseless insinuations of "involved" admin misuse; please retract that because I regard it as an insult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I read it differently.
      I read it, using a very generous translation, as saying" "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off."
      Good advice, if accompanied by stronger language than necessary. Worth a trip to WQA? Probably. Worth a three month block? Not IMO.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but you are misreading it. This is definitely not what he was saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that the block was much stronger than necessary. There were some racist personal attacks there, but I think anything more than a week is completely unreasonable and I'm not entirely sure a block was absolutely necessary prior to a full ANI discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      After seeing this edit I am fully supportive of the block. I still think 3 months becomes punitive rather than preventative. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, but you were the one who blocked him twice before. Don't you think that makes you biased in terms of this user, especially when others are pointing out that it seems too much? SilverserenC 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not too involved, 3rr blocks are fairly cut and dry and don't generally equate to "involvement" Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec) No, it doesn't. Since when does being acquainted with a user's disruptive pattern from an administrator's perspective make an administrator automatically biased? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      When a future block of the user seems overdone. A week would have been defensible, not three months. SilverserenC 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My only possibly bias in this area is that I am of the opinion we should treat all disruptive editors in the Korea-Japan hotspot areas, on both sides, with extra harshness. Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thoroughly agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's interpretation of the above screed, and my only complaint is that this block isn't indef. But I suppose this is a good compromise; if you really, seriously cannot see the problem with referring to Japanese people as jjokbaris (which is sort of like calling them Japs or slant-eyes in English), I can't help you (despite my signature, I can assure you that I'm white and don't have any personal reason to be offended). I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Future Perfect at Sunrise, it is policy itself that the English server is shared amongst all editors with different variants of English. They do not ask any special treatment that you take sufficient care to understand their variant of the english language, it is policy that you must. You describe the editors summaries as "broken, almost incomprehensible English." they may be so to you, however, do you not see that there are people who do have a clear understanding of the editors remarks ? How does this fit in with your mention of WP:COMPETENCE in your ability to cope with judging the editors remarks ? Penyulap ☏ 20:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Broken English is not a "variant" of English. It's just broken. Yes, one can generally figure out what he means, with some effort. That doesn't change the fact that the presence of English at this poor level is disruptive to the smooth working of the project. As, incidentally, can be seen from the fact that in this particular instance some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      i are agree to sun, the wonderful at dawn. the english which smashed not understanding the english themselves, who are confused. Egg Centric

      (edit conflict)

      The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do agree with you about the harshness required for dealing with racial trolling, however there are two separate issues here and as best I can see Future Perfect at Sunrise is unaware of the clear interpretation of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which was overlooked and left out of the original complaint. It reverses the statement. It is significant.
      Once that mistake is recognised and dealt with, yes of course you deal with the secondary issue of mentioning such things in conversation masked as good advice as inflammatory in itself, and determine if that was the intention. Overt attack is the reasoning behind the block, and an overt attack it is not. Penyulap ☏ 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What on earth are you talking about? How does "Please, Don't mind too" "reverse the statement"? It does not. The phrase meant "please ignore what those Japanese editors are doing". What on earth did you think it meant? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel I understood it, and that was that. It was wise advice from one editor to another, it DID NOT name any other editor, was sympathetic and intended to ease tensions rather than inflame them. If we are going to sit and search for a fault with any editor there are more likely candidates than this one. The finer interpretation of hidden dynamics, I feel should not be handled by an admin who describes that editors variant as incomprehensible.
      SPhilbrick seems to have translated into a more familiar to you ? variant. So if you want to know what "reverse the statement" means, leave the italicised words out of his translation. "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off." although, I think the original editor said it better himself in his own language. "Please, Don't mind too." is not open to ambiguity. Penyulap ☏ 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You are misreading this in such an absurd fashion I really have nothing more to say. Except for this: if this guy's English is so poor that he could be misunderstood by a competent speaker of English, like you, in such an utterly absurd way, that's all the more grounds for keeping him blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Righteous block Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      English speakers by percentage within European Union countries, everything in grey is not EU, so percentages there aren't shown. The lightest shade of green (bottom right) means less than 20% can speak English. This is just Europe and just the EU, then there is Asia, including Indian, before you reach across to Japan and Korea and the rest of east Asia
      Certainly if I were the only person who 'misunderstood' the editors comments I may doubt myself and review several times more until I could see my misinterpretation, however I see that I am not alone. I find that I am endlessly quoting and linking to this policy page in articles, and once before at ANI I posted up the image I will repost here. Whilst I can understand that you find other variants of English disruptive in themselves, I don't think it proper to interpret policy in a way that places your own sub-demographic above all others.
      If language is a reason to block, we need to update policy to decide which variant to use. Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Does that mean we can block all the British editors? Because British English is confusing, imo. SilverserenC 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Eenie, meenie, minee, MO! which way shall we GO ? I'm sure you know there are like 250 million people in America, but did you know there are 80 million Nigerians who speak English ? Maybe they can run scams on the 125,000,000 people in India who can speak English, you know using the call centres, and there are 90 million English speakers in the phillipines, sweet, so, who do we ban pre-emptively first ? Personally I think it should be the whistleblower, that would be me, I'll return as a sock and help you ban all these variant speakers shall I? Yep, I'm losing it, time for me to get something to eat I guess, or play a computergame. Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Clearly, the easiest method is to ban everyone who isn't American. SilverserenC 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm going with Blade on this one: resorting to racist slurs should result in an indef. Full stop, no exceptions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      What about Blades similar use of slurs, he said "I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here." I count two slurs right there, we should indef him, and omg I just repeated them, so indef me as well. And the Americans, Canadians, omg lets go SOPA for a day and block everyone to teach them all a lesson.
      But seriously, which interpretation are you going on HandThatFeeds ? the overt one, the covert one, or are you aware there is a difference ? Penyulap ☏ 22:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, quit being so melodramatic. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Your hyperbole and incessant need to go over-the-top is not helping these discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Template use prohibition

      Seems like other than the blocked editor posting the unblock template is confusing and disruptive... does this happen frequently enough to make discussion of a formal prohibition worthwhile? Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      certainly it is, looking over the unblock pages and guides it says nothing whatsoever about third parties, I would gladly help with some feedback :) Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The documentation for the template says "The following should be placed on your talk page:"Nobody Ent 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I didn't think of just how funny it would have been if I did it that way, rats! Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, well I placed it on my userpage, I have no idea how it looks there, if it is humorous or not, see for yourself now would someone please move this little section or start a suggestion somewhere that the docs for the template are inadequate or something ? way I see it at the moment, if you want to unblock someone, use an unblock template, if there is some other way to do it, lets not keep it a secret any longer, as for me, I'll go on using the template as is, it's good enough for me. Whatever happens, it's not relevant to this discussion, imho, sorry Nobody Ent. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Uh, Penyulap, it's phrased that way because the template is only supposed to be used by the blocked party. Therefore, it is posted on their talkpage. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's where I put it. on their talkpage, but it goes on my talkpage doesn't it? Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you don't use it at all. The blocked editor may use it if they want to be unblocked. It is not appropriate for another user to request unblocking through those templates. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Of note, this is his response: "Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested"[3]
      Obviously not interested in help, and does not care about the block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Glad you can join us halfway through, were now going in the same direction, it's just that little bit faster now. Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think we're going in the same direction at all. The user was offensive and does not care that he was blocked. There's nothing further to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      "Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested" actually means "I deeply care about my being blocked and promise I will never engage in such behavior again. Please unblock me." Remember, the user has limited knowledge of the English language. WP:AGF. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      (illistration using some sarcasm, basically asking what do you expect?)Hmm I think they should be more like "Omg I am so sorry that I am upset that you have incorrectly blocked me in a biased manner, I so sorry, I not speak enwish, you aways right because wikipwedia is american, please block me some more because I not happy with your mistake" anything less should go indef. Penyulap ☏ 22:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On a serious note, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with AGF which is not policy, this has to do with an admin with by his own admission little or no understanding of the editors variant blocking that editor based on his interpretation of that editors English. That IS against policy. (is there a policy along the lines of don't close your eyes and fire a gun randomly?) Penyulap ☏ 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Am I alone in thinking that Penyulap is now simply trolling? This is just getting too bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I wonder if Penyulap realizes that the user called him an ass. In light of the rest of the information that came about here, I wouldn't be opposed to indef block, no talk page access, rather than the 3 month block in existence now (Contrary to my earlier comments). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You may call me a troll, you may call me an ass, or you may indeed call me a troll's ass for good measure, I do not mind, I prefer the third. I see the same systemic problem that I saw with AndytheGrump recently, where the accused does his best to undermine wikipedia by refocusing the discussion upon his accuser.

      I would suggest that, (using your own language and phrasing so you can understand with ease)

      • You "obviously know too little English" to place blocks upon other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex language issues. You found an editor upon whom you placed a block as having "broken, almost incomprehensible English." and yet still resisted any advice on the matter from many other editors and admins.
      • You've said "I am at a loss to understand why you would think the Please, Don't mind too part of Historiographer's edit is relevant to the block reasons." and resist any attempt by many people to help you understand why it IS relevant.
      • You've said "some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried." and don't want to take advice from the people who can understand with some ease.
      • You've said "Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them."
      • You suggest that if an editor is capable of being misunderstood by someone else, they should be blocked

      I'm fast coming to the conclusion that it is not the block which requires review, but your adminship that requires review. Penyulap ☏ 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Drop the stick, please. I'm no particular friend of FPaS, but you're way off base here, and doing yourself harm by continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, this has become a complete WP:BOOMERANG. Pen, you've made it clear you like to engage in some devil's advocacy and humor, but you never seem to know when to quit. You're really pushing people's patience with this act. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This seems to be a current issue with Penyulap - inserting themself into situations where they are 100% policy unaware, and thus inflame the situation - often by encouraging the other editor to speak out more loudly and improperly. A couple of months ago we had another editor who got their wrist slapped for posted unblocks "on behalf of" editors - I'm going to have to go back and find out who it was (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bwilkins, please be kind enough to keep your personal attack 100 % to yourself. Penyulap ☏ 14:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What personal attack? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Glad to see I'm not the only person who finds Penyulap's behaviour peculiar. Somehow the quality of the trolling reminds me of Archtransit (talk · contribs) and socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      At first it seemed like someone who just won't quit to me, but some statements are so unreasonable that I think trolling could be a fair diagnosis. Egg Centric 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It’s a shame I caught this thread so late, as I think I could have prevented some of the fallout if I had seen it earlier. As an ESL teacher I deal with these kind of language issues every day, although admittedly with Japanese speakers and not Korean speakers. It would be easier for me to interpret the comment by Historiographer that started all of this if I spoke Korean in addition to speaking Japanese; however, the two languages still share many features, such as the lack of plurals and the way they use suffixes (particles) to modify words, so I can make a reasonable guess as to what's going on.

      I would be grateful if a Korean speaker could check over this, but I think the true meaning of the comment by Historiographer that started this business is somewhere between Fut. Perf.’s strict interpretation and SPhilbrick’s lenient one. Here is what I think was intended:

      Japanese users like Kusunose, who diminish the quality of Korea-related articles, always keep doing annoying things like that. In earlier times I also used to do the things you have done (here referring to the actions of 222.101.9.93 (talk)) against these troublesome Jjokbaries. However, there are no definitive answers to this problem due to the fact that (some) Anti-Korean Japanese users, who some people think are otaku (obsessive nerds, probably of the computer variety) with hikikomori (loner) tendencies, feel ecstasy when they bother Koreans. Please, pay no attention to them. The contents of Wikipedia are no longer the absolute truth, regardless of what Japanese hoaxes may be perpetrated on the site. See this link. (The link appears to be a site discussing Japanese people with a decidedly anti-Japanese point of view, but the Google translation isn’t too clear.) Nowadays, I just stop responding to the Japanese otaku when I see them. (The Korean bracketed text is an idiom which I can’t translate. The direct translation is something like “don’t throw any lead” – ‘lead’ as in the metal – whatever that means.) If you do this too, it will be a great help to you. Thanks for your passion in editing those articles.

      This is subjective of course, so please take my interpretation with a pinch of salt. However, if I am right, then Historiographer looks less like a holy warrior who is out to insert The Truth into Wikipedia at all costs, and more like a user tired of edit wars who is giving out good advice to fellow Koreans. However, this does not excuse the racial slur “jjokbari”, and this user obviously has an anti-Japanese point of view that will prevent them from editing neutrally on Japanese topics. Claims of a battleground mentality are fair enough, as Historiographer is plainly seeing the topic area as one of “us versus them”.

      In light of this interpretation, I don’t think Penyulap was off base with this AN thread, and I wouldn’t call their subsequent posts trolling. I think that their comments about Fut. Perf. were a bit over the line, however. A claim that someone's "adminship requires review" is a serious matter, and editors who make claims like this should be prepared to back them up with serious evidence. I also think the others in the discussion who criticised Historiographer have very good points. Although we should assume a degree of good faith about Historiographer’s comment due to their low language ability, we can’t just ignore the obvious racial slur and POV, and their subsequent caustic talk page comments. We must also bear in mind that competence is required – although I don't think we can reasonably say that a low English level by itself is disruptive, there is no denying that it makes it harder to contribute usefully here. On balance, I think Historiographer deserved to be blocked, although I think 3 months might be a bit harsh in light of my interpretation of their comment above. And Penyulap, it’s probably best to leave this one alone now, and go and do something relaxing. I suggest a nice long bath and some chocolate. :-) Sorry for the tl;dr everyone. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you. I don't see that your paraphrase differs from mine in any particularly important way, so I can't really see how it would be the basis for a milder assessment of the situation. In particular, all the five points I listed in conclusion to my earlier paraphrase (further up in this thread) still apply under your reading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Guys, please understand that Penyulap is definitely not a troll, not is his intention to be trolling. Pen and I seem to understand each other pretty well (we have some attributes in common, heh!) Pen cares deeply when he sees something (I'm having real trouble hunting for the right words here, but our Aspie and Autie editors will understand it immediately) being considered from one angle (obvious to neurotypicals) and not being seen from an alternative (or possibly many alternative) angles. For the non-Autie types, it's a bit like a good musician hearing one of those god-awful electronic doorbells which cannot play a single tune in tune; or like an unscratchable itch, or someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard. Very often we can't "see" something the way other people can see it, but here's the other side of the coin: we "see" things, clearly, which other people miss. That works both ways. But please don't label Pen as a troll; he's very far from being one. Pesky (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you everyone, I apologise Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am not attempting to troll anyone. I do have an insatiable drive to be certain that editors can see just what is going on in situations where I clearly see hidden dynamics, so that the community as a whole can judge a situation for themselves 'without distortion and concealment' :). This has nothing whatsoever to do with you, this is a desire to see that everyone has the same 'level playing field'. I only 'persist' until all significant hidden dynamics have been exposed, or to put it another way, the stick is not to hurt anyone, it's just to uncover everything, once that is done, I do not care one iota for the stick or the discussion, as it is not my decision that has any meaning at all. In this case I have nothing else to add and no opinion on the matter whatsoever as there are experts aplenty. I apologise if our interaction has been painful for you, my intentions had nothing to do with you beyond examining motives of everyone concerned. Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I briefly want to make a few points (I'm not a native Korean speaker but I do speak it and Korea is my field of expertise). Firstly, while there's probably a context here that I won't get on a cursory overview (though I have encountered the user's past edits while cleaning up Korea-related articles), the use of "jjokbari" should not be understood in the same light as racist remarks in English. Use of terms like jjokbari is pretty common among Koreans and is much milder than obvious racial slurs in English, and Korea itself is not a particularly "race-sensitive" society. Nationalism is hegemonic in Korea, so Koreans have a very different idea of what constitutes "NPOV". I don't mean this as some sort of relativist clarion call, I just wanted to add this since I think there's a danger of overlooking the cultural context here (I'm responding in particular to Future Perfect's remark about racial insensitivity meriting an indef block). (Stradivarius - I wouldn't get carried away with the Japanese/Korean similarities, sentence structures in Korean are actually very different to those of Japanese -- but in this case I think the meaning is pretty clear with or without grammatical interpolations.) I would be inclined to view his remarks as basically meaning "Don't let the Japanese trolls get you down". The parenthetical remark literally means "Don't throw bait" (don't trust Google Translate for Korean, their algorithms come up with some very bizarre translations for individual terms). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I like Google translate, but it hates me and calls me a Juggler, blah ! Penyulap ☏ 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the clarifications, Tyrannus Mundi. Your comment makes a lot of sense. I also wanted to say one more thing about Historiographer's original comment. I think that he is only referring to a subset of Japanese users - i.e. the ones he says are "otaku" with "hikikomori" tendencies - not all Japanese users. I think the intention is easy to mistake here, as the whole comment starts with "Japanese users", and the qualifier "like Kusunose" is relatively far away, after a sub-clause, plus the punctuation is confusing. Two of the three other mentions of Japanese users in the comment are qualified directly, i.e. "Anti-Korean Japanese users" and "Japanese otaku", and I don't think the third, "Japanese hoax", can be assumed to refer to all Japanese users. Not that describing a subset of Japanese users rather than all Japanese users excuses the comment per se, but it does contrast with Fut. Perf.'s five points above. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless, a "Japanese [derogatory]" noun phrase is offensive enough to support some action, especially in a situation without the user providing his/her own mea culpa. It objectively expresses bias/antipathy based on nationality/ethnicity in the common language of the project, whatever the subjective intent maybe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      proposed ban duration of 14 days

      Discussion of the matter appears to have concluded. Suggested alternatives to the current block include indefinite banning, a week, less than a week, a warning rather than a block, and a trip to WQA, with the most frequently referred to duration being a week.

      Propose changing the block duration to 14 days. Penyulap ☏ 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I see no reason to change the block from indef until the editor him/herself requests it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In looking at the possible flaws of unblocking policy and guidelines, I've come across some approaches to justice which are strange, at least to me. I need to think some more on this. Lolz, I shoved the article into wikipedia space by mistake, I'm such a goof.Penyulap ☏ 09:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?

      Is Tobias Conradi still community banned? I ask because of the AFD discussions of Time in Illinois (AfD discussion) and Daylight saving time in Germany (AfD discussion). It's been confirmed by CheckUser that Tobias Conradi was still extensively sockpuppetting up to August 2011 and that Time in Russia (talk · contribs) is one of many Tobias Conradi sockpuppets. The article histories of Time in the Czech Republic, America/Indiana/Knox, America/Cuiaba, America/Kentucky/Louisville, and some others make it fairly clear that there's a little walled garden of articles that only Tobias Conradi is interested in as anything other than redirects, and strongly indicate that the pattern of creating multiple new accounts has continued since August 2011 and that Royaume du Maroc is one of several more Tobias Conradi accounts.

      Which brings me back to the question:

      • Does the community consider the Tobias Conradi ban from five years ago to be still in force?
      • If so, what does the community want to do with the walled garden of TZ-database-related articles that only these accounts have ever edited (other than as redirects to the actual articles for the cities and countries indicated) at all?

      Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Tobias Conradi is still banned, yes; that's been reaffirmed in several discussions over the last couple of years. As to what to do with the articles, I'll notify the users who are usually chasing after him, they'll probably have some ideas. But leaving them be is almost certainly not what to do, given the mess that some of his socks (especially TigreTiger) created. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
      • There was a tremendous amount of disruption he caused between June-August on India geo articles, last thing we need is for him to return now! —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Return"? From the sockpuppet investigations page, it appears that xe never left. You do know that Royaume du Maroc has been active within the past 12 hours, yes? Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I haven't exactly followed Tobias' career here, I was only briefly involved when he started working on India geo articles. Quite honestly, I don't know enough about his editing interests to make a judgment call on the above. But I have experienced enough of his disruptive nature to know that he's a net negative. —SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think it would probably be pretty obvious if Tobias's ban were lifted. I really doubt such behavior as indicated above is at all likely to change that situation, either. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, there's an AfD open on one of the Time-by-state articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois. (I don't know anything about the Tobias situation — I was reading other noticeboard stuff and noticed the Time-by-state articles being mentioned.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aren't any of the Tobias trackers active currently? —SpacemanSpiff 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess not. What probably should be done is here to have someone file yet another SPI requeset. While the evidence above is certainly good, I'm not sure in and of itself it is necessarily enough to confirm sockpuppetry. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The evidence above isn't all of the evidence, by any means. Looking at the contributions of the checkuser-confirmed accounts listed in the SPI report, I noticed that there are three tell-tales that Tobias Conradi has. The first is the stuff that xe was community banned for: rudeness and inability to see other people's actions as anything other than "attacks". The second is a focus on a particular set of subjects and on the spellings and punctuations of place/region/personal names. The third I won't explain because it is very revealing, and if I say what it is Tobias Conradi will stop doing it. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good lord. When he first went crazy and was banned, I never expected him to haunt the joint for the better part of a decade. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I've unfortunately just encountered this critter. I created some and edited some other "Time in state" articles for the purpose of specifying exactly which counties (or other divisions) are in which time zones. He jumped on it at the same time, apparently prompted by my email to the tz list (on which he is apparently similarly disruptive). For some of them, it was trivial, and originally fit in a couple one-liners in the main Time in the United States article, but others were complex enough to warrant (I feel) their own article. Additionally, this allows space for a map, addressing history and unofficial observances, DST, etc. (see Time in Indiana for an example). Such articles additionally carry the Category:state to make them part of that state's collection of articles, which seems useful. As the only other editor of these, please allow me a few days to clean up what's there before deciding on whether/where to merge. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

      Resolved by motion that:

      FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

      Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

      For the Arbitration Committee,

      -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this
      This is not the place to argue your case. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Please note the above statement is false and is subject of a new amendment. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      You mean "[you contend that] the new finding-of-fact is false and is subject of a new amendment". The statement here - notification that the Arbitration Committee has resolved a finding-of-fact with the wording given - is entirely true. Happy‑melon 23:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, the FoF is untrue, not the fact that it has been adopted. That, sadly for us all, is true. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      1 revert proposal for circumcision

      I would like to propose a 1 revert rule limit on the circumcision article. This article has had more edit wars than many other articles which are currently on a 1rr restriction. This edit warring has also been a long term problem stretching back to 2003. The talk page is full of disputes and theres no sign of concurrence anywhere on the horizon. This dispute has carried over to multiple noticeboards and over the past year alone possibly two dozen editors have been involved in some form of dispute about various issues. I have edited thousands of articles, but circumcision is possibly the most extreme example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND page I have seen thus far.

      What makes this situation more urgent is the endless debates and RfC's have mostly led nowhere and most editors to the article are completely polarized in their opinions. Some disccusions go on for for weeks and months and at the end there is not an agreement in the slightest. Some of the disputes have escalated into personal attacks and it gets ugly often. There are even edit wars on the circumcision talk page.

      A 1rr would be helpful because the page protection will expire in 9 days and the vandals and most aggressive editors will no longer gain a foothold over the article. I think a 1RR restriction is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support. The ongoing battles are problematic and by limiting the reversions it is hoped that they may confine themselves to discussion on the talk page to reach consensus rather than reverting.
        ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possible support For how long do you propose this 1RR? I'm inclined to support the idea for 6 months, or another fixed term. I don't like articles to have such restrictions (and never as an indef), but this article would justify the limited use of such restrictions due to the failed WP:DRN (Lack of anyone outside participating) and other issues that have plagued it for some time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think 18 or 24 months would be good, but any length would be better than none. 6 months is probably too short since the edit warring will just resume afterwards. The history shows fierce edit-warring dating back to 2003. Its best to let an uninvolved admin decide. Pass a Method talk 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be ok with 18 months if that is what the consensus agreed to. Just not indef, you have to have an end date, then it can be reviewed at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that an indef would be too much. Pass a Method talk 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment can I suggest instead (or, perhaps, as well) adopting WP:BRD as a requirement for the article? My reasoning is that edit wars at this article often (though not always) involve multiple editors, each of whom make relatively few reverts a day. 1RR would not solve this problem. Nor would it solve the underlying problem of inability to reach consensus: most editors are usually quite willing to engage in discussion as things are, indicating that problems are not arising due to lack of discussion. The real problem that we face is when BRD becomes BRDRDRDRD..., and that could be solved simply by stopping after the first revert, then negotiating consensus. Jakew (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BRD can't be forced so easily, as it is still only an essay (there have been discussions to make it policy, but no consensus). A 1RR is basically a tool that forces editors to follow WP:BRD (ironically), and assuming the admin on call is wise enough to simply revert back and force to the talk page instead of instablocking them, then it works. 1RR isn't "the solution", it is just one tool towards a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If we can make it de facto policy that editors shouldn't systematically add or remove "British Isles", then surely we can make it policy that BRD should be followed at one article? My concern is that, while 1RR might make a small difference, it comes at the cost of discouraging casual edits (since it's easy to partially revert by accident) and makes ordinary maintenance more difficult. It seems far more sensible to me to actually solve the problem that's causing the edit wars. And the problem occurs when editor A makes an edit, editor B reverts it, editor C reverts that revert, and so on. 1RR doesn't do anything to help this situation (it doesn't even prevent it if editors A and C are the same). To heavily paraphrase, BRD says don't revert a revert unless there's consensus: editor C (and A and B) should discuss instead. That prevents an edit war; in fact, it's impossible to have an edit war if it is followed. Jakew (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Enforcing BRD wouldn't change the scenario you mentioned. A third party could still revert before we get to the D part, putting us in the exact same spot. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, then. To try a related idea, can you see anything wrong with the following proposal: i) bold (but sensible) editing continues to be encouraged. ii) any revert (except for standard exceptions like vandalism, etc.) must be accompanied by an explanation detailed enough to understand the problem, preferably on the talk page. iii) editors must not revert a revert, unless consensus exists to do so. iv) where there is doubt, uninvolved admins may be called upon to decide whether there is consensus to apply (iii). Jakew (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Strikes me as a bit too bureaucratic and easy to game. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note regarding "per nom"--actually this !voter is the nom. On first glance I mistakenly read this as an additional !vote of support of the nom's proposal before I realized that this was not the case. Pass a Method, could I ask you to please change how you have phrased this edit so that others do not make the same mistake I did? Thanks. Zad68 14:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I agree with Pass a Method's characterization of this article as one of the worst WP:BATTLEGROUNDs on Wikipedia. The 1RR idea is well-intentioned but it ends up not addressing the real problem, and advantaging the "side" with the better puppet and/or off-Wiki canvassing campaign, which is an active and important factor here. I need some time to finish the research I need to do to support this, please give me a day or so. Zad68 14:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree it's techincally not the worst place for battlegrounds on Wikipedia, that being articles to do with the Balkans, which is peculiar because that area has never caused any trouble for the rest of the world and its inhabitants have always lived in peace and harmony - however it is possibly the oddest battleground in terms of the "stakes", which on a rational level, as much as I hate mutilating infants for no reason, are pretty low (I have to accept that most of them turn out not to mind, despite my super-important moral principles) Egg Centric 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support While I support this I really feel that this should be decided by uninvolved editors/admins. I would even go as far as a topic ban for certain editors and volunteer myself if that helps even things out. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, gary, if you support this proposal can you please highlight support or so it will be easier to count? Thanks. As for an uninvolved admin, yes any admins who have been involved in this article won't be able to close this thread. Pass a Method talk 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant it seems kind of pointless for regular users who watch the page to vote here however it is interesting to see who votes for this and their explanations. For me I simply feel it will cut down on edit warring in the short term but I still feel that nothing less than a topic ban will be necessary to clear the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Gary, as other users have pointed out this might end up at WP:RFAR. But lets wait and see how this plays out. Pass a Method talk 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Having given this some more thought, I don't think this is the right solution for the article. It will probably lead to a small reduction in reverts but, as noted above, edit wars at this article tend to involve multiple parties, which it doesn't address. I think it would cause more harm than good. Zad68's observation that this would make off-Wiki canvassing campaigns (which are already problematic) more effective is persuasive, too. Jakew (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi-protection can be used if there is a large increase in SPA's participating in bad faith ways. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There hasn't been any recent canvassing so your concerns are invalid. Even if there was canvassing, several editors have the article on their watchlist so it would be easy to deal with. Pass a Method talk 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - this will do absolutely nothing to fix the underlying problems (which I don't at all deny exist). This page is going to end up at RfA one day because the two sides are never going to agree. This is completely pointless Egg Centric 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be really interesting to see the article Circumcision end up at WP:RFA, where the community would decide whether the article should be granted admin privileges! Although I think you meant WP:RFAR, request for arbitration. Zad68 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]
      It would get my vote, it's not afraid to cut right to the tip of the issue. Egg Centric 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ha a quote worthy of Baseball Bugs. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I've generally stayed far away from this article because of the polarization. This would help stabilize it a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support It might calm the inflamed passions over there. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - The article has a history of off-wiki canvassing of WP:SPAs (some examples) and sock/meatpuppetry by people attempting to push a particular point of view (some examples) and implementing 1RR will play directly into the hands of people involved in sock/meatpuppetry and canvassing. What the article needs more of is an acceptance of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, especially as relates to tendentious medical articles, and less use as a political tool to propagate one side or another. -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There are enough eyes on this article to handle any possible SPA's. Furthermore, very few SPA's have actually edited the article recently so i dont see where you're coming from. Pass a Method talk 20:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Then we agree to disagree for now. For what it is worth, I believe there have been Joe Circus attempts in the past three months, but I may be misremembering. -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe Circus has not been seen on the article for ages nor have there been any other recent socks on the article this year. Pass a Method talk 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Pass a Method, please keep in mind that Avi has access to the checkuser, and according to a user rights report, neither you nor I do... I'll have to go by what Avi says in this area. 21:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      ...but I am glad that you agree that we should indeed be concerned about socks of Joe Circus or other banned users editing the article. Thank you. Zad68 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I dont need access to checkuser to notice there hasn't been any new socking this year, because there hasn't according to article history. Pass a Method talk 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      PaM is correct that JoeC did not attempt to edit Circumcision or its talk page in months (since November 2011, I believe), but he was seen earlier this year trying to get around the block both through open proxies and canvassing. Regardless, this does not affect my opinion that the past history of organized sock/meatpuppetry and canvassing would make this a bad idea. Furthermore, as pointed out below, the issue here is not one of reversions without discussion; there is plenty of discourse. The problem is reversions despite discussions, disagreements on proper implementation of Wikipedia policy and guideline—both global and project—and disagreement on what is considered the best sources to use. Implementing 1RR will not help that issue. -- Avi (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Joe socks User:Wimp O'pede and User:Chevara (as well as a number of obvious IP socks) and TipPt sock User:Pyrlights have both edited this year. Jakew (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. I think the temptation to revert others is so immediate therer's no other solution. Robert B19 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A few support !votes have comments suggesting 1RR "may confine [editors] to discussion on the talk page to reach consensus rather than reverting," or "would help stabilize it a bit", or "might calm the inflamed passions." My understanding is that 1RR is helpful in situations where editors are simply reverting each other without talking. This is not the case at this article, so the symptoms thought to be behind the reasons given for these !votes aren't matching the real problem. There is a lot of talking--I remember someone researched it and found Talk:Circumcision to be in the top-20 largest article Talk archives out there. What isn't happening is productive talking, which a 1RR won't fix. And as Avi and I have pointed out, off-Wiki canvassing is an issue. 1RR seems like a solution to a different kind of problem than the ones we're having at this article. Zad68 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • oppose Per Zad's remarks above which are quite convincing. Having occasionally edited on this article set (but finding the general environment unpleasant), it seems like an accurate assessment. 1RR is not going to really help much here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I've mostly avoided this article because of the edit-warring, but it's obvious organized groups of people are coming here from outside forums and hoping this restriction will allow them to outnumber all opponents. This "solution" has been crafted specifically to help them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats nonsense. There hasn't been any canvassing this year and before that was a long time ago. If you're going to come up with a reason to oppose, at least give a reason thats valid today, not one that was valid a few years ago. Remember that all these votes that are irrelevant to today won't be counted unless you give it substance. Pointing to canvassing that took place in 2010 makes your vote null. Pass a Method talk 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On the 16th of January I was advised of canvassing at Reddit. User:Therewillbefact was responsible for it. User:Robert B19 admitted to being recruited this way. Jakew (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Jakew, please strike your allegation that I "admitted to being recruited". Robert B19 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But there haven't been any actual edits on the article this year though. Pass a Method talk 08:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not correct. If we look at Robert B19's contributions (not because I wish to pick on him, but just because we know that he was recruited off-site), he's made eleven article edits. So there is absolutely no doubt that off-site canvassing has resulted in article edits this year. Jakew (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. As noted above, this is a solution in search of a problem. The meat of the problem with the environment of the article is not edit warring by individual editors, but prolonged POV pushing by WP:SPA editors (many of whom either started or became "active" again in 2012) that are POV pushing against established policy and guidelines. I fear this restriction will only encourage a resumption of meatpuppetry that has historically been a problem. Yobol (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you provide a link to any new SPA's from 21012? Coz as far as i'm aware there haven't been any. Pass a Method talk 06:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What about User:Robert B19? Account created 2012-01-22, and all 64 of his edits relate to circumcision. Jakew (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Jakew, that's a non-issue. Per, "single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles," you're the same category, Robert B19 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      user:Therewillbefact is also an WP:SPA new to 2012. This, of course, ignores the 4 or 5 other "new" editors who had made minimal contributions elsewhere who suddenly became "active" again in 2012 and are also SPAs since their arrival to this topic. Yobol (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      While my account is roughly six months old, I am not an SPA. I've made contributions to over a dozen articles. I appreciate the allegation, though. FactoidDroid (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. The issue here isn't random edit-warring, but as Avi and Zad68 point out, edit-warring by SPA editors who do not understand policy, and are drawn here by off-Wikipedia campaigns. The Wiki article is discussed on several circumcision websites and one of the current editors is viciously attacked on CircLeaks. This measure would be unduly punitive on the limited number of experienced and motivated editors. Ankh.Morpork 08:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Like i said above, there haven't been any new SPA edits this year. Also there are several article watchers which mean it won't be a problem. Pass a Method talk 08:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. 1RR may well help to reduce the edit-warring here. Despite Zad68's concerns, I think that 1RR is unlikely to cause harm. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose—from my experience in other contentious areas, 1RR does not solve any problems and just gives a new technical reason for opposing sides to wikilawyer. I'm sure there's a better way to solve this dispute, and as far as I can tell, most of the regular methods have not been exhausted. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose- the only way to enforce a 1RR is to make any group making similar edits (or reverting the same) be tagged as socks - whether they are or aren't - otherwise the state of the article will necessarily be whichever side touches it last, all of which is counter to the collaborative and verifiability policies that underline the Wiki. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Vote tally

      • Proposal #1 (1RR alone):
      • Support = 8: Pass a Method, Berean Hunter, Dennis Brown, Garycompugeek, SarekOfVulcan, AvocadosTheorem, Robert B19, Axl
      • Oppose = 10: Zad68, Jakew, Egg Centric, Avraham, JoshuaZ, Plot Spoiler, Yobol, AnkhMorpork, Ynhockey, Carlossuarez46
      • Proposal #2 (1RR + edit history restrictions)
      • Support = 6: Zad68, Yobol, Jmh649, Pass a Method, Dennis Brown, AnkhMorpork
      • Oppose = 4: Egg Centric, Carlossuarez46, Avraham, Kilopi
      • Non-!voting comments from: Garycompugeek, 184.38.43.39 ("Collateral Damage")
      Voting counts redone by Zad68 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      *supports 1 - 8 votes

      • supports 2 - 4 vote
      • opposes - 9 votes

      Pass a Method talk 06:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC) struck out replaced above byZad68 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

      Are you combining supports for the revision with the original proposition? -- Avi (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I'm counting only 7 supports above. Yobol (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Avi, yes i am, but without doubles. Pass a Method talk 22:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would want to combine totals for two completely separate proposals? Yobol (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Both proposals are for a 1rr, so they are not really all that diferent. As you can see i support both proposals. Pass a Method talk 23:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you kidding?? Did you notice I Oppose the plain 1RR but Support 1RR + edit history restrictions? Haven't you been reading the discussions on this? Zad68 23:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay i will reword it Pass a Method talk 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry guys, my computer has been really fucked up lately Pass a Method talk 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries, I went ahead and finished the !vote cleanup/clarification you started. Honestly I think this exercise of maintaining a !vote count is largely pointless, as we all know it's not a vote and this isn't a democracy. It's not like there are so many votes that a closing admin couldn't count them all at that time, and it isn't even the count that matters but rather the persuasiveness of the arguments. Zad68 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Alternative proposal to "1 revert proposal for circumcision:" Add minimum edit history restriction

      Trying to come up with a creative way to meet everyone's concerns, I propose some additional restrictions to go along with the 1RR:

      • After the current full-protect expires, the article should go back to the semi it had before
      • The usual exceptions for reverts of obvious vandalism, copyvios, BLP violations, banned users, etc. should be in place
      • In addition to the 1RR, there should be a minimum edit history required to edit the article. For example, account creation no more recent than 3 months ago, and a minimum edit count of 500 some number of edits in the article mainspace.

      I think this would address the concerns about off-Wiki canvassing. I don't think the minimum edit history restriction is technically impossible or unprecedented. Wasn't that considered (if not implemented) for articles in the MMA area? Thoughts? Zad68 22:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Nope, decent editors should be allowed to get involved from the outset. If for no other than it's an article that causes huge burnout. I think SPAs can be fairly easily dealt with by a "know em when we see em" procedure. I assume you get spam from the nutty IP? Have you ever thought it was a legit user? Egg Centric 22:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Zad, your proposal for minimum edits of 500 is pretty crazy. Thats some unprecedented newbie abuse your proposing. If i was you i would strike it out per "WP:Please do not bite the newcomers". Pass a Method talk 23:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)The 500-edit redline isn't so "unprecedented" as you may think. See the arbitration notice at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh for an example. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm glad you don't think the overall idea of adding an edit history restriction to 1RR is a bad one. Would you please suggest an appropriate minimum number? I noticed that before you had asked me if I support 1RR now (you seem to have removed that in a subsequent edit), and I'd like to answer: Yes, I'm willing to support 1RR. I support the idea of 1RR in general, it is along the same lines as Jakew's proposal that WP:BRD be made policy on this page. I just do not think it will help the problems that we are experiencing at this article. I don't think it'll help. but I don't think it will hurt, either, if we can address the concerns that myself and Avi and others have expressed. What is your suggestion? Zad68 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this proposal carries a lot of merit. On long-term controversial articles, what we want are experienced users that know how to apply policy and guidelines rather than new and inexperienced editors, many of whom are agenda driven WP:SPA editors. Yobol (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment While there have been some attempts at off wiki canvassing and the usual SPA drive by, the page is watched by so many that nothing ever gets through for more than a few minutes before it is reverted so this is truly a moot point. Are we seriously worried that a group of newbies are going to show up and hi jack the article because it has never happened in the 5 years I have watched the article. I still think regulars should be excluded from this voting is because it's going to be a party line vote with one or two exceptions. The real reason this article's sorely lacking W:NPOV and has continuous edit wars is User:Jakew,one of circumcision staunchest supporters, has the most edits to the article far surpassing anyone else. His tendentious editing contributes with a pattern of systematic bias that is easily uncovered over a period of time. He also runs a pro circumcision website and has published papers with Morris on the benifits of circumcision. Many calls by myself and others that this is a clear case of WP:COI have fell on deaf ears. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nonsense. I could provide several links evidencing off-Wiki campaigns, only I am fearful of personally attacking an editor by linking to a disgusting diatribe about this editor. In fact, on this website, the very point that you are currently making about a potential COI is discussed and a wiki COI link is provided... Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nonsense is right. I never stated their were not off wiki campaigns only that they are quite ineffective. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Gary, attempts to conflate POV with COI have failed in the past, and trying to discredit Jake, whose patience borders on the superhuman and who has been subject to the most vile and disgusting attacks by various genital integtritist sites is neither appropriate nor acceptable. Multiple times it has been the consensus of uninvolved editors that Jake has edited completely and totally within the bounds of our policies and guidelines; more than can be said for many people who are attempting to use the article to promote a genital-integritist agenda. Bringing up this improper conflation of POV (which we all have) and COI, which means that someone is incapable of editing from a wikipedia-neutral perspective, only serves to WP:HARASS Jake and should not be continued. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Put your shield down Avi, I know I can count on you to come to Jake's defense. I'll not debate this with you (add nauseum). As you say let's just agree to disagree. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/DefendEachOther. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Collateral Damage. Many people don't want to be associated professionally or by name with this intimate, embarrassing topic. They prefer to contribute from an IP address. 184.38.43.39 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, heavy nonconstructive editing from IPs at both the article and its Talk page have made it necessary to disallow IP edits. Your concern is easily addressed, of course, by creating an account with a username that does not reveal either your profession or name. Also, you could leave a User Talk message for a like-minded editor suggesting edits to be made and sources to be added. By the way, this request seems misplaced here--neither 1RR proposal is suggesting to return the article back to unprotected once it comes off the full it's at right now. You might try submitting your request for unprotection by following the procedures at WP:RFUP, but I would not hold out much hope for it happening. Zad68 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong approach - "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that any experienced Wikipedian can edit?" Nooooooo. What we need is a hard core limit that any edit which hasn't been discussed and consensus achieved is prohibited. Any edit that has previously been discussed and rejected earns a topic ban for some period of time. The vandalism gets tiresome and more or less gets quickly fixed; what ends up being the real waste of time is the repeated contentions that have been discussed over-and-over-and-over-and-over. Yes, consensus can change, but I think it's incumbent upon the purveyor of the rehash to show that first before serving it up again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      People have strong opinions. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them right. Having read the article and the talk page (though not the history), I can see that there are some very strongly-held opinions by many editors, and none of them want to back down from their strongly-held positions. Both sides of the debate have some measure of truth to their opinions; it's a shame that neither side seems able to recognize the truth of the other side's position.Marikafragen (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Carlossuarez46, I like the idea of simply requiring discussion and consensus before editing. It's harsh, and it would be an inconvenience, but it would probably be worth it, as it would actually solve the real problem. Jakew (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Lost another good editor/Admin to a long-term vandal

      User:Nev1 has gone, at least for a while, due to a persistent IP hopping vandal, last seen on my talk page celebrating victory. This harassment has been going on for about a year, and it appears there is nothing we can do about it. It's really pretty bad that editors can still be terrorised (really I don't think that's too strong a word) in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      People are going to be persistent, and that's the reality and truth. I'm sorry to see him leave, but there is not much anyone can do on an open site like this. This is an environment where any certain action, edit, or comment made at the wrong time (like a block) can lead to years of frustration and harassment by others, and that is especially what all current admins – and admin hopefuls – need to understand and accept. If you cannot, then you should not be an admin, plain and simple. --MuZemike 18:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      True - and it's not just our talk and user pages that this person is vandalising, it is articles as well. And if they do it randomly.... Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's complete bollocks. Administrators at least have the privilege of not being harassed by administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There's exceptions to every rule though .. IJS Chedzilla (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Malleus, that may be true but it's also the case that it's because administrators sometimes have to do the dirty work of blocking that they in particular become targets in the way that is less likely for other editors. Though I agree that's what you sign up for as an admin and I'm not asking for anyone to shed tears for the poor corps - least of all its most trenchant critic! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What a pile of crap I am reading here, "there is nothing you can do" and "that's the reality and truth". I find not treating people like shit and treat them like people instead and it's a whole new world.
      Granted it's on a planet in a galaxy far far away from wikipedia, but that counts as a new world. Penyulap ☏ 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Tell that to the long-term vandals and harassers out there. Just as there are many dedicated users who help keep the crap out of Wikipedia, there are just as many dedicated people who treat those same people like crap and make those unfortunate users that dare mess with them the prime targets of their ridicule. --MuZemike 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The difference in my approach is I accept the law of the universe called 'cause and effect'. Most other people, dare I say ever editor I have seen so far, doesn't make any connection at all. I have seen whopping great studies into vandalism which entirely miss the point by asking the wrong question. Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Pen, the problem is that you are a reasonable person. The trolls who harass others into leaving are not. The problem is, we really can't stop them. There are too many ways to get around our blocks, and that's due to Wikipedia's (and the Internet's) open nature. We basically have to rely on them getting bored, or choosing to stop the behavior on their own. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry to say it, and it will certainly fall on deaf ears, but the solution to this is to require registration to edit. It's one thing to throw up one's hands at the drawbacks of the online world, but it's another things altogether to willfully reject the solution to the problem on ideological grounds. We're now one of the most used Internet resources around, but we still act as if we're a lowly start-up which has to allow vandalism and harrasment such as described here just to get the quantity of editors we need to move the encyclopedia forward - but we don't. In fact, since registration would almost immediately drop the volume of vandalism, all those hours spent in anti-vandal work would be able to be put towards actually improving the encycylopedia, instead of just preventing it from degenerating. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't have to mean "Anyone who wants to can screw around with us," it can simply mean "Anyone who registers".

      But, as I said, tilting at windmills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Considering anyone can still register, your "solution" would barely slow them down. Don't get me wrong, I think mandatory registration just makes sense; however, it does not solve this problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks BMK. That we continue to do this despite the pain it costs as well as the loss of good editors suggests to me at least that we have our priorities wrong. Principle over people? Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

      I found this suggestion on Nev1's talk page, wouldn't it work? " Could an edit filter be written that disallows non autoconfirmed editors from posting the text string Nev1 in the mainspace". Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Like others above, I am concerned about what looks to have been a rather nasty incident, running over a long period of time. Are there any lessons we can learn from it to protect others in the future? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how. Require logging in to edit will just result in sock-puppetry. Any bot to police the user's name is bound to have false positives or (worse) miss purposefully obfuscated comments. We could report their behavior to their ISP, but that isn't likely to have an effect. And until it gets into the realm of actual stalking, the police won't touch it. Without draconian measures to vet each person's identity when creating an account, there's no way to prevent a persistent troll from coming back. Most will get bored after a few months, but as we've seen, some will persist for years. If they never get bored of it, there's no real way to stop them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Basically, don't piss anybody off or even go near certain users or articles, or you will get burned and badly. --MuZemike 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It might not be possible to stop harassers (though the Meta:Terms of Use allows for an uncomfortable range of legal options...) but it is possible to help the target. Wikipedia could have some sort of Harassed Users Defense League that identifies known, severe, well-defined, ongoing issues and keeps a group of people watching for specific harassers to revert them immediately. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an excellent idea. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, I think a support process is more likely to help, given the absence of technical solutions. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We had one a long time ago. It was called Wikipedia:Esperanza. As far as the "Terms of Use" are concerned, it's a nice official policy – on paper. However, enforcing it is completely different, and I would say that it is virtually impossible. --MuZemike 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Oh lovely, Malleus is not only using someone's pain here to attack administrators, he is now following me around to do this when I thanked another editor for reverting this vandal on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What makes you think Malleus is "following you around"? The only interaction I can see between you two anywhere is on User talk:Parrot of Doom, and Malleus, PoD and Nev1 have worked closely together for years, as the three of them effectively run (ran) WP:GM. PoD is the most frequent contributor to Malleus's talk after Malleus himself; Malleus is the most frequent contributor to PoD's talk after PoD himself, and the pair of them are the two most frequent contributors to Nev1's talk aften Nev1 himself. If this is the comment you're interpreting as some kind of attack, then that's taking paranoia to an extreme; all he's doing is pointing out that this situation is an illustration of a problem Sue Gardner has been pointing out for a few months now. – iridescent 2 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb

      A topic ban was enacted this month for BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. A similar issue has now come up at Conspiracy theory. Since July 2011 BruceGrubb has been using OR, poor sources, or violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to "rehabilitate" the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory" - in this case, aided and abetted by Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs). BruceGrubb's focus on the Christ myth theory and Josephus on Jesus articles explain his interest in changing the common meaning of the term "conspiracy theory", as does Mystichumwipe's focus on rehabilitating Holocaust denial-related theories (see Mystichumwipe's editing history for many examples of the latter). There has never been a consensus for promoting this view on the article, and many lengthy Talk: page discussions opposing his proposed changes; see, for example:

      Their M.O. appears to be

      1. Attempt to edit-war in the article changes/re-write (e.g. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37])
      2. Be reverted in turn by a wide variety of editors (e.g. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58])
      3. Open up lengthy talk page discussions, wait a few weeks until other editors get frustrated or lose interest, then repeat.

      By my count, Bruce has now reverted this POV into the article (in various forms) at least 26 times. Mystichumwipe was quite active in reverting in the early days, but is now more cautious, simply supporting Bruce's edits on Talk: or in the article, while letting Bruce do all the actual reverts. After the usual hiatus, Bruce began this edit-warring on the article again yesterday, and eventually got blocked for violating 3RR. I'm proposing a topic ban only on BruceGrubb because a) Bruce has been far more aggressive in his editing, and b) without BruceGrubb to edit-war on his behalf, Mystichumwipe will not be likely to edit-war instead. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am responding because I received a message about this thread. I had not looked at the Conspiracy theory page (not my topic really) but the effort Jayjg has put into preparing the diffs is impressive. Bruce's edit pattern fits a longer term trend, as suggested above. My experience has been that I have consistently failed to follow Bruce's logic, as many other people have commented. And when he was topic banned on WP:AN, the idea of "source misrepresentation" was mentioned by multiple editors. As a whole, I think Bruce has taken up much time from many people on multiple pages, and nothing constructive has come out of it. The last time Bruce was on WP:ANI (due to complaints about his WP:RSN edit behavior) he volunteered a piece of information that made me understand a few things. My guess is that, sooner or later, Bruce is likely to be indef-blocked for one reason or another. This is just one step along that path. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) The wording "has now come up" appears to be disingenuous, as I'm aware from WT:V and WP:Inaccuracy that this is a long-running content dispute involving WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The OP tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context.  We'll see if the administrators try to improve the encyclopedia this time, rather than allowing WP:AN to be used to win a content dispute involving a civil editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic banning BruceGrubb from Conspiracy theory and from articles connected with conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support a more general ban on "fringe theories" (given other cases, e.g. the revert cycle here) if suitable characterization can be found because those are where the editor's less productive actions seem to take place. History2007 (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. A more general ban on fringe theories (conspiracy theories and revisionist histories) seems necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we suggest other sanctions to impose other than a topic ban? Personally, I would suggest two things. A strict imposition of 1RR on BruceGrubb for all articles in main space: the edit wars are just too much. And a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL in talk pages and edit summaries. He is well known to use phrases like "DEAL WITH IT!" and "<user> went crying to the noticeboard to win a dispute". If he could express his views without so much emotion attached, I think people would be more likely to take him seriously. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • given [[64]] I think we can take anything Fifelfoo and History2007 say with a grain of salt. Their continual involvement against me in articles they are not even involved in (such as this one) boarders on violations of Wikipedia:Harassment via Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME. I have already pointed out my federal recognized disability (Hyperkinesis aka ADHD] here on this board and my yelling in all caps is demonstrated of frustration at the community letting things get to the level of [[65]] while banning perfectly good administrators like User:Will_Beback/Barnstars for which on the surface appears by comparison to be very minor infractions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Seems to have no understanding of WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and argues interminably, tiring out other users. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This quote is straight from Oxford University Press reference I am using in my version:

          conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event. The derivative conspiracy theorist is first recorded in the 1960s — Example — 1975 New York Times: Conspiracy theorists contend that two of the men have strong resemblances to E. Howard Hunt Jr. and Frank A Sturgis, convicted in the Watergate break-in.

        • Kindly explain given the parts that I have bolded just what I don't understand about WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and while you are at it explain this edit [[67]] where I expressly state in the editor comment "often not sometimes. Let's admit that the majority of the time it is used negatively". Given some of the comments here, I have to ask how many of the editors coming here actually went to the Conspiracy theory article to see what the sam hill was going on?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interjection: Bruce, what does "rubutle" mean? Did you mean "rebuttal"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • This thread is about user edit behavior, not content. Long content based discussions are not really needed here. And of course, the issue of WP:Walls of text had been brought up in previous discussions. History2007 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • History2007, you came here without doing any research and made comments effectively blind.Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory shows that there at least one time a more neutral definition of conspiracy theory existed and conspiracy theory in that context is being looked at again a point continually ignored by the OP in what several of the editors on the talk page have viewed as an effort to POV the article. When a lead that has Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell backing up its statements is being reverted or called WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE I have a right to call the editors making these claims out on the carpet for it.

              Also please stop using WP:WALLOFTEXT as short hand for WP:TLDR; they are not the same thing. As the second essay notes "A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity."--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

              • I am going stop now, given that I just said this thread is about "edit patterns" not "content" and received a response about content. Regarding your statement that "you have to ask what really is going on?"... who knows, may be it is a cons... Let me not even finish that. I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • As pointed out by Unscintillating, the OP had problems with an ipso facto case of inaccuracy. Instead of jumping in blind you should have at least done research to see if you really had an apples to apples or an apples to orange comparison. User:warshy stated "He (Ie me) has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far" a point as stated below Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx, and Rklawton also agree with. Even Nuujinn who challenged my sources on primary, secondary, tertiary grounds stated "Bratich is good, acknowledges both meanings." Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban as a minimum per the above examples of sustained edit warring on this issue. The extraordinary badgering of editors here (which may well be an attempt to generate a WP:CHUNK) and unjustified claims of harassment indicates that there are some more significant behavioral issues though. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just remembered that I (and several other editors) have been involved in a content dispute with Bruce in the World War II article recently. The relevant talk page thread is here, and Bruce started a discussion at WP:RSN which is archived here. His content in relation to this topic (he's arguing that a World War II-era American propaganda movie should be used to reference a view that the war started in 1931, and has kept on doing so despite a near total lack of support for this position - complete with all caps shouting initially) appears similar to that on conspiracy theories. As such, I think that we may need a bigger picture solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to again mention that the RSN for Is Why We Fight series reliable source for views of US 1942-1945? was archived by an involved editor against the idea after in just over three hours effectively short circuiting any meaningful discussion on the topic. As I said after I unarchived it and works by the University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press were produced supporting my contention the work was reliable "If anyone of us editors could close of a thread whenever the mood hit us then RSN would NOT have any meaning and issues of WP:GAME would pop up like ducks in a shooting gallery."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bruce, that discussion continued for two days, then you threw up your hands with "Let the thread be archived by the bot" when you still did not get your way. No matter how many times you keep repeating it, the source is not reliable for establishing the beginning of the war. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • BruceGrubb was topic banned from Christianity topics for a long-term pattern of disrupting discussions with "Ididnthearthat"-style behaviour and pushing of fringe ideas. A few weeks later he was back here at the noticeboards, and there was a consensus that he had been disrupting a discussion about WWII with just the same kind of behaviour. Now he's showing that same behaviour on yet another, unrelated discussion. This does not seem to be topic-specific, but a more deep-seated problem with BruceGrubb's approach to disputes in general. In this sense, we might need to resort to blocks (starting medium-length and then quickly escalating) rather than topic bans. Or a general "parole" kind of personalized discretionary sanction (i.e. any admin can quickly topic-ban him from any new discussion on the first signs of disruption). At this time, I'd be prepared to make a start with a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • evidence outside of Prelude to war as well as evidence regarding reliability for the context within the limited constraints expressly stated (ie US views of 1942-1945) has been ignored. University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press all show the Prelude to War was possibly reliable for the contex I want to use it in but any meaningful discuss of those source was short circuited the continual archiving in what IMHO comes off as WP:GAME. The Sept 18, 1931 date as a possible start for WWII had been noted in other even more reliable sources and yet this NPOV fact is not in the current version.

          "While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang who is referencing Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7. Last time, I checked Peter Lang and Transaction Publishers were not considered fringe publishers. How much we give to that position is a WP:WEIGHT issue not a WP:FRINGE one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support, basically. Mathsci above says it exactly. I'm a bit sceptical about topic-banning as a universal solution to disruptive editors, and Fut.Perf.'s suggestion about a personal "parole" for disruption might be better for the project as a whole. Tom Harrison Talk 10:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As mentioned below User:warshy supports my edits. His exact words on the matter are "Let me point out here that the work and research that BruceGrubb has been doing on this topic is outstanding in my view. I completely agree with all the changes he has made so far, that have considerably improved the article in terms of a neutral point of view, and of the overall quality of the article, making it much more suitable for the removal of 'American specific' tag that is the header of this section. He has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far, and that considerably improve and enhance the overall quality of information available on WP, in my view." (warshytalk 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how I feel about the proposed topic ban. Bruce certainly can come across as if he's trying to have a reasonable debate. But, I have been the most vocal critic of his proposed changes on the conspiracy theory page, and he (with the support of Mystichumwipe, who, IMO, appears to support the changes because he is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and this revised definition makes the term appear less of a pejorative) arbitrarily made the changes under the guise of being bold. Bruce's changes on the page were not entirely unreasonable, but they fail to include some critical changes that I feel are absolutely essential, and, more importantly, he made the changes where there clearly was not a consensus to do so. Regardless of what decision is made here, I do think we need some additional voices on the Conspiracy Theory talk page, because I am making no headway with Mystichumwipe and am quickly running out of patience!JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I have only just been alerted to this discussion, thus my delay in responding.

        Firstly, nearly all participants upon the discussion board of this article have commented upon the valuable and extremely good sourcing by BruceGrubb of material for this topic. Even those who were strongly opposed to the arguments of him, myself and others (viz. myself Mystichumwipe , Mystylplx, Rklawton and warshy) have commented upon the excellence of his research and sourcing. That includes John Shandy and JoelWhy. So I am surprised that Jayjg has accused him of "using OR, poor sources", and I think that this complaint is completely ungrounded in fact. (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell can hardly be called "poor sources"?!!! :-o)

        As regards the accusation of "violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to 'rehabilitate' the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase"...etc, that also I regard as a false claim. One that has been repeatedly answered but sadly to no avail. I think that's a strawman argument, as I've recently explained on the discussion board. In reality the discussion has never been about "rehabilitating" the term but distinguishing between the two definitions and usages, which the article for long has failed to do.

        BruceGrubb has been civil and polite at all times, only recently showing the frustration here quoted and this came ONLY AFTER what I see as the disruptive behaviour of two editors (Tom Harrison and Calton) who without any recent involvement in the recent discussions, ignored a request to bring any issues to the talk board before reverting, and instead went ahead and reverted ALL BruceGrubb's edits which even the main antagonist in discussions has admitted he only had one "small component" of disagreement with.

        Interestingly Jayjg himeslf has shown to be in error about the definition and usage of this term on two occassions, so his personal viewpoint about all this I consider suspect and this requesting of a topic ban against BruceGrubb I feel should therefore be questioned by fair-minded editors regarding its appropriateness. It seems to me that Jayjg really has taken acception to BG's point of view of the source material, NOT his conduct in appplying that.

        Finally I take issue with the wording of Jayg's complaint: "aided and abetted" smacks of some kind of criminal activity ;-/ and seems a deliberate attempt to imply wrongdoing. As are also his groundless speculations regarding my alleged cautiousness in reverting. In actuality I am merely in agreement with BruceGrubb's understanding, as are at least two or three other editors. I would call my involvement in discussions there with him to be attempting to 'form a consensus' or 'generating agreement' NOT "aiding and abetting". This we have tried to do using reason and discussion supported by verifiable sourcing, which I would have thought should be the backbone of Wikipedia editorship. Also the accusations of myself being a conspiracy theorist or a holocaust denier are fallacious ad hominem arguments and I request that they be deleted and a warning be administered to Jayjg and JoelWhy about this.

        Summary: The use of weasel words in this request, coupled with Jayjg's own faulty understanding of the term and the debate about it make this request look to me like some form of intimidation. Researchers of BruceGrubb's calibre should be encouraged and helped if they are thought to be infringing wiki policy, not hounded and censored in this way.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • My comment was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I was stating my perceived opinion about why you support a particular definition.JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually as the Ad hominem article shows it is not quite that simple as the above implies. According to the article Circumstantial, Tu quoque, and Guilt by association all fall under Ad hominem though I don't know how good the connections are. Also you clearly stated "appears to support the changes because he (ie Mystichumwipe) is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" As I tried to show in Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_30#conspiracy_theory_definition there were a lot of "Conspiracy theories" ranging from Al-Qaeda, a group of some home grown nuts in the Timothy McVeigh mold, or the government being responsible for the 9/11 attacks. One of the theories bore fruit and got called something else but at the time it was first proposed it was a conspiracy theory ("A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven."((sic) Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009) Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 Oxford University Press ASIN: B005ZO8KOY pg 3)). So even if it is later proven to be true that does not change in any way shape or form something's original status as a "conspiracy theory" and that in a nutshell is the problem with the conspiracy theory article as it currently stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I have pointed out over and over and over and over and over again on the conspiracy theory talk page, my problem with the changes was not that it stated there is an alternate meaning to the term, but that it implied both meanings were on equal footing. This is one of the reasons you should have waited until there was a consensus -- so we could iron out the proposed changes. It is clear you did not understand the point I was trying to make (which may have been partly my fault for not clearly articulating it, I'm not sure). The solution would have been to continue the discussion and iron out the issues rather than deciding that consensus had been reached, despite the clear protests from other editors. (I understand that unanimity is not needed, but when you have 5 editors participating in a discussion, and 2 are objecting, you continue the discussion.)

              I frankly don't think you're helping yourself here. If your intent is to insist you were right to act as you did, it is clear that you're going to be topic banned and you can then feel comfort in believing you were persecuted. However, there is still time to make an appropriate mea culpa, agree that you will not make changes without consensus, and move on. Thus far, you have been completely defensive (which is understandable under the circumstances, but still not helpful.) I have not voted in favor of the topic ban because I do not think it is constructive and I believe you were acting in good faith. However, good faith only takes you so far -- good faith doesn't resolve a misunderstanding of other users' objections. And, arguing that you were completely in the right makes other editors assume a ban is warranted as you are indicating the exact same behavior will continue. JoelWhy? talk 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oppose. My god, what a can of worms... The professional WP editors warrying here will certainly find my "diffs." I give up. When it comes to WP and all these boards and discussions you just have to be a pro. I am just a little guy, and this technology completely overwhelms me. It is obvious that the subject of this controversy is a very critical and sensitive one for a series of cultural and epistemological "interests." So many, in fact, that I can hardly start to ennumerate them. I am just a critical, skeptical observer on the side, trying to understand how this whole "machine" of knowledge works, and from my isolated, independent point of view, BruceGrubb has done an outstanding job of researching reliable sources and bringing them to bear on the subject. The people trying to ban him here are just trying to silence his powerful argunents against the mainstream and the status quo. It is an uphill battle, and only with a horde of professional editors you can make any progress in these "knowledge" wars. I give up. Good luck to all honest, independent editors lost in this machine, as I am. warshytalk 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I haven't even bothered looking at things properly. However, I trust Jayjg enough to assume there's sometihng there, and the behaviour of the user in this thread has been utterly ridiculous and clearly illustrates how much of a nuisance he must be. Egg Centric 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you "haven't even bothered looking at things properly" then why even comment? WP:CON clearly states that it is built on the quality of the arguments and not a vote. Unscintillating has clearly stated Jayjg "tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context." See for the restore by User:Bagumba ([[68]] with the comment "this is an essay about how to handle claims of inaccuracy, please describe the issue instead of just censoring it)") and then by Unscintillating [[69]] with the comment "the claim of inaccuracy exists ipso facto, please take opinions about the evidence elsewhere)" Again per Wikipedia:CON#Reaching_consensus_through_editing "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Jayjg did not have consensus regarding his edit and two other editors Bagumba and Unscintillating agreed with my edit. It is beginning to be clear a lot of the editors here are either not aware of this part of WP:CON or choose to ignore it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? Because I hope (not expect) if you read my reasoning you will understand how you are coming across... Egg Centric 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Support I'm changing my ambivalent stance to a strong support based on this latest revert, in addition to this latest comment he added in the Talk section. As they say, sometimes, if you give a man enough rope, he flogs himself half to death, ties the rope around his neck, climbs onto a 3-legged chair, leaps off, and shoots himself in the head simultaneously for good measure. (I believe there's a more succinct version of this phrase, but I can't think of it at the moment...) JoelWhy? talk 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban on Fringe topics, broadly construed. Due to ongoing WP:IDHT, tendentious editing and a general inability to accept consensus not in his favor, Bruce seems unable to operate in these areas without entrenching his position. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - based on the statements of others above, and on Bruce's own comments like at User talk:BruceGrubb#Conspiracy theory. Bruce seems incapable of believing that his conduct is unacceptable, and seems at this point to almost instantly go on the counter-offensive, accusing the people who, like Tom Harrison in the section linked to, politely advise him that his conduct has violated the rules here. At this point, given the pattern of behavior in general, and his apparent inability to even acknowledge that his conduct might be problematic, I have no reason to believe Bruce is sufficinetly objective to be able to contribute to this material in accord with WP:POV, and he seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge that problem. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - per this talk page edit and his bizarre misinterpretation of "consensus by editing". To me that seems to call for even stricter measures because it's not limited to a single topic but shows a general misconception of how Wikipedia operates. He is unable or unwilling to accept that his preferred version does not have consensus, to put it mildly, and he is edit-warring to still have it his way. While he may actually have a point regarding content, his behavior is simply unacceptable. Basically, what JoelWhy said about rope. Huon (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral - This could go either direction and not be a bad decision, really. A topic ban was something I felt would be a bit harsh at this point on top of the last topic ban, and suggest that other possible options are there if the community wishes to take that direction, but the original diffs shown by Jayjig are strong enough to cause serious doubts to the editors ability to just drop things and move on or at least cool off. Perhaps the encourage ment they need is a ban. I support whatever admin decides.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Blocked

      Since BruceGrubb has continued revert-warring on conspiracy theory even while this discussion was ongoing [70], [71] – and less than a day after coming back from another block for the same issue –, and also because his behaviour in the discussion above has again crossed the line into the bizarre, displaying all the conduct problems people have noted as problematic on previous occasions, I have blocked him, for an initial period of a week. I hope this discussion can in the meantime help to clarify whether more topic bans or more blocks will be the best means of dealing with him in the longer run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Indef block - but not a ban - if given a topic ban, I would expect he is going to keep on with the cycle of latch on to {{insert crazy subject here}}, make david icke type edits, get a new topic ban... However I do feel he's editing in good faith. Weighing these two things together I believe he ought to be indefinitely blocked from editing, but permitted to suggest edits using his talk page and generally try to talk folk around into unblocking him. No reason to think he can't reform, seems smart enough. Egg Centric 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Intelligence isn't enough to be a successful Wikipedian. You must also have social competence, e.g., an ability to understand other people's state of mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I could understand a ban from editing articles, but not talk pages, noticeboards, and the like. I might even support it. But WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE might still be problems there. Limiting him to his user talk page would be in effect giving him his own soapbox, which I would find unacceptable. Discretionary sanctions might be reasonable, but that is really only in the scope of ARBCOM. I honestly don't know what would be best, other than, maybe, discretionary sanctions, including potentially being blocked from topics or articles for a set length of time. But like I said, honestly, discretionary sanctions seems to me to be the only option that I would think might really work. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The community can and does establish discretionary sanctions regarding topic areas, consider the community general discretionary sanctions regarding caste, sub-groups and politics in subcontinental articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I said that based on the response I received from ArbCom regarding such matters. More or less, they indicated that one's admin's discretion might be found indiscreet by another admin and overturned. I certainly believe that might be possible here, and I am not looking forward to seeing it. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think WhatamIdoing said it gently, and correctly in the context of WP:CIR - which is only an essay of course, but can yet be used as a shorthand in these cases. The hand writing is on the wall that this is going to lead to an indef-block sooner or later. The path to that seems non-deterministic, as recent events have shown, but it is heading in that direction. The path may not be clear, but the destination seems likely. History2007 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I agree that Bruce is on a very clear path to an indefinite duration block. I'm not sure if this is warranted yet, but it probably would be if he returns to the same conduct after the current block expires. I think that Egg Centric is probably right about what Bruce is likely to do; I just hope that he doesn't do this. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that his behavior makes me think he's quickly heading towards a full ban. He's not making the types of edits which clearly warrant such a ban, yet, but it appears he thinks he's merely a victim in all this, meaning his behavior is not likely to change. Still, I'd love to be proven wrong as he has the potential to be a valuable contributor. JoelWhy? talk 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why this negative speculation? Is that fair? Or helpful? Just leave the word 'yet' out of your sentence and what is left is the reality of the current situation. As regards the question of victimhood, I myself think he has been treated unfairly. E.g. the comment of support for the blocking by Eggcentric with an admitted complete ignorance of the case. Do you Joel, think that 'support' for blocking was fair? Do you not agree that if Tom Harrison and Calton hadn't reverted ALL his work without first discussing it as requested, this situation would not have occured. That behaviour was the catalyst, wasn't it. I find it ironic that such disruptive behaviour by those two uninvolved editors is not even being acknowledged or mentioned. Then the framing of the complaint against him by Jayjg in this block request? Do you think they were fairly framed? Do you think the language (e.g "aided and abetted by...") wasn't loaded language? That these aspects have not been acknowledged or taken into account I think is not a sign of fair treatment and I feel quite naturally lend support to a quite justified feeling of being victimised. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Was my support for blocking fair?! Of course it was! The first thing Bruce did upon returning from his block is to post on the Talk page that, because his edits had not yet been reverted, this "silence" meant there was now a consensus. It was absolutely outrageous. The gall of him to complain that others were "wikilawyering" to then point to a policy that clearly was not intended to mean you also ignore the discussion on the talk page protesting said changes. And then to engage in yet another edit war, with editors who rightfully reverted his edits where there clearly was not a consensus; he is not a victim here. He did this to himself. JoelWhy? talk 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I suppose it could be argued that it might be, remotely, possible for Bruce to straighten up. Someone might think that, possibly, some form of mentorship might work for him. I suppose that such might be possible, but I myself have serious doubts whether Bruce would necessary listen to a mentor. I do however suppose that the possibility is worth suggesting. I want to make it clear, however, that in no way would I even consider taking on such a role with him in any way. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

      When one of the major problems is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, what good is mentoring? Bruce's user talk page now has a "retired" banner on it (User talk:BruceGrubb) so this discussion may be moot; on the other hand, users unretire all the time. My read of the situation is that if he returns, Bruce will earn himself a full site ban in short order; a topic ban, mentorship, or parole might save him from this fate, but does anyone want to take on the task of policing his edits? I certainly don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In any case, the original Jayjg request is still pending, hence I will request a decision on that, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I seriously suggest a mentor as John Carter has suggested. It may not work, or it may be the best thing for him. At least make the suggestion. Mentors do not always work out in this type of situation but it could be tried.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bruce does still have e-mail enabled, so it would be possible to contact him with the proposal. I just wonder whether we should do it now, or perhaps wait for someone to suggest themselves as a possible mentor for him. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for admin decision on the original Jayjg proposal

      Given that threads do get archived, and that there have been no major new revelations for about a day now, I think Jayjg's original request (a conspiracy topic ban) deserves a decision. The discussion on that has produced a number of votes and views (11 to 2) and a decision may be appropriate in any case. And that may reduce further friction if Bruce unretires. Hence I would suggest a decision on that, given the number of comments, etc. so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that, if Bruce is to return, it would probably be best for both him and the rest of us if this question were decided before that. It would probably be instrumental in his own decision, and I think others might be perhaps influenced by discussion about his possible continued retirement if we were to wait. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      A recent software change causes untruths in old entries in editing histories.

      Quick question

      Please determine consensus and close COIN discussion

      This COIN discussion has been going on for 22 days and any COI evidence presented has long since been reviewed. I participated in that discussion and can't also close it. COIN doesn't have anything set up to routinely close such discussions. Seems that the COIN board will continue to be used until Toresbe is driven from the project or his attention diverted away from editing in mainspace. That isn't right. Would some admin be so kind as to determine consensus and close that COIN discussion. In your close, please comment on whether Toresbe has a conflict of interest and, especially, whether editors can post templates related to Toresbe and conflict of interest and whether such templates can be removed. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Can COI discussions be closed only by administrators? (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure deals mostly with deletion discussions and so is silent on the matter, though it's not a policy or guideline anyway.) If not I would be happy to review the entire section and close it later today. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      COIN discussions aren't normally WP:CLOSEd by anyone. (Which doesn't mean that you can't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

      Resolved by motion that:

      The restriction imposed on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (2)

      Resolved by motion that:

      The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      In anyone else having this problem?

      I'm one of those weirdos who can't stand the Vector skin and kept Monobook. I dunno if that matters but all of a sudden I noticed my Twinkle buttons are all gone and when I clicked on my Preferences the Gadgets tab is missing. Anyone else having the same problem? Did I miss something? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You've got a lot of code in your monobook.js page. I'd try clearing it temporarily. If the problem corrects, you'll know something in that code is causing it. Equazcion (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nevermind -- see WP:VPT#Gadgets all AWOL. Equazcion (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, ok. Wish I could remember where to look for that stuff. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Concerns about sanctions of JJB and Dmcq

      NO ACTION
      Per request of OP Nobody Ent 20:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      An editor I have sanctioned has raised a concern.[72]. At a recent ANI, I directed two editors to discontinue editing WP:SS, as it appeared they were edit warring and they both appeared to have a conflict of interest, as the guideline was a central theme in the debate. Rather than rehash the entire event, I would just link it here [73]. It would appear that DGG and thumperward (Chris Cunningham), who later Fully Protected the page). Other editors implied agreement, even if the discussion wasn't fully format and put to a vote, and they have been notified of this discussion. I have asked previously for comment by others in the ANI. As my actions may have been in good faith but not necessarily within the letter of authority, I present it here for discussion, both the solution to the ongoing edit warring and conflict, as well as my participation and actions. I maintain that the integrity of the system must be protected, and that no editor that is currently in a heated battle that depends primarily on a particular policy, should ever go and change the meaning of that policy/guideline, or edit it in any substantial way during the ongoing dispute. This, and the edit warring that Chris protected for, is the basis for my common sense actions, rather than rote recital of any particular policy authorizing such. The ANI was brought forth by Dmcq, who appears to agree with the decision (even if it was a bit of a boomerang). John J. Bulten disagrees with the decision on several grounds. Here I present it for formal consideration, in the proper venue. In the interest of fairness, I also opened up a section for discussion of my actions in this event, and would consider the community's consensus as the final word in this as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Let's make clear that the only thing I was opining on when protecting the page was that edit warring on it wasn't acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have refactored my comments above as not to imply anything by you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no knowledge of the dispute, but given the facts as recited, the word "directed" seems unfortunate at best. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      Proposal that John J. Bulten and Dmcq be topic banned from editing WP:SS as long as the MMA dispute is ongoing.

      Withdrawn. Proposing a close, see bottom of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion

      • Dennis, thank you for informing me. My essential point is that I already voluntarily stopped editing the page when you asked, so when you started calling it a ban after the fact I objected to the apparent reading as if there were community support for a real sanction. Dmcq need not have been "banned" or asked to stop either, as Dmcq was not even involved in MMA until told that it was indirectly related. Accordingly, I politely request that Dennis strike the word "ban". JJB 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC) @Masem, I recognize that I am now being misperceived as trying to change policy and to bring the question to several pages in my attempts to find a resolution between two hostile camps. While I disagree, I am certainly able to not edit the pages in question while the situation cools down, to demonstrate good faith to those editors who I believe misunderstood me. I was hoping that, as someone who previously improved several of these policies without any ax to grind and who believed he was doing so again, I could find a few other experts who could provide the necessary input: and on the edit dispute in question, I was demonstrably not "changing policy", but merely copying sentences from one guideline into another, which Dmcq claimed to be synthesis but without showing where the synthesis logically arises at any point. The VPP discussion is for the good, and I am happy to wait to see how my input is received. JJB 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • (the comment to which this replies may have moved:) Thanks; review is good. I should also repeat that Dmcq's concerns had nothing whatsoever to do with MMA, as he was not invited into the loop until it was mentioned (by Hasteur) long after WP:SS was in discussion; and that the "MMA dispute is ongoing" for about 5 years now by my count. Accordingly, banning Dmcq from a page he was harmoniously editing without any relation to a longstanding dispute that he made comments on only later, indefinitely until that dispute is no longer "ongoing" by whatever definition, does seem like an unnecessary tarring of everything with the MMA brush. Since there is no plan whatsoever for the MMA dispute to cease its "ongoing", I think efforts should be directed toward finding one (as I was doing). I do not have time to watch this page today. JJB 19:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Finally, though Dennis's reading of the support of others appears a bit assumptive and undiffed, I believe Dennis's action appears directly contradictory to the significant view of this editor. JJB 19:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • This entire MMA thing is getting spread out into so many different policies areas by just a few editors. I wouldn't limit it to SS, but WP:N, WP:NSPORTS, and - well, actually, pretty much any guideline/policy page. They should be free to say "hey, experts on this policy, can you help provide input on this policy on the RFC for MMA?" on the policy talk page to garner interest, but not try to carry on separate discussions on the individual talk pages to change that policy to bring it into support or to prove their point on the MMA process. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If only there was some administrators with backbones that could come in and deal with the instigators of WikiDrama that are currently specializing in MMA articles. Fair Disclosure: I am hip deep in the drama and may be causing some myself, but my intentions are to make the articles conform to the standards. I accept any chastisement or censure that experienced editors wish to direct my way. Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this a support, oppose, or does this belong in the discussion section? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Moved and did some refactoring to reflect this (as this section wasn't there when I posted).
        As to what this is, it is a proposal to expand the topic ban to any policy/guideline page as long as the MMA aspects are undergoing review. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It really makes no sense to topic ban editors for working on what everyone agreed at VPP was a problem that's the rule as practiced across all of wiki rather than the exception, just because it might affect some other areas. That's rather equivalent to saying that we should ban attempts at all related solutions because it might touch on a small subset of what it's trying to resolve. As for the MMA-centric part of it, this is apparently the current state of things after months of unilateral editing. Given the reception, using that as a template for similar wiki-wide entry sets seems ill-advised. Agent00f (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments regarding Dennis Brown's conduct

      • As my goal was to prevent two editors from editing the page, while still allowing others to continue editing, I welcome comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I told Dennis, cold-reverting the page back a couple weeks in history removed a number of improvements that were not disputed by any editor, and this has been recognized by another admin restoring the most recent (Dmcq's) version. (I accept this version for discussion because it neatly limits the dispute to the question of inclusion of 2 sentences, which can easily (?) be worked out between Dmcq and myself on the talk page during the protection period.) Accordingly, my only real conduct concern is the confusion between a request not to edit and a community-approved ban, and the cold revert. Other odd questions about Dennis's conduct, like these two named, need not result in further drama. I have corrected my initials in the subhead above. JJB 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
        • My apologies for the initials being wrong. Once your brought up the issue, I felt it was best to move it here quickly. During the whole process, I have openly invited scrutiny of my actions, and still do. Even if out of formality, or relying on WP:IAR, at the time I maintain that it seemed the best solution, and think it still is. It isn't personal as I do like you, but my rushed decision was based on protecting the integrity of our guidelines while doing the least collateral damage. If I had protected the page instead, I likely would have reverted back to that same diff, as to not give either editor an "advantage". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Easily worked out? If you could even have kept the business to the centralized discussion at VPP never mind everything else that happened I wouldn't have gone to AN/I. No thanks, I think I'll wait till the MMA business is dealt with and see if you're still interested then. Dmcq (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's true that there was some confusion while Dmcq continued to discuss the changes to WP:SS at VPP rather than at WP:SS talk, while I responded on both pages to keep both discussions in context. I have never comprehended Dmcq's strong aversion to discuss WP:SS at WP:SS, repeated here. But to deal with this comment in context, I have no problem letting the discussion be tabled for a reasonable period, just so long as it's not the meaningless "MMA business is dealt with" crystal-ball event. If, however, Dmcq is inviting me to continue assisting in working toward MMA resolution, that can be accommodated too. JJB 19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
            • To be clear, my concern is that anyone in a dispute that might be using a guideline, shouldn't edit that guideline. I would also add that editors or admins should not make substantial (in meaning, not size) changes to any guidelines without spending a much greater amount of time on the talk page, or at an RFC. Guidelines are not regular articles, and changes can affect discussions that you weren't even aware of. If there is even a chance that someone might get the wrong idea, then any editor should exercise the caution of instead suggesting the change on the talk page, and let people who work with the guideline regularly make the decision as to add/delete or not. When there exists a reasonable claim (true or not) that there is a conflict of interest, good judgement should dictate we avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. This is why I say it is a matter of principal, and that is what guided my actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      So, reading through all of this, it looks like decent affirmative action by Dennis. Which JJB has now wikilawyered - I had a finger on the block trigger for him for disruption, but perhaps a stern not here will work: drop the stick, engage with the process, recognise Dennis' positive approach for what it was. --Errant (chat!) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You know, Dennis, I applaud you in part for bringing this so quickly for review. But if the intent was to end the dispute affirmatively you'd be better to have just argued the case on your talk page. :) --Errant (chat!) 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He has brought this to the attention of other admins and in other venues, and he and I have discussed this on the talk page of WP:SS as well. I do things differently I suppose, and try to use common sense as my main policy. I'm not a fan of blocking unless truly needed, for example, even if I'm "allowed to". At this point, after he has made multiple complaints, I felt it was necessary for a review and felt that this was the proper way to address them, in a fair, neutral and open venue. If the community feels that sanctions against anyone should take place, then let it be voted here. Otherwise, he and Dcmq will be free to edit WP:SS in any way they see fit. I put this in the greater community's hands, who will be responsible for the action or inaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Starting another AN over an existing ANI with same involved parties and line of discussion doesn't seem helpful, especially when the editing issue appears to be resolved there. Agent00f (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • You need to actually read what is actually going on here Agent. JJB contested my actions and I was kind enough to bring it to the Admin Noticeboard for review, for his benefit, not mine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but are you saying that current consensus allows admins to rollback a page to their preferred version without regard to good-faith improvements made by other editors? — GabeMc (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying I rolled it back to my preferred version is patently false and offensive. It was reverted to the LAST version before the two editors began tinkering, with no regard to the actual content at that time. You are claiming I did so in bad faith, and that I had a particular interest in the guidelines, one which I have never edited. You should substantiate or retract this claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Current consensus says that we don't change archive pages away from what they were when they were archived. As such, it's virtually impossible for an edit to be an improvement, except of course for edits that restore the page after someone else edits it. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm confused. Isn't the use of rollback on the wikipedia/guideline page the issue at dispute? What does editing archive pages have to do with it? In any case, it seems to me this whole discussion is irrelevent. The Rollback function wasn't used, Twinkle was [74]. The primary concern with using rollback on non vandalism is that edit summary implies you are removing vandalism and this can't be changed. The default twinkle edit summary was not use, and DB made it clear why they reverted the edits, this is acceptable provided the reverts are acceptable. I have no comment on whether it was appropriate to revert the edits, but the discussion should concentrate on that aspect not on the appropriateness of the tool used and you can't answer that by looking at a guideline for the tool used. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely amazing. So this is what Dennis Brown has to go through as an admin for a simple decision he took. I think perhaps I should set up a little Javascript that on logon checks whether I have an RfA subpage and have contributed to it. If so it should set a random password on my username so I can never logon again as I would obviously have gone gaga. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • It appears proper for me to disengage from this part of the debate. (More than one of the above previous inputs caused parsing errors in my compiler.) If I am voluntarily not editing the page, there is no need to decide whether it's a community ban, and the question of what "MMA resolution" means is moot today and can be worked on later. So I will withdraw my request for Dennis to strike the word "ban", and respect his refactoring on a different point. My other concern (not about "rollback" of one or two edits, but of cold rollback from 27 May to 8 Apr undoing a week of consensus improvements for the sake of one unresolved insertion) has been addressed by current consensus at the protected article, so it too is moot. On the question of clarifying (not changing the meaning of) guidelines via other guidelines, I believe Dennis has neglected aspects such as my appeal to WP:SS regulars for answers (still lacking) before I made a BOLD edit and remained within BRD the whole time, but it's not necessary for me to convince him or you of these aspects. Honestly I don't know whether it's logically possible to defend against a charge of wikilawyering, and perhaps that charge should be deprecated. In closing, MMA needs not (just) conduct sanctions but meeting of the minds about overarching principles, a big picture that both camps can sign onto, and, while I accepted the risk that my exploration of that solution space might lead to being misunderstood personally, this is unimportant short-term if the VPP and other discussions begin to bear fruit. I invite Dennis and all to continue building the solution. JJB 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • If you agree to the points, that when a policy or guideline may be central to an ongoing dispute, an editor should either avoid editing that policy page, or take extraordinary steps to insure that any edit is clearly within consensus as to demonstrate no potential conflict of interest, I would drop the consideration of any sanctions, past or present. I tried to get you to agree to this a few times before I got a bit bold myself. It was a last resort. Again, you're a smart guy and I have no ill will toward you or MMA, but I am one of those admins that considers the principal to be as important as anything. All I wanted was to protect the integrity of the system, not to take sides, which is why I stopped both of you, and reverted back to the last edit before either of you edited. You have never given me reason to doubt your character or your word, so I would accept your statement at face value. If you would just agree to stay within the spirit of what I was trying to accomplish (no specific worded agreement is required, we understand each other on these points), I would be happy to request a close of this and the other ANI as "no action", reverting my previous stand. I brought it here because you raised a valid concern, and I was willing to put my own neck on the block as well. I don't know how much more obvious I can be that my actions were in the best of faith, are still in the best of faith, and my goals are the right goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your overture and I can generally agree. Yes, you acted in good faith; our several disagreements are not about that, and to the degree either of us made mistakes I trust we will realize it in due time. I'll agree "when a policy or guideline may be central to an ongoing dispute, an editor should either avoid editing that policy page, or take extraordinary steps to insure that any edit is clearly within consensus as to demonstrate no potential conflict of interest"; then we can disagree on whether I took those extraordinary steps or not. (I advertised the potential conflict in my first edit to the page; I asked my guideline questions generally; I obtained only one respondent, who did not want to engage the questions directly (and who may have responded in part due to interaction with me on a different policy page); and I only proceeded under BRD when it was established that there was not substantive opposition to a bold edit.) We can also disagree about whether I have a conflict about WP:SS (I think WP:COI is about three degrees removed from this event). I appreciate and return the compliments. While it is probable we can continue working out our disagreements in spurts at user talk, the overall MMA question still has not gotten over the hump, and the current drama of Portillo's actions mentioned at ANI shows this. Medcab anyone? JJB 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I would accept this, and only note that sometimes it is better to wait, even if you feel it is too long, than be bold in these limited circumstances. This is a well educated opinion, not a condition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE based on the understanding we have worked toward, it is the opinion of myself (and presumably JJB) that this WP:AN discussion should be closed as "No Action". I would consider all previous sanctions lifted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      A heads-up

      Admins might want to keep an eye out next week, as the folks at Anonymous have declared their intent to "wreck anything...(Formula One)-related we can find on the internet" in relation to the Canadian student protests and the Canadian Grand Prix. Given that Wikipedia has quite a bit of Formula One data, it might become a target. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ban proposal for IP editor

      IP Editor 99.140.179.74 has vandalized Mark Wegner's page three times, as can been seen here, here, and here. This rises above the level of normal vandalism, as it implies that Wegner is involved in a murder, yet it provides no evidence supporting the claim. The user has been notified of this post. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have blocked the IP for 31 hours, the violation is clear enough, that I see no reason for further warnings. However, I don't think that banning is the correct action. Bans are not made on the basis of three edits. In addition they are applied to people, not IP addresses. We could in principle ban the person behind the IP address, but these can change, and in many cases there are many people who share an IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure how all that worked, but accusing some of involvement in a murder or even implying it is a pretty bad thing to do. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Clarification for speedy delete notification

      Just a quick semi-technical question. If an article is submitted for speedy delete, and another editor comes and removes the 'speedy delete' notification tag, does it still remain in the admin queue to review as a delete candidate? Someone on this board a while back mentioned that such an action would remove it from the admin queue, but I wanted to double check whether this is accurate. (No, not dealing with a specific incident; I've just seen it happen enough that I wanted to know for if and when it happens again in the future.) JoelWhy? talk 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, that's accurate, as removing the speedy delete tag takes it out of C:CSD. BencherliteTalk 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But it will not remove it from an open category listing an admin might be working on without refreshing. Agathoclea (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It is accurate in an ideal world. However category lag can sometimes affect articles even when they have been edited - I have to say this is pretty rare though. There may also be issues with caching, but I can't vouch for that. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      AIV backlog

      Resolved
       – Looks clear now --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Can an administrator have a look at WP:AIV please? There seems to be quite a backlog. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      AfD backlog

      Weather must be getting nice, no one is on their computers anymore. There's also a sizable AfD backlog. In about 15 minutes when the next day rolls over, there will be 60+ AfD's that are due to close. And that's after I just spent some time closing the really stale ones. Get to work! -Scottywong| verbalize _ 23:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unification Church

      User:Borovv and most recently another account keep reverting a part of the article I argue is unsubstantiated (reference doesn't support it afai glanced over it) and WP:POV. Do I ask for an arbitrar, or do you think it's evident enough, will you warn them? I just think the paragraph from this diff should go away: [75] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.143.236 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Topic ban of Eric1985

      Close, as this is clearly going nowhere. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      We didn't really finish this discussion - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Application to End Topic Ban. To cut a long story short, Eric1985 was indefinitely topic banned from Israel/Palestine issues, primarily for running an off-wiki blog that encouraged its readers to edit Wikipedia to fight a perceived bias. The admin that originally topic banned him expressed indifference about ending the ban. Eric1985 has never been a hugely prolific editor and some were concerned that he hasn't amassed enough "good edits" since the ban was implemented. However the discussion ended with a suggestion from User:Jiujitsuguy to modify the topic ban as follows:

      We can allow Eric1985 to start editing IP but only talk pages, discussion pages and collaboration pages but not actual articles. Give it two months. If we see good contributions and discussion, we can graduate him to editing articles.

      Personally I think this is a great idea but as there were quite a few voices opposing a change to the ban earlier in the discussion I'd like to ensure we have some form of consensus before implementing User:Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. WaggersTALK 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Revisiting it a bit early aren't we? Oppose May + 6 = December 2012 Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Fifelfoo, its way to early. So I oppose. Also the wikibias canvassing site is still running, (Eric started it and then he said he gave it to someone else) I think Eric1985 should tell us which Wikipedia user it is who is now running the website, before we should consider any kind of topic ban is lifted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Just to be clear, this isn't a revisit. There are two possible ways of interpreting the previous discussion: either it didn't reach a conclusion (in which case it's right to continue it until we do reach a consensus) or it did reach a conclusion, and that conclusion was Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. (It was the last comment left, and went unopposed). So I'm afraid oppose !votes for "revisiting" too early don't wash with me. WaggersTALK 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, it's been over 24 hours and at this rate, this thread's going to be archived without reaching a conclusion just as the previous one did. The only reason that's been given in opposition to Jiujitsuguy's suggestion is that Eric1985 has handed over his blog to someone else and hasn't told us who it is. I'm not convinced that was ever a necessary condition for lifting the ban; any other thoughts? WaggersTALK 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Passing on a request for unblock

      NO ACTION
      Elen of Roads has situation well in hand. Nobody Ent 20:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I happened to come across this and it made me think "maybe this is why editors are leaving WP". See User talk:Factseducado. A relatively new editor was caught up in a brouhaha where they were incorrectly named as a sockpuppet. After some back and forth they were finally cleared of that, but now there is some drama going on where the blocked user apparently received a threatening e-mail and said he/she suspected another WP editor had something to do with it. It's hard to make perfect heads or tails of this, but from what I can see, it looks like someone who is fairly new and was a constructive contributor is being bitten pretty hard. I'm not naming any other editors or admins here so I'm not going to post notifications just so the drama can continue, but there has been an unblock request on the editor's talk page for a while and nobody has responded except for admins who are apparently involved. What I'd really like is for these kinds of things to end, where people are are blocked based on incorrect information are left blocked for some other reason that is directly related to their initial incorrect block. We really need to start looking at WP:BITE and understanding it more if we're really serious about retaining editors. In any case, in lieu of folks WP:AGF, can someone neutral and with some experience dealing with newbies who are upset at being unfairly targeted please have a look at the unblock request? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think Elen is dealing with this fine. Probably best to let her get on with it. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User:Aschwole/User:Nuklear

      This discussion came up at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear. In brief, Aschwole (talk · contribs) admits to being (indefinitely blocked) Nuklear (talk · contribs). Nuklear was blocked in 2009 for copyright violations. Since his reappearance, Aschwole appears to be contributing constructively. Personally, I think they should be allowed to continue to do so, as long as they are not creating copyright violations and/or using pejorative terms. However, since they are technically in violation of the rules, I thought it would be best to open a thread at AN for discussion. TNXMan 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Isn't having a name which is a clear homophone of asshole grounds enough for a username block... We do the same thing for clever misspellings of fuck and shit... --Jayron32 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This editor is also a self-confessed sock of User:Yid [76], so it's instructive to read the thread on that user's talkpage in which he denied knowing that "yid" was an offensive racial slur. [77] Despite AGF, it is hard to see this stance as anything but disingenuous, and it puts the editor's choice of "Aschwole" as a new username into perspective. Further, the SPI was closed because Aschwole is editing non-disruptively, but that was the case with Yid and Nuklear as well, and the volume of warning notices about copyright problems, etc. on their talk pages argues for their really not getting what WP is about. I think an indef block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User talk:186.45.53.188

      explicit language on this user talk page posted by IP. is this harrassment? Jawadreventon (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Removal of Rollback Privileges

      Could an Administrator please remove my Rollback rights. I do not use the tool and I am rarely online/contributing. So the permission is obsolete. Thanks Arctic Fox 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Done, per your request. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (Sanctions)

      Resolved by motion that:

      Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

      This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

      Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

      Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

      Resolved by motion that:

      The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Raheem Kassam

      This is a blog relating to the Raheem Kassam article, that may be of interest for somebody who has the time to do so, related to WP:COI - unfortunately I am preparing to go on holiday. Thanks, GiantSnowman 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Having read this one, I doubt he meets our notability guidelines, so I've nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Robofish (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      IPv6 surprise!

      Further information: World IPv6 Launch, m:IPv6 initiative, and User:Jasper Deng/IPv6

      Get ready for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • That's funny; this fix hasn't been implemented over there. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's because *.wmflabs.org sites don't run on the cluster, where Tim's hook function was added. I doubt it's really a big deal. ^demon[omg plz] 03:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, definitely not big, but I'm now tempted to place the "this user deleted the Main Page" userbox on my userpage :-) I thought it meant that any WMF-related wikis would have this function. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Folks, we've been eyeing and anticipating this for a couple of years, now. This is not something isolated like Pending Changes; IPv6 is global (i.e. throughout all of teh Internets) and was imminently going to be deployed here. We can't hide ourselves from its deployment in the eyes of many onlookers. Whatever bugs that come up in the MediaWiki software as a result should be dealt with quickly and accordingly, as they normally are.

        With IPv6 eventually becoming a reality, we have to again see what works for us and what doesn't. IPv6 addresses are allocated differently from IPv4, and IPv6 ranges will be harder to see (without the appropriate software tools, many of which are out there and easy to access) than IPv4 ranges, but that is something that we have to get accustomed to. We cannot afford to continue living in the past, especially with something as critical as this. --MuZemike 07:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • It appears you are making counter points to an argument no one has made (at least here). I don't believe anyone has an issue with IPv6 being used in and of itself (though this is the internet and someone probably will) but rather the "oh hey guys we're turning this on in a few days" thing. It would be nice if someone familiar with the technical side (Jasper?) could make some help pages about how to deal with IPv6 addresses (blocking, rangeblocking, etc.) for admins. Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      POTY2011 round 1 banner

      I am a member of POTY committee. As we have some trouble to announce with meta:CentralNotice, will you advertize Round 1 banner(below) till the centralnotice will come out (or 6 June)? Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Round 1 of the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open.
      Click here to learn more about the contest and vote for your favorite image.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=495689135"