Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 34 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 28 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 95 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 92 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 92 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 45 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 44 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 34 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 31 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 28 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 27 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 25 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	14	15
TfD	0	16	16
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	0	100	100
AfD	0	10	10

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 250 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 73 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 70 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]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 68 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 58 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What an outfit

So you lot have blocked me from doing category related edits. Have a look at this piss poor outcome: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Bibliographies by subject. FFS... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The corps has. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a military expression. Short for "The corps has gone to shit." Usually used when talking about the good ol' days. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, are you just going to keep starting threads here hoping that at some point some gullible admin will decide we can't possibly manage our categories without your personal input? FYI that is the least likely outcome. As I said in the last thread where we tried to get you to stop pissing and moaning about your topic ban, your WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Let it go, you are only making the day when the topic ban is lifted move farther away with this persistent complaining about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a perfectly valid procedural close and not even relevant to AN. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While starting a Cfd w/o adding the notification templates to the relevant categories is a spectacularly bad idea to start with, I have to wonder if filing the nomination iteslf was a violation of the topic ban, since Wikipedia: space isn't mainspace. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (EC) If it isnt, Its pretty clear with the above posting it should be. Perhaps a discussion should be had to extend the topic ban to mentioning catagories anywhere? Obviously if you are under a topic ban for something, and you want to take an action that requires you to do further actions covered under the ban, then a sensible person would not do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's not shift the goal posts. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I prefer to think of it as removing the posts altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, is this type of stuff of yours going to keep happening? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Give the guy a fucking break, please. Nobody has questioned his faithfulness to the project, and it's to be expected that there will be a period of acclimation to his new status, so it's incumbent on all of us to give him a little leeway to express himself, and not raise a shitstorm about it when he does. I ask every one of you to contemplate what it would be like if you were prevented from contributing in your own little corner of Wikipedia, and use that feeling as a stepping stone to empathize with what Alan is going through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - BMK, I don't think anyone is questioning his faithfulness. However, comments like the beginning of this thread reek of "you cannot do this without me, your project is a joke without my protection... you bunch of imbeciles for preventing me from stopping this horrible damage" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please have less of the "Oh it's Alan Leifting yet again!" and a little bit more rational thought. Alan Leifting was banned, by my reading, for xyr recategorizing of pages outwith the article namespace — user-space draft articles, images, and so forth — in a ham-fisted and destructive manner that is, in xyr own words, "too fiddly" to do the right way that doesn't blank entire draft articles written by other people.
Are we really extending that to being unable to nominate a category at CFD for renaming? Was Alan Leifting renaming categories or nominating categories at CFD ever a problem? Was xyr adding {{cfr}} to a category page ever a problem? It seems not, by my reading of the past discussions. If it isn't, we shouldn't be making silly procedural knots out of it just because Alan Leifting has managed to get this issue into four successive archives of this noticeboard. (Although it does seem that Alan Leifting has deliberately tried to create the procedural knot, in order to then complain about it.) If it is, then it should be clarified, with diffs (for which there are none in the past discussion), that Alan Leifting's Categories for Discussion nomination behaviour is also a problem subject to this remedy.
Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well renaming/nominating catagories may not have been a problem for him before. It is now. This isnt a case of people piling on Alan, if he had just used common sense in the first place, people would not feel the need to comment. Here is a simple clarification: Alan, dont start anything procedually you know you cant complete as it would violate your topic ban. There, its clarified for him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...why didn't someone help him and tag the categories for him? Nothing wrong with that. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he didn't ask. I could have tagged them and re-listed the discussion, but he hadn't even listed all the subcategories that were apparently being nominated, so I figured it would be just as easy to start a new nomination as keep the old one open and going. I offered to help him start a new nomination if he wants to, but he hasn't taken me up on it yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to have asked for a list of the categories... --No unique names 03:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally regarded as being necessary to list them at CFD if they are going to be renamed. The category tagging is the more important issue, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of topic ban

Alan Liefting has a topic ban on "category-related edits outside the main namespace". I would be interested in getting a clarification about whether that covers:

Nominating categories for deletion, given that he cannot follow the procedure to tag the category
Edits such as [1], where he edits a template to add a cleanup tag, because the topic ban prevents him from removing the categories. (For context, the lack of consensus that the categories should be removed was a factor in the topic ban itself.)

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic ban is pretty clear, and that it is also clear that Alan is deliberately testing the boundaries of it instead of making any effort whatsoever to respect it. Taking a category to CFD is a category related edit outside of mainspace. Adding a "re categorize" tag in the template namespace is a category related edit outside of mainspace. I don't see any grey area there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, per Beeblebrox, Liefting seems intent on pushing his idea of it being "all about the reader" and forgetting we work in a collaborative and collegiate environment. This means being generous and understanding to fellow editors. Liefting has often said he has little time for "niceties" like edit summaries or prod notices, yet that's at the heart of making Wikipedia a decent working environment. His continuous objection to understanding what a topic ban means, and his own admittance that he'll continue to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point (with his bulging block log) go to show that not only does he understand the terms of his topic ban, but worse, that he's keen to push his luck by insidiously breaking those terms and then cry all the way home when he's caught doing it. Wikipedia isn't a one-man-show, anyone can change categories of pages, but to do so in direct disagreement with the current community perspective is v sign we can do without. Maintain the clear and obvious topic ban which says he should not make any category-related edits outside the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to interpret the topic ban as precluding him from starting WP:CFD discussions. Particularly given that the topic ban was because of failure to work well with others, it's not unreasonable to me that if Alan thinks a category should be nominated for deletion or renaming, he should politely ask another editor to post such a CFD or CFR. He absolutely should not post a CFD nomination that he cannot execute (because of inability to tag the categories), and then throw WP:SOFIXIT in the face of anyone complaining as he did in the CFD discussed here. That seems WP:POINTy and disruptive to me, particularly given his indefensible stance that tagging categories with notices of the CFD was not necessary (and it would be difficult to find something as clearly against written policy, guidelines, and consensus).
(Not that anyone has raised yet from what I've seen, but) I see no issue with him merely participating at CFD in discussions others have already started, however, even if that literally falls within the scope of "category-related edits outside the main namespace", because it wouldn't serve the purpose for which he was topic banned. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular interpretation conflicts with longstanding consensus in other similar areas. (Specifically, at WP:AFDHOW, "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." Inability to complete does not preclude starting a discussion.) Either he cannot participate in such discussions, or he is unrestricted in them. I am of the opinion he should not be restricted in them as they seem unrelated to the reason for his ban. --No unique names 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okip socking

BLOCKED AND BANNED FOR NOW.

I always find it a sad thing to see, but consensus seems pretty clear here. The sheer numbers of "supports" would make any other close results problematical, although I do see a validity to a few of the oppose !votes as well. Personally I see a great deal of value to Ikip/Okip's contributions over the years, and hopefully look forward to a successful standard offer return in the not too distant future. The infractions, regardless of how severe one considers them, have been verified and admitted to. For now it seems that the discussion has drifted into quibbling over minor details that are not going to change the results, so I will notify Okip of this close now. — Ched : ? 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have just blocked a number of socks used by Okip (talk · contribs) to abuse the XfD processes. I gave Okip themself a two-week block, but given the relatively long history of that editor (previously as Ikip) I thought it best to bring the matter here for examination.

Blocked socks:

All are Confirmed with checkuser (and, in the case of the link to Okip, also through a supressed revision). — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite sad. I know Ikip/Okip positions are controversial, but I thought he had more integrity. I hope he understands his errors and goes back. This route is not going to bring him any good. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the same conclusion on this following a non-CU trail (including one account that Coren didn't list, but did block). Here's what I've found, working backwards from present edits along the trail:

Down the rabbit hole

In November 2012, Spoildead continues a conversation at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Batman_tas&action=history started by Calendar2, as if he was the same person
Calendar2 made edits to Scentura from 2011-2012
Scentura was created by user:Calendar in 2007. Calendar maintains the article through June 2009. Calendar2 says that he is Calendar and created the article.
An oversighted edit directly links Calendar and Ikip to each other
In June, 2009, Ikip is blocked. Calendar also disappears in June 2009.
Ikip is listed as an alternate account of Okip
Which circles us back to October 2012, where Okip expressed a sentiment that sounds a whole lot like what Spoildead's been saying today in ARS-related discussions this week

Given the length of the socking here, and the fact that it's being used to push a philosophy as well as attack others (see Spoildead's behavior in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)), I would support an indefinite block for Ikip/Okip based on the combination of disruptive history and long-term deceptive socking. This does not appear to be a person who has any interesting in playing by community rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you mean that Dragdrag and Calendar2 were also abusing XFD? All I can see for Calendar is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scentura (2nd nomination), and nothing at all for Dragdrag. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication that these accounts have been used in serious violation of WP:SOCK. The one discussion where I see an overlap (the user talk page of Batman tas) was rather trivial. Did I miss something? Simply having other accounts with trivial overlaps in editing shouldn't be cause for a swath of blocks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like Spoildead is the account that was being used to abuse the XfD process in furtherance of Ikip's preferred inclusionism POV. Note, for example, that I warned Spoildead about making personal attacks and accusations against delete voters on XfDs, behavior which Ikip has a history of being blocked for - it appears to me he was using Spoildead to make problematic edits to XfDs that he knew Ikip/Okip wouldn't get away with. Calendar2 appears to have been used mostly to maintain Scentura, Calendar a combination of Scentura and various health and video game articles, and Dragdrag LGBT-related articles. Per a Wikistalk report, however, [I|O]kip and the Calendar accounts have crossed repeatedly on articles and noticeboards. Absent Spoildead's behavior, it could be argued that this set of socks was a sort of inept way of compartmentalizing different genre edits (though they do often violate the part of WP:SOCK that says socks shouldn't edit project space - Calendar, Calendar2, and Spoildead all have done so - and some of them don't stay consistently in one genre or another), but Spoildead pushes it over the line to "purposely using an account so people would not know that the person making attacks and accusations was someone who had a history of making attacks and accusations". It's standard procedure to block an entire sockfarm when found, even if some of the socks haven't broken policies otherwise - remember, these are all one person, and blocks are intended for users, not accounts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If several of the accounts have been disruptive, it's a textbook violation of WP:SCRUTINY - spreading out one's policy violations over multiple accounts so as not appear to be so disruptive an editor that a block is in order. I'm not familiar with any of the accounts here, except from skimming through the ARS MfD, but if more than one of them has been disruptive, than it sounds like a pretty standard application of SOCK. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Participation in AFDs at all with a sock account is a serious violation of WP:SOCK. Per WP:ILLEGIT, alternate accounts cannot edit project space. Compound that with the fact that he was using the alternate to edit project space pertaining to the ARS, and you have about as serious of a violation as you can achieve.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who references the "letter of the law" you seem to get it wrong. It says "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies". It is only in reference to "undisclosed" accounts, and it's not even an absolute rule. Alternate accounts routinely edit project space, including arbitration-related pages, and nothing happens. And you want to indef someone for "breaking" this "rule"? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, upon further investigation, I think there are some serious violations from back in 2009. Calendar created the article List of zombie novels, apparently also contributing to it with an IP account, and Ikip argued vociferously to keep the article when it was at articles for deletion apparently without ever disclosing his connection with the other account. Still, that is a bit stale. Unless there are some recent instances where any of these accounts have been used in serious violation, I am still not seeing the basis for present action on the basis of sockpuppetry. If it is on the basis of recent disruption with the other accounts being blocked to prevent their use for evasion then I would understand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's recent as well. Spoildead has been used to canvass ARS supporters.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Spoildead's current behavior in itself makes it an abuse of alternate accounts, really (serious evasion of scrutiny, and frankly disruptive behavior even in isolation); that the other accounts have also been improperly used in project space simply makes it straightforward sockpuppetry in my estimation. I think Okip really should stay to one account at this point, given that he now has a track record of abusing alternates. — Coren ^(talk) 18:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Ikip's block log and the long history of socking, I see no reason to tolerate this editor's presence. I'd change that two-week block to indefinite.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, given that the MfD concerns ARS where Ikip was previously disruptive, it does some reasonable to consider the involvement of the Spoildead account to be a very serious violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK, as well as the letter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing less than a six-month block p b p 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite block, we've had enough of his disruptive behavior, and this is much worse than normal sockpuppetry on articles as it undermindes the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this really pisses me off. I was helping that supposed new account with an article they created. Now it turns out it was an experienced user pretending they didn't know how to put a real article together, (or maybe he really didn't after all this time?) and one of the worst of the worst of the ARS "battleground mentality" set at that. I have been trying to help that project move back towards a more mainstream approach and away from the overly confrontational unhelpful approach that user like Okip/Ikip/travb/inclusionist/whoever he is this week and others perpetuated there in the past. His last post under his actual name there was essentially to try and turn this back, to encourage newer members to confront and harass anyone who claimed they had a battleground mentality. Okip just doesn't get it. He has "rage quit" several times, and now this, and possibly more going back years. He is a negative influence on this project and the ARS in particular. They need help finding their way to being a project that is about content, not fighting and dirty tricks, for their sake as much as the rest of WP, open the door, push him through it, close it and lock it. In other words, indef block, at least six months before any appeal per WP:OFFER, and then it should only be considered if he agrees to permanently limit himself to one account only, and not to engage in WP:BATTLE behavior ever again.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only ever met User:Dragdrag who put up a good article on a drag race, and which i helped him/her with. It's a shame it's come to this but it appears as a violation of WP:Scrutiny and WP:Sock. I'm not saying this editor should go unpunished in any way, but can we settle on a 6 month ban at most giving the editor time to change or think this over? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the comments above, I've just re-blocked with an indefinite expiry, and I've suggested that Okip pursue the Wikipedia:Standard offer unblock requirements. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indef - He and A Nobody were the worst of the lot, toxic presences here we're better off without. Socking and game-playing to get one's way cannot be tolerated. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, while I was at complete odds with A Nobody at times, they at least remained calm; protracted in comments, yes, but far from what I've seen Ikip/Okip put out. Socking around blocks definitely puts Okip in the long-term/indef block range. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious block - He gamed the system people, its despicable behavior, there's no debate. I shoulda realized that was him creating a bit of controversy at the MfD, which would only backfire against the consensus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the indef block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite block: No excuse for sock-puppetry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If he follows the standard offer conditions, I think there's a decent chance that he could be unblocked in six months. "Indefinite" is not necessarily "permanent". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indef Disclosure: I was one of the ones arguing with the Canvassing/Gaming sock The editor is clearly gaming our system in every way they can to achieve their goals. In light of the history, and now deceit, I think an indef is called for. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to unblock with conditions, or per the standard offer when they are convinced it will work. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Immediate unblock It's good to see admins like Beeblbrox seem to have the Rescue squad's best interests at heart, but it might be nice if we're allowed to decide for ourselves whether we'd like to keep Okip? Okip is in fact a huge asset both to the ARS and the whole of Wikipedia. He's generally an excellent strategist. Benji was great but I've often thought we'd have achieved even more if Ikip had been our defacto leader. He's also good at encouraging people with well worded barnstars. Ikip has a really sweet nature too. I partly agree its ideal to discourage socking, but the best way to do that is to start being kinder and more gentle to fellow editors, rather than issuing harsh sanctions for no compelling reason. Its very encouraging news if Ikip has renewed interest in Wikipedia as for a long time it looked like we'd lost him to semi retirment. In recognition of this we ought to immediately unblock his Okip account, though with no blame to Coren, as in most cases a 2 week block for this sort of socking was most reasonable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "strategist"? "leader"? As someone who has managed to rescue articles for approaching a decade without any requirement whatsoever for strategists or leaders, I say that you are putting forth completely muddledheaded tripe here, and exhibiting exactly the sort of utterly warped thinking about and attitude towards writing an encyclopaedia that causes so much trouble from so few. (Indeed, it has been Ikip promoting these bad ideas to suggestible people that has long been part of the problem.) You're not a militia. This isn't a war. Stop this pseudo-militaristic nonsense now, please. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like. I've been beating that drum for a while, but Mr. Huxtable seems a bit lost in a fantasy world where the ARS is battling dragons and people like Okip and ANobody are the white knights. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In his very last post from his main account, Okip said we ought to address head on these false projections of a battlefield mentality onto the rescue squad. I often ignore this sort of comment as doubt sensible folk take them seriously, but out of respect for Okip will make an exception and honour his wish.

UncleG, there's all kinds of groups that have their effectiveness increased by the guidance of leaders and strategy, yet are totally peaceful. Such groups outnumber the military many times over. All respect to you if you've a decades long track record of saving articles while working independently. But please keep in mind that squad members sometimes like to operate collectively, in recognition of the fact that it can be far harder to save an article than to destroy it. Im not denying I see editors like Okip and Anobody as heroes, but remember not all heroism of a martial nature. Dont want to give the impression you're totally wrong, its just you've overstated your point. Editing Wikipedia does sometimes involve an element of contention. Several of our guidelines recognize this. The important thing is not to pretend we all want the same thing, but rather to avoid attacking others just as they seem to have different perspectives, and to work together to build an encyclopaedia that balances views from different, sometimes opposing sources, thus achieving neutrality. Please try to avoid accusing fellow editors of having "completely muddleheaded" and "utterly warped" thinking. That kind of rhetoric isnt helpful to the collegial environment best needed for building an encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Collectively" can sometimes be perceived by others as being tantamount to a breach of WP:CANVASS: swamping a discussion, for example, without much more than a "keep it because it already exists" argument. I've had a recent experience of ARS that was far from pleasant because of a collective mentality that was at odds with the facts and displayed a complete lack of understanding regarding the subject. It was a horrendous waste of time. Socks are bad, period. If Okip and their alter egos are disrupting in the way that has been stated here then indef' is the correct response. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feyd, the fact that you do not see the irony in Okip's last posting at ARS [2] speaks volumes to your own mentality. The message he sent was "people who say we have a battleground mentality are the enemy and must be confronted and have it explained to them at length why they are wrong" which perfectly demonstrates the very mentality he was claiming not to have. I can't remember the exact quote but someone once said something to the effect that if a group is extreme enough it becomes impossible to distinguish their actual beliefs from an ironic parody of those beliefs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, he never said that. Don't put something in quotation marks if no one actually said those words. That's misleading. Why not actually read what you linked to? "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". There is no battleground mentality in the ARS. Dream Focus 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of Poe's law. Doesn't really apply to the squad, as we tend to have moderate and tolerant views on almost everything. And from where Im sitting, while you may think you understand our mentality, in reality you're not even close. Okip was alluding to Lennin, and making a deep strategic point, contrasting the great man's understanding of practical reality with the high minded postion some academics take about it being best to ignore attacks.

To answer your question from below on whether we'd call for an indeff if it had been a deletionist caught socking, the answer, at least in my case, is no. There's only two times Ive been aware of such discussions. With Jack, I wanted to oppose a block as for me his excellent contributions easily outweigh the negative stuff, but I stayed out of it as some Squad members have strong feelings about interactions between Jack and a certain legendary editor (which I don't know the full details of, as it was before my time). In the other case, which was back in 2010, I made a plea for leniency. Socking is often harmful, but IMO opinion rarely justifies long term blocks for editors who are otherwise constructive, regardless of where they are on the Inc/Del spectrum.

It's probably a waste of time to think we could gain better understanding of each other by txt based discussions, no matter how lengthy. Some of the reasons for this are alluded to in the Poe's law article. Despite disagreeing with almost everything you say, you seem an honest person, and I was most impressed with your tactics in pushing through the pending changes RFC. If you're ever in London, Id be happy to treat you to a beer or coffee and spend an hour chatting with you. If not, well understanding other peoples thinking is far from essential. As long as we interact respectfully, different perspectives are actually a good thing for building a quality encyclopaedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email from him asking "Can you post this for me? thank you."
On behalf of Okip:
Hello. At around Wednesday, 5 December 2012 8 I alerted Jclemens, Casliber and NewYorkBrad about the sockpuppetry, asking their advice on what I should do. Without this email to Jclemens, Jclemens would have never known about this sock and never would have posted this checkuser on 22:02, 12 April 2010.

Lesson learned for all those wikipedians who are in listening range: Don't ask for Jclemens help unless you want to be thrown under the bus.

I know I did wrong, I know I crossed the line, that is why I emailed Arbitors for help. I don't care about being blocked. Thank you.
I see that he didn't use any two accounts at the same time. Dragdrag was only used for one day. Special:Contributions/Dragdrag I believe he stated he was spending too much time on Wikipedia and asked for his Ikip account to have its password scrambled, then returned later on as Okip. I thought he had retired from Wikipedia after that. I would like to know why exactly he did this, instead of just using one account. Seems to have no reason for this. Dream Focus 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is deeply disappointing. Jclemens was once Okips mentor, I remember how happy many of us were when he steped up, as he seemed so wise and reasonable. Will have a think about whether I should contact Clemens to see if there is an explanation, otherwise Im going to have to amend my arb vote. I usually find it easy to forgive almost any human flaw, but if theres one thing I cant abide its a traitor. FeydHuxtable (talk)
  - I can't speak for Coren's investigation, but mine had nothing to do with Jclemens (or Casliber, or Newyorkbrad, for that matter) - I saw Spoildead disrupting rather vociferously on the ARS XfDs, thought his behavior was suspiciously non-new-user-ish, and went looking for what was going on. The evidence was right there to find, no secrets from ex-mentors needed. As for the rest of Okip's email, I can't make any sense of what "2010 checkuser" he's talking about, but whatever it is, I don't think it's relevant. Given that Spoildead continued to edit right up through today (a day after he claims he emailed the confession to arbs), it sounds like whether Okip knew he was doing wrong or not, he kept doing it until he was forced to stop. Not exactly something that engenders trust that he won't do it again, or even that he really understands that it was a bad thing to be doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Fluff, no one suspects you of being an agent of Clemens in this, hope it didnt come across like that. You're right Okips email wasnt especially coherent, but then he woudlnt be human if he wasnt feeling a little emotional right now. After all his long years of hard unpaid labor for Wikipedia, he seems to be at risk of a permaban for socking, which while reprehensible, seems minor compared to what others have got away with. As for Clemens, I did suggest there might be an explanation, you're right he might be innocent in this. Still, it wouldnt be the first time he's took highly questionable actions against outstanding article rescuers. Anyhow, I feeling a little distressed about this myself too; in my previous edit I didnt even sign properly which I dont think has happened before.I better sign of and not come back till Ive calmed down. Thanks for your comment though, I agree one ought not to rush to judgment, hope no one switches to opposing Clemens before confirming the facts. PS - Okip, if you do end up blocked, thanks very much for all you've done for us and best of luck for the future! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) I've notified the three arbitrators that they have been mentioned and that one is being discussed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Reaper, good to see from the below that jclemens appears blameless for this disaster. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Wait, what? What does jclemens have to do with any or this (or any other arb for that matter)? Fluffernutter did an investigation into what she saw as a clear case of socking. I did a parallel investigation (with checkuser) and arrived at the same result. I blocked. None of this has anything to do with arbitration or arbitrators, or a putative checkuser two years ago. — Coren ^(talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef If there was a legitimate reason for socking I would be comfortable with the two weeks. The explanation given above via email to Dream Focus makes little sense, and the only thing of substance seems to be a personal attack aimed at Jclemens. As for the request for an immediate unblock from Feyd above... not going to happen. The rules against socking apply to all users, though you are welcome to try and change the policies to make an exception for members of the ARS. Try and remember that Wikipedia isn't a battlefield. Frankly, standing up when a friend or ally breaks the rules shows much more character than turning a blind eye and ignoring the rules just because someone agrees with you. AniMate 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times over the years did Jack Merridew keep getting away with things far worse than this? Unlike Jack, who harassed peopled and was unrepentant, Okip made a simple mistake, and admitted it. Would anyone have even noticed if he said nothing about this? Dream Focus 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no acceptance of responsibility for the latest socking, or the misbehavior of those socks. Monty₈₄₅ 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're absolutely right about Merridew, and having taken a step back from some of this infighting, I have to say there are very few circumstances under which I can see myself supporting a return of his editing privileges, even with a standard offer. Again, if there was a legitimate reason for Okip to sock, I'd gladly hear it and reconsider, though it mostly looks like he was trying to avoid scrutiny. AniMate 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock The Calendar account was last used on June 2009. We are punishing him for something that happened more than three years ago? Dragdrag as I said was only used for one day. His latest account is the only one he is using, not double voting with it and Okip at the same time or anything. I see some familiar names trying to block him, who I believe are against him for his work in the ARS in the past, having argued with him years ago. We're discussing blocking him for the sockpuppets only, nothing else, and so far, I see nothing that would warrant such a harsh sentence. Dream Focus 22:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is about the extremely disruptive behavior of the Spoildead sock, which was disrupting wikipedia over the last few days. Monty₈₄₅ 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you point to some diffs? I looked through them and don't see anything. He contacted some regular participates at the ARS to inform them it was at AFD. Nothing wrong with that. Was there something else? Dream Focus 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef I hate to do this, because I have great sympathy for Ikip/Okip philosophy and point of view on many things. However, I can't support years-long sockpuppetry used to sway consensus. I am especially appalled given that he should have known that this would only bring further controversy on the ARS and surely not help his causes. I do not support the indef block because I don't want to see him again: I support it because he has to show his good faith by accepting WP:OFFER and demonstrate he is, indeed, a valuable editor who doesn't need socking. I hope he'll be reasonable and do that -and I hope that, if he will be, admins will gracefully unblock him. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's this "years of sockpuppetry used to sway consensus"? There are three accounts. One which hasn't been used in over three years, one which was used for only one day in October, and his latest he has been using through parts of November to the present. Dream Focus 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I did receive an e-mail from Okip/Ikip a day or two ago, as he indicates above. I have been focused on other business this week such as answering election questions, and had not yet had the opportunity to study the issues raised by the e-mail and to formulate a reply or decide advice to give or what else to do with the information I'd been provided. And since I still haven't had the chance to study up, no comment on the block or anything else, except to point out that if people were able so quickly to figure out who the new account was, it presumably was engaged in the same behavior as the previous account(s). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I received a similar--possibly the same, Newyorkbrad and I didn't compare--email from Okip. That email arrived in my inbox at the same time that investigations by other functionaries had come to the conclusion (correct, apparently) that Spoildead was Ikip/Okip. I took part in no decisions of sanctions, since I participate in article rescue and while I've never been fond of hyper-inclusionism, it could be perceived as a conflict of interest for me to be involved at all, especially since I'd been invited to the discussion by one of the parties. As such, this is my only plan to contribute to the discussion--to clarify what role I did and did not take. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just confirming, discussion and review on all this began late on December 4th UTC on the functionaries-en mailing list. A functionary (not one of the ones Okip emailed) emailed the list requesting that someone double-check their conclusions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ithink it is unfortunate that Okip chose to try and smear you on his way down. It seems pretty clear you had nothing to do with this. It also seems pretty clear that the only people so far who support an unblock are other more radical ARS users who miss the bad old days, and even in this very thread speak of Okip as a good tactician and leader of their struggle. It's too bad they can't see that Okip, like several other radical inclusionists before him, apparently felt the ends justified the means and that socking to "Winn the battle" is ok. The message here is clear, that is not ok, no matter how many articles you rescued before or after doing it. As I said on the ARS talk page, it is time to leave that mentality in the past where it belongs and to speak out against unethical behavior all the more loudly if it comes from someone closely assosciated with the ARS. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indef, support for one or two years. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your position. An indef block for socking is often successfully appealed after only six months with no repeat offenses. Are you saying a definite block of one to two years, or just a normal block with a set expires but still subject to normal means of appeal? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like indefs on principle. Even a fixed term of one or two years could be appealed, but I think there always should be a fixed limit for non-technical blocks. Someday, I'll write up my argument, but for now, I'll just register that I won't support indefs like this.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for clarifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speaking of Benjiboi, it has been awhile since anyone turned up a crop of his socks. Historically, 71.139.0.0/19 has been one of the ranges he frequented. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef- with the caveat that indef means "as long as necessary" and not "forever". Reyk _YO! 08:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite block. If and when he wishes to resume editing (legitimately), he should have to explain his previous behaviour and convince an administrator and the community why he should be believed when he says he will never again abuse the trust of the community and disrupt the project. Until he makes that case, he should remain blocked indefinitely. jæs (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indefinite block. As I understand it, Okip/Ikip had multiple accounts to try to keep his editing under control. There doesn't seem to have been significant overlap between these accounts and the new accounts don't seem to have done much. The editor seems understand that he's gone too far in having so many accounts and so a reasonable next step would be to ask him to stick to one of them and then watch what happens, per WP:ROPE. Other editors such as Jack Merridew have been indulged much more even though they were more extreme and displayed little contrition. It would be unfair to come down on a minor infraction like a ton of bricks when others have been given more slack. Warden (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indef and hold a very strict standard for return Obvious outcome given the extensive use of multiple identities to edit wikipedia space. The desperate tactics of the usual ARS suspects (with one honourable exception) to smear other users and distract attention from the main issue is a classic exposition of why allowing any cliques (whether inclusionist or deletionist) to organise/coordinate their AFD votes is a really bad idea. Maybe its time to look at the ARS again? MFD anyone? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ARS is at AFD now, so feel free to join in. There is no one organize/coordinate their AFD votes, that just ridiculous. I'll leave that discussion elsewhere where it belongs though. No one is trying so "smear other users" just by mentioning how ridiculous that some of the same people that kept taking the side of a notorious sockpuppet master and letting him get away with one blatant abuse after another for years, are now being so harsh towards someone who did something far more minor, and perhaps with a decent reason Warden mentioned. When some of these people also take a swipe at the ARS every chance they get, I have to wonder if so many of them would being showing up to comment here and be so critical of Okip if he wasn't part of the ARS. Dream Focus 13:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, I understand your frustration, but really, socking is indefensible. If another guy got away with it, then that is the problem, it's not an excuse to forgive Okip's socking. Two wrongs don't make one right. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double standard, someone they like gets away with things, while someone they hate gets the most severe punishment. I'm not arguing against punishment, I just think it rather severe to say to make it permanent. Dream Focus 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the fact he's part of a wikiproject many editors and admins criticize should have called for more attention to an impeccable behaviour, not less. By doing this, he damaged the ARS a lot, bringing shame on it in the eyes of many. While I agree the actions of single editors have to be judged individually and independently from the wikiproject, these episodes only make the situation of ARS objectively worse. I don't want to see the ARS as a gang who defends their own members even when caught with dirty hands. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont say such hurtful things about Okip, he might be reading this discussion! His value to the ARS was too great for words. Socking is unwise and I dont even have to ask Dream to know he doesnt agree with it either. But its very far from an unforgivable sin. Compared to attacking others with hurtful personal remarks, needlessly destroying others hard work and depriving readers of useful articles, etc etc, it's really rather minor. I remember reading our policy on socking back in 2008 and it was quite relaxed about the subject, listing all kinds of reasons why its Okay to sock. If you want to stop socking, make the Wikipedia a kinder, fairer and more reasonable place. Most only seem to sock as they want to do something about perceived injustice while also prefering to avoid intense confrontation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feyd, he brought the hurtful on himself. You (and he) know that editors close to ARS are scrutinized much more than others. You know what happened when A Nobody and Benji were caught using less-than-impeccable methods to bring on their philosophy. I see the ARS as a positive project, but many don't: and if it becomes more and more associated with editors that resort to socking to push debates, then all the "value to the ARS" they brought becomes wasted by their actions. We should be the first to call for objectivity and integrity, because if we don't, then the critics gain momentum. Let's hope Okip abides by WP:OFFER and comes back with us acknowledging his mistakes. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll never see Okip as a negative to the ARS or Wikipedia, but your last post does make perfect sense. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef for long-term disruption, of which the recent socking is just one example. In addition, anyone who, at the top of his user page, defends the practice of violating copyright has no business being here. Deor (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to close this Id no longer object, even if its a non admin. With even some squad members taking a hard line on socking, I dont suppose theres much chance of getting Okip unblocked, at least until enough time has passed for a WP:Offer. I only re opened before as I felts its unacceptable to indef such an excellent editor after such a short discussion, without anyone having a chance to put in a good word. Always felt bad that Benji was perma banned without any sympathetic editors being able to speak up for him.. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feyd, didn't you find it strange that Benjiboi abandoned his main account for no apparent reason and began editing only with sockpuppets? Do you think he suspected that the Benjiboi account was about to be banned for other reasons? I do, but I know some stuff that you don't. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we did find it strange, but the squad have been fairly sure we've understood our former leaders actions for more than a year now. Exactly 3 years before this thread was opened, you yourself started a thread on this very board which saw considerable hostility expressed towards Benji from various WR accounts and their allies. With Benjis keen appreciation of the situations tactical reality, he understood that trying to stand firm might have hurt both the encyclopaedia and his friends. Squad members would obviously have defended him, but he knew some of us would have had mixed feelings about it. Myself and several others find detailed articles about sex rather icky , and arent so inclusionist about that sort of thing as we are about others. Benji selflessly abandoned his well admired main account to protect the ARS. Resorting to socking allowed him to continue his work on topics that interest him. Not saying I approve of this, but do respect his good intentions. This is partly speculation, as have had no off wiki contact with Benji to confirm his thinking. But it does seem true to Benjis noble and self sacrificing nature. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be one of the single most interesting comments I have ever read here, and perhaps one of the saddest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" is not the word I'd use; "disturbing" is more like it. I never had any negative interactions with Benjiboi (although we disagreed on editing the single article in which we had a significant overlap), but Benji's socking, CoI issues, and paid editing (revealed after the fact) leave me wondering why Feyd is figuratively canonizing him. Horologium (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*I will close this in an hour or so as it will have been 24 hours since this was opened and the consensus seems overwhelming at this point. I'm not sure much purpose is served by keeping it poen much longer.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wait and give him a chance to respond? He wasn't using the accounts to vote stack or harass anyone. Did he log on from different computers and do a new account since he forgot his password, or something? We need to let him speak in his defense. Dream Focus 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in the interests of doing this right I'll hold off closing for at least another 24 hours. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okip already responded yesterday, someone posted his e-mailed response on his behalf; Okip feigned innocence and tried to throw JClemens under the bus. Just close this farce now, please...even some fellow ARS'ers want him gone, with the the only opposition coming from a handful of irredeemable True Believers. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read over this, and I don't see the evidence supporting indef. Did the user vote in an MFD with more than one account? Overlaps with user:Calendar are pretty stale, as that account has not edited since 2009. Most of the "wikistalker" report linked above shows ties between Okip and Ikip (apparently common knowledge to everyone involved). Excluding those, there appears to be very little overlap. Scentura was brought up as an example, but there the first edits from Calendar2 follow the last edits from Calendar, and that doesn't look like any intention to deceive. So what exactly is the evidence? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support an indef block. We have evidence that sockpuppets were used recently in violation of the sockpuppetry policy (to avoid scrutiny and to comment in deletion discussions). Our prohibitions on sockpuppetry are a good deal more general than using multiple accounts in the same discussion. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but the burden here should be on Okip to demonstrate that this behaviour will not recur. Hut 8.5 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence specifically are you referring to? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't quite understand your confusion. This is an example of Spoildead editing project space. Here's one for Calendar2. Both Dragdrag and Calendar2 have been editing High Heel Drag Queen Race. Combined with the checkuser results (which, admittedly, we have to accept on good faith), what do you need before you will accept that he has violated WP:ILLEGIT?—Kww(talk) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is that disruptive? Sock accounts routinely edit in project space and nothing is done, so even if that violated the letter of WP:ILLEGIT, it's not significant. And simply editing the same article has, historically, not been an issue either. So what is the issue? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Our histories are different. I block any undeclared alternate accounts I detect editing an AFD, or using the same account in alternation to edit the same article. When I know the sockmaster, I block it. If there was a problem with it happening repetitively, I would certainly issue an indef as a result. Undeclared alternate accounts aren't allowed to edit project space. Letter of the law, you aren't allowed to edit project space, unless Gimmetrow has finally claimed you as an alternate.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Too be clear, that wasn't intended as any kind of threat: I'm well aware that Gimmetrow and Gimmetoo are the same editor. It's widespread knowledge, unconcealed by Gimmetoo, and confirmed by checkuser. For some reason, it's a point of principle with the editor that Gimmetrow cannot be forced to claim the account. That annoys me, but I'm not about to do anything about it.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are, as typical, quite wrong in your analysis. Nor did you answer the question on the point relevant to this discussion. I remind you of WP:NPA. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would appreciate hearing what was wrong with my analysis, and I'll answer your question explicitly: editing project space with a sock has long been determined to be, prima facie, an effort to avoid scrutiny. Using multiple undisclosed accounts in parallel to edit project space, including deletion discussions of material that the main account is inextricably associated with, is certainly an effort to avoid scrutiny. Making edits while not allowing other editors to consider them in context is considered by most to be disruptive. As for my other comments, I regretted them after saving. That's why I followed up to point out that I wasn't about to take any action about them. I don't think anything I've said approaches a violation of WP:CIV or WP:NPA, though.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The "main" account has one edit in the last 8 months. I'm more than willing to hear the evidence of disruption, but you keep pointing to a minor infraction that is regularly ignored and to my recollection almost never enforced. What's the disruption proportionate to an indef? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see his infraction as minor or capable of being ignored, for one. It's not the alternation, it's the cloaking. He changed accounts in order to argue for positions that people would have interpreted differently if they knew they were coming from Okip, and didn't perform a clean start, as he did not abandon old behaviours or areas when doing so. That's not a technicality. You are right in the sense that if he was a valuable editor there might be some support for him, but his participation in the ARS as a battle organization (as opposed to the productive wikiproject it was in the past and could be again in the future) makes many of us view him as a source of chronic disruption, even if his edits to article space sometimes have value.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You can talk about how dangerous speeding is, but it's still speeding; even if repeated it doesn't merit the death penalty. But thanks for your honesty in stating that it's "his participation" that really matters. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't get me wrong: for me, socking is a bright line rule, and I would be in favor of an permanent site ban no matter how wonderful his contributions were. I simply note that other people are more tolerant of it than I am.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I was one who supported mentoring rather than a block in the past. Okip is exceedingly aware about socking - I suggest admins examine his deleted userpages (under Inclusionist and Travb, IIRC) dealing with such. As for the attack on Jclemens - it appears a good reason to support his election, I would think. Collect (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beeblebrox solution: indef, consider revisiting not before 6 months. Killer Chihuahua 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef. It looks to me like Okip was doing a WP:CLEANSTART until he was baited by the WP:TAGTEAM deletion attack on ARS. He realized that he took the bait and confessed. That should be worth something. CallawayRox (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that such a tag team exists, and how they baited him. It looks to me more like the community gave him lots and lots of rope, and he hung himself p b p 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich. "they" TFD and MFD of critical ARS pages and conspiring between you and IRWolfie. CallawayRox (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't get blocked because we started TfDs and MfDs; and there's no need to go down that road. You've been repudiated once about it recently. The reason he was suspected of sockpuppetry is the way he notified people about those, not that those existed in the first place. If he'd just said "Keep" and put his head down and soldiered (or obviously if he didn't participate at all), we wouldn't be having this discussion. To say "it's mine and Wolfie's fault that this guy got blocked" is ridiculous. We didn't tell him to get a new acct., and we didn't tell him how to react to our actions. This is no fault but his own p b p 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them are easy keeps and completely unnecessary. Spoildead didn't comment at either one until the MFD started and provoked him past the breaking point. CallawayRox (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply here. He was editing in the exact same areas as before. And if a TfD and an MfD that you yourself characterize as easy keeps are enough to push him past the breaking point, perhaps he doesn't have the temperament for editing here. AniMate 21:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Beeblebrox solution, as per Breeblebrox and Killer Chihuahua. Horologium (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone over this again and it seems about the same as before. Only other hard line ARS users are not in favor of a block. I know you all are disappointed that this is happening but if the ARS is to be respected at all it must be more critical of itself than of others. A formerly prominent member (characterized by some as a leader) has been caught red handed using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny. the rest of the community is telling you this on not ok. This is not the time to close ranks and defend Okip no matter what, this is the time to be honest, something that has been sadly lacking in the ARS "leadership" of the past, and admit that no matter who did this it was wrong. Imagine if you will that it was one of the "deletionists" that had been caught doing this from the opposite direction. Would you not all be here advocating a block? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As an ARS supporter, Beeblebrox is right. Okip did wrong. Let's just hope he will understand that, so that he'll be back, and let this be a lesson for everyone else. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose block of longer than two weeks.Coren had it right when he proposed this. When someone suggests a long block for an editor they strongly disagree with, I look at it a little skeptically, especially when they call the attempts of the other editor to defend their views "disruption." DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef / standard offer after 6 months - Despite my inclusionist tendencies, I was unsure about what to do about this until I took a look at Okip/Ikip's block log, which is very extensive. Given that, indef + standard offer seems very fair to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question about all these e-mails about Okip socking

Resolved

– Looks to me like one way or another, this was all orchestrated by Okip himself, and there isn't any real reason to suspect an improper leak of any kind—Kww(talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify the timeline here? As I read it, someone figured out Okip was socking, and mailed a functionary list about it. Okip e-mailed a separate group of people shortly afterwards. If that's true, it would seem reasonable to conclude that someone on the functionary list contacted Okip, which sounds like a real problem. If it's not true, could someone that has access to timestamp data correct me?—Kww(talk) 01:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it more likely that Okip realized he was about to get caught as he was not exactly being subtle in his approach to deletion discussions and his comments there do not look like the comments of a brand new user. However I'm afraid I already deleted those emails from my inbox as I do a almost daily basis so I can't verify the timeline. Since Okip seems like he wants to take others down in flames with him maybe he could clarify by sending out some more trash talking emails... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I got an email (presumably) the same time as NYB and JClemens a day or two ago. I suggested fessing up, but discussion had already come pretty quickly to the conclusion above. sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So this was after the original suspicion had been mailed to the functionary list? That's what I'm seeking clarification on. Beeblebrox, I'm sympathetic to the the suspicion that someone is being set up, but I'd still like to understand the timing.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When considering the Functionary List Email/Confession Email timeline, also consider that at 20:52, 4 December 2012, I asked Spoildead in the MfD discussion if they had ever edited under another username. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my mail logs, the self-declaratory email arrived about an hour before the first investigation email, but I read them both at the same time. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started the initial thread on funct-en at 511 PM EST (2011 UTC) on 4 December. I had seen the MFD, ran a checkuser because an account was a fairly obvious sockpuppet, and for various reasons, I wanted at least one more CU to verify my conclusions were correct before acting. I knew nothing about e-mails from Okip to other arbitrators before reading this noticeboard, and did not receive one myself (or any e-mail from anyone on this matter other than the functionaries thread.) Courcelles 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This matches my functionaries-l records as well. I posted to that thread shortly after Courcelles's initial email, seconding the possibility of socking, since at that point I'd spent much of the day squinting at the MfD, the TfD, and various user contributions trying to figure out what was going on. This thread (here on AN, today) was the first I heard of anyone having been contacted by Okip about socking, confessions, etc. I tend to agree with Beeblebrox that, independent of the functionaries-l investigation, Okip probably realized that he'd made a bit of a show of himself in the TfD and MfD (my warning to Spoildead for personal attacks, for example, came at 19:28 UTC on 12/4) and that he would probably be called on his behavior as a result. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my email shows that the first reply to Courcelles' initial email was Jclemens noting that he'd gotten a tip about Okip socking, but didn't have time to look into it just then. This does line up with his comment above that he read the emails at the same time. His email did not indicate that the email was from Okip himself, and that was the last email from Jclemens on the thread. Beyond that, there were no other indications that Okip had contacted anyone. I'd actually assumed that someone else (not a functionary) had also gotten suspicious and decided to email Jclemens privately... usually sockpuppeteers don't own up when they've been at it for that long. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that had to do with my misunderstanding the email on a cursory first read. It wasn't until later that I reread it on my laptop (vs my initial skim on my phone) and understood that it was actually Ikip himself asking for advice, rather than another editor asking for advice on how to best address a problem of socking. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may help clear some more of the muddiness here, Kww: Dream Focus is of course repeatedly substituting Calendar (talk · contribs) for Calendar2 (talk · contribs) even though it is the latter that is listed right at the start of this section. And Ikip's "22:02, 12 April 2010" is fairly obviously a confusion of 2012-12-04 with 2012-04-12 caused by ambiguous culture-specific date formatting combined with a typing error. It would seem a fairly good guess, from the above, that 2012-12-04 22:02 is the date on either the abovementioned reply to Courcelles or a reply to Ikip's confession. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, my mistake. Devil's Advocate mentioned Calendar, and that's the name I searched for after checking another one, just copy and pasted it. Calendar2 [3] I see did have some post in October and November, that the same time other socks existed. Did any of them work together on anything? This is odd an editor who once had so many edits every day continuously for so long, would just made so relatively few with a few socks. If he was switching back and forth between socks, then that's a totally different situation. Are we certain it was him? Does more than one person edit from his household? Dream Focus 09:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop grasping at straws and read what is above. Checkuser confirmed it and he admitted it in an email anyway. Yes, we are certain it was him. Yes, they were used to avoid scrutiny. Yes, he knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. I agree it is odd, I don't understand it myself but it was bad-faith socking, there is no doubt about that at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-admin closure of AfD reversal

Resolved

– NAC has been reversed. AniMate 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darkness Shines closed the AfD as an "obvious keep". User:FreeRangeFrog objected and reversed. I restored the closure per WP:NACD, interpreting it to mean that only an admin can reopen the discussion closed by a non-admin (or the non-admin could reopen as well). Also, as a practical matter, FreeRangeFrog didn't fix any of the collateral issues associated with DS's closure (the article itself and the article talk page). I bring it here without expressing any opinion on the merits of the non-admin closure. My vague memory is that if an editor objects to a non-admin closure, they should first address it with the non-admin, but I can't remember where I read that (sigh). FreeRangeFrog did post a message to DS's talk page, but I don't believe they waited for a response, and, too boot, they labeled the closure as vandalism. I'll notify the two editors after I post this.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I didn't label the closure as vandalism, that would be a vandalism rollback. My comment in the revision change is there for anyone to see, and this is what I posted in that editor's talk page: Non-admin closures of AFDs like these because you think the outcome is "obvious" can be considered vandalism as far as I am concerned. I stand by that. As per WP:NACD, I didn't consider my action to be re-opening the AFD, but rather undoing what was a patently disruptive and arbitrary non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Darkness Shines should have been the one to close this. He seems to do a fair amount of editing in regards to Middle East politics and has recently edited Israeli settler violence. He may not have a vested interest in the article, but he does in the topic. Besides, contentious articles like this one should probably be closed by admins. AniMate 00:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, my reversal of FRF's edit wasn't based on the merits. I don't know about DS's edits, but if I were a non-admin, I wouldn't have closed this AfD. BTW, I have absolutely no objection to an admin reopening the AfD or DS doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The test for an NAC is if anyone could raise any sort of reasonable objection to it. Seems like this close failed the test. I am not aware of a requirement that only an admin can overturn an non-admin close. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that your position reflects consensus from the discussions that have occurred regarding NACs, particularly the RFCs, and while the question of deference to NACs is murky, I think the general consensus is that they be afforded more deference then that. I'm not looking to re-open the general discussion here, but don't want to leave your position undisputed, lest it be assumed to reflect consensus. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could have phrased it more clearly. It is my understanding that NACs of deletion discussions should only be made in cases that any reasonable editor would find to be exceedingly obvious. Since it was apparently not as obvious as DS thought in this particular case it was probably not a good candidate for a NAC. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual guideline language is pretty vague: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. The NAC essay is stricter and more in line with your position. Certainly the close at issue here can be reasonably seen as breaking the guideline. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note the Bbb23 undid the close reversal, and I disagree with that. This was obviously a bad NAC, but now leaves me in the position that reverting the NAC again (as an admin, which no one argues is a problem) feels like edit-warring and even close to wheel-warring. Bbb23, please redo the close or give the rest of us permission to do so. We shouldn't leave Darkness Shines's close in place.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments here, I've reopened the AfD and undone the edits to the article and talk page so they are consistent with the article being discusssed for deletion. If I left anything out, please correct it. I have zero problem with the consensus that the AfD should not have been closed. My objections were procedural. If we are going to permit NACs (not something I'm fond of in the first instance) and the undoing of NACs, the undoings should at least be done by someone who is experienced enough to know how to undo everything, not just the closure itself. I also think that FRF should have waited for a response from DS or at least approached an admin about the issue rather than doing it themselves. It wouldn't have been damaging to the project for the discussion to remain closed for a short time (as it did anyway because of me). Finally, I think allowing anyone who objects to a NAC to simply revert it because they "object" invites chaos.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been incredibly reasonable here, and we can close this. I should note that Nableezy has opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Darkness_Shines. AniMate 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were an admin closure I would see it as a serious problem. That it was done by a non-admin who has recently been in heated disputes regarding this topic area just magnifies the severity of the action. I understand the reasoning Bbb applied given the policy, but it seems Frog's action was a classic WP:IAR situation. We should gear this towards discussion of DS's action and away from legalistic argumentation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lesson learned - I will bring such things to the attention of an admin instead of acting arbitrarily. I apologize for the disruption. Two things: First, my objection was valid, I think, given a non-admin closure of a contested AFD where consensus has not clearly been reached. Such an action is arbitrary at best, and given the closer's topical interests, I think a clear case of COI. If I ever feel the need to object to an admin closing an AFD then I am aware of the established avenues for that. I would never simply revert a proper closure. And second, quite frankly given the above I did not think I had the burden of waiting for User:Darkness Shines's comments as to why he closed the AFD, since the end result would have been no different. I stand by my opinion that this was a case of borderline vandalism. §FreeRangeFrog 01:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NAC was inappropriate but with good intentions. That isn't the same as vandalism. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm dancing around the strict definition of vandalism. Perhaps "consciously did something disruptive that he knew he shouldn't do" is better. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACC flag

Just wanted to put this out there, not really asking for a formal discussion (of course, unless that's what comes of it) "It would be a good thing if Admins considering approving a request for the ACC bit to just get a tool admin's input on the user requesting the flag, since the user should have some kind of track record at ACC". Thanx for what ever this might bring Mlpearc (powwow) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me attempt to reword that: "If you're considering giving someone the accountcreator right, ask a Toolserver administrator's opinion in order to understand the track record of the person who wants to be an accountcreator". Did I understand you rightly, or if not, where did I go wrong? Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mlpearc means tool admins in regards to the ACC tool. More specifically these users. Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being clearer, you both hit the nail on the head, if a user goes to WP:PERM and requests the ACC bit the patrolling Admin(s) look a "on wiki" statuses, while back at ACC the same user might not be ready to handle special requests yet, even after hitting the six requests limit a few times, and a tool Admin would be aware of this and could shed light on the PERM request. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes someone a tool admin? Are Bsadowski1, Cobi, Deliriousandlost, etc simply regular administrators who use the account creation tool? Sorry for being dense. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The users on that list may or may not be en-wp admin's. They are Toolserver admins for the request interface, they have management functions such as accepting new users, suspending current users, they are able to black requesting IP's and/or email addy's of known socks, vandals, and so forth. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably help if you didn't call them "Toolserver admins" and used the phrase "ACC tool admins". Or something that doesn't mean the same as "toolserver roots". Legoktm (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call them toolserver admin's, I was just clarifying that they, I am not an en-wp admin. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would getting the accountcreator flag let them handle special requests? I thought it only removed the rate-limit on how many requests they could handle. Legoktm (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume this isn't coming out of nowhere. Are there admins, otherwise uninvolved with ACC, granting this user right without properly assessing an account creators actual record?? If so, a) this is a problem, and b) there should probably be some sort of notice to administrators at the RfC page to not do this. Swarm ^X 06:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image use policy moved twice

Not wanting to go into a move war, I'm posting this here to gain some attention. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has moved Wikipedia:Image use policy to Wikipedia:Image use suggestions, removed the policy tag from the page and revoved some key text. I've restored the page once, but he simply repeated his actions, both with the rationale "This policy has never been approved by the commmunity as policy". — Edokter (talk) — 12:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from digging in the page history, it was first marked as policy here; the odd link to Wikipedia:Miniseries of Wikicivics was retargeted to Wikipedia:Policy Library in the next edit, and it's seemingly been consistently marked as a policy since then. Something that's been treated as policy for two-thirds of our history shouldn't be dethroned now; long usage has made it what it is. Think of this page's policy status like the sainthood status of mythical or semi-mythical figures like Saint George — they're called saints in a Catholic context because that's what they've been popularly called for many centuries, and likewise this should be considered policy because that's how it's been used for most of our history. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were my thoughts as well. I'll restore the page once again and move-protect it. — Edokter (talk) — 12:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BMK's move was certainly not the best way to resolve this, but I've long been saying that our collection of image-related guideline and policy pages is badly in need of cleanup. We have a "policy" page that contains lots of stuff that has nothing to do with policy; we have a "MOS" page that contains lots of stuff that has nothing to do with style; we have "help" and "tutorial" pages scattered all over the place; it's all a mess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move was clearly not uncontroversial (i.e. controversial!) and so BMK should not have moved it without prior discussion and wider consensus; he certainly should not have moved it a second time - POINTy and disruptive. Giant Snowman 13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image issue is conflicted with the fact we have non-free policy that overlaps with it, and we can't talk about images (Free and nonfree) without also highlighting NFC policy too. Cleanup is definitely possible but the page moving and demotion without discussion is inexcusable. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially, can someone please tidy up the mess caused by someone moving (and then re-moving) the page Wikipedia talk:Changing username? Thank you, Victor Yus (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Edokter (talk) — 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that a good case can be made for my initial move as a bold edit and justifiable on that basis, I agree that my second move was not justified, and I should not have done it. I regret that action, and apologize for making it.

I understand that there is a discussion about image use policy on VPP, so I'll be checking into that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC

Hi. I'm referring this up the ladder, since Poeticbent seems to want it to come here (and to be honest, I'd welcome that. It needs sorting). At Talk:Richard Tylman some time back, an RFC was run to deterime whether data from Genealogy websites could be used as a source - it was requested to be closed, having had no activity since October 12, and Chris Gualtieri closed it, with it having no consensus, thus defaulting to the status quo, of "no". Poeticbent reverted this close to the RFC on 3 December.

Now I've looked back over Richard Tylman, and indeed, Chris is uninvolved with the article itself, openly admitting that "I (Chris) don't know two things about the subject and I don't personally care about the subject." He was completing a procedural close, for which he doesn't need to be an admin. Poeticbent then decides to revert his close of the Richard Tylman RFC a second time, this time with a threat in the edit summary. This occurred on 4 December.

This is where I waded into the battle - and I stress I wasn't canvassed to do this. I've had the Richard Tylman article and Talk on my watchlist for a while now, pre-RFC opening. How it got there, I have no idea, I don't remember editing it, still I digress. I reverted Poeticbent's undoing of the closure, and gave him a very clear, very blunt (read: bordering on incivil), untemplated warning on his talk page not to revert it again or he'd wind up here. Poetic has now replied at his talk page, to both myself and Chris, stating that he intends to "get more answers" here. So here we are :) All parties involved have been notified. Fish ^Barking? 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The close by CG was fine. The "listen up" in bold stuff on Poeticbent's talk page placed by BarkingFish -- not helpful. (Rest of the message was okay). NE Ent 12:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The close by CG should've been "No consensus" as no one but TFD supported exclusion and yet CG closed in TFD's favor. The other two editors make decent points. But the biggest knife in the CG's close cake is that the larger consensus at the RS noticeboard was also non-consensus leaning toward careful use of Ancestry.com as a source. So I'd say that CG's close was actually poor. However, Poeticbent's behavior certainly isn't good; especially since he was involved in the other discussion. The right thing to have done would have been to discuss it with an administrator or bring it here rather than get into a fit with other editors and reverting the close.--v/r - T P 14:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that CG was a neutral uninvolved editor and Poeticbent would be well advised to not accuse others of bias simply because they didn't agree with his bias.--v/r - T P 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you say throw out policy and convention on the number of votes cast in the RFC? Also, the actual discussion itself about Ancestry.com being a reliable source is pretty straight forward. See here. [4] Many well founded opinions and comments are already present for that, and I cannot simply disregard what seems to be a strong argument against Ancestry.com's teaser hints as being a valid and reliable source. As I mentioned in the RFC close, I would have taken them as primary or secondary sources provided they were verifiable, but the links used were not even viewed by Poeticbent himself, and much of the postings are a synthesis and original research because of it. Furthermore, as they were being used as external links and WP:ELNO is pretty clear about not having paywall and minimal use.

Also, please remember that these links were not solely Richard Tylman. They included links to "William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614), with children" and "Richard Tylman IV (1569–1614). Born to Nycholas Tylman III and Jane Benson." Furthermore, the links in this family tree assembled by some amateur are really reliable? [5] Even other 'reliable sources' used in the article are questionable such as this one. [6] 'Freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com'? Seriously? This is no different then taking some random angelfire, yahoo or other website and posting it up as proof. Its like the one line fragment used from a Lulu.com (a POD print book) as a reliable source in this article? [7] So, I'd seriously consider what is really reliable and what stands out as a massive synthesis of material. We are already aware that there are many Richard Tylmans and that others lived in the same area, and there is at least 5 if the assembled geneology is to be right. Though this is coming from a website that tries to push that almost everyone is related to kings and queens of olde. True geneology research takes time and even people at Ancestry.com know that the trees of others can be entirely garbage. Only the documents themselves are useful, not the assembled product of amateurs seeking to glorify their pasts. I would assert that Poeticbent does not even have access to the pages upon which he linked, as the dates for the events and such would be surely included, but nothing more then what the 'free' look is taken. As far as I was concerned, they do not meet the standards for WP:RS and WP:V, let alone WP:EL under WP:ELNO as they were. So yes, even though the number of !votes were leaning away, the simple fact that the sources themselves were garbage in full view of policy means I could not simply go against a community concensus of what is reliable (even the side discussion at RSN proved as much) and had really no other choice then to act in accordance to policy. Poeticbent began disrupting and making personal attacks on me immediately thereafter. There was no activity in that RFC since Oct 15th, after I close I am called to be non-neutral, partisan, a bully, and commiting 'fakery' by mere closing of the RFC.

The real disconnect, even amongst the supporter of the previous link Clemrutter is as follows, "...I can happily agree that two commercial websites are not valid sources. I fail to understand how they shouldn't be cited for external links- so the dear reader can share the external links he will need to use if he wishes to do OR." This kind of mindset underscores my decision, Clemrutter agrees that they are not valid sources yet wishes to include them as external links for OR. If they aren't valid sources, they shouldn't be used, even if you must argue it, ELNO covers it then. If you cannot count the source as reliable and verifiable, don't stick it under 'external links', it shouldn't be on the page. So here we go round the circle again. I decided the RFC on policy. Clemrutter's comments seem fair. And if you really want to be super-precise on the RFC the count was 3 to use, 1 to not use, 1 comment. One of the uses were from a blocked sockpuppet (and didn't add an argument anyways) and the other use was include because AGF that the geneology info is correct rather then see if it is reliable or not. Making the whole RFC in reality, 1 to use and 1 not to use. TFD's arguments and the discussion at RSN was really the important matter as it as on policy, as all good decisions are made. I do not think I was 'poor' in judgement for deciding it that way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of that makes a great comment in an RFC, not a close. Taking a single editors comments and closing it as the "consensus of an RFC" is a joke. If anything, you should've closed it as "No one seems to care" or just simply "no consensus."--v/r - T P 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well excuse me if I listen on policy instead of popularity. You take a blocked sockpuppet's 'me too' as a vote? You take someone who admits the sources aren't reliable as a pro use? You take a comment by Clemrutter who just after the close agrees the sources aren't valid yet think I closed wrong? Seriously? If you oppose and state, 'the sources aren't valid', you really are saying that they are not valid, and Wikipedia deals in reliable sources. So Clemrutter doesn't understand External Links, but he knows what a reliable source is. 2 to TFD as I see it. The other not vote from GeorgeLouis fell into the same boat as 'Let the reader decide if it is reliable or not and I AGF it is correct'. These are not strong arguments. If the sources cannot meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V then we should not use them, not tack them onto external links and try to let it fly in the face of WP:ELNO. The RFC as small as it was, had only one major argument rooted in policy, and that was TFDs. Consensus is fine for certain things, but Wikipedia as a whole is not going to be locally overruled because 2 people with flawed arguments are numerically more then someone who roots arguments in policy, and that those said sources do not meet community standards. Unless I am sorely mistaken, rather then argue about the number of votes, how about someone argue on a matter of policy and how those sources are okay in light of it. Forget it being about external links, they won't even pass RS or V, if they do, I'd add them as sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have expressed on the RS noticeboard about how WP:V can apply to Ancestry.com. Where you are mistaken is believing that your interpretation of policy is the only one. That is why we consider consensus in discussions. Other editors have a different idea of how WP:V can be met. As a closer, your job is the summarize those ideas, identify the ones with the strongest policy based rationale, and show how much support that rationale received. You can't stick with your understanding of policies when closing. You have to recognize the community's interpretation before your own. The larger discussion offered solid ideas and took WP:V into consideration. So the close wasn't done well. I would've said "No consensus" which would've resulted in the same thing. Instead, we essentially have a supervote.--v/r - T P 16:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with the close is one thing, but calling a good faith effort "a joke" is uncalled for. My first thought when reviewing was there wasn't enough discussion on the article talk page, but when I followed the link to RSN my read of the discussion was similar to CGs. NE Ent 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The effort isn't a joke, the "RFC" is. I read the RSN thread completely different than you then. My takeaway from it was that WP:V could be met given certain conditions on Ancestry.com.--v/r - T P 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I understand the different. Ancestry.com has some good and rare records that can be used. As I stated and have been stating, I'd take a primary document of worth. As so is the discussion at RSN. The problem is that no documents have been provided and that even Poeticbent does not have access to said primary documents (its the free content only) and the tree as was in the external links was not even about the subject alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't see RFC closure as a deterministic process -- it's a messy process. Lacking evidence CG was either involved or grossly ignored the discussion, closing it as they did seems reasonable to me. I'd have said the same thing had TP closed it as no consensus. The whole point of RFC should be to bring closure to a discussion; I think it counterproductive to Wikipedia overall to allow reopening of RFCs by parties disagreeing with an outcome unless there's compelling evidence the closer made a gross error. NE Ent 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, I fully support CG in this thread. It was certainly within discretion. It's just not how I'd have closed it. As I said earlier, the result is the same and I tend to get tied up in principals, but I agree CG was uninvolved and perfectly capable of the closure and Poeticbent doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on here.--v/r - T P 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of opening this, when User:BarkingFish beat me to it, so 'm skipping the intro. Informing other editors about ANI is not a threat, and not an insult contrary to what BarkingFish said on my talk page... We have a prolific user here, ChrisGualtieri, a rollbacker with long edit history, who forgot that he's not an administrator (and for a good reason) dishing out controversial judgements with no regard for the contributions of other experienced Wikipedians. His personal views are so entrenched that he doesn't seem to realize that what he dishes out from his own little corner of RFC doesn't smell good. Comfort breeds contempt apparently, and his ego-self is compelled to pretend to the throne. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're currently at the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. You've thrown out a ton of insults against ChrisG without at all addressing the close or substantiating your accusations. What makes Chris biased? What makes him egotistical? As far as I can see, Chris is completely neutral and uninvolved and although I disagree with his close, it doesn't at all support the remarks you've made about him. Editors have just as much capability of closing RFCs are administrators do. Whomever told you that only administrators closed RFCs was mistaken. You've given no evidence that he has a personal view prior to closing the RFC. You've given no support that his views are entrenched. You've given us nothing but your word that your insults and accusations are the truth. Seriously, welcome to WP:ANI.--v/r - TP 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Quote): "Chris, I will report you to ANI for misuse of process tools, partisan editing, revert warring, fakery and general bullying." Now tell me - does that look like Poetic is "informing" the user about AN/I, or threatening to report him? To me personally, it looks like a direct threat to report Chris for a load of stuff Poetic can't actually substantiate. Partisan editing? Fakery? General Bullying? What the hell... Step up to the plate and back up your claims, if you can. Fish ^Barking? 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Policy states it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. NE Ent 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks come against me from the moment I closed, I even mentioned this before. Its a wonderful example of 'i didn't hear that'. I never edited the page before closing the RFC, the view history is easy enough to check. He called me horrible things for simple closing in disagreement, based on policy nonetheless. Poeticbent created the article and has done a lot of the work, but is suffering from WP:OWN and is lashing out, even calling my close of the RFC as an XFD. I don't want to delete the article, never did. I just don't like the response to my close and how not once has an arguement over those sources been made, instead its attack the editor. If those sources pass RS and V, I'd be happy to have them on the page. Though they do not meet the criteria and Poeticbent does not have the primary documents either to back it up. Makes verification nearly impossible, and the marriage one is only one line in a book as are some of the other sources in the article. And those too have flaws, yet I didn't remove those. I was solely here for the RFC close as per the request on the page.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be more easily solved by reopening the content issue and taking it to RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It went to WP:ELN as they wanted it as an external link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has no dog in this hunt: it's very clear from the many WP:RS/N inquiries on ancestry.com that there's a wide consensus that its material is often unreliable and that most of the reliable material would tend to be considered primary sources. If the RFC had been conducted at RS/N it surely would have attracted a lot more negative responses. Moreover, a quick read over the article leaves me quite uneasy; it feels very much like a piece of original research that is having to put together a lot of material without benefit of secondary sources having done the work first. Personally, I think a procedural close sending to the issue to the correct noticeboard would have been an appropriate response, but I don't think CG's closure was out of line. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It went to the ELN right after I closed it by TFD. TFD was in favor of removal. [8] It should be RSN as it was before. Though I closed the way I did was because it had already been to RSN. As it was here [9]. So I closed the way I did because it I took both arguments from the pages into consideration (as the majority of activity occurred at RSN anyways). If you are implying that I should have closed by sending it back to RSN, then its surprising to me. Since I thought the matter was already handled adequately there. It bounced forums and is doing so again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean to imply that you should have done differently, only that you could have chosen to do so, with the likely outcome of that being essentially the same as your closing result. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was sent to AfD five times not because of Tudors... and certainly not because of Ancestry.com website. The subject was targeted by WP:EEML, one of the biggest arbitration cases in Arb history originating from Eastern Europe. When ChrisGualtieri approached this article he saw its history and instead of stepping back and acknowledging the lack of consensus he chose to take one side against the other. What's worse, he also performed unilateral revert in main space. No editor can call himself uninvolved anymore, as soon as he begins to perform unilateral reverts in support of one side in a bitter and long-standing conflict. User:The Four Deuces is an active participant in Eastern European conflicts regarding communism and he knows a lot more than he cares to admit. His two AfDs were no accident. Some of the best Wikipedians were prohibited from casting a vote by ArbCom. For him, the article subject does not matter as much as the fact that it is named Richard Tylman. Read the opening line of his second AfD. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment - the "Richard Tylman issue" has been going on for quite some time and is far more complicated than some of this thread suggests. Having had a very good, long look at the whole history during the last AFD for Richard Tylman, I posted this note which gives some background. Poeticbent had tried to explain some of the background (as he has here) but without some of the details that might be construed as a conflict of interest on his part, given his openly declared conflict of interest with the previous article of the same name. Was it smart to create a new article about a different person with the same name as the subject of a very controversial article with which he had a direct conflict of interest? No, probably not "smart", but also not prohibited. There will naturally be more "eyes" on the new article given the history of the old one but it's probably not helpful to describe that extra scrutiny as "general bullying". Poetic might feel like he is being watched / scrutinised / hounded but transferring that anger onto an uninvolved editor won't help the situation, regardless of the actions of that editor. That said, nor is it particularly helpful to consider the history of an article (having "stumbled across" it) and then non-admin close a discussion based on an opinion. It doesn't help that the editor in question cited an WP:RSN discussion (with basically the same content) started by the same OP that had not yet been closed with any form of consensus that had been started only days earlier. I'm not sure why the OP felt there was a need for an RSN and a talk page RFC but citing one unclosed discussion to NAC another probably wasn't a great idea. In reality, WP:RSN is probably the best place for such a discussion and NAC'ing the RFC as a "duplicate" while directing editors to RSN would probably have been okay. To be honest, I can't see that there was a great deal of malice here, just a little bit of line over-stepping (all around) that can be quite easily resolved with a re-wording of the closure (noting duplication and directing to RSN rather than citing it) and an agreement to discuss it there with civility. Stalwart111 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break and expansion

Some have thought my actions may be a bit much, in light of such strong words, even without evidence behind them, such attacks have already proven somewhat effective. So I'll point out once again, that I had no idea what I was stumbling into, I didn't even care to check the AFD history. After this little fuss started I checked and saw it was about some poet and figured that the article was in no shape or form related. How wrong I was. Stalwart seems to have pieced together what I did not know and it was eye opening. In fact, I was a little bit taken aback as the article probably didn't need to be deleted, COI notwithstanding. I really had no idea of what this drama was about or why my actions are somehow related to this mailing list and Arbcom stuff which has long preceeded my wiki activities by a span of years. When I say neutral and uninvolved, I really meant it in all forms, as I was entering the matter completely ignorant of any history and dealt with the matter purely from the RFC and the RSN noticeboard discussions. A plus or a negative, debate amongst yourself, but I had pure intentions. I decided according the guidelines for closing an RFC and did so with the policy, as policy is a foundation for good decision making, not !votes. Sadly, something with this article and the deception as well as the outlandish attacks against me have stirred a curiousity. While I looked at the sources briefly and specifically dealt with the ones concerning the RFC, the others I AGF and let them be. In light of such attacks, I feel that something was trying to be covered up, trying to scare me away, anyone who could disturb Poetic from this article. With Stalwart's post, I realized this entire thing is under POINTY. The Richard Tylman article is full of original research and synthesis and outright false information tediously crafted to portray a single individual. Simple fact, Richard Tillman was the merchant who in 1580 made 33 voyages during the 6 month recorded in the Port Book. Depending on your views as purposeful malicious action or very poor editing, the problems begin with lines like this, "In 1580 all corn sold by Faversham dealers to the London merchants came from Richard Tylman..." No source backs this. Its also blatently wrong. Even if he was mayor, the connecting stemming from a letter which states as such and a note in the history of Kent in one source but not the best one, states a Richard Tylman was mayor. Problem is that the best source says he was a merchant, nothing is said about him being a merchant AND a mayor. A bit rough to say based a single letter record which isn't a primary document, but an account of a letter rather then the letter itself. One of the sources tied to him is supposively 16 years after his death. The article itself is full of synthesis and original research. Not even Faversham's own web page makes a single mention of Richard Tylman.[10] I'd love to straighten this mess out, but I think something major is going on here and me closing the RFC was truly a blind man's folly as I've wound up in the middle of this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the close. It used the same reasoning recommended for closing AfDs, to evaluate the arguments about the interpretation of policy. This issue however would probably not have gone to ANI except for Poeticbent's defensive attitude toward other editors. I did not participate in the first three AfDs and, except for Poeticbent and myself, no one involved in the current article had any involvement with the previous one. And while some of the editors who voted to delete in previous AfDs were involved in Eastern European articles, many were not, yet Poeticbent impugned their motives. The only editor participating in the first nomination who was involved in Eastern European articles voted to keep. TFD (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another petty dispute about nothing. This should never happen. The article in question is really nothing, it may or may not exist - who cares? These databases may or may not be used - either way is fine. Whoever brought this to ANI, do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is valid to discuss whether the RfC was closed and reopened properly. My thoughts is that involved editors acted mostly in AGF, and that we should reclose the RfC as no consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did actually revert the unclosing of the RFC by Poetic, Piotrus. If the RFC needs to be reclosed, fair enough - my understanding was that in the event of a no-consensus, closure reverts to the default - whatever it was before, in this case being a no to the decision. Will reclosing it again with a different reason make a blind bit of difference to this? It's still a no, either way. Fish ^Barking? 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: returning this to AN/I, wasn't closed, was archived by Miszabot II before discussion was finished. Fish ^Barking? 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm no longer amazed that such a massive discussion could have happened in the few hours since the thread was started on the image use policy page...Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this, I have the following constructive suggestions:

Do not create articles on subjects of marginal notability, and do not object when someone else comes to fix a thing or two in such articles.
Do not post an RfC to exclude a couple of links from an article of marginal notability.
Do not make a non-administrative closure if there is a contentious dispute.
Do not repost on AN something that did not receive much attention on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- After looking at your "constructive" suggestions, I have one for you:
  1. Do not tell other people what they should and should not do, when you clearly have no interest in the outcome :) - This was reposted on AN not because it didn't receive much attention - as you can clearly see, it did. It was reposted because it was archived without conclusion or a decision. Fish ^Barking? 17:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but if you posted anything here, it means that you are asking other people for advice (and possibly action), and this is exactly what I did. It is in fact very common that threads on ANI are archived automatically without anyone making an official closing. If that happens, it means there is no reason for action. This is a content dispute or something no one wants to be involved in. If that happens, re-posting the matter on the AN is not really helpful, I believe. People usually do not do it, even if they want others be sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. I just realized I posted this entire thread in the wrong goddamned place. Oopsie. Fish ^Barking? 01:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back log at Requests for page protection

Could we get a few admins to look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as we have a bit of a back log (20 open requests).Moxy (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now 30 open requests. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was up to 36 requests when I had to leave for the gym, but now it's back down to a handful. Thanks to all who helped clear the backlog. -- Dianna (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(not so) hypothetical scenario

So let us presume there was a user who was blocked here some time ago for a long-term pattern of incompetence as well as another action that was very deceitful and dishonest, although done so poorly that it could also be seen as part of their pattern of incompetence. This user has managed to remain in good standing at Commons, possibly because a language issue that they would not admit to here does not get in their way over there. This user has now established a decent track record over there and has just changed their name. Just after the Commoms name change went through somebody created an account under that new name here. I mean, like within hours, far too soon to chalk it up to coincidence. As of right now this account has no edits at all.

Keep an eye on it and see of it ever does edit, or block preemptively and leave a notice on the blocked users talk page? (with enough digging you may be able to determine who I am referring to, but for the moment I would ask everyone to keep the disc:ussion in the realm of the hypothetical.) Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible they are just registering the name so that nobody else tries to edit under that name, but I'm not 100% sure how the whole global editing thing works, so I might just dead wrong. - Sudo Ghost 21:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no issues with a preemptive block. Seems like the logical conclusion of the "prevention, not punishment" credo.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the new account simply be the effect of automatic creation for a unified account, done as soon as the user enters en-wp as a reader (while logged-in at Commons)? Why not simply ask the user on Commons if the new account is him, and just remind him that he is not supposed to be editing with the new name here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One doesn't even need to do that. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The account creation log tells the world whether an account was explicitly created or is a SUL account that was automatically created because someone logged in just happened to pull up an English Wikipedia page. And in this particular case we can see "was created automatically" right there in the log. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh duh, how did I miss that? That being the case I think just sitting on it is the best option. Thanks everyone for your input. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive User JoseGoGo

Account was indefinitely blocked by Jclemens. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User JoseGoGo (talk · contribs) has spent spent the last couple of days Wiki-hounding me from 2 different IPs on an open proxy. Now that his proxy has been blocked (See SPI for diffs to support the preceding sentence: [11]), he's registered an account and seems intent on edit warring. He is edit-warring at James Dobson [12][13], contrary to consensus in an ongoing Talk discussion[14], and he is also edit-warring at Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States [15][16], where he refuses to justify his edits. Now he is harassing me on my own Talk page. [17] Belchfire-TALK 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood it's probably the indeffed SkepticAnonymous. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever he was in the past, it's quite evident that this brand new account is not a user who is new to Wikipedia. I also see telltale signs that would seem to tie him to another badly behaved IP, but I am informed by the patrolling admin at SPI that they won't do Check User for IPs (which is ridiculous, because a quick look at the User-Agent string would clear this up in a heartbeat). Belchfire-TALK 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place for this is SPI. You brought the two IPs to SPI, but not this editor. File there again showing any relevant behavioural evidence you have for the assertion. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoseGoGo is obviously a sock, and based on the behavior, not just of the two IPs but of some unknown experienced editor. I have no idea who or if they are blocked/banned though. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi'd Belchfire's talk page for four days as an interim measure. -- Dianna (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is the evidence, that's the sort of connection that can be made through SPI with behavioural evidence and with a checkuser (I see that is being done now). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Main page error reports are ignored

Not only are main page error reports ignored, I get told in the instruction on how to deal with a problem, that I should report it to the page that is being ignored.

Wikipedia has a main page with a do you know on it that says something that is not in the article (Intraplate deformation). I posted about this problem. The information is still on the main page 3 hours later. Shouldn't inaccuracte statements be removed from the main page?

Someone posted about a version that had the information in it. But I cannot just use that version, because the author of the article included information that is not in the sources he references. I don't know about you, but when I use a reference, it should say what I say it says.

Can someone remove the article from the main page? It is silly to say something on the main page, then link to an article that doesn't say that in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.131.23 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur: I realise admins are human, have a real life, and all that... but the length of time it can take to receive an admin response on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is rather dismaying. Very often, errors are not rectified before items (especially DYKs) disappear from the main page. I think a few more admins should add it to their watchlists. — This, that, and [Too late. That's the last time I ask for input (thanks to those who gave it), next time I(ll just act on my opinion first and come for discussion afterwards[User talk:This, that and the other|the other (talk)]] 09:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK's are approved in a previous state. Being the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" means that someone can and will modify a DYK article - often to its detriment. It also means that the meaning/phrasing can and will be changed. Perhaps the DYK hook on the main page should only link to the version that was "approved"? Other than that, how do you solve it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the problem with this article. When approved, the statement in question (like everything else in the article) was cited to a large document without any page number indications, which are necessary for multi-page documents. Given the lack of a page number, I've searched through the entirety of the source for the statement at DYK, but nothing is appearing. This should be blamed largely on The Interior, who reviewed the DYK nomination despite the page's clear lack of support for the statement in question. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True ... I guess I was being more general :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've left a more detailed explanation on my talk page, but what Bwilkins mentions above was the problem in this case. This edit, 10 days after my review, removed the content the hook was based on and the ref I approved. As to whether the hook ref accurately supports the hook fact, I confirmed that Glacial isostatic adjustment was a factor in North American plates. I am not a geology expert, so I can only go so deep into technical refs like that. Nyttend has a point about page numbers in large PDF's - I maybe should have asked for that. But it isn't a DYK requirement. Perhaps I should have been monitoring the article closely after my review to make sure it still conformed to the criteria I measured it against, but to be honest, my time is limited and I missed that change. Put me in the AN stocks if need be. The Interior (Talk) 19:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. What Bwilkins notes was not the issue. When you approved it, the hook was sourced to a PDF that said nothing — anywhere, on any page — about the topic that the article claimed it did. You're not required to keep up to date with an article post-approval, but the idea of reviewing involves a basic checking of the sources to ensure that the material in the article is in the sources, as long as the sources are accessible to you. Page numbers, by the way, are a decent-size portion of Wikipedia:Citing sources: DYK does not permit pages that lack proper citations. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the source at the time of review. "GIA (Glacial isostatic adjustment) affects most of the North American continent, with a maximum predicted present-day uplift rate of �15 mm/yr centered on Hudson Bay, decaying radially with distance." pg. 17 of the PDF. Hook statement: "that tectonic plates in the Earth's crust are not completely rigid but can be deformed by the melting of an ice cap?" By the definition of GIA, the plates are not stable because of the rising crust in areas of geologically recent glacial retreat. Again, I may have made an error in interpretation there, I'm not sure, I'm not a geology major. I just do my best and assume good faith. The Interior (Talk) 22:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is with the original author of the wikipedia article and that wikipedia has no geological experts who can catch these problems.

I am reading another article Interior is checking for DYK. There is a geological error in each of the first two sentences.

"The Grouse Creek block is a block of 2.5 to 2.6 billion year old orthogneisses (a type of gneiss) and similar metasedimentary rocks. The Grouse Creek block is one of several Proterozoic and Archean accreted terranes that lie to the west of the Wyoming craton, including the Farmington Canyon Complex (<2.5 Ga), the Selway terrane (2.4-1.6 Ga), the Great Falls Tectonic Zone (1.86-1.77 Ga), the Medicine Hat block (2.6-3.3 Ga) and the Priest River complex (>2.6-1.5 Ga).[1] "

First "orthogneiss and similar metasedimentary rocks" implies that orthogniess is metasedimentary. But the only time you would use the word "orthogneiss" in a non-geological encyclopedia would be to differentiate gneiss that is not of sedimentary origins. Orthogneiss is derived from igneous rocks.[18] Usually you would just say "gneiss", but this attempt to be fancy fails.

Second sentence, the Great Falls Tectonic Zone is not an accreted terrane.

The other article was just as painful to read. Blanking it was a mercy. This one should be gutted, also. It should not appear on the main page, if it has not already.

Structural geology articles on topics this complex require vetting by geologists. A geologist with five minutes could have told you neither of these articles were technically correct and both need deletion from wikipedia rather than promotion to the main page. --68.107.131.23 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not that single geologist who will help. Wikipedia is decidedly unwelcoming to experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.131.23 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is unwelcoming to experts who say "I am an expert and therefore you must accept what I say at face value." Wikipedia loves experts who say "I am an expert, which is why I know what the best reliable sources are to support what I say, and here they are." Perhaps I'm wrong, but you sound an awful lot like the first kind of expert to me. If you're not willing to (1) Write to a popular audience and (2) Support your writing with citations from reliable sources, it really doesn't matter if you're an expert or not, because you're of no real use to us, go write an academic paper. (Although I think they require sources as well.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, perhaps I am wrong but telling potential future editors that they are of no use to us seems to me to be both stupid, unhelpful and against policy!Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to a reliable source, a dictionary that shows that orthogneiss is not metasedimentary, and I suggested that it should not be used anyhow as it's not suitable for a popular audience. I'm not the one using it, Wikipedia is. It wasn't necessary for that article, besides the fact that it's wrong (which my source shows). It appears I am more willing to write to a popular audience than the current author is, because I wouldn't use a wrong word that is jargon that adds nothing; even if he had used the correct word, it still would have been jargon. I provided a source, but the article's author did not.

You dismiss me because it appears I have expertise in the area, but both of your criteria for dismissal are wrong. You appear to have not read what I wrote, in your rush to judgement. It seems to prove my point, that experts don't stand a chance, because even when they meet the "criteria" you set, you say they don't, because you're not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; guilty for their crime of displaying expertise in their field. --68.107.131.23 (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is a mess, promoting incorrect hooks and rubbish articles with a frightening frequency (between the many good hooks and articles of course). Women's sport in New South Wales [19] is one example which has "graced" the main page last week. I have had to pull other articles from the queue and even the main page for having incorrect hooks over the last few weeks as well. No action is being taken to remedy this, whether it is better standards, self-regulation, or checking who are the nominators and/or reviewers responsible for most of the problems. Most effort is put into getting rid of me for being "biased", and approving the same article again and again without actually addressing the issues.Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer. Train editors in procedures, not process. The essay "Process is important" is demonstrably wrong and is responsible for the current problem. Delete it. Process is not as important as product and the procedures required to create a good product. Screw process. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, for what its worth I think your part right. I think that the DYK process needs a lot of work. It also needs more help from editors willing to spend time wokring in that area. It seems to me that several of the key players have been run off from the process due to overzealous critiquing by Fram and some others about the "poor" job they were doing. I think what needs to be done is that the DYK process needs to be reviewed and simplified and some additional talent be recruited to help out, at least part time or occassional. Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which "key players" of DYK have been run off from the process because of me? Fram (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who weren't "run off because of me"? Gee, another "DYK is a mess" topic; fancy that :) When I last gave up (I give up there routinely, and then am drug back by some horrific thing I see on the mainpage, latest was a seriously bad BLP vio), Nikkimaria was singlehandedly holding down the copyvio fort. Different names, same problems. Scrap it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would have better luck scrapping the DYK process! It seems to me that this is largely due to the expanding attitude of telling editors "you are no longer needed or wanted". There were a couple editors who were active in DYK and kept it running fairly smoothly. Over the past year though they have been run off or have decided that the drama in DYK isn't worth their time anymore and moved to other interests. Just maybe, if we stop telling users that no matter how much they contribute to a niche area like this that they are utterly expendable and can be easily replaced on a whim, it might keep stuff like this from happening quite as often. I would also note that Fram's comment grossly misrepresents the problem and anyone interested in the problem at hand should look into those comments and they will see a much clearer and accurate picture. Kumioko (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK as a whole needs overhauling - there are far too many articles getting approves that do not meet basic MOS. Giant Snowman 11:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, could you please explain how my comment "grossly misrepresents the problem"? Or is this just again a case of empty Fram-bashing rethoric? Fram (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fram I have no desire to get into another long debate about your "style" of editing. I have done that before and no one cared so now I leave it to them to decide for themselves. But they will need to perform due diligence to do that which I doubt they will take the time to do. As for your comments I will say this. I largely agree with the first couple sentences but your statements become less agreeable as the paragraph progresses to an end. I think we both know that there is more to that last sentence than wanting to get rid of you for being "biased". Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have the desire to get into a debate, then you shouldn't post accusations. As for "we both know", no, I don't. Perhaps in the future you should either clearly state what is that you want to say, or just shut up, since you don't add aything constructive or even useful to discussions in this manner. And if it is something you have already discussed at length, and the result was that no one cared, then maybe it is time to drop it altogether? Vague innuendo and handwaving will hardly motivate anyone to do "due diligence", but does help in derailing discussions by poisoning the well. Fram (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, the point is your a bully. You use your admin powers and influence to bully and harrass other editors that you don't like or don't agree with. Its unfortunate that more don't see it and irritating that some condone it. Your actions are toxic to the editing environment and the way you choose to "enforce" policy is both overly restrictive and unnecessary. I have no more respect for your editing style than you have for mine. The difference is I'm not running around advocating for all the productive editors to be blocked because I disagree with them or trying to make a name for myself. Largely for extremely petty and insignificant reasons. I have provided diffs in the past and many editors have voiced concerns with your actions, one peak at your talk page and archives shows that. The point I was trying to make with your DYK activities is that you have attempted to pander your influence there and it failed and now your upset. You have an extremely narrow view of what should be accpeted and the DYK folks don't agree with you. Have they made some mistakes, sure. Not the end of the world. But its partially because of your actions at getting a lot of prolific and high output editors blocked that we run into these problems. Little edits stop little problems from becoming big problems like this. But when editors like you turn into the edit Jedi and block all the ones that are fixing these little editors, you shouldn't then wonder why all these little errors are all of a sudden turning into bif ones. Just take you hand, put it all the way out in front with the index finger pointing out and then touch it to your nose. That will give you the answer you are looking for! Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that wanting DYK hooks to be correct (as in: supported by reliable sources) is "overly restrictive and unnecessary", then I'm guilty as charged. The rest of your rant is more a case of a fertile imagination on your part than anything else. "The DYK folks don't agree"? Take a look at WT:DYK, you'll see that in every case where I pulled an article from the queue or the mainpage, or complained that such action should have been taken, I am supported in this and people recognise that errors have been made which shouldn't have happened. But apparently these errors are caused by editors which I have had blocked and who made DYK run smoothly until then. Names? Examples? Diffs? Or just more repeats of your empty attacks which have nothing to do with DYK but everything to do with a grudge you carry around, following me around from discussion to discussion? As I said, poisoning the well is all I see here. Fram (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some agreement there but I see a lot more of general if you don't like it just go ahead and remove it mentality. What bothers me more are comments you made like "That's the last time I ask for input (thanks to those who gave it), next time I(ll just act on my opinion first and come for discussion afterwards". This statement emphasizes your editing style and what I have had a problem with. Anyway, we are way off on a tangent here but this emphasizes the problem with DYK and a number of other areas. Some users just do what they want while others get kicked to the side. Being an admin used to mean that you had some extra tools and you did what was best for the pedia. Unfortunately now its more of a status symbol that some users like yourself use as a mallet to get their way. Admins get to do pretty much whatever they want because they have "earned the trust of the community" and once they get the tools and they are entrenched its almost impossible to root them out unless they do a whole lot. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your edit, you have messed up someone else's text. Apart from that; my comment was about a DYK that afterwards everyone agreed shouldn't have been put on the main page, but that didn't get acted upon when I put it on WT:DYK at a time when it was in the DYK queue but not yet on the main page. We can always put articles back in the queue if they have been removed by mistake; we can never undo the damage after it has been on the main page for some hours though. But you accused me of chasing of those people that were most responsible for making DYK running allright, so that I was basically the cause of the problems I'm now complaining about. Do you have anything, at all, to back this up? Perhaps with a diff, so that people can see the context of my statements instead of just your quote out of it? Fram (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary, Kumioko says Fram is a bully, Fram righly points out all of DYK's long-standing problems in a perennial post that is written several times a year here:

Repost

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DYK is a mess, promoting incorrect hooks and rubbish articles with a frightening frequency (between the many good hooks and articles of course). Women's sport in New South Wales [20] is one example which has "graced" the main page last week. I have had to pull ofther articles from the queue and even the main page for having incorrect hooks over the last few weeks as well. No action is being taken to remedy this, whether it is better standards, self-regulation, or checking who are the nominators and/or reviewers responsible for most of the problems. Most effort is put into getting rid of me for being "biased", and approving the same article again and again without actually addressing the issues.Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

and apparently Fram is a bully for trying to do something about it. He joins a long line of "bullies" who tried and gave up. Long story short, DYK has multiple, serious mainpage issues practically every single day (copyvio, BLP vios, non-reliable sources, disgusting sensationalism) and expecting non-DYK admins to hop-to to clean them up post haste is unreasonable. How about instead more admins like Fram get active at DYK and pull the bad articles from the queue before they advance to the mainpage? How about DYK eliminates quid pro quo reviewing? How about the admin who puts poor quality on the mainpage in the DYK queue is held accountable? How about if DYKs were actually checked against their own standards? How about some way, any way, to make anyone accountable over there for what they put on the mainpage? So many ideas that have been rejected scores of times ... same ole, same ole. Hang in there, Fram! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth I agree that DYK is a mess. I would have been willing to help myself and a lot of other editors would too but we can't because it requires admin access like so many other things these days. I also agree that a lot of good suggestions have come down that should be implemented but we can't because there are always a few editors that will find a reason not to change a broken process like this one, RFA and a list of others. What I was blaming Fram for was making it his personal mission to get several editors including Rich F and his bots (bot also quite a few others) blocked and or banned from editing. If they were still editing, problems aside, a lot of these messes would be fixed because the little issues would be gone before they become big ones. But because of his actions a lot of good editors are gone and even I don't really have the desire anymore to do much editing to articles. The reason that some of these problems are coming to light are because several of the highest volume editors that would have caught a lot of this stuff aren't here anymore. Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:MagicEagle67

Resolved

– Problem was resolved on the Incidents board. -- Dianna (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want ti report this users because they keep making changes against consensus regard any article related to Rangers F.C. they are pushing there own point of view and are not providing new evidence or arguments to back there case, nor are they engaging in the talk page like i have asked them to.

They also editing a medation page that is long closed now [21]

Any action against the user is at the admin discretion i dnt want to be involved in the discussions, i will post in the article talk page for other editor familiar with the subject to post and let the user knowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently repeatedly vandalising the History of Rangers [[22]] page and had this to say when warned about it, "That's fine if you get me banned. I will just create my very own page and put the record straight. If you can create and edit a page full of mistruths, myths and hearsays, I am sure someone like me who is reporting facts will do a far better job of accuracy than you."[[23]]BadSynergy (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now move this to icedints due to the user escalating there disruptive behaviourplease closeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ꆈꌠ꒿

I want to have the page ꆈꌠ꒿ redirect to Nuosu language (it's the native name for the language), but it is blocked by a blacklist. Can an admin help? 24.34.53.2 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third character, "YI RADICAL HXOP", is in the Unicode "Symbol, Other" category, which is blacklisted. Is this the correct one to use or should it be ꆈꌠꉙ (which looks identical, but has a "YI SYLLABLE HXOP" at the end)? Peter James (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know the difference... I checked the Nuosu language article saw that the symbols were identical to those indicated here by the anon and created the redirect. If I used the wrong symbol, any admin can speedy and create the right redirect. Or, alternatively, ꆈꌠꉙ can be created as well: redirects are cheap, after all...

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the second one's been created. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of PROD and Non-Admin Closure of AfD

Enough said. NAC needs experience. PRODs need rationales, preferably stating an appropriate policy or guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi admins, could someone please review the use of PROD and non-admin closure of AfD of User:Sue_Rangell. I have reverted her use of PROD due to no concern given nor any edit summary providing anything other than PROD. Additionally, she engaged into a edit war with User:Dream_Focus over the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_O'Brien_(comedian) as she disagreed with their application of the non-admin closure requirements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Dream Focus isn't an administrator. -- KTC (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realized it after hence my edit and fixed it :) Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I closed the discussion as a snow keep, as it had 8 keeps and no deletes. There is no edit war. Dream Focus simply reverted my closure. If there was an issue, it should have been taken through channels. As for the PRODs, I have been prodding a lot of the Avaya spam that seems to be cropping up everywhere. Mrfrobinson has been protecting those pages and removing the prods, which is his right. I am now taking the issues to AfD as contested prods. Thank you. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that the PROD issue was discussed on my talk page. I was doing quite a few of them, and simply missed giving explanations on a couple of them. They were done in error, and it is certainly Mrfrobinson's right to remove errant material. I can't say that it won't happen again, for I am a mere human, but I can say that I will certainly be more vigilant in the future when it comes to PRODS (and a lack of life giving coffee) Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue Rangell, I am not sure what the connection is to this discussion, but since you brought this up I would like to ask where is the "Avaya spam" that you say "seems to be cropping up everywhere"? The only involvement I have witnessed is your participation and nominations to delete wikipedia articles about products that have been around for several years. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed between Sue Rangell and Dream Focus on his talk page prior to this post [[User_talk:Dream_Focus]. Where Sue Rangell did inform Dream Focus of her objection to their re-opening the issue and went ahead and re-closed it whereas it should have been allowed to remain open for the full period. PROD is not a replacement for RfD and requires clear justification on its use. Omitting any rationale for the use of PROD is justification for its removal from a page. Also we could do with less "emotion" and "he is being a protectionist" here and stick to the actual rules that keep Wikipedia united. Also Monty I did notify Sue Rangell of this discussion on her talk page. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Your right on the prod issue, the AfD close was borderline, but I don't see any attempt at discussion before raising it (the AfD issue) here, finally your required to notify editors when you start a thread about them here. Overall, I think we should hold off on discussion here, and wait to see if the issue(s) can be resolved through normal discussion on Sue Rangell's talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD close is perhaps a bit premature time-wise, but it looks like a speedy keep anyway, so it's hardly controversial. As for the Avaya thing, I suspect Sue omitted the rationale because there's been a drive to delete or redirect most of them since the vast majority of them clearly lack standalone notability and are borderline corporate spam. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep does not apply here IMO, none of the 5 reasons apply. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a WP:SNOW keep, rather then a Speedy; the line were snow applies is pretty vague and leaves a lot of room for discretion. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No it doesn't, but WP:SNOW may. Personally, SNOW here may have been a little bit premature, though I wouldn't have reopened it. Having said that, once it was reopened, Sue should not have re-close it. If an editor raise a reasonable objection to a SNOW close, then let it run the full course, or at the very least let someone else close it. Also, if a close is per SNOW, pointing that you are closing under SNOW wouldn't hurt. -- KTC (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question to anybody. Isn't deletion review the proper way to contest a AfD closure? I am fairly certain that the template says specifically not to edit or revert. That is the only reason I replaced the template. I will also point out that the other party also submitted one of the "Keep" opinions, so the reasoning confounds me. I am not the smartest person in the world, and I do make mistakes, but this really looks like a snow keep to me, and now there are at least two editors who have chosen to simply revert the closure, rather than use the proper deletion review channels. Am I looking at this improperly? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion review is for deletion review, not improper closing of AfD. If WP:SNOW was the intention here it should have been noted. WHile Wikipedia does allow for non-admin closing of AfD it is not encouraged for this very reason. It takes an extremely experienced editor to make decisions, especially those which involve WP:SNOW and explanation should be provided. The reason I brought this here is two fold. 1) you have been previously warned about not providing concerns for PROD and the misuse of Huggle. 2) The AfD was improperly closed, re-opened and then closed again, this creates an edit war which required an experienced neutral party to be involved. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Your account is only one day old with 11 edits. Yet you seem to know a great deal about Wikipedia. I am very sorry that you disagree with my snow keep. I will certainly be more carefull about marking snow keeps in the future. I was acting in the best interests of Wikipedia in any event, and I think the discussions on the talk pages speak for themselves. In fact, I don't even know why this discussion was brought here. There is certainly no need for arbitration or anything, at least as far as I can tell. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The account Mrfrobinson was registered in October 2011. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My error. First edit was just yesterday. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And have been active under my old (and no longer have the password/email) account for years prior to then User:Onthost. Plus you may not realize this but there are a ton of people out there that might know what is going on and how wikipedia works without actually participating! Your use of "sigh" implies that you are not used to people disagreeing with you. Wikipedia is a consensus, held together by a loose policy framework, maintained by the janitorial staff known as the admins. My point of all this is while you do take initiative, somethings should be left to experienced admins, especially the use of WP:SNOW in early non-admin AfD closings. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the disclosure, and the explanation of how Wikipedia functions. I appreciate your opinion. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would qualify for snow here, too few editors (and mostly those arriving from ARS post: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Daniel_O.27Brien_.28comedian.29 to vote keep). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That and the fact that the use of WP:SNOW is discouraged. I feel like I am ragging on Sue but she has now done two non-admin closures under the guide of WP:SNOW. While I applaud her initiative I think caution should always be used, especially when utilizing seldom used reasons. Another example being Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al-Dalu_family_killing, this was closed after 6 days under WP:SNOW whereas in reality it is a Speedy Keep due to the original nominator stating that he is neutral to it's deletion and the AfD should be closed. Speedy keep specifically distinguished itself from WP:SNOW and should be referenced as such. AfD nominations are not to be taken light hearty. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Wikipedia:Deletion review includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. If an admin had made the close, then the avenues of appeal would be to the admin to reconsider, and then to DRV. WP:NACD (policy) and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (essay) provide that admins may revert non-admin closures, or they may be taken to WP:DRV. There is no discussion of non-admin reverts one way or the other or what standard an admin should use in deciding to overturn a non-admin close. The ongoing discussion about non deletion closes seems to be favoring a good deal of deference to non-admin closers, though it is still open. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that if a non-admin exercises, with their best intention, the non-admin closure policy they should be proving a clear rationale and understanding of the policy. When it does not include a rationale or it appears the policy is not being implemented as intended it is borderline vandalism and should be reverted to allow for the correct process to take place. Otherwise what is there to stop everyone from closing the AfD as non admin keep and then requiring a discussion about the discussion. The Speedy Keep clause is meant to accelerate AfD that do not need to be running, but should be exercised with caution and care. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an opportunity here for feedback to Sue Rangell; she seems to have gotten the message above. What I do not see is a need for admin action. Is there any reason for this discussion to stay open? VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)][reply]

@Mrfrobinson, DRV would have been the appropriate venue after talking to the closer. Snow isn't uncommon (at least in some parts of the Wikipedia universe). Pardon the average user for having a less than ideal impression when you start out with an apparently vast knowledge of Wikipedia that is also not entirely correct. --No unique names 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it an "edit war", I just reverting her one time, and explaining on my talk page she needed to read the rules. Article sent to AFD at 23:12, 4 December 2012‎. Not even two full days go by when at 20:36, 6 December 2012‎ Sue Rangell does a non-admin close. Six minutes later at 20:42, 6 December 2012‎ I reverted her with the edit summary "you can't do that unless everyone agrees or its been 7 days". Two days after that, at 22:05, 8 December 2012‎, she does it again. Five people said keep, I was one of them, but the nominator was still arguing, they not convinced the article should be kept. So it should stay open for 7 days as is normal. Everyone should have the chance to say their bit, and others might join in later on. She post on my talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#Please_do_not_revert_closed_AfD_discussions. Rather condescending I think. I then linked her to where the rules are at. This was clearly not a proper action. Dream Focus 22:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well any time a controversial edit is reversed then reinstated it is essentially an edit war. The reversal of the closing, IMO, was and is the proper action. While Wikipedia is not a bureaucratic place, some aspects of it are governed by policy else Anarchy would ensue. Could someone please close this discussion as my point was made and the outcome, being input on the subject by Admins and impartial third parties, was achieved. 99.227.152.95 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been discussion instead of a simple reinstate, then it wouldn't have needed to be here. It's a keep either way, it seems, just a delay to close. --No unique names 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been enough discussion here already and I'm sure that those concerned have got the message. FWIW, if I see a PROD without a rationale, I look for one, and if I can't find one I remove the PROD with a suitable edit summary explaining why. As far as NAC is concerned, the gudelines are clear, and any closures by non-admins should only be done when when there is a clear consensus and when the non-admin clearly understands what s/he is doing. Any controversy arising from an NAC is a clear indication that something was wrong.

Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boyko Borisov controversy controversy

Wrong forum. Issue(s) should be addressed on the appropriate article talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Feel need to inform someone of the oligarchy, which is being used in the contstruction, or in this case the "deconstruction" of the page of this Bulgarian politician. Important details of the image of this man are being errased in his personal interest; Anti-Neutral behaviour on the part of 79.100.15.251, are serious violations of the solid rules of Wiki. The user statements taht nothing was proven and that it is a "insult against a prime minister", has no bearing and does not change the fact that these accusations are properly sourced and their removal could only be explained by the fact that this user has sympathy for the guy. In case some people haven't noticed "prime minister insults" did not cause anyone to start deleting things from Silvio berlusconi's page. Sex with minors is just as "insulting" as relationships with organised crime. May the Foundation take notice at these actions, as mere vandalism may turn Wikipedia into a political oligarchy blackboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. Consider discussing the issue on the article talk page that hasn't seen a comment for nearly a year. If that fails, take it to WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A troubling situation

I want to say from the outset I am not looking for (do not want) someone to sanction anyone. (which is part of why I am here and not AN/I).

What I'd like is more eyes on this, to hopefully prevent this from escalating any further.

As far as I am concerned, I don't care about the cfd discussions anymore, and am more concerned about the editors now. - jc37 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... it would be helpful if you explained what you wanted "more eyes" on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial thought, but a quick glance at the talk pages, makes it obvious. Bother editors are engaged in a discussion over certain categories, largely revolving around whether actors and actresses categories should be distinguished by gender. Many, many words have ensued, civil so far, but the temperature is rising, and no sign of abating. My concern (and my guess is that this is jc's) is that it may escalate to the point that one or both drives the other away. It is rare to have epic battles between editors with over 600,000 edits between them, and the loss of even one would be unfortunate. I don't have enough knowledge or interest in the underlying subject matter to provide much help. Sounds like a job for Dennis Brown.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head.

And these days anything related to WP:EGRS can be contentious, even amongst the cfd "regulars" at times. The lack of ability to reference categories (due to obvious technical reasons) vs. "I think a particular group should be represented in the categorisation system, to not do so presents bias" vs. "only those EGRS which are directly relevant to a particular topic may be categorised".

It's more complex than this, but I think that those are the basics. (If I missed a perspective, I have little doubt that I'll hear about it : )

There's currently a big RFC (which I think is likely to lead to several others) which has been open awhile. (It would be nice if one or more of would try to close that : ) - And there is a more specific one concerning actresses at the VP. At the same time, there were several actress by nationality categories up for cfd.

WP:EGRS has pretty much been the compromise that has mostly worked so far (not that such discussions aren't still occasionally contentious).

Anyway, so much for background.

My concern now is just as you said Sphilbrick, about the editors. And as I have been apparently placed in an adversarial box by at least one of them, my words alone are likely to have limited effect. Hence the request for "more eyes" here. - jc37 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki canvassing (MMA)

[Not sure where better to post this]

There's some apparent off-wiki AfD canvassing at http://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/13govr/hi_rmma_im_one_of_the_folks_resisting_ note: I have no view as to the merits of the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, but not really unusual. It doesn't look like Mtking has been notified of this and I'm not sure about who 'agent00F' is because the username is not registered. Slap the standard canvassing notice on the AFD and if we can figure out who the individuals are in this matter, have it brought to 3O or another venue. This really isn't major drama, but this is sounds like a personal matter and it does impact the wiki. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Agent00f is who you're looking for... Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Agent00f Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified User:Mtking. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of note there is a previous RfC/U regarding Agent00f and MMA based topics. See the mentioned previous visits to ANI in the RfC/U and their mainspace contributions when evaluating their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy. Recent AfD's have been plagued by socks. Look out, here comes another flood. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off site convassing from those who want every single MMA event and fighter ever to have their own article on Wikipedia and damnation to anyone who would dare disagree! 76.205.1.40 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading the off-site thread. Wow - no wonder Mkting left. Agent00f absolutely made it clear that Mkting and a few others should be chased off so they can keep building their walled garden. Ah well - anyone who's tried to get in their way has been chased off so they certainly don't have any reason to stop. 76.205.1.40 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically. I had a look at the utterly laughable SPI report that some pro-MMA folk filed alleging that Beeblebrox (a damn oversighter) and Scottywong are socks of Mtking. In MMA-related discussions, I've seen numerous accusations that Mtking was some kind of "abusive admin" (his user rights log never show him having been granted the mop, of course). That a user as patient as User:Dennis Brown can jump headlong into the MMA disputes and come out of it reeling in disgust shows that something is definitely wrong. There was a RfC/U on Agent00f's behaviour and nothing has come from it. (I know, an RfC/U failing to positively change problematic behaviour? That's never happened before!) I have no idea what to suggest, but that this nonsense has continued for so long is ridiculous. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any current (or imminent) AfDs of MMA articles? bobrayner (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MMA#Article_Alerts lists no items that in my mind would set the MMA flood to come and derail the conversation, however it has been observed on multiple instances that calls to arms similar to this one have derailed any meaningful progress in attempting to improve the guidelines so just as I'm one of the named individuals in "the axis of MMA deletionisim" I would strongly encourage the previous behavior be considered before this ANI vanishes into the archives as all the previous ones have. Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of the finding in WP:EEMLmessages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided. I'd support an indef for Agent00f on that basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that this might be a joe jobs? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the external discussion it reads like Agent00f and does have the hallmarks of their writing style including the blind hatred of people who understand WP's policies. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to your judgment. I didn't bother reading it myself, but thought someone should raise the possibility. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@LGR -- It's possible, but looking at the posts makes me think that's not the case. That someone cares that much about this is of order unlikely, but that someone would care enough about this to set up such a detailed fake is of order unlikely^several. a13ean (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never personally participated in off-wiki canvasing, and I don't particularly condone it. Maybe it's fine for soliciting advice to make articles better, but I'm guessing that's not what we're talking about here, and I am no fan of cyber-harassment. However, the attitude towards MMA I am seeing here is the sort of thing that is making it very difficult to move forward. Meanwhile many excellent contributors to MMA articles have run away from all of the drama, leaving people who are heavily invested, people who are jaded, or people who outright thrive on drama (I assure you I don't fall into the last category). Meanwhile a very pleasant guy who also worked very hard on MMA articles like Oskar Liljeblad? Gone. Anyway I think very few people who have helped out in WP:MMA would object to outside editors asking them to trim the fat. However there's certainly a middle ground between cutting an extremely notable event like UFC on Fox 2 (was the first two-hour UFC card on national television, and was headlined by two title eliminators in addition to eight other matches that had ramifications in five different weight divisions), and an article on Wild Bill's Fight Nights (an actual promotion by the way). That casual Wikipedia users and editors with an interest in MMA have reacted to the top-down approach taken towards deleting MMA events as a malicious attack, is hardly surprising. If you were going to try and improve hockey articles, you'd maybe delete some articles on minor league players who never reached the NHL, not random NHL All-Stars, and while that's not a perfect analogy, it's basically what this feels like. Grouping MMA fans together and belittling them as a whole as I've seen all too often around here is furthermore not constructive and not a way forward. This has been going in circles for a year now and it's reached farcical levels. As it were, I'm all for reasonable discourse. I think the pro-MMA camp would be very happy to re-establish specific criteria of what merits individual articles, what merits omnibus condensing (omnibuses would mostly be for combining multiple events into single articles, by year or whatever), and what does not merit any sort of article. I believe this was tried very briefly last time but the two sides were miles and miles apart. If anyone here wants to try to settle this again by establishing clear criteria with an open mind for what is inherently worthy of an MMA article and what is required to support that, I would certainly be open to trying that again (probably I'm going to regret this, but again, I hope we can at least all agree we need a constructive path forward). Beansy (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beansy, the reason why we're at the current situation is because a compromise of the omnibus article was offered however the "obstructionist" (for lack of a better term) crowd kept re-nominating 2012 in UFC events for deletion because they saw it as the gateway to all the UFC articles being deleted. Being that several editors who offered the omnibus compromise have decided that the drama, harassment, personal attacks, and outright grief are not worth it, many have moved on and elected from a orbital strike against the entire subject area with the option of rebuilding from scratch. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur, this is where everyone was miles apart. 2012 in UFC events, while better than nothing, was an objectively inferior solution to keeping things the way they were. Omnibussing third tier UFC events like UFC on Fuel (by year) or Ultimate Fight Nights (by year)? I wouldn't agree with it, but you wouldn't encounter a tidal wave of resistance from people either. Grouping all the events for short-lived-but-significant promotions like Affliction and World Fighting Alliance into single articles? Sounds fine. Omnibussing Bellator events by season? There's been no objection (it sort of makes sense since they do weekly shows in-season and their undercards are mostly fluff). Taking all 30 or so UFC events from 2012 and omnibussing well over 300 fights into a single article as well as the respective backgrounds and fallouts of the 120 most notable or so fights? It's unwieldy, far less user friendly, and eats up far more bandwidth. In short, it's not helpful, it's not a compromise, it's not a solution. In fact I'm not even sure why people are fighting so hard to delete major and popular articles for belonging to a community here that had perfectly fine self-regulation, regular contributors, and represented is one of the fastest growing sports in the world. A community that's been blown all to hell now. If someone could explain where this originates from or the motivations behind it I'd love to hear it. I think that's only been asked of your side approximately 15,000 times now (the motivations here, not the WP:N or WP:NOT reasonings; do I really need to link to similar pages from two dozen other sports that aren't being targeted like this?). Also nominating UFC 157 for deletion is particularly unhelpful: it is the first UFC event to have a women's fight headlining it (or any women's fight at all), the first UFC event to have an openly gay fighter on it (who is in the headlining fight at that), the inaugural UFC Women's Championship fight, and the first major combat sporting event of any kind to be headlined by an openly gay fighter. If you actually feel that's not notable I don't see how we can come close to hammering out a compromise. (And yes I did put all those things about the event in my comment in the AfD before putting it here; I can add articles when I have time to further solidify notability, and as the event draws nearer there will probably be as much mainstream English-language press for this event as there has been for any MMA event ever, considering that Ronda Rousey is rapidly becoming a supernova for the sport and Liz Carmouche is breaking new grounds for gay athletes). Beansy (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links for Agent00f:

Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f

So long as User:Agent00f continues his off-wiki canvassing and keep bringing in other warriors to help him out, it seems unlikely that regular editors will have the patience to work on articles on MMA. I support Elen's suggestion of an indef block for Agent00f. This guy is not new, there was an RFCU about him in May. If he had any intention to reform he would have done so by now. The discussion in the RFCU shows that people were making a serious effort to compromise with him. These efforts were fruitless. The new thread at Reddit shows he is continuing with the usual battleground stuff. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through that thread, and I'm disgusted. What a horrible account; no wonder Mtking packed it in. I echo the calls above for Agent00f to be indefed. He's making everything even worse than it currently is; he's not here to build an encyclopaedia, just to win his own personal battle. He won't be satisfied until he's got his way and will never compromise, because he clearly views this as his own personal crusade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked Agent00f. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the bold action of nominating UFC 157 for deletion. Not 2 hours after I made the nomination Common Sense MMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes in and argues for keeping reasons and personal attacks in the exact same way that every enthusiast (including Agent00f) reasons. I've already added the {{notavote}}, but I'm betting that we'll be able to drain some of the nonsense. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More like you took the bold action of lying... You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable. Yet, anyone with a computer can take two minutes to Google search the event as I did and find out the contrary. Before you go making more accusations, I looked up the article after reading about in USA Today, not because of some Agent guy or some web forum. I found your discussion, because the top of the article links to it. Now again, why don't you Google "USA Today" and "UFC 157" and in a matter of seconds, you will see that this globally televised event is the 1) the first time women fighters will compete in the UFC; 2) the first time a women's world fighting championship will be contested both on PPV and in the UFC; 3) the first time an openly gay fighter of either gender will compete in a major televised MMA event from ANY promotion; 4) the UFC is the largest fighting league in the world. These milestones in women's, gay, and sports history are covered in USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, and other non-MMA specific newspapers even months before the event occurs due to these major changes in the sport and advances for openly gay people and women athletes. To say it is not notable is insulting to women, gay people, and thus not just to fight fans. Its significance is only going to increase. It is not somehow going to become less notable. It is an event of firsts. And as such, it will always be the first time that the biggest MMA promotion in the world announced a main event featuring an openly gay Olympic athlete female competing for a world title on a globally televised card.Please apologize and withdraw your frivolous and hurtful AFD immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common Sense MMA (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff belongs either in the AFD or better yet, use these many sources to improve the article. However you have accused Hasteur of lying which is a personal attack if you don't provide evidence. For starters, please demonstrate where Hasteur "You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable" as I'm not seeing it. They didn't seem to do that in the AFD, instead they simply correctly noted that there are not reliable secondary sources used in the article and therefore it appears to fail GNG. Note there is a big difference between saying there are none currently used in the article and saying they don't exist. (And saying they don't exist may be a mistake, perhaps even in some cases are bad mistaken, but is not a lie unless the person is actually aware of the sources.) Hasteur may have did the former (said there are no reliable secondary sources used in the article), but you have accused them of doing the later (said they don't exist) without evidence. Note that while people are encouraged to search for sources before nominating articles for deletion and may find people getting annoyed at them if they repeatedly nominate articles for deletion with plenty of reliable secondary sources (just not used in the article), there's no strict requirement to do it in every case and in MMA cases which appear to be a mess, it's perhaps not unresonable to someone does not do so. If you are unable to provide evidence Hasteur actually said what your claimed, I strongly suggest you withdraw your statements and apologise yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not going to get the chance. This is another sock of User:BStudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is obduracy of the establishment forcing new editors to break rules, and then be forced to leave, is it hurting the project? Didn't Common sense make sense? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. SPA editors that are willing to sock, lie, canvass, obstruct and wikilawyer in order to bludgeon the system into capitulation do hurt the project, however. A few were blocked in this thread. Most MMA editors are good people, but a few that aren't have tried to make themselves appear to be the victims, using other editors as pawns, and causing a great deal of damage along the way. Win at any costs, no matter how many rules you break. If anything, people like Agent and others have made MMA a net negative for Wikipedia. Not because of the content, but because of their actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to what is most disappointing about this whole episode...were it not for those few problematic pro-MMA editors deciding that the rules didn't apply to them, their desired result probably would have come to fruition to a large extent. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In particular, I would note that if the now blocked editor had used their time as a sockpuppet to add all these reliable secondary sources that allegedly exist and cover the even in depth to the article rather than wasting their time attacking other editors here, in the AFD and even seemingly in Elen's talk page they might have contributed something useful in that time and who knows, perhaps even saved the article from AFD but instead they choose to do what they did. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very problematic. I wonder if we have reached the point where we should consider arbitration or some other form of external review/oversight of this area? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was some form of discretionary sanction. It would be along the lines of: Single-purpose editors who cite the needs of the external MMA community or who fail to cite policy at MMA AFDs may be topic-banned from further participation in MMA AFDs. If such editors fail to abide by the topic bans, they will be site banned. Closing MMA AFDs isn't super hard because the standard admin approach of discount non-policy based comments usually removes the effect of the external coordination, but it is annoying and I suspect the external coordination will learn how to game it over time. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a judicious step. Is that an arb motion or an AN/I proposal? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as individual AfDs for MMA are made as debates/discussions and not predetermined motions. Beansy (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Arbitration assumes that there is a set of editors who are as of yet unrestricted in their editing who are causing conduct disputes through their actions. Discretionary Sanctions may be applied by an administrator but those require an ArbCom case/motion to enact. Based on the amount of change that is currently occurring with respect to them (and that very few of the truly disruptive editors remain) I doubt this is an appropriate action. General Sanctions on the other hand are able to be imposed by the community and designed to prevent the disruption of Wikipedia, while at the same time minimizing the inconvenience to editors in good standing. As I'm neck deep in this it would be highly inappropriate for me to suggest any sanctions, but I do note that it is high time that sanctions be looked at one way or annother. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at past examples of topic-area sanctions that were placed by the community. See the first six entries in Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. As you can see, the wording varies from one to the next. If you want to use something like Arbcom's discretionary sanctions, you can just say that. That kind of sanction at least has the benefit of being well-understood by admins. It looks to me that MBisanz's proposed wording for MMA is on the right track, but is potentially gameable, because the externally-canvassed voters would just take care to make some trivial reference to Wikipedia policy every time while continuing to push their POV as usual. The Arbcom-style wording is: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Note that a single admin can take the action in his or her own discretion. I would clarify that this applies to MMA-related editing, but in each case the admin's action can be appealed to a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in particular about Agent00F's reddit thread was enough for such a quick block, and why doesn't that apply to Hasteur and his thread here http://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/133rqk/wikipedia_isnt_out_to_burn_mma_coverage_to_the/ ? 10.0.0.x (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC) another blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f was trying to recruit people to disrupt wikipedia. I was going to try and build bridges and extend the olive branch. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement from editors on other sports wikiprojects that have addressed the issue of which fixtures/bouts/matches/leagues/competitions are notable would be particularly helpful, but I can't blame them for keeping out given the behaviour of some of the participants. Which is a shame because the community has managed to sort this notability vs directory problem for most sports, but those with an interest have always had to be prepared to select the best. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA sanction proposal

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the the topic of mixed martial arts, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, banning from participation in deletion discussions any editor who reasonably appears to be acting in coordination with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules.

Given the above discussion, I'm proposing the above community sanction for MMA articles. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. I've been as thick in mediation at MMA as you can get, and I'm afraid that soft words will get you exactly nowhere. Perhaps a big stick will have better luck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support that. The whole area is a walled garden of non-notable articles which are proving impossible to remove through off and on-wiki canvassing, sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I feel sorry for the genuine editors in the area who end up being tarred with the sane brush as those that are disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (And has anyone pointed out that sites like Wikia may be their better option?) --MASEM (t) 18:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did point out MMAwiki.com here Wikipedia talk:MMA#MMAwiki.com. Mt king^(edits) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Other measures have gotten exactly nowhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is long overdue. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question This proposal's wording seems really broad, but since I don't normally deal with this kind of sanction, I don't know — is it broader in scope than other sanctions in problematic areas? I'm just afraid that it might be used by people to get their opponents in trouble improperly. That being said, I agree that we need something here; if you can point me to established sanctions in other areas that are comparable in their breadth, I'll support this wording. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cribbed from Ed's wording from prior Arbcom proposals in the above section and it generally seems to fit with the types of language used at Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that it is perhaps a bit broad, however the off-wiki canvassing and willingness to create sock accounts just to win has now reached a tipping point. Mt king^(edits) 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Broad, but so long as applied judiciously by administrators will help deal with this issue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had the displeasure of closing a couple of these, and I'm amazed by just how bad this topic area has become.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Seems like every few days there's another MMA thread in Wikipedia-space. Time to end this madness p b p 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is almost the same as the typical wording for discretionary sanctions, and it also calls out deletion discussions for special emphasis, which is where much of the problem has been happening. The mere fact that such sanctions can be available may reduce the temptation to recruit others externally to slant a debate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite keen to see Arbcom done out of a job on this one :) - it's not a matter of two sides in a dispute, the continued MMA disruption is a pain in the situpon for the community generally Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support No question that the bullies and bullcrap in the MMA subject area need to be reined in (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since we need this, and others' comments have shown me that I need not have qualms about the wording or the breadth. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nothing else is fixing this. Articles on MMA may well be about fights, but they shouldn't be fights. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i have stated elsewhere that the UFC event articles need lots of work, and have been doing my best to understand Wikipedia policy relating to these articles. Two problems i see with this process are A) it seems that the users supporting the articles are less Wikipedia Savvy and don't see discussions like this, they only see the deletion of articles sometimes in mass and respond in frustration. B) given that there are a number of articles that need work, my fear is that it's much easier to put a bunch of AfD on articles than it is to do the work to improve them. if a number of the articles are removed, how would someone like myself know when it's appropriate to try to recreate them with better sourcing? Kevlar (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously necessary as shown by this and previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this action will allow admins to respond quicker to the abuse and toxicity that is dealt to those who attempt to edit articles so that they conform to Wikipedia policies then I support it. I might even brush the dust off MMABot. I will admit to being a pessimist and believe that the rampant socking and anon IPs that come out of the woodwork won't be abated by this. I do have a couple questions:
1. Will this discussion be announced at WT:MMA prior to the close of it? (The obvious reason why not to do so would be the flamewar that would erupt here.)
2. If the sanctions are approved, would a notice be placed at WP:MMA or WT:MMA or some other 'easily accessible' page (other than WP:GS) that serves as notice to the MMA WikiProject participants?

That's pretty much covers my concerns/thoughts/whatever. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given the potential/demonstrated canvassing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the history. --No unique names 03:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#Improper mass deletion review (closed)

I'm taking flak (at least partially deserved) over Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#Improper mass deletion review (closed). I'm in a quandary, however. SchuminWeb's close wasn't great. It's certainly a step that I would not have taken. However, it was at least 97% right. Of those 272 images that were deleted, I would bet that somewhere between 260 and 270 of them fail WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFCC#1, in that any understanding they impart is so trivial that they can easily be replaced by text. I'm not inclined at all to restore 272 images in order to salvage half a dozen.

Can anyone suggest a rational process to get past this? Some way to identify a dozen images that at least stand a chance, as opposed to simply reversing my endorsement and having to go back through the process 272 times to get rid of the decorative images?—Kww(talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As originator of the DRV, and as objector to some of Kww's language in the close of that, I support this request as expressed in Kww's 2nd sentence, para 2. My original intent was to focus attention on these three things: the poor quality (I argued seriously flawed and awful precedent if allowed to stand) deletion nominations, the poor quality close of all those deletions sans discussion even at the images which stood a chance, and to point out what I believe to be ongoing misinterpretation and misrepresentation of NFCC#8 language by deletion nominator, deletion closer, several admins, and the DRV closer. I do not believe, in good faith, that NFCC#8 is being followed as intended, and either its language needs to somehow be clarified by explanation, or we all need to be reeducated. I appreciate Kww's willingness to discuss. My lament is that I strongly support the NFCC as written, but nobody seems willing to read the same meaning from it. It's not self-contradictory. It's not some horribly opaque arcane text. We should be able to go forward from this unscathed. --Lexein (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein, looking at your comments to Kww and claiming that you are following an interpretation of NFCC#8, I would suggest you review the "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" uses of images on WP:NFC as to get a feel of long standing casebook examples of where images should and should not be used, most of these reflecting on the nature of NFCC#8. These should help explain what is intended by NFCC#8, which, reading the Kww messages, are counter to what you are interpreting it as, and suggests that you need to come to the long-standing meaning. We'll willing to see what clarification text can be made at NFCC to better explain that meaning, but as it is, the intent has been long established. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By request: quoting the WP:NFC#Images requested section: "Acceptable use / Images / Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." in re WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#File:Andy_checking_phone_on_stage.jpg_.28closed.29 Maybe the acceptable and unacceptable use examples need to be changed to raise the bar more, because the episode was discussed critically by quoted, cited reliable sources in the article Andy's Play. The assertion that the scene can be concisely described, to replace it by text, fails: the prior suggested "replacement text" was reductive and IMHO absurd. --Lexein (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, NFC#I says allowable used but all other NFCC must be met. A shot of live actors standing on a stage is easily described by free text and ergo can be replaced per NFCC#1. And given the article already does the job of describing the scene via text, the claim that it can't is bogus. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the large bulk of the files in question, the matter is quite simple: no tangible argument for how they pass NFCC#8 was ever brought forward. Not by the original uploaders in the (non-existent and/or boilerplated) FURs, nor by the two boilerplated keep votes in the FFDs, nor by anybody who might have stepped forward to try and fix their FURs during the week they were at FFD, nor by anybody in the bulk DRV discussion. As long as that is the case, they need to be kept deleted. Let the remaining individual DRV threads play out, and let people bring forth new, individualized DRVs with individualized NFCC#8 rationales for any remaining ones they consider salvagable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the best way is to have any individual images be DRV and evaluated closer that way, ignoring any drama associated with the mass deletion that started it; in other words, working that the 272 image deletions may have included a handful of false positives but as the majority were proper violations, let those that want to use the images to request and argue restoration. (And unlike some other pictures, recapturing of screenshots is a trivial matter here; it is not like the original source is gone or hard to trace down, so I'm more in favor of keeping the images deleting and reviewing the exceptions, than bringing them all back and reviewing there.) --MASEM (t) 00:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number needed very simply improved NFUR text, but that message was not made clear at any time in the deletion process. IMHO, it should be. Since there's time in such deletion discussions, the need to improve the NFUR rationale should be made clear, and required as part of deletion nominations where appropriate. Four words. Not a guarantee of surviving the FfD, but still. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true; they needs text in the articles they were to be used that then would have supported the rationale to keep them. That's basically what NFCC#8 boils down to (give or take). If they are just there to decorate the page and not discussed in text, they immediately fail #8. There were a few that should be reviewed that could meet #8 but that was a handful, and far from a majority of them. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? I said a number of images, because some of the NFUR were grossly deficient, according to several editors. Of course the articles also needed the requisite text and sources as well, I was not arguing against that, obviously. I refuse to be misunderstood. --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary approval of checkuser status

So that they may complete their duties as scrutineers of the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, the stewards User:Pundit, User:Teles, User:Quentinv57, and User:Mardetanha are authorized to grant themselves checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. They are authorized to use these rights solely for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as scrutineers. They may retain these rights until the election results are posted and verified; at that time the checkuser rights should be relinquished.

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies
Supporting after posting:
Abstaining: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad
Not voting at time of posting: Casliber, PhilKnight, SilkTork, SirFozzie
Inactive for this motion: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this statement

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards