Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 32 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 21 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 101 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 60 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Your health always comes first. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I fear I gave the wrong impression. My health is in no jeopardy whatsoever, I just have intractable problems with fatigue and focus that frequently keep me from doing the things I want and intend. I appreciate your concern, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 96 days ago on 14 August 2024)

Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 51 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 42 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 16 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:One_Direction#RfC: Band status and members in the infobox

(Initiated 31 days ago on 18 October 2024) Expired today, last comment was three weeks ago. The consensus on this RfC appears to lean one way among the participants, but because of the high-profile and contentious nature of the change under discussion, I think an uninvolved editor should close. Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	35	35
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	5	60	65
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 19 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Fictional characters from the Solar System

(Initiated 9 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 307 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 19 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Need advice/help dealing with an IP

184.20.209.241 (talk · contribs) has been bugging me and several other editors regarding the My Little Pony tv + comic series, specifically begging "these must be for children, so they can't be dark stories", or "if this is going to be dark, they can't be for kids, and should be marked as adult stories." I don't know whether the user is trolling , a poor English speaker, a child, or the like, but this is all the user has done and is starting to get to a point of bothersome. I do note that this user has apparently been aggravating people on an MLP wikia and is trying to bring that "fight" here. His actions certainly aren't disruptive, but they are annoying.

I don't know what action can be taken here, since by good faith I would think the user is just confused, but this has been going on far too long. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like normal trolling to me. My Little Pony is a common target for trolls as its fans tend to be young and easily riled. If they seriously have issues with the show's plot (or whatever) they'd stop watching or write in to the people who actually make the show, not bug random wiki editors. I see they had a final warning already last month so if they're still at it it's block time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

With a splash of AGF, I'd expect that the IP is someone very young who is mixing up Wiki for WikiA. On a lot of Wikias forum like discussions are pretty common and generally allowed. Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Kafziel has blocked the IP. Blackmane (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Referring to the struck part:] Not possible. One of their edit summaries specifically references some kind of feud with another editor on MLP Wikia (who is, in their words, "crazy and dumb"). It's pretty clear that they're trolling the MLP Wikia too, presumably with the same or similar material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong belief that the editor is trolling. As I commented on their page, their claims seem to be inconsistent and they keep going back and forth. Furthermore, at one stage they kept adding nonsense to the article claiming the comic series featured extreme violence, gore, sex etc. Perhaps they could have really been so confused once, but after it was pointed out to them it did not have this, they appeared to briefly accepted this before adding the claim again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah they're not consistent at all, alternating between pretending to know nothing about the comic obviously being familiar with its plot details. But even besides that their main claim (that there's an official "adult" My Little Pony comic with lots of graphic sex and gore) is so silly that it could only possibly be trolling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The troll has been appropriately blocked. Trolls are bad enough, but trolls who try to confuse children are worse than usual. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the block expired and he's back again [1]. I've asked the blocking admin to consider a re-block, if that's not done first from here. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked them again. Any benefit of the doubt is just about run dry at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hence my striking of my initial comment, though valid on the surface, but on going through the rest of IP's contribs it's pretty obvious it's jsut the latest round of MLP trolling. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Inactive possible sockpuppets of a banned user

I've a question that this seems the most appropriate board to ask this on. As part of WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up, I've come across a few accounts that look like they may have been Qworty sockpuppets, but have also been inactive for a year or more. What is the proper way to deal with such accounts? Tag them? Report them to some board or other? Or just assume that since they're inactive they're not harmful? Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for certain what we should do, and I am not an administrator, but I think we should just tag them as suspected sockpuppets. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty/Archive, Dennis Brown made it very clear that he thought it was not a good idea to tag inactive suspected sockpuppet accounts. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would just leave them be. The odds that any of those accounts would be resurrected seem pretty slim to me. 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You could create an edit filter to flag them if they start becoming active. Not perfect solution but its possible. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not worth the server resources IMO. A pair of human eyes from time to time should suffice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive user

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

---

This is a minor but ongoing issue where perhaps an attempt by someone else will have more effect than my efforts have had so far.

User:Candleabracadabra, an editor since April 2011 with some 6,000 edits, is a regular creator of new articles. Despite multiple requests, his creations don't have any categories and don't even have the "uncat" tag either. Considering that he has (including many redirects) created 1269 articles, which as far as I can see all had that problem, I believe this is not really acceptable.

I have noted this problem at his talk page three times (at User talk:Candleabracadabra#Categories; 24 May, 27 May, and 3 June), but he hasn't responded at all nor changed his behaviour (see e.g. Mercantile Bank Building (Jonesboro, Arkansas)), so I'm looking for a good soul who is willing to give it another try or who can find another approach with better results. Fram (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Treat them as you would any other editor who continues with disruptive editing despite warnings. GiantSnowman 09:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what I try to avoid. It seems a pity to start blocking without trying at least one more time if another approach might help. Getting his attention and cooperation without needing to block is better, and perhaps if he notices that multiple people have the same concerns, he will change his approach. If not, then blocking still remains as an option of course. Fram (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had experience with one editor, who was constantly adding unreferenced material to BLPs - the info not controversial and later verified to be true, but it was still a problem. Over a period of months numerous users tried to communicate with the editor, using templated and personal messages. Nothing got through to him. Then one day enough was enough and he was blocked (I can't recall if I blocked him or another Admin) but it worked - it made him realise the seriousness of the situation, and now he communicates and adds references. GiantSnowman 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I don't rule out blocking as a last resort. But blocking is harsh, and I wouldn't want a productive editor with some minor problems leaving over being blocked without trying more gentle approaches first. A block may improve his interactions, but it may also piss him off and make him leave Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an admin (User:Dennis Brown?) once had good results by plastering their talk page with a ridiculously *huge* stopsign to get their attention. --69.95.203.191 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In what sense is a failure to add categories to an article disruptive? Disruptive of what? Eric Corbett 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is s/he removing the {uncat} template once it is added? It strikes me as not actually disruptive or damaging for an editor to prefer to leave category work for others. Wikipedia is a collaborative, volunteer project, and we don't expect or demand any editor – new or not – to do all the work on articles. Looking at, e.g. Mercantile Bank Building (Jonesboro, Arkansas), I see a reasonable, competently-written, credibly-sourced one-paragraph stub about a historical building, about which we did not have an article before.

Presumably, other editors will arrive over time to expand the article with images, more information, additional sources...and category tags. To accuse Candleabracadabra of 'disruptive editing' and to suggest harrassing them with repeated nuisance templates as a valid solution – let alone suggest blocking someone who is quietly and competently producing good, constructive content – because s/he doesn't do category grunt work is ridiculous.

If you want an {uncat} template on every new article, write a bot to do it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TOAT, look at it this way instead - an editor is deliberately ignoring sound advice (which doesn't make for a collaborative project) and every single time they create a stub, other editors have to clean up after them by adding categories / tagging as uncat. That is disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do others need to 'clean up after them'? Genuine question, whats the actual downside to not having either a CAT/uncat? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... please don't go through the dozens of stubs, articles, etc to see if I always added a CAT to it or you'll want to block me too! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the "B" word has been mentioned in the context of an editor who doesn't dot every I and cross every T is troublesome indeed. The editor concerned may not give a shit about categories - so what? This issue doesn't even begin to touch the troublesome threshold. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:YFA - "Every article should be in one or more Wikipedia categories". GiantSnowman 16:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we really going with "Your first article" as grounds for a block now? C'mon, this is not a big deal. (Also, I can't remember if I've ever added cats to my paltry collection of articles; I rather doubt it.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see how this is mildly irritating, and I see no problem with reaching out to find other editors to try a different approach, but this strikes me as absolutely not block-worthy. Where do we draw the line on this type of thing? Shall we block people for not providing images too? Or not adding infoboxes? Its irritating, but not a necessity, and not a blockable issue. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say categories are a necessity. For example, I create lots of articles; before doing so, I often check a category the new article will be placed in to ensure an article on the same subject does not already exist. That prevents wasting both my time (in creating a duplicate article) and that of others who have to clean up after me (delete/merge etc.) GiantSnowman 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I try to add a few of the most obvious categories when I create articles too, I know what you mean in practice. That being said, I don't see a policy supporting their necessity. (I would think something more direct than WP:YFA would be needed to make that argument.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Suggesting that a highly productive editor should/could/might be/ blocked for not adding a category is so daft that those mooting the idea need to take a long hard look at themselves - and maybe add a few categories to the articles rather than honing their block button. Leaky Caldron 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Who has said this editor should be blocked? GiantSnowman 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Treat them as you would any other editor who continues with disruptive editing despite warnings. GiantSnowman 09:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC), from here. I mean, yes, you technically didn't use the word "block", but there's really no other way to interpret that; I mean, what else do we do with disruptive editors who've ignored warnings? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Depends how long they've been around / how many friends they have made ;) GiantSnowman 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, this guy hasn't made enough friends, given that we're here, so yeah, lame block suggestions are lame. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The recent furore about category:American novelists indicated that the category system is quite dysfunctional. You can be castigated if you put someone in a category and now you can be threatened if you don't. "That's some catch, that Catch-22". Warden (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• A gross and incorrect over-simplification of both the recent issue with categories, and this current thread. Kudos. GiantSnowman 16:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Other suggestions welcome - how do others suggest we proceed then? Saying "it's not an issue" is a cop-out, what you really mean is "it's not an issue for me cos I don't care / don't have to clean up the mess." GiantSnowman 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess my (and perhaps others') point is: why is it considered a "mess" for an article to not be in a category? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I seriously cannot believe I am having to link administrators to Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization. Brb, off to bang my head against my desk for 5 mins. GiantSnowman 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, no need to bang your head: you didn't need to link that page, as it didn't answer my question. Does it say in there that articles must have categories? I read it through (again) and don't see anything that says that. I guess the closest thing is the "What should I do if I see an article without any categories?" section, but that doesn't say anything about warning editors or anything like that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we stop using categories or anything. Just that it's not that big of a deal when they're not there. Its not a life and death, BLP type issue. Either it will be fixed eventually by random editors, or it won't...which has no repercussions beyond not being categorized. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Writing an otherwise fine article and opting to let other people categorize it is perfectly acceptable, and is in no way disruptive. To even think of blocking an editor for leaving categorization for others is way out of line. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there is something worse than an article without categories: an article with bad categories. RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the notion that an editor who doesn't do everything, and expects others to clean up can be infuriating in some cases. However, the cases I'm thinking of are editors who contribute little more than a title and a sentence just barely asserting notability. It may take more work from editors to check it out, search to see if there are references to support the notability than it might for editors to start from scratch without the tiny stub. While the editor may well have been contributing with such a start in 2001, it is 2013, and the world is different.

That said, I see a gulf between that example and the contributions of this editor. I do not know why the editor does not add categories. I happen to think our category system is quite poor, and hate to use it. I can easily believe that some editor may feel more strongly and refuse to use it. If it is done as a form of protest, I'm sorely tempted to join.

Are articles better when they have categories? Sure I can accept that. I don't object to the YFA advice that articles should have categories, but there is a difference between stating the goals for articles and stating the minimum acceptable standards for an editor's contribution to an article. I think articles ought to be spelled correctly. That doesn't mean I support a block for editors who make a spelling mistake. I do not view an editor who makes a spelling mistake as disruptive. Articles ought to have proper grammar. Editors who fail should not be termed "disruptive".

The editor has been asked to add cats, and has failed to explain why they do not. Time to shrug and move on. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The barrier for entry is high enough without adding more mandates to editors wanting to create an article - no need to make it more complex. There are lots of editors willing to spend the 5 seconds it takes to use HotCat and add appropriate categories. Why hassle this editor? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to write something but SPhilbrick already wrote it. This editor just seems uninterested in adding categories or talking about categories. I don't find our current implementation of categories very good or useful either. I was wondering whether this editor was disruptively uncommunicative in general and that does not seem to be the case: I took a swing through the editor's edit count and history of using Talk pages; the editor seems to use Talk pages less frequently than many others but by no means never, and the Talk page contribs made are perfectly suitable. I have seen where administrator intervention is needed in cases of a disruptive editor who won't respond to requests to cut it out, but that doesn't seem to apply here. "Shrug and move on" seems about right. Zad68 19:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, the best situation is a bot (or software feature) that would automatically mark an uncategorised page as uncategorised. Uncategorised pages that aren't marked as such are problems because we can't find them easily; having them marked automatically would remove the problems caused by this editor's unwillingness to mark them as uncategorised. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How about Special:UncategorizedPages? DMacks (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The most problematic factor for me (and the one which caused me to start this thread) is the unresponsiveness of this editor. If someone comes to your talk page with genuine concerns about your editing, the least you can do is reply. If he had explained why he doesn't want to add categories, that might have been sufficient. Like I indicated, simply adding the "uncat" tag if he is for some reason not comfortable adding a cat is also acceptable. But simply always ignoring a guideline (Wikipedia:Categorization: "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category.") and refusing to discuss this is not really the way that things are supposed to happen here. The whole blockworthy/not blockworthy discussion is a distraction (and I note that we have blocked people over refusing to sign their posts, which doesn't even affect the mainspace). Fram (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think reaching out to the editor on their talk page, as you did, was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it certainly would have been polite of them to reply, but if they don't want to discuss it, it doesn't strike me as something we ought to (try to) force them to. There are editors who spend most if not all of their Wikipedia time categorizing things; it stands to reason that there would be some editors with no interest in categorization whatsoever, and it seems that we have found one such editor. 28bytes (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Fram (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I may have missed it in the above, and the links to the category help pages are not really helpful on this, what is the disruptive or negative aspect of not having a category. I have seen lots of reasons why it is helpful to have one, but not a reason why it matters if it does not. Apart from a vague 'it might be difficult to find the article'. I can count on one hand the number of times I have used the category system to 'find' an article. Thats what search is for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For me, categories are useful to find related articles, both as a reader and as an editor (for cleanup and maintenance reasons); I have found quite a few hoaxes and duplicate articles thanks to categories. While lists have their use as well, categories get "automatically" maintained (i.e., just add the cat to the page and it appears in the category: delete the article and it is gone, and so on; with lists, you have more extra work (but the possibility for extra information as well)). For readers, they are a way to find articles they didn't know existed. Without categories, I probably would never have found André Van De Werve De Vorsselaer, and noticed that it is badly capitalized. Thanks to Category:Flemish artists, I just came across the oddly named Hermann Naiwinx. With some research, I found another article at the more plausible title Herman Naiwincx. Duplicates? I need to look a bit further to be sure, but I would probably not have found them without categories. Fram (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One might also consider editors, such as purely copy editors like myself, who don't edit within any particular area in WP and as such categories are largely ignored anyway. Blackmane (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Imagine an editor creating a few hundred articles without standard wiki layout, e.g. not using our section header system but using "bold" or "big" tags to create section headers. You can still read the articles, you won't get a TOC but not everyone cares for a TOC anyway. Would you allow that editor to continue doing this, even after multiple requests to use section headers instead? It is not because categories (or section headers, or...) are not needed for some groups of editors that we should ignore editors who consistenly refuse to apply them. Fram (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken templates, infoboxes, extra Big tags, and the like... all of those affect the ability of readers to actually get information out of an article. Categories, or a lack thereof, do not. The issues are separate. I keep having the mental image of one of us standing behind this editor with a riding crop, smacking their hand whenever they create an article without a category. And that bothers me. Half of our cleanup tasks are sorting out what less experienced editors did - and it has always been thus. There is no easier way to tell this editor to go fuck off and leave than to block him/her for not doing something completely optional. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The introduction of the visual editor, which is happening soon, seems likely to result in many new articles which will lack advanced features because the editor does not support them. In my experience, it takes a long time to master these and some may never do it. What Wikipedia needs most is editors who can write good encyclopedic prose as we have plenty of gnomes and techies who like tinkering with templates. It takes all sorts... Warden (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Less experienced editors": we are talking about an editor with 2 years + experience, having created hundreds of articles, not some clueless newbie. And it is not supposed to be "completely optional", it is part of our guidelines that every article should have at least one category. And contrary to what you claim, the lack of categories makes it much harder for people to "find" articles, so it is also affecting "the ability of readers to actually get information out of" the encyclopedia as a whole (and much more so than e.g. "big" tags). The search function is nice if you know the exact article: categories are better if you want all articles around a certain topic or with a certain common characteristic. Without a catedgory, could you easily tell which articles we had on Category:Assassinated Belgian politicians? Fram (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be true if categories were searchable in an obvious way, but they're not. Try typing "country houses in Greater Manchester" into the search box for instance and see what you get. Eric Corbett 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) ^This. Now, leaving a new article permanently without categories would be a concern, granted. But creating such an article does not mean that it disappears into the hinterlands of Category:Articles lacking categories. Even if it's a true orphan, with no links in and out, it'll show up on the new pages list, it'll be tagged (maybe by bot) as an orphan or as lacking categories or whatever, and someone will come by and add categories. And then life goes on. I seem to recall something about there not being a deadline - why do we need THIS editor to put categories on their new articles RIGHT THEN? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

With very little effort (putting "uncat" at the bottom of the page), he would make life easier for others. Apparently that's too much to ask though. Fram (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How can Category:Articles lacking categories possibly be non-empty? The inclusion of an article in that category would disqualify it from being in the category. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly didn't think about it. If it existed, I guess it'd be hidden anyway. Oh, I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I get, as the first result, Category:Country houses in Greater Manchester, so for me this works as expected. What do you get? Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the message "You may create the page "Country houses in greater manchester", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered", and the first entry in the list below is "North West England (redirect from Manchester Liverpool Polynuclear Metropolitan Area). Eric Corbett 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Special:Preferences: Search in all namespaces" (or search in articles and categories) is your friend. Fram (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not be my friend, but I'm a logged in user, unlike the overwhelming majority of our readers. Eric Corbett 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

..., in fairness to Eric, and only good if you know that's what you can do. I didn't, and I've been here far too long. GiantSnowman 13:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)True. Even so, the text of the category (as written on the article) is included in the search, so they still show up in the search, but not as prominent. I agree that the current search is far from perfect, and wonder why categories aren't included in the default search. Not having categories won't improve this of course. And using the search function is only one possibility: going from an article to similar other ones is also made possible by categories, once you scroll to the bottom of the page at least. Again, not optimal. Oh, and if you do this search, no matter your preferences, the category will appear first (at least it does for me). But changing it to e.g. this one ruins that effect again... Fram (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why? Why do we need to imagine anything other than the specific issue you have brought to attention? Just close the thread. The editor deserves and requires no action to be taken by Admins. in respect of the specific concern about categories. There is no support for Admins to intervene in this case and anything else you bring up is irrelevant. Leaky Caldron 12:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My "imagine" response was a reply to Blackmane, which seemed to imply "I don't care about categories, so ..." Apparently a lot of people don't care about categories and don't see their purpose, their potential uses, which is rather disheartening. Fram (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

But categories as currently implemented are virtually useless. Eric Corbett 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? They could be a lot better (category intersection for one should be a standard search function), but that's a far cry from "virtually useless". Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Completely useless to the average reader then. Eric Corbett 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

;-) Fram (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Fram: don't get me wrong, it's not an "I don't care about them". As someone who hasn't spent anytime on categories, I solely focus on improving article text when I pick an article. I take it on good faith that the copyedit requester knows where the article belongs and will stick it in the right place. As a reader, I certainly do make use of categories when I find a branch of articles I find interesting. The brevity of my comment certainly could be seen in the way you suggested. Blackmane (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive user 2

Once bitten, twice shy etc. I have an editor whose signature violates WP:SIGLINK (i.e. no links to their user and/or talk page) and they are not responding to my requests. What can I do in this situation? GiantSnowman 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to persuade them of the benefits of such links? Eric Corbett 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We've dealt with this before, recently, but I don't know what we did. This seems to be a more serious concern than the one above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? This one has zero impact on the readers of the encyclopedia or on its content. It only impacts editors. We are not more important than the actual encyclopedia surely? Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This one's easy - you've pointed it out, they're unresponsive, it IS policy. We've done it before. You can either a) name them and shame them here at AN or ANI until they actually follow the policy, or get blocked, or b) block them as per jurisprudence until their sig is policy-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 14:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, WP:SIGLINK is a guideline, not policy, just like Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline. But categorization applies to the mainspace, siglink only to talk pages and discussion pages. Yet you advocate blocking for this one, and not for the categorization one? Fram (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For the categorization thing, you're advocating pestering or blocking of an editor who doesn't add a maintenance tag to every article he creates. It's something that can be done just as quickly, and probably more easily, by whichever Twinkle-enabled new-page-patroller shows up to slap on their feel-good assortment of likely-to-be-ignored-for-months tags. Candleabracadabra wants to contribute to content development, but doesn't have an interest in article indexing—and that's fine. We don't compel editors to participate against their will in all aspects of Wikipedia's development. Candleabracadabra's articles are, arguably, incomplete without category tags, but they're not broken. He's doing nothing to prevent or obstruct the addition of categories or maintenance tags (or additional content, or navboxes, or infoboxes, or references...) by editors who come after him. We don't demand that he place the {uncategorized} template for the same reason that we don't insist that article creators put {copy edit} on their new efforts.

For the signature issue, an editor has to take a conscious, deliberate, positive step to change their signature from the default. Changing one's signature from the default to something that doesn't link to one's user or talk page is an active step. It takes something that is working, and turns it into something that is broken. While it generally isn't the intent of the editor to make themselves more difficult to reach (usually they're just trying to make their signature 'pretty') it is the effect of their actions. Further, it is something that can be remedied quickly and easily and permanently with a single change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There are some very basic community norms that shouldn't be hard to adhere to, one of which is either banging out four tildes or clicking the sig icon in the toolbar above. We've dealt with recalcitrant editors in the past with threats of blocks or actual blocks. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu comes to mind. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this pair of discussions because I wasn't sure what to say, but Tenofalltrades has convinced me; we really should take some sort of action regarding users who change their signatures unhelpfully, but I agree that it would be over the top to sanction Candelabra here. Look at my signature; it's only changed once since I registered in 2006, and that was because the default was changed from <User, timestamp> to <User (talk), timestamp> some years ago. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature linking is more important than adding categories because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that is a fundamental way in which we communicate with one another. Categories, on the other hand, are just a supplement to the really important things, i.e. properly sourced, neutrally worded, encyclopaedic content. I see categories in the same way as pictures or "see also" sections...a nice addition to any article, but not really a deal breaker as long as the content is up to standard. Ditch ∝ 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor still has not changed their signature, barring any outcry here I intend to indef them if they do not change it, obviously with the caveat that they will be unblocked once they have changed. GiantSnowman 09:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, threats do work (sometimes...) GiantSnowman 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that 'threats' were what produced the effect, nor that they were necessary. I mean, you slapped the guy's talk page with four messages in six hours, the last of which was announcing that you were taking the matter to this noticeboard. Then you hit him with a 'final warning' less than 24 hours later.

Yes, he needed to fix his signature; you'll get no argument from me on that. But absent any indication that the guy was acting in bad faith or disputing the requirement – or even that he was deliberately ignoring your messages (the new notifications system is a lot less conspicuous than the old) – it is far from clear that the level of...enthusiastic urgency...with which you sought his compliance was required or likely to helpful in the long run.

Instead of a spate of terse, acronym and alphabet-soup laden single-sentence demands, it would have been no more work – and much better 'people skills' – to spend a little bit of time crafting one clear, polite, request that contained a few words of explanation. (Particularly given that English does not appear to be this editor's first language.) As admins, we have a duty to educate and communicate, not merely to threaten and enforce. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit disputes at Microsoft Office 365

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

---

There appears to be a significant edit dispute at this page. One editor took it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Then they took the dispute to my talk page at User_talk:Bearian#Re:_Office_365. Can somebody help?! Bearian (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While it seems to have become a bit more stable now (there have been discussions on the edit warring noticeboard, and there haven't been any further reverts), I'm still a bit concerned about how things will be going forward. But still, I stand by my belief that vandalism covers things like saying The Annoying Orange is the president of the United Kingdom, and not good-faith efforts at improving an article. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is already being addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ), so I suggest that this section be closed immediately. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A Talking Cat!?!

Resolved

I wish to be allowed to edit the entry for the film A Talking Cat!?! I created the entry for The Room (film) and therefore should be considered qualified. The A Talking Cat!?! entry is currently locked for administrators, so I am pleading to be allowed to begin building this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoll (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The above editor posted this request earlier but someone deleted it from the noticeboard. I think Jcoll is referring to this [2] which does instruct him to come to the Administrators Noticeboard with such a request. Whether or not the request is viable is another matter. Taroaldo ✉ 08:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• This may be the movie Jcoll is referring to [3] Taroaldo ✉ 08:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've created the page (the title was being blocked by the blacklist). Jcoll can now add some content to it. Hut 8.5 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• What was the problem? Perhaps the !?! sequence? Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• That'd be my guess - it wasn't protected directly or SALTed as a result of shenanigans. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. I've left a note at Jcoll's talk page about the article being ready for editing. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock help

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

---

I'm at work and don't have enough time to figure out exactly how rangeblocks work... and I'd rather avoid the possible consequences of a half-assed action. Please check out the IPs I keep on blocking of a relentlessly evading socker and apply whatever rangeblock proves necessary. Thanks! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

SPP'ed my talk page because I don't have time to deal with this crap, but it doesn't mean he'll stop. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)It doesn't look like they can all be encompassed in a single rangeblock, and it seems that they aren't closely-grouped enough for a set of separate rangeblocks (I only see at most 2 per /16).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So in short, not much can be done. Jeeez... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained at greater length on my talk page (not knowing that this thread was here), it is sometimes possible to win a war of attrition against users like this by making lots of little range blocks, but it takes a hell of a lot of work, and isn't guaranteed to work, so I'm afraid it largely comes down to a game of whackamole, blocking individual IP addresses or at best very small ranges. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, we've been whack-a-moling all day. I even SPP'ed my talk page because I didn't have time to deal with it all. But hey, we'll live. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

user:Chauahuasachca

Chauahuasachca (talk · contribs) recent page moves have separated talk pages from their subject pages. So this needs administrators to repair them, as some of the talk pages have active discussions, and some of the destinations have generated new discussions, making a simple talk page move impossible. A histmerge and restore of older discussions would then be necessary. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

These articles were created by IPs without regarding the criterias for page names. I don't understand what you want now.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to prove that statement? IP's have not been able to create live articles in years, and once ONE SINGLE PERSON complains about your page moves, you MUST stop and use the WP:RM process. What's happened now are cockups that only admns can fix ... well done! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP here is complaining about my "forgettings" to move the talk page also.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Chauahuasachca, you've been previously requested to show more care with page moves. At some point the difference between carelessness and willful disruption becomes moot. Tiderolls 14:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? First,were the articles created by unregistered users without regard for the criteria for page names? If so, how did that happen? A bug? Second, when the article pages were moved/renamed, did the editor override the default to move the talk page along with the article page? The default on page moves is to move the talk page with the article page. If the default was overridden, why? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the pages I checked (see below) were created by unregistered users; I don't know what he's talking about. That being said, there are two ways for it to happen: either they get created through WP:AFC, or they're old pages that were created before page creation was restricted to registered users. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very annoying and disruptive and so on. Could we perhaps bitch about it and fix the pages? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've left Chauahuasachca a final warning — moving tons of pages without their talk pages is quite disruptive when the new titles have no talk pages that would require administrative assistance, and it's made worse because you actively have to prevent the software from moving the talk page. I've also checked his entire move log for the past six months and moved all the talk pages that were still at the old titles. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to the final warning! I was busy moving pages myself. Thanks for the hand. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing as these often appear to be non-consensus moves to beging with, a topic ban from ANY page move - being forced to use RM - was more along my lines of thinking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours; he moved Juma Ahmad Atigha and left behind the talk page, even though the new page title had no associated talk page at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion disruption

During a discussion at Talk:Power factor User:212.183.140.50 broke a four month edit silence to post personal attacks regarding sock puppetry of User:Wtshymanski and myself User:174.118.142.187 . I reverted the edits as I understand personal attacks on article talk pages are disruptive and allowed to be removed without comment to cool the situation and not aggravate it. My revert was re-instated by User:DieSwartzPunkt and further personal attacks made to agree with the IP. A following notice was placed on my talk page that I was not allowed to change another editor's comments by User:DieSwartzPunkt.[[4]]

Please note that this behavior has been seen for quite some time where discussions in articles with User:DieSwartzPunkt are disrupted by sudden participation from same geolocated IP editors, with very few or no edits history, to support discussions in his favour. This was previously pointed out and a warning to behave himself was issued by Dennis Brown[[5]]. He retorted he forgot to log in after a party when he installed a phoney block on my talk page.[[6]] After this same repeated sequence of events I have been observing and documenting some of this [[7]]. The tag team behavior between him and User:I B Wright is very suspicious, perhaps as in a mentor relationship. Note, both editors suddenly awoke from days of editing silence in a previous attempt to stop my compilation of strange IP edits involved with supporting attacks of User:Wtshymanski.[[8]] Please note the AGF tone used.

<Please note the sequence format disruption injected below is not my text but mine continues below. DieSwartzPunkt has been warned previously for this tactic to disrupt the flow of conversation but still does it on a regular basis.>

Well Mr Wright apparently spotted it and made me aware of it on my talk page, so maybe that is why I responded shortly after he spotted it.

As for the IP edits where we agree, 174.118.142.187 has not documanted any. In fact there are a good number, but that is not surprising if we edit with apparently similar interests - sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. There are probably just as many edits where we disagree. If 174.118.142.187 cares to post his 'agreements' I will post the disagreements. This is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This has become tiring to myself and Wtshymanski, even though the latter doesn't usually want to become involved in these politics and remains quiet.

I would like to see this IP blocked (check edit history for a long list of warnings) as a minimum and User:DieSwartzPunkt receive a corrective action for this repeated behavior as a lesson to make a better environment in the future. I would also like the attack comments removed from the talk page where I attempted to remove his ad hominem attacks that started this ANI report. [[9]]. (current collapsed) They serve no purpose to forward the discussion, there.

A possible solution may be an article edit interaction ban for the two (possibly three or four I have no problem with Wtshymanski's edit technique, although he's not talkative) of us where none of us could edit an article or talk page that has been previously edited by another editor involved in the last two years. 500 edits would be an easier check for each of us to follow. This would have to agreed upon by DieSwartzPunkt or forced by admin to work. This long term grudge seems to accelerating since I made a suggestion regarding his Wtshymanski attack page User talk:DieSwartzPunkt/WTS and his own personal comments.[[10]] in an attempt to help him. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Updated and typos 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused Wtshymanski and 174.118.142.187 of Sockpuppetry and have opened a sockpuppetry investigation, so you cann assume that this is a 'tit for tat' response. You may also care to check 174.118.142.187's history of making ANI complaints where he frequently raises frivolous complaints against any editor who opposes him (none have ever been upheld). He is also attempting to 'compile' evidence against other editors based on faulty grounds at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 presumably as part of his frivolous complaint campaign. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the "evidence" page linked to above per WP:ATTACK; lists of enemies and the like are not appropriate even in the user namespace. Aside from that, I'd say the sockpuppet investigation can determine the next step. If 174.118.142.187 wants to open a sock investigation of his own, he is free to do so. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Will you also be deleting a similar page[[11]] with added personal attacks on User:Wtshymanski existing since November 2012? Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When did it become unacceptable to compile 'Request for Comments' against tendentious editors? Naturally Wtshymanski has wanted this one deleted and his sock has persuaded you to do so.

August 21, 2007. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You want the work in progress RfC against you deleted. RfCs are legitimate tools to bring about discussion and concensus about tendentious editors, but we can understand why you (Wtshymanski) would want it deleted. More evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I was debating whether to raise this as a new issue but: 174.118.142.187 has now taken to unacceptable abuse where he has now accused me of slander. Though he accuses me of having a 'slander page' it is not clear where this is meant to be. [12]. Also the allegation above where multiple allegation of being hoodlums is being made. This is completely unacceptable and must result in a block. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the "This has become tiring to myself and Wtshymanski" phrase above. I Call Shenanigans. I am no fan of Wtshymanski and his disruption of our Engineering articles, but letting some IP editor speak for him goes against all of Wtshymanski's previous behavior. So does any accusation of sockpuppetry against Wtshymanski, BTW. That just isn't him. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you and I both know that Wtshymanski will change his tack when the tide turns against him. With his recent block for repeated tendentious editing and that the admins are, at last, starting to take note (ref: User:Thumperward's remarks when he was blocked), I would suggest that this is his latest change of tack. How do you explain the stack of coincidences laid out in the SPI? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply is at SPI. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted how the same disruptive behaviour was demonstrated here with side track issues that attempt to confuse the original subject matter.

A further SPI launched against myself and Wtshymanski was just closed as " it is very unlikely they are the same person".

Another similar and simultaneous attempt by DieSwartzPunkt[[13]] resulted in more gang style abuse and an admin marking it "the named account and IPs are clearly not the same person".

Previously another attempt was made to disrupt a content dispute [here] as DieSwartzPunkt launched another ANI complaint using an IP address and subsequently correcting it with his DieSwartzPunkt account name later[[14]].

[Here] is another incident of his attempts to hound me using another IP (admitted later) when he tried to block my editing access after another content dispute.

Clearly DieSwartzPunkt's actions demonstrate he thinks disruption is the way to resolve many content disputes. This behavior needs to be changed for future improvements to WP edits. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminix

Could someone take a look at the above article please, the legal stuff has me a bit concerned--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recently added legal stuff - looks like an advert/addition by the law firm involved.--ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have watchlisted this just in case of further legal excitement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on PC Level 2

We need closers for the big RfC on Pending Changes Level 2. Discussion is welcome at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013#Looking for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm offering my services.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

deadmau5 move review discussion

Hello, since 7 days has elapsed on this move review, could an admin who knows how to deal with stuff like this please close it? Thanks! Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz RfA topic ban/restriction

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

---

There seems to be some confusion regarding the RfA topic ban and whether or not "enough" consensus was obtained before it was implemented as a condition of unblocking Kiefer.Wolfowitz, by Drmies. The events surrounding his block are already well documented on his talk page and in the block log, as is the rationale for the RfA topic ban and don't require rehashing here. The purpose of this discussion is solely to document a community consensus for the topic ban, one way or another. It does not affect any other part of the terms of the unblock.

The short version of the restriction is that Kiefer is allowed to !vote at RfA but not allowed to reply to any comments on the main or talk page of individual RfAs. This is narrow enough to be enforceable yet allow him the ability to participate in all RfA !voting, making it the least aggressive method of restriction. Kiefer has agreed to some limitations in theory, but adding clarity by formalizing the existing topic ban is the better solution for the community.

Proposal to keep topic ban as shown here[15]

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved here from "editing restriction" page

RfA restriction and interaction ban AN I should not be restricted at RfAs. RfAs were explicitly excluded as a rationale for the block by the blocking administrator. RfA excluded as a blocking rationale by blocking administrator The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN, where the allusion to pedophilia was both striking and repugnant. [....] Horologium (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The close of the community discussion at AN did not mention RfAs, 28bytes's closure of AN discussion, which ignored RfAs but considered a two-way interaction ban wise The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. "This thread has been running for more than three days, and I don't think it can be argued that the community hasn't had a chance to weigh in here. (As Bishonen notes below, the number of participants here is quite extraordinary.) Setting aside GiantSnowman for a moment, I personally think Fram's suggestion that Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Demiurge1000 disengage is an extremely wise one, and in fact I told KW as much almost exactly a year ago on my talk page. However, the proposed interaction ban seems to have been rendered moot by subsequent events, namely KW's unfortunately worded comment about inappropriate behavior towards younger editors. While KW has, to his credit, clarified that he meant nothing sexual about the comment, accusing other editors of inappropriate contact with younger editors – sexual or not – is not something do be done lightly, and certainly not something to be done on a public noticeboard without evidence in the middle of a heated discussion. If KW is genuinely concerned that there is inappropriate recruiting (whether political or otherwise) of younger editors, I suggest he instead contact either ArbCom or the WMF with evidence backing up his concerns and they will act accordingly. Now, regarding the block. Many people have weighed in, but I simply do not see a consensus (1) to unblock KW, (2) to adjust the block to a specific period of time, or (3) to keep KW blocked forever (i.e. a defacto ban). What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated. That may happen tomorrow, it may happen two months from now, or it may not happen at all. I hope it happens quickly and KW is able to return to productive editing, but if it does, I strongly recommend he stay away from, and avoid commenting on the activities of, Demiurge1000. I offer the same recommendation to Demiurge1000 regarding comments about KW. I suspect both will enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia much more if they do so." so there was no "community-discussion" consensus supporting Drmies's restriction. If Drmies wishes to impose a restriction on my editing at RfAs, he should seek approval of an AN discussion or of ArbCom, as I read the policy on the other side. (He may also discuss RfAs with me, or if that fails try an RfC and ask me to volunteer for a restriction....) A two-party interaction ban was supported by the community and mentioned as reasonable by the closing AN administrator. Again, there is no policy basis for Drmies to impose a one-sided (inter)action ban on only me, One-way interaction ban, contrary to AN consensus The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. You should not interact with Demiurge. Given the nature of the diff that led to the block in the first place, I cannot really impose a two-way interaction ban, but I have no doubt that Demiurge will not seek you out or bait you, and I hope that they will refrain from commenting on you elsewhere. "No interaction" includes you won't mention them or their conduct anywhere on-wiki, including by allusion (added for us literary types). You won't visit their talk page or follow them around. Obviously I cannot (nor do I wish to) block you from the dramah boards etc; you must let common sense (mine, and I hope yours) prevail--stay out of discussions that they're involved in. This does not mean that Demiurge can, for instance, block you from continuing a discussion you've already engaged in by merely placing a comment, but I trust this won't happen. I have seen your efforts (some after your block, but still) to undo the damage caused by the remark, and I believe that you are sincere and won't repeat this; Demiurge appears to be of the same mind. At any rate, practically speaking it is not likely to be tolerated. when the AN consensus clearly favored a two-way ban. (I was blocked before it was imposed.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I removed the "ban". Even by the heuristics of administrator absolutism and elastic Wikipedia "logic", AN's failure to overturn a block that specifically excludes RfAs does not imply the existence of AN decision to indefinitely topic-ban an editor from RfAs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Dennis, there is no confusion. AN did not endorse a topic ban from RfA and the Horologium's block explicitly excluded RfAs from consideration. AN's failure to overturn Horologium's block, which explicitly excluded RfAs from consideration, did not constitute an endorsement of a ban from RfAs. That is obvious. Whether Horologium would agree to an unblock without an RfA topic-ban (despite his not stating that requirement in the original block or in its discussion here) is another question. I would suggest that those wishing to topic ban me from RfAs please prepare an RfC/U. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my blocking statement. What I said was that I didn't block you for your comments on RFA. That does not say that I oppose a restriction on you there. My comments to DrMies on my talk page make it clear that I support such a restriction; in fact, you have quoted that same post because it is where I expressed a concern about you getting baited. Horologium (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoting your blocking statement is "misrepresentation"? Why don't you all ban me from Wikipedia? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN" ≠ "RfAs were explicitly excluded as a rationale for the block by the blocking administrator" ≠ Horologium opposes an RFA restriction on KW (the first two are direct quotes, the third is a paraphrase). The statement I made on AN during the block discussion, was because the topic of RFA restrictions became a significant topic of discussion. My block was because of a comment on AN, not RFA. The comment on AN came in a discussion because of KW's behavior at RFA, which I did not witness at the time that I blocked him. At no time do I explicitly reject RFA restrictions on KW, and in fact, on my talk page, I explicitly supported some sort of limitation on threaded responses in my response to DrMies before the unblock. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Horologium, since I have your attention, please deal with your diffless WP:NPA violations in alleging I'd canvassed at some LGBT/feminism project, have an "anti-collaborative nature", etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

After an exchange with Pedro on an RFA,Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Guoguo12 2 (a review of the page history is illuminating), in which he made a comment which was unquestionably a vicious personal attack but not exactly sexist,[16] you first edit-warred with him, and then took it to the WP:Feminism discussion page. [17] There was absolute silence in response to your post.[18] In the same RFA discussion, you accused him of homophobia on truly trivial grounds,[19] and invoked the spectre of involving the LGBT project.[20] It's interesting that you could be accused of the same behavior, based on a pair of posts in the past few days. Your response on AN to User:Fluffernutter, in which you refer to her as "Fluffer",[21] could certainly be interpreted as sexist; she even includes a convenient link to the article on fluffer on her userpage to make it clear that the use of the term is NSFW. Further, you invoke "sucks" on your post here;[22] Pedro's use of the word was enough for you to accuse him of homophobia. As to your anti-collaborative nature, the AN discussion speaks for itself, but you couldn't restrain yourself from a string of personal attacks since your unblock ([23]--the response to Chris; [24]--the edit summary; [25]--the edit summary; [26] and [27]--I'm so power-hungry that I immediately brought my block up for discussion, with the explicit statement that I didn't object to the block being shortened). There are other examples, but I suspect that this is enough to establish that you are not particularly collegial with editors with whom you have had a disagreement. The nonsense in Guoguo12's RFA is justification enough (on its own) for some sort of restriction on your participation at WP:RFA, and your contributions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 only reinforce my belief that your participation in threaded discussions at RFA is sub-optimal. Horologium (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• RFC/U doesn't have the authority to create a topic ban or any sanction, by design. Since the topic ban was put in place as part of your unblock and it is disputed in good faith, then WP:AN is the preferred venue to deal with the concern. This is SOP for questions on sanctions. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't be so glum, Kiefer, you're in good company.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Supported this course of action in the original AN discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• The topic ban was an explicit condition of the unblock. Kiefer Wolfowitz is free to reject that topic ban, but if he does so he must also reject the unblock that was conditioned on it, and wait for another administrator to remove what was previously an indefinite block on his account. By editing this page, for example, Kiefer indicates that he has accepted the unblock and the topic ban that accompanied it. However, if the question is whether to also establish a community-based topic ban (rather than just the one that is part of the unblock), I would support that. I think that, compared to other possible resolutions of the original block, the very mild ban being discussed is among the least restrictive outcomes possible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Your argument and justification are absurd. Kumioko (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Carl, you seem to miss the point that an administrator (or a handfull of administrators) cannot impose a community restriction. Only ArbCom or AN(I?) can. Either AN should impose a restriction (of 3/4/6 months, or indefinite, or removed by the whims of one administrator, e.g. Drmies..., etc.) or advise Drmies that he cannot impose a formal community-restriction by himself. I have not objected to my restricting myself at RfA, as The Rambling Man should, also, but you administrators seem not to care when one of your own goes on a rampage. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think there should also be a link here to Drmies' unblock comment and rationale for this topic ban on Kiefer's page: here it is. P. S., Kiefer Wolfowitz, see how I refer to content on another page? With a link. That's the best way. Please stop copypasting your quarrels all over the place. You are free to mess up your own page with all those collapse boxes, I suppose; it makes it hard to understand and get an overview of, but that's up to you. Please don't do it here. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC).

  Stop the unearned condescension. Quotation often saves me time, which is valuable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ban and the block were unnecessary knee jerk reactions. Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Though I'm against an RfA ban, I support the proposal to keep in it place. The topic ban was an explicit condition of the unblock (a difficult decision on Drmies' part in the first place) and the terms are fairly benign. I actually think it will help Kiefer who appears to have the tendency to react to everything confusingly and at length. Bishonen and CBM have expressed this well. It is also worth pointing out that the consensus in the previous AN discussion was trending away from an unblock and Drmies did a balancing act with his unblock. Kiefer, you should try to recognize that and leave well alone. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, although I would've supported a continuation of the block. Kiefer's comments following his unblock show a persistant inability to drop the stick. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Do you provide diffs on IRC only? The last time you stated I had written "young boys". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely clear what you're referring to; I assume you're now accusing me of being part of some shadowy IRC conspiracy. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  I'm reminding you of your failure to rectify your violation of WP:NPA, by falsely accusing me of writing "young boys", when you advocated an indefinite block for one sentence. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This particular tempest is because Ironholds transposed "young men and boys" to "men and young boys", once, on KW's talk page. As KW's original post had references to both "young men and boys" and "boys and young men", it is likely that the transposition was inadvertent. Horologium (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The noble Ironhold makes a "young boys" accusation and leaves it for over a weak without manning up and correcting it. The commoner who was first blocked and asked that his inadvertent statement be struck was indefinitely blocked. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that as well and this is a prime example of how admins are treated differently than editors here on the site. If an admin does something wrong, generally nothing is done about. When an editor does it though they are blocked, banned, reprimanded, harrased and/or hounded. Frequently causing them to leave the site or being banned from it. Its been a problem for a while and I have been screaming it but no one cares because the admins control the site. They have the power and they are not about to do anything that would cause them to lose it. Anyone who tries to bring the issue out in the open becomes the pariah. Its like how the police deal with cops who "rat out" other cops. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see it as anything to do with the distinction between admins and editors; I really wish you two would stop constantly carping on about how "commoners" are treated differently. You are treated differently, certainly. This is nothing to do with your userrights, and nothing to do with you bringing it out into the open, although everything to do with your insistence that anything negative that happens to you is totally illegitimate, and that admins as a group are somehow corrupt. For reference, Kiefer (and the word is "week", as such a prestigious content contributor should be aware), the statement "young men and boys" can be parsed as either "young men (and boys)" or "young (men and boys)"; evidently I parsed it incorrectly. If you'd simply asked me to clarify I would've solved for it; your needless claims of conspiracy sort of reduce the stockpile of energy I keep around to deal with any legitimate points you have. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly that's is exactly part of the problem. The mentality that there is no problem. Using your own RFA history as an example. It took you like 4 or 5 tries at RFA and still people opposed for various reasons. Yet here you are, successfully being an admin and doing well. So those 4 or 5 RFA's you went through and the opposes, in the end, only proved that the process is garbage. Because you are doing fine, you haven't deleted the main page yet and no one is beating your door down to remove the tools. That's one case out of hundreds including mine. Back to the boys and men controversy. Keifer made the same claims and I believe, as do others, that the wording was taken out of context. But his ban stayed in place and required some wrangling by Drmies to get undone. It shouldn't have been implemented in the beginning. It was unnecessary and therefore the subsequent ban from RFA was also unnecessary. Not that it really matters anyway, as I mentioned on Keifers talk page, because RFA is distinctly dead these days with few applying and even fewer passing. Because its hard for editors to get involved and to vote their conscience without those interactions and voting histories being used against them in RFA. I also want to clarify that I do not want to be an admin! I find the title and the us and them culture appalling and counter to the culture of open source editable content we should be advocating here. I need access to some of the tools available only to admins and the full toolset is the only way to get them. Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds, I cannot recall anybody every caring about your input, so don't bother sparing your energy. Your "thwapping" threat was just laughed at. Nice example for you to set as an IRC regular and WMF employee. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds, have you figured out the difference between "young boys" and "boys", yet? Hint: It's a life or death distinction and the leading cause of truces in prison-gang wars.... Please strike your falsehood, which continues to violate WP:NPA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think the ban, as stated, would be good for Kiefer. I really don't like seeing a good contributor blocked, and anything that can help head off these pointless escalating arguments has to be a good thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  As per MONGO, I'd also be happy for the RfA restriction to be reviewed in six months (the time is not critical, but six months seems about right) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as minimum: (ec*3) The trouble with the terms of the proposed ban is that they state "if there is a thread (two or more comments), you cannot add to it". This means that Kiefer can still comment on an RFA vote, or on any intial posting at WT:RFA ,or on the talk page of any RFA. More effective would have been no replying at WP:RFA and no posting at all at WT:RFA or on the talk page of any RFA. But I support this as better than nothing. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as minimum: Actually, I'd prefer that the block had not been lifted at all, and Kiefer's comments since returning have reinforced that conviction. However, the proposed ban was a specified condition of the unblock, and without it, the unblock would have to be reversed. Propose that the ban be reinstated if Kiefer does not agree to adhere with all of the conditions of his unblocking. Would oppose any modification. He knew the conditions, and agreed to them already, hence the unblock. So he has to live with them, or return to being indeffed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support After being surprised by the AN discussion which supported upholding my indef block, I had decided to wait a few days and revisit the subject. After seeing what happened on KW's talk page, however, I had little inclination to unblock, and in fact stopped watching the discussion because it was refactored beyond recognition. When DrMies approached me about an unblock, I was not optimistic but I was willing to allow him to proceed with a discussion with KW. After KW acknowledged that his actions were viewed by a substantial number of editors to be problematic, and he appeared to agree to the unblock conditions laid out, I was willing to provisionally unblock him, but DM had gone ahead and unblocked him. My biggest concern, in fact, was that Demiurge1000 did not accept a two-way interaction ban, but I was not going to keep KW blocked for someone else's intransigence (I didn't mention that elsewhere because the block had already been overturned by the time I saw that discussion). I think that the RFA restriction is a good idea, and would have added several more interaction bans before I seriously considered unblocking him. KW actually got off light, and seeing him flame DrMies is rather startling. Horologium (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the discussion thread on my talk page which has been referenced by several people is at User talk:Horologium#Kiefer. That thread will be moved to my June 2013 talk page archive at the end of the month, should anyone revisit this page at a later date and wish to review the discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I hate silencing anyone on the website, even those that have a tendency to be pugnacious as Keifer oftentimes is, since it is important to have many voices from many perspectives. I think Drmies is to be commended for how he handled the unblocking since he did it the best way an admin could, by inviting discussion from Horologium, who did the latest block and carefully crafting a reasonable unblock set of conditions, which Keifer originally seemed to agree with. I see no reason why the issue of Rfa participation can't be revisited in six months.--MONGO 17:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support since preceding discussions led me to believe this was a good idea from the side of the community, which I deemed would want to see some restrictions, and the editor in question, whose RfA participation was not the immediate reason for the block but was, as I gauged previous discussions, was cause for dissent in the community. If I erred in coming to a topic ban with some discussion, but certainly not community-wide discussion, I apologize to all involved, and I wish to think Dennis Brown for setting me straight (privately, via email). Slash with my apologies to Kiefer as well for apparently overstepping my boundaries as an administrator and furthering the idea that this is what admins do. Finally, I agree with MONGO's final remark, though I am not necessarily wedded to the time frame. I'd be fine with three. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, for the charity, even when I have been a burden. 3-6 months is quite different from an indefinite ban. I won't bother to document it, but I believe I'm the most thanked editor at RfAs, since Sandy and Malleus/Eric have reduced their participation and it's been months since anybody did a serious discussion of article contributions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Warden (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support at the minimum. --Rschen7754 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  What, praytell, is Rschen's maximal programme? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  K, I don't think your comments on this thread are helping your cause. You may want to think about what the underlying concern is of all the editors voting support, and see if you can reassure them, rather than disputing them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  My cause is to safeguard the community's procedures against an administrator who was pretending that a failure to have his block overturned gave him a blank check and against a claim that a handful of administrators can substitute their judgement for the community's judgement at AN and declare an editing restriction (again using the blank check). This decision is a triviality that doesn't concern me. Some of you are amusing, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Kiefer, I'm a bit taken aback here. Drmies spent a great deal of time and stuck his neck out and tried to do what he felt was the least oppressive thing that the community would accept, all to quickly get you unblocked. Once I got back into town and noticed the procedural error (and I only know about that error because I have made the exact same mistake once, it isn't well known or intuitive) I privately contacted Drmies, who chose to be very upfront here without delay. I started this discussion to correct a procedural error. With all due respect, were I you, I would be much more humble or at least grateful about the situation, knowing that the system actually worked and self-corrected itself with a minimum of drama, following policy to the letter, and it was done in a neutral and fair way. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please read the beginning sentences of my last paragraph, and consider the issues mentioned, which are hardly "bureaucratic" (at least by in the usual sense, rather than the awesome analysis of Weber or Perrow). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Well, what I really want is for Kiefer to stay out of these controversies, instead of getting caught up in them. I think you get things right a lot of the time, but sometimes you move too quickly into attack mode, as you did in response to my comment. And for the record, I don't think the other party was completely innocent either in the latest flareup. --Rschen7754 01:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  "What, praytell, is Rschen's maximal programme?" is "attack mode"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• This should not have been opened. The restriction is claimed to be "trivial" to the restricted editor.[28] The due process claims also therefore seem trivial, in the NOTBURO manner. But in review of the due process, it appears that Drmies did have reason to believe he had consensus in good faith. So, this should just be closed, nolo contendere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking latin doesn't make you a lawyer. Not sure how you think this is a model of "due process", but there's not a lot of other substance to your point. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? Since nothing is said about being a lawyer, nor about any model, your comments make no sense. Nonetheless, the substantive issues are clear, the restriction is trivial and the process was due. If what you want is to go on about it fine, but when you make blown-up cases about trivialities, your arguments look trivial.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You've still said nothing of substance. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) That was probably unnecessary. Sorry about that. Shadowjams (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, if nothing of substance, there would be no need to spill ink on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The block was not for comments at an RfA. Restriction is not relevant to the reasons for the block, so I see no reason why it would be conditional for the unblock. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm neutral on the restrictions themselves, but the notion that an admin can make unilateral ban restrictions to their own preference, and have it taken as gospel, has gone on too long. If there's an ability to unilaterally impose bans with arbitrary criteria then there should be a similar ability for others to remove them. Probably doesn't even need to be linked to admin status. Which of course demonstrates the ridiculousness of such a notion. At least in the past there's been some pretense of consensus for arbitrary ban restrictions. I guess we've forgone that. There seems to me to be some small segment of admins who believe they're in a unique position to make these declarations; that needs to stop. If there's actual consensus (and not just the usual crew piling on at far flung venues over the course of a few hours) then that's fine. Shadowjams (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The problem is a poisonous interaction relationship between another editor and KW; this remedy has nothing to do with that. This strikes me as akin to attempting to fix tooth decay by putting a cast on one's leg... Carrite (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as minimum; better yet would be an expansion of the ban to all RFA-related pages. I don't think "threaded discussion" is clear enough to keep KW from pointless arguments that pull focus away from the candidate under discussion. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I did not comment in the previous discussion, but I read it the way Dennis does, and not the way K.W does. The topic ban was clearly a condition of the unblock, and if KW does not want to accept the topic ban, which is his prerogative, then he should be re-blocked. If he wishes to stay unblocked, he must accept the topic ban. While K.W wishes to present his stance as (in some fashion I don't understand) a check against bureaucracy, it seems more like gamesmanship and Wikilawyering to me, i.e. accept an offered option in order to be unblocked, and then rely on prejudice against administrative action to overturn the condition without reverting to the status quo ante. That, in its fashion, is more disruptive than the behavior which led to KW's block and topic ban, because it undermines the administrative authority necessary to insure that the project continues running and not devolve into total chaos, and acts as a corrosive eating away at the community, such as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  "undermines the administrative authority necessary to insure that the project continues running and not devolve into total chaos, and acts as a corrosive eating away at the community..." is even more hysterical than The Running Man's comments at the last RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Kiefer, that response is very much unworthy of your intelligence and your usual powers of perception, as there is nothing in the least "hysterical" about my comment. I didn't expect you to agree with me, but I thought at least your reply would be rational and not simply emotional lashing out. I have to agree with whoever it was above who said that your comments here are not showing you in the best light. My suggestion is that you refrain from further commentary here, as you seem to be doing yourself more harm than good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Previous interactions have made it clear to me (and many others it seems) that KW will often try to "unsay" things or to argue about trivial points that distract from the main subject under discussion. This appears to be a perfect example of that trend, and so a formal, community imposed sanction that is unambiguous seems in order, otherwise it is unlikely he would abide by the terms even if he appeared to agree with them before. I would suggest that the enforcement mechanism be a a series of sharply escalating blocks, limiting out to an indef after about three. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe you should read the "community restriction" policy, which you seem to think is one of several "trivial points"? I look forward to your next run at ArbCom.... :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, all this condescending bullshit you post is not helping your case. I realize that is your go-to move when you feel threatened, but for someone who acts like they are so smart you don't seem to understand how you are often your own worst enemy. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Some less drama wouldn't hurt anybody. If its possible to achieve that through this, I'll gladly support it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please clarify your argument. Why not just ban me or everybody, which would minimize drama? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find it difficult to believe that the window of acceptable outcomes here even includes an unblock. If this is the toughest sanctions that will stick, so be it. It's sadly far more likely that KW will continue to test the extremely sanguine boundaries set here than he will to consciously alter his attitude. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe you should ask My76Strat for copyediting help? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum. I agree with the people who've said above that Kiefer should have been free to either accept the unblock and restriction, or decline both, but not to mix and match, and that rejecting his restriction as he's doing ought to lead to a re-block until new terms are negotiated. However, there's not likely to be overwhelming support for reblocking Kiefer based on what's been said in this thread so far, so assuming that's a no-go, here's what I think: I think removing Kiefer from RFA discussion is just putting a band-aid on an issue we'll soon find ourselves revisiting anyway, but if it's the best solution we have available right now, it will have to do. Kiefer, I see that even people who've had their issues with the bureaucracy around here have been pleading with you to dial back the approach you're taking lately; I think they're speaking a lot of sense, and I wish you'd consider listening to them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Advice to me based on political expediency is prime facie evidence of political incompetence, at least on Wikipedia. Advice to me on principle is always welcome. Fluffer, you seem to be suggesting that an arbitrator administrator can impose a community restriction, which is not policy. Change the policy through an RfC if you like, but be honest. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Not exactly, at least as far as the imposing-restrictions (I'm not sure what "an arbitrator" has to do with this; Drmies isn't one). I'm saying that it is, to the best of my knowledge, acceptable (and not uncommon) for an admin to tell a blocked editor, "I'm willing to unblock if you agree to [restriction|terms|whatever]". The blocked user can then choose to accept that condition, or say "No thank you, I'll wait for my request to be reviewed by someone else". The user has a choice between accepting the condition or waiting for someone to offer them better terms, so to speak; the admin's restriction only goes into effect if the user accepts it. In this case, Drmies assumed you'd accept the conditions and unblocked without waiting for your agreement, which set things topsy-turvy, and is why I say that ideally the block should go back into place until terms acceptable to both you and the/an unblocking admin are been reached. Since you're unblocked and editing now, though, the question is whether the restriction should apply to your editing going forward. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you think this topic ban is remedying exactly? KW was not blocked for disruption at RFA. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why I say that I think an RFA restriction is only a band-aid on the problem. The real problem is more a matter of how Kiefer chooses, at times, to engage with other editors in an unnecessarily accusatory manner. Participation at RFA can bring this out of him - not always, but enough so that it's a decent step to take to limit instances of that behavior - but it's not the only situation in which this issue arises, and I don't think this RFA restriction is going to solve the root problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a step in the right direction. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• 'Support KW's constant arguing with every support vote here gives me the belief that such a restriction is necessary. I would suggest that if the result is judged as "no consensus to lift or sustain the restriction" that it be taken to the Committee, if they will accept. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  The restriction does not exist because individual administrators do not have the authority to impose community restrictions. The close may well impose a restriction for the first time, following the suggestion of Drmies. (It doesn't matter for my behavior, because I said I would agree with the spirit and letter of a suggested restriction.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems fairly straight forward to me. Drmies was willing to unblock KW if KW agreed to certain restrictions. As no other admin had given any indication that they would unblock KW and KW had hinted at a similar restriction, Drmies went ahead and made the unblock. This is a normal course of events on the encyclopedia - you do not need consensus for a voluntary restriction. So, if KW does not accept the restriction, he should be promptly re-blocked, until he can persuade an administrator that he should be unblocked without said restriction. Of course, that won't actually help the encyclopedia, we get another few days of discussing the matter and not getting on with anything useful, so if a community imposed restrictions will grease the wheels, I will certainly support the restrictions suggested by Drmies. While I'm here, can I also thank User:Drmies? He stuck his neck out when other admins refused to and tried to find a solution which everyone could be happy with. I don't see him getting as much credit for that as he deserves. Worm^TT(talk) 21:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If I follow, effectively any admin can remove the restrictions? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but they might want to read this discussion, the original block discussion and the unblock discussion, before doing so, as it really should dissuade them from doing so. K.W has done himself no favors in those threads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll leave it to others to weigh in on whether the proposed restrictions are a good idea, but I do want to go on the record saying that I support what Drmies was trying to accomplish here. Offering a conditional unblock is a reasonable thing to do, and well within admin discretion. I know some editors dislike the idea of unilaterally placed editing restrictions, but I don't subscribe to the idea that telling someone they can't edit X is anathema but telling them they can't edit anything is perfectly OK. Perhaps Drmies picked the wrong X; regardless, he deserves thanks for stepping in and trying to bring back an editor in a way that would (theoretically) minimize future unnecessary conflict. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Question

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

---

It seems that several of us feel that the terms of the proposed topic ban are too toothless and afford us too little protection from disruption. I've registered my protest to Drmies for this in this edit. My question here is whether we actually have to put up with the watered-down terms, or whether a complete topic ban from RfA is preferred. I hope this will not muddy the waters -- if anyone chooses to support this proposal, I recommend not withdrawing any support from the one in the main section, in case this one should fail. So, the proposal in this subsection is to make the topic ban an unconditional one for all RFA pages, subpages and their talk pages. --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as Q.E.D. from the discussion above. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because he should be able to weigh in on who will have authority over him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I am probably the most thanked participant at RfAs, because of my analysis of the candidates. Where, Stfg, is my participation with RfAs problematic, except in responding to disagreeable concerns in threaded discussions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Examples: [29], followed a day later by [30]. --Stfg (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  That's your "disruption"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue here isn't specifically about RfA, it's about KW's style of interaction during disagreements - so I don't see a need for a ban from RfA. We don't need measures to stop what doesn't usually go wrong - the partial restrictions proposed above, which are aimed at stopping escalation when things do start to go wrong, seem about right to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I do oppose this for exactly the same reasons as Boing! said Zebedee, KW's initial comments at RfA are seldom problematic, it's the latter comments that can lead to issues. However, I would like to see KW's evidence for the suggestion that he is "probably the most thanked participant at RfAs" - I find it a surprising hypothesis. Worm^TT(talk) 20:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that maintaining the conditions that Drmies put on KW is adequate. I am also open to those being lifted after a while. His votes at RfA are seldom the issue, the threaded discussion is, so the more targeted approach seems more fair to him and the candidates. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the reasons above and as I stated previously I don't think it was necessary in the first place. Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the original proposal is a sensible one. It's not the oppose !votes that are a problem but it's the stuff that goes on after that. The restriction placed by Drmies addresses that rather well. --regentspark (comment) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Users should have a fundamental right to Support or Oppose those who are asking for permissions capable of drastically curtailing their editing ability through page protection, page deletion, filter editing and ultimately account blocking, that right doesn't extend to fisticuffs at RfA but that, as Marvin and Kim sang, takes two and it becomes the responsibility for both parties to ensure there's not uncontrolled escalation of discussion. I'm getting a bit of a feeling now that some people know exactly what to say and do to get Kiefer to respond in such a way that sanctions can easily be argued for, and they need to be controlled just as much as Kiefer needs to be occasionally reigned in. Nick (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Unblock of User:PumpkinSky

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

---

I'm formally requesting the community immediately unblock PumpkinSky. User:Jmh649 (Doc James) blocked PumpkinSky specifically for this [31] and later clarified as being a string of incivilities. Please read the entire discussion here.[32] Blocks for incivility are at best controversial, and in this instance, inappropriate. While a couple of comments from two weeks ago were well over the line, they were dealt with. Using a comment from 2011 as a reason to block is clearly inappropriate. The "trigger" diff was when PumpkinSky called an editor a "pompous ass" after that editor started a large thread mocking the efforts of other editors [33]. If you look at the start, the context at the "Hall of Lame"[34], then you realize the comment wasn't nearly as out of line as it seems.

While I can't and don't condone calling another editor a "pompous ass", neither do I wish the community to micromanage and police every comment from every editor in this way. I've asked Doc James to unblock but he has declined. To me, the standard is simple: Had I called someone a "pompous ass", I would not have been blocked. Even on that page, I inferred that PumpkinSky was being an "ass", yet nary an eyebrow was raised. And I've seen admin call each other worse without sanction. The block doesn't need to be for time served, it needs reverting. While I assume good faith, it is my opinion an error in judgement occurred. Rather than wheel war over it, I bring it to the community and ask them to swiftly do the right thing. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to revert block

• Unblock - clearly bad block that needs to be quickly reverted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock- I agree with Boing! said Zebedee Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There is a fairly long list of incivility as shown by the diffs provided.[35] I see no indication that the user in question feels his current comments or his previous comments were an issue. When he added "I can by to see what you were up to and saw you haven't edited in three months. Good riddance because the way you and Townlake behaved on my talk page in Oct 2012 was appalling. You should be ashamed on both a personal and admin level. But I'm sure you're not. But that is okay because karma will get you and I won't have to do a thing." to a users talk page and when someone brought concerns regarding these comments to his attention his reply was "I won't remove it nor the one on Townlake's talk page; but I also won't interfere with what others do in that regard."[36] When the concerns today were raised the response was "If you're not man enough to admit to the community you couldn't wait to make this block because of your feelings for Will and against me, at least admit it to yourself". This is no very conducive to collaborative editing IMO. If this continues a longer block may be needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Doc, that was two weeks ago, you can't really be saying that is the reason for the block. It WAS inappropriate, and had I seen it, I would have chewed on him much stronger than Strat did, but I wouldn't have blocked him two weeks later, and saying so here doesn't reflect well on you, to be honest. Digging in deeper by threatening a longer future block is not appropriate at this particular discussion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Bad block.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. There's no denying that PumpkinSky has been a bit testy lately, but the comments cited did not warrant a block. It's not really relevant to the unblock request, but I feel obliged to observe that Tony1 was inviting a comeback like that one in making his persistent accusations and insinuations against the people who participate in WP:DYK. And plenty of worse things than "pompous ass" get said around here on a regular basis without getting the speaker blocked. --Orlady (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock, per Dennis and Orlady, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Unblock of User:Who Am I Why Am I Here

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

---

Who Am I Why Am I Here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked in early 2011 for creating malicious sock accounts. Then, a few days ago they created a new account: User:Think for Yourselves. The creation of their userpage was the account's first edit, and it explains all this in their own words.

So, upon reviewing an unblock request by Who Am I I concluded that the correct course of action was to block the new account and open this discussion. I consider that block purely procedural as they were technically evading a previous block so I restored the status quo and advised them I would be asking for input on the matter. I have also requested that they pick one account to use from now on, so I would suggest that this discussion is about unblocking one or the other but not both.

My own feeling on the matter is that I do believe that the creation of this new account was not in any way malicious, unlike the previous accounts, and that it has been a long time and people actually can change.

• The blocking admin is no longer active.

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Copied from the user's talk page

What do you plan to do if unblocked? --Rschen7754 07:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would probably update a lot of pages and the like about U.S. politics and politicians. I consider that my expertise, and although many of my troll posts in the past were about that, I feel that I can overcome the past and be constructive. I also consider myself to have a fairly good knowledge of various movies and TV shows, so I'm sure that I could help there, as well. I could probably help fill in some history pages, but I'd probably want to start with something less complicated.

Think for Yourselves (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I say why not. Worst case: relapse and reblock. Best case: successful rehabilitation. It hasn't been as much time as I'd like but I see no harm in givng the user a chance to prove what he's saying. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think the WP:Standard offer applies. Just engage them and get a promise to not engage in the behaviour that got them blocked, and since it's certainly been over 6 months, and they've not engaged in any questionable behaviour, I think everything's pretty kosher. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• As the user who answered to their helpme request, I totally agree with allowing the user to edit constructively under any one account he chooses to. From what i can see, he appears to be a promising candidate for some constructive work in the future. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Standard standard offer. How easy would it be for the user to never acknowledge a previous account... the standard offer exists because it inspires transparency. This is that, as far as this thread indicates. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Accept standard offer with current account. Previous accounts can be reblocked with a comment pointing to the new account if needed. Any time someone wants to join the the editing side and leave the lolz side, it should be encouraged. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yep, seems good to me too - hopefully we'll have a good convert from the dark side. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sure. Standard offer applies. --RA (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agreeing with everyone else. Acknowledging his past is solid evidence that he wants to be helpful; if he wanted to remain disruptive, he'd have absolutely no reason to acknowledge it. I agree with both sides of Beeblebrox' actions — the block was necessary because this is someone with a disruptive history, but the unblock request here is really the only appropriate way to respond to someone who seems genuinely rehabilitated. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:Hatnote

Is there a hatnote converter?--Launchballer 11:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean a script to convert manually-typed indentation and italic markup to the proper hatnote template? (I'm not specifically aware of such a script.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Proper hatnote template"--there's really no difference at all between using {{hatnote}} and :''text''. As an aside, AN was probably not the best place to post this — VPT is thataways. Theopolisme (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - all it really does is put the content in a div with class="dablink". The only thing that class seems to apply is italics and margins. So, other than the (maybe important, maybe not) possibilities that someone might have custom CSS for that class, or that scripts might look for the class, it doesn't seem to do a lot. As Theopolisme says, though - VPT would answer those questions. Begoon ^talk 17:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It adds semantic value, and makes makes it trivial for external users to filter out. Hatnotes should always use templates. If that was indeed what was being requested here, I can't imagine it'd be extraordinarily difficult to write one, though even Twinkle struggles occasionally with detecting improperly formatted hatnotes. But this almost certainly doesn't require specific input from the admin corps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Closure of ANI thread

Hi,

Would someone close this thread at ANI. It has been open for over a week and has already been archived once due to inactivity and has received sufficient input IMO.

I've proposed a wording for a restriction, if that is the result of a closure.

--RA (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor - A/B test launch on 18 June

Hey all.

As previously announced (via a watchlist notice and static announcements), we'll be enabling the VisualEditor for a percentage of newly-created accounts, starting Tuesday the 18th. Our main goal here is to find out what difference it makes to the number of users who start editing, and who complete an edit, so we can find out what strains a full deployment might put on community workflows - even if it works perfectly as software, we need to know if turning it on will break the teahouse :). Obviously there are some bugs at the moment, a few of them very serious, but I've been assured the big ones will be fixed before the software launches for this test - including things like template and reference editing. If we aren't comfortable with the state of it, we won't hit the on button. If things look fine, we turn it on, and something breaks dramatically, tell us - we retain the ability to just switch the VE off if it starts mangling things, and will be monitoring closely :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good idea — much better to test it for a few people before making it live for everyone! You mention template editing; is it possible to use it to edit complicated code? Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is, use it to edit templates themselves? No, but thankfully it'll only be live in the mainspace :). In terms of being able to insert new templates (and modify them) or modify existing templates, it'll be possible with the next release - see this mediawiki page for a test sandbox :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, using it to edit templates themselves; thanks for the clarification, because I misunderstood it to mean that those editors using it would have to use it on all pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is great idea. Beta testing and gathering user information like this is great. However, there have been a number of improperly announced changes to the UI recently that have vexed folk and I think there is a desire among the community for involvement in UI changes. This doesn't have to be full-on, snails-pace discussion/consultation. But greater clarity, openness, forewarning and transparency would be appreciated, I believe.

Example issues that pop to mind right immediately, for example, include:

1. Given that issues are expected, what efforts are being taken to notify the wider community so that everyone knows what's going (and how to react)? VP Tech and the admin noticeboard hardly reach the widest audience.
2. How long is the trial running for and when is data expected to come in? Will data from the trial be published to the community?
3. What are the expected outcomes? How will the data be analysed and what decisions will be made using the data?

Thanks, --RA (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I do think this is seriously premature - it seems to have been decreed that the trial must start today, ready or not.

Experimental use of the first version has shown up very large numbers of bugs - see the ever-lengthening list at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback. Okeyes says he has been "assured the big ones will be fixed" in the new version, but it also includes major additions, the ability to edit templates and references, which have not been exposed to general user testing. It cannot be sensible to throw it open to half of new editors before giving it any exposure to testing by experienced editors.

Some of the bugs found, e.g. ones described here and here, cause VE to make substantial unexpected changes to pages, beside what the user intended. Experienced testers can watch for that, and have been following a routine of 1.Edit with VE 2.Inspect the result 3.Revert the change 4.Report the bug. Newbies will not do that, and unless every newbie VE edit is checked, we risk having articles damaged.

Even if the primary aim of the A/B trial is to determine what difference VE makes to the proportion of newbies who complete an edit, giving them an untested and buggy version will not tell us how they would react to a tested, smoothly-working version that had (as I believe this will not) a "Help" button linking to a page of user guide. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please draft up some boilerplate text to whack on newbie talk pages telling them (1) their VisualEditor edit was reverted because it is buggy, (2) how to disable VE and (3) to try again in the usual manner? (It's near bedtime for me). I don't want to see users blocked for WMF incompetence pretending to be vandalism, unless they're WMF staff. MER-C 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Some very good points above. Selected newbies should be informed that they are using software with expected bugs, what that software is and how to debug it. This is not a laboratory. It's a live environment and if bugs are expected we cannot sacrifice the project or give newbie a poor experience without their understanding. --RA (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

With that I've created User:Charmlet/VE-notice and User:Charmlet/VE-user, feel free to use them/modify them if you wish. Charmlet (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hey all. We're going to postpone the A/B test for several days; I'll post more details as I get them, but I understand it's largely down to known bugs with the existing software - bugs that you reported, and bugs that were crucial in making a go/no go decision. Thank you to everyone for all your hard work poking at the VE, and for all your reports thus far; it's much appreciated :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, can we have an opt-in group? I'm game. I edit little and carefully right now and I am not bad at software issue feedback. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For most people, it's apparently been possible for a while to use it; go to Wikipedia:VisualEditor and follow the instructions regarding Special:Preferences. I've followed them and can't yet use it, so if you can't get it to appear, don't think you're the only one. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nyttend, look all over your tabs (if on vector). Mine appears as a small tab with no words, about the width of

| |

That little thing there (if not smaller), due to my JS/CSS settings. If that fails, I've heard of people having to selectively disable JS/CSS until they find the interfering one(s). Charmlet (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, and I couldn't find it. I'm not using any JS or CSS that's different from the defaults. As was noted at the feedback page, others have gotten it to work in Monobook (which I use), so it's something bigger than a simple skin problem. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Worked for me. There are two tabs, one for 'edit' and the other for 'edit source'. The first is the visual editor. Of course it did not support the first change I tried. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's get admin opinion on the use of a new RFC to sneakily try to undo a recent one

At Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, there is currently an RFC as to whether election data from 2012 should be included in the article. However, several editors are trying to use this RFC to undo a previous RFC which found consensus not to include synthy election data from 2008. This latter RFC was closed about a month ago and had its close confirmed yesterday. I'd like some opinions on whether this backdoor attempt to circumvent the community consensus is acceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I closed a previous set of RfC. At a glance, it looks like RfCs are being used on that page where discussion would be more appropriate. --RA (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As a start, I've closed the request for closure here and removed the RfC template from the article. --RA (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on the talk page and notified certain editors. --RA (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. The page is a mess. The plethora of inappropriately constituted and worded motions by Casprings made actual consensus hard to follow. The RfC by Arzel, while his first, is one of the few aimed at clarity, and works perfectly well, even better, as a Talk page topic. No action requested, but note WP:PA ("sneaky" "synthy" allege "undo")--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help unbundling a group AfD

here has been enough objection at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the remaining members of the council of grandmothers to the group nomination that I've decided to close this one out and relist the articles individually. If some knowledgeable and helpful administrator could contact me on my talk page and walk me through this I would be grateful. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Although Mangoe did create the AfD, it is by no means clear that there is a consensus for unbundling the AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it worked the other way around, i.e. there needs to be consensus for maintaining articles in a bundle. As WP:BUNDLE says "if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't." Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin, followed link from the AfD) The discussion started as a bundle and went for a long time as a bundle. As far as I can tell keep !votes either argue that they are individually notable or are procedural unbundle requests, while merge and delete !votes view them as a bundled group. Ansh666 00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

An apology

I have, at times, been dismissive of requests of User:Pigsonthewing. I apologise. On reflection, I would say that Andy Mabbett is (a) a very, very committed Wikipedian and (b) a top bloke.

I made the comments here and on ANI, so here is where I apologise. I was unduly hasty. I encourage other admins to look beyond the seemingly excessively detail-focused nature of his requests and spend a few minutes talking to him. Especially if you are English or ride a Brompton. Andy Mabbett deserves support and help, I was rude to him and I am a bad man. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm mostly unaware of the situation(s) that lead up to this, but I can only commend a public display of contrition and an admission of misjudgement. Some people could undoubtedly benefit from your example. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We're Wikipedians. When we get it wrong, we should put our hands up. That is the right thing to do. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support this approach, and try to live up to this same standard. Thank you for walking the walk. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup at Scotiabank Place

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

---

The Ottawa Senators announced that their arena name will be changing from Scotiabank Place to Canadian Tire Centre on July 1, 2013 [37]. Within two hours of that announcement, editors had renamed the Scotiabank Place page to Canadian Tire Centre. I have tagged Scotiabank Place for CSD G6 and requested that the Canadian Tire Centre page be moved back there. The CSD has been in place for a few hours, and the redirect keeps getting added back in by well-meaning editors. Could an admin move the page back, and move-protect it until July 1, 2013 so this doesn't keep happening? There are ripple effects as editors have been changing the name at the Ottawa Senators page, NHL page, etc. A news release on the Ottawa Senators official website [38] confirms the changeover date. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 02:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvadrim and I both responded at the same time; we had a partial move-conflict and left chaos in our wake by accident. He offered to clean it up, so everything should be back where it belongs pretty soon. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvidrim, hehe. And yea, some revisions weren't left at the proper article. Hopefully I've been able to fix everything properly. I'm still getting used to managing histmerges and histsplits, but I'm pretty sure this is correct now. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[another conflict! And I tried to fix the spelling in the mean time] Salvidrim's now apparently done with the history unmangling, and the page is now move-protected; I think we're done here. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for the quick response. I'm sure the chaos wasn't any more than what was created by the many over-excited fan edits today. Thanks again! Taroaldo ✉ 03:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

[Now we conflicted again...] Didn't help that I fully-protected everything as soon as I realised that something had gone wrong — I figured full protection would prevent future edit conflicts and let me fix everything without risk of additional chaos, but I completely forgot that Salvidrim was an admin and thus able to have edit/protection conflicts as well as move conflicts. I think all my temporary protection is gone (didn't see any lingering protection except for the move protection), but it would be good for someone other than Salvidrim or me to check for it. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Next admin in line: just push the {{abot}} template down under your last message once everything's checked and fixed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Backlog

AIV very backlogged. Will clear if it's still bad after I get back from work. Danger ^{High voltage!} 11:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)