Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.40.54.22 (talk) at 07:10, 6 September 2013 (→‎Should I be nuked?: WP:MRbk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice

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

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

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

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Steven van de Velde#RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 26 June 2024) RFC has elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 23 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V May Jun Jul Aug Total
      CfD 0 1 59 0 60
      TfD 0 0 3 0 3
      MfD 0 0 5 0 5
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 79 0 79
      AfD 0 0 2 0 2

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

      Other types of closing requests

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

      (Initiated 248 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      Administrator Nick-D, editor EyeTruth, former editor Blablaaa and the battle over the Battle of Kursk page

      I raise this complaint regarding administrator Nick-D over his handling of the disputes over the Battle of Kursk article. I believe the actions of this otherwise sound administrator were inconsistent and were the result of manipulation on the part of a rather elusive and argumentative editor currently editing by the name of EyeTruth. Though the actions of Nick D may appear as favoritism, I believe they were actually done in good conscience and represent an honest mistake.

      The administrator became involved following a conversation on the administrator’s talk page between editor EyeTruth who had a lengthy history of contention and edit warring on the page. I was one of a number of editors that opposed a change in the wording to the article. I was not a party to the conversation on the administrators talk page, nor did I receive a knock regarding it.

      Editor EyeTruth has been persistently arguing for a change in the wording of the page to include the term "blitzkrieg" in reference to describing the German plans for the battle. This had been contested by a number of editors over the past three months, and had resulted in warnings and blocks being administered (see collapsable below). Nick D came in on request of user EyeTruth as an administrator to help resolve the dispute. Soon after Nick's involvement a discussion was started on the talk page to resolve this issue. While the discussion was underway editor EyeTruth inserted the term again here on 17 August at 17:45. This disrupted the ongoing discussion by short-cutting it. No action was taken by Nick-D against EyeTruth for changing the page.

      EyeTruth then immediately went to Nick D's talk page, saying:

      Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

      Twenty minutes later I returned the phrasing to as it was before, with admonition to EyeTruth “You were asked by the administrator not to change the article until the weekend had passed. You are not in position to decide what is or is not equal weight. EyeTruth, you need to participate in the talk page and await a consensus.” It should be pointed out that two other well experienced, sober editors, Sturmvogel 66 and Binksternet, had reverted earlier attempts by EyeTruth to insert his preferred phrasing (see collapsible below).

      Shortly after this, Nick D issued a block against myself here, not just from the article in question, but from all of Wikipedia. I responded with an explanatory statement on my talk page, which was the only option available to me, but no response was offered from Nick-D, which is his right.

      An hour later administrator Nick-D blocked the article’s page from any further editing for the duration of one week here.

      Given the above, it seems curious that no block was placed upon editor EyeTruth when he inserted the contentious material on 20 August at 06:03. It would seem inconsistent to then block editor Gunbirddriver for simply returning the wording to the consensus opinion, especially in light of the fact that an ongoing discussion was underway on the talk page which had promise for reaching a conclusion that was workable for both sides. What role did EyeTruth’s comments on Nick D's talk page play, seen here at 07:34:

      “Ok, Gunbirddriver has reverted it. His edit summary is the most striking thing about this action. The way he bends words is very scary.”

      Is such influence appropriate? His comments on the talk page are responded to within thirty minutes with this response by Nick D: here:

      Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter.

      Is it right for editors to be essentially requesting blocks from administrators on their talk page? If the administrator felt it necessary to fully protect the article for a week, why was it also necessary to first block editor Gunbirddriver, an otherwise steady and reasonable contributor?

      As to the talk page discussions, the tone on the talk page had been marred by harsh language from EyeTruth for some time, and I believe the discussion would have been well served if Nick-D had noted the contentious manner in which EyeTruth was conducting himself and encouraged him to keep a civil tone. The repeated calling me out as delusional, a liar and as an editor attempting to insert original research into the article needed to be restrained (see collapsible discussion below). Here is a sample of some of the fair:

      It is only in your delusion.

      followed by

      I never called you delusional; instead, that particular claim of yours is the delusion. Aren't you tired of flashing the "I've-been-insulted-card"?
      "Trying to insult you"? You're funny. Insulting you, or any other person, is not worth my time. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS!

      This particular phrasing with all caps was repeated over and over again on the talk page.

      A sample exchange:

      Phrases like "Hahaha", "LOL" and "OMFG" are completely inappropriate and they need to stop. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      Hmmmn, interesting opinion. OK, this is now way too hypocritical. How about "hmmmn" and "BTW" and "hehehe". Oh wait, how about "cowboy"? Hahahaha! I won't even bother wasting anymore words on this one lol. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

      Or this on the Wkipedia Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

      Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do.

      Or here:

      I finally took a much closer look at what you did in this article. THE END: a more compact article. THE MEANS: merciless butchery. Reading the lead, I saw an outstanding job but as I went down...! I think we need to bring in other editors on these recent cleanup of yours to save us both an unnecessarily deadlock. You're refusing to comprehend simple explanation and at the same time insisting on the credibility of your original research. EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

      Personally, I think this sounds like he is not in full possession of his senses. Why would I be out to contend every step taken by EyeTruth? My editing amounts to merciless butchery? I have made over two hundred edits to the page.

      Throughout EyeTruth has displayed an array of deceptive and manipulative practices. On the administrators' talk pages he is very servile and feigns ignorance, when in reality he is a very experienced editor and is well versed in wikipedia administrative policies. He has moved warnings and blocks off his talk page over to his archive section seen here on 5 July and here on 20 August.

      He has also been threatening:

      User:Gunbirddriver, you can heed my advice on the article's talkpage or be blocked. And this won't be a block based on biased, false information, like you did. It will be real and stick to your account for good. So heed my advice and the advice of many other editors and admin. EyeTruth (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

      This editor has an extensive past history editing on Wikipedia that we are unaware of because he has hidden his identity by creating a new user name. He has misled and manipulated two administrators through deceptive practices. He has removed content of warnings to an archive record, feigned ignorance, and perpetrated lies of omission and half-truths, while routinely mis-characterizating the positions of others, and their motives for taking their positions (see Collapsible space):

      I have strong reason to suspect that User:EyeTruth is former User:Blablaaa. User:Blablaaa received a block of indefinite duration in August of 2010. User:EyeTruth began editing about seven months ago and has a rather limited track record of working upon Wikipedia. Despite this apparent lack of experience, both editors are extremely well versed in more advanced editing techniques, and are well experienced in the Wikipedia administrative processes of attempting to resolve conflicts and its methods for dealing with disruptive behavior. Both editors are aggressive in argument and assume bad faith on the part of their dissenters. Both editors are willing to pour a tremendous amount of time and energy into their arguments. Both are not native English speakers, though EyeTruth shows significantly expanded use of the language over Blablaaa. Most striking is the history of highly contentious arguments both editors have been involved in over seemingly minor points. In undertaking these arguments both editors tend to insult the intelligence and integrity of the editors they are in argument with, frequently make accusations of lying, improper citations and original research, and they both undertake convoluted arguments that not infrequently assert contradictory positions. Both make use of internet acronyms such as lol, OMG, :¬), @, will place sections of text in green to highlight a section, and in their comments will use bold and all caps frequently when attempting to drive a point home. Both have a fair amount of knowledge in military history, and both will sometimes take peculiar positions which though reflect some truth, tend to distort the record in some manner. Both lean heavily on David Glantz as a secondary source of information and insist upon what they would consider to be proper citations for any entry made. Both have received unequivocal support from User:Caden. Both have a tendency to forum shop until they achieve their desired outcome. Both were involved with the articles of Battle of Kursk and Battle of Prokhorovka. In addition to making edits on the English Wiki page, User:Blablaaa made edits to the Deutsch Wiki page on the Battle of Kursk article. There is no corresponding German page for the Battle of Prokhorovka. User:EyeTruth has stated that he has been speaking English since the age of three. User:Blablaaa had edited under a number of other identities prior to the series of blocks that constrained his editing in 2010. User:Blablaaa announced he was leaving Wikipedia in late 2010.

      As to administrator Nick-D, I believe he was taken advantage of and ill used by User:EyeTruth. In the past I have taken note of his work and admired it. I think he is a fine administrator of sound judgment, and I have no issue whatsoever either working with or taking direction from him.

      I apologize for the length of this statement. I have notified both individuals. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      References:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=EyeTruth&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2F3RRArchive&fulltext=Search

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_95#General_Question

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blablaaa

      Before, I suspected you enjoyed trolling, but now you've proved it for real. This is too fukin funny XD. EyeTruth (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Any admin that will look at this report should please consult with other admins that have been involved with this issue. Gunbirddriver has a solid history of reporting very warped version of this dispute. The above report is so twisted, it almost amount to a lie. The admins that have dealt with this before are: User:EdJohnston, User:Mark Arsten, User:BBb23 and User:Nick-D. EyeTruth (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Trivia: Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute. Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). Well, Gunbirddriver continued edit warring as usual and thus was blocked, so he has come back with a vengeance. His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me. Please talk to the other admins that have been involved, or dig into all the links he posted and look through their respective contexts. EyeTruth (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think anyone's going to bother. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 03:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wall of text is it, Vanisaac? Well, let me try to clarify the issues:

      1) Editor EyeTruth is an editor with an unknown history. Under the current identifying name, his history goes back 6 months, but he admits below that he has edited on Wikipedia for well over five years. I have edited on Wikipedia for almost three years, starting in October of 2010, and all my previous edits can be found, and all administrative actions can be seen as well. This is not the case with EyeTruth. We do not know his history, as he has chosen not to disclose it.

      2) Editor EyeTruth has a history of deception with administrators. The deceptions include mischaracterizing talk page discussions, mischaracterizing other editors, moving warnings from his talk page to an archive, failing to disclose the move to editors involved in discipline measures, asking that the block administered by reduced under false pretext, and then mischaracterizing the whole event in an attempt to again attack my character. I do not find this to be a helpful manner for an editor to be conducting oneself. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I have to confess to not having read all of the above lengthy post in detail, but I'd like to address a couple of points on my actions:
      1. I warned EyeTruth after he made this edit on 16 August: [2]. I didn't think that a block was appropriate as the edit added material and was made in good faith as part of a strategy in which EyeTruth was inviting Gunbirddriver to edit and add to this material - it struck me as being an honest mistake rather than deliberate edit warring. EyeTruth's subsequent editing was better as it included attempts to acknowledge both sides of the dispute, and so wasn't edit warring given that it represented a shift in their earlier approach. The article history [3] shows fairly productive too-and-fro editing between EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver over the next few days, so there was no reason to block anyone or (I thought) fully protect the article. I blocked Gunbirddriver as their edit on 20 August [4] removed material which was under discussion on the talk page (where it had a reasonable amount of support), and seemed to have been a bad faith recurrence of the edit warring (especially given the misleading edit summary - I had suggested that both editors walk away from the article for a while several days before). I then fully protected the article to prevent any further edit warring - in retrospect I should have done this several days earlier, but I'm always reluctant to fully protect high-profile articles.
      2. I was the main admin involved in responding to Blablaaa (talk · contribs) and I don't see any similarities between them and EyeTruth.
      I'm not sure why this post has been made now - I instituted the block and protection over a week ago, and have deliberately taken a 'hands off' approach to the discussion on the talk page, which seems to now be well on track to resolving the content dispute - I've commented a few times to suggest ways to resolve the dispute, and I think that the resultant discussion is going well. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      For the record, I would not mind the phrase being used in the article, but I believe it would be better to place it in a discussion section at the end of the article rather than in the section attempting to describe the German plans. The main reason for this is because the term is vague and there are multiple understandings of its meanings. EyeTruth himself is forever telling the other editors that the problem is they do not have the right understanding of the term, thus making my case. In addition, the German’s never used the term, and German officers writing about the battle after the war who were well aware of the term did not use it in reference to this battle, when they did use it in reference to other battles.

      Leaving EyeTruth aside for the time being, I believe the events that occurred and the order they occurred in were not good.

      To review, Nick D made a statement on Mark Arsten’s talk page here which ultimately would support EyeTruth’s position, i.e. insertion of the phrase into the article. EyeTruth then arrives at the talk page of Nick D to request his assistance in resolving a dispute here, already knowing that he supporedt his preferred action.

      EyeTruth then adds the same version back in, which Nick pointed out was not likely to help the situation here.

      Your edit appears to belie what you've written above: you have re-inserted your preferred claim that "the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg" without noting alternate viewpoints.

      Precisely so. What EyeTruth claims on administrator talk pages is not at all consistent with his interactions with other editors.

      EyeTruth then inserts the phrase in again with a call to Nick D to watch the page. I remove the phrase, as we still are in discussion on the talk page. EyeTruth goes to Nick’s talk page again, Nick blocks me.

      It does not seem right for an editor to be calling for an administrator to block another editor. I also do not understand why when moderating the talk page no time or attention has been given to curbing Eye Truth’s poor behavior. I do not understand why he is allowed to attack my character on an administrator's talk page with no effort made to check him, or to contact me so I have a chance to respond. I find it offensive for him to call me a liar, which he does over and over again. I also find it offensive when he accuses me of original research, yet no effort has been made by any administrator to curb his language.

      For administrators to maintain the moral authority required to command respect, they must act in a manner that is even handed. They must avoid acting in an arbitrary manner. Blocks placed must not reflect favoritism. EyeTruth inserted the same term into the article in the midst of a discussion. He could have offered a version of rewording on the talk page, but he did not. He circumvented the process and added to the conflict. Reinserting the term where he did and how he did did not move the process forward. There is no explanation for Nick-D allowing EyeTruth to change the phrasing in the article to what he preferred and then block myself when I attempted to maintain the phrasing until the discussion had concluded on the talk page. This is not even handed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Everything was going so bloody well. GBD the non usage of blitzkrieg argument is still viable. The vote is 6 to 3 with over a week to go. I must say I feel some responsibility for proposing the vote, I did not realise you could not contribute at the time. It took 48 hrs to sink in that your silence was enforced. I really apologise for that. But. They are not the same person! Its bloody obvious. Look at the style of language, the radically different approaches. This baaabaa or whatever is not the same person. Ive looked at the language, style of argumentation, even the attempt to reach consensus is radically different. I sense you are pissed off because the recent block stopped you from contributing for a few days. Dont let it blind you. Please drop the stick. Drop it now. Its not too late. And EyeTruth, do not retaliate. I have tried to be a bridge in my modest way in the short period ive worked with you two. You may not have even noticed. I dont care. I have respect for you both as good eds. its only WP :) Irondome (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Everything is still going fine in terms of the discussion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The block stopped him from contributing for just a day and that was before the poll was even conceived. I do respect GDB's point of view. Irondome, you probably have noticed that I fully understand you guys' perspective on this issue, and even agree to its factualness to an extent, but I'm just working with WP's idea of notability. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Suggestion Why dont we reset the vote, so you GBD can submit your own propsals? Its doable. And I am sure EyeTruth would agree. Wouldnt you Eyetruth? Thats a good way of proving you are not baabaa or whatever BTW, behaviourally. Lets just strike all this through. Hopefully not many eds have seen this yet, so we will all be saved from a show-up. can we do that Nick? Lets just get out this place. Cheers Irondome (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Naah. There is nothing to retaliate. There is also no need to reset the vote. This dispute has unnecessarily gone on for way too long. Adding another month to it is not palatable, at all. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A separate issue is the past history of EyeTruth. Whether or not he was previously the editor Blablaaa, he clearly has hidden his past, whatever it was. EyeTruth has reflected upon his personal history of previous editing of Wikipedia:

      P.S. It was all subjective 5 years ago, and although the guidelines has tightened up since then, they are still open to the user's discernment. However, since the editors' consensus for this article is one wikilink per article, then I'll submit to it. (Anyways, I've been following the consensus ever since the last discussion). EyeTruth (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

      Here is Sturmvogel 66 being surprised to learn that EyeTruth was well familiar with Wiki editing techniques:

      I beg your pardon, most editors with barely over 100 edits don't fully understand how to consolidate refs.

      So clearly EyeTruth has a history of editing Wikipedia of at least five years duration, but the account name he currently is using only goes back to 19 February 2013, some six months. That should cause some pause.

      In addition, there is clearly a history of deceptive behavior when dealing with administrators, as can be seen in his movement of warnings from his talk page to an archive, which subsequently convinced administrator Bbb23 that his block had been administered in error, when in fact as can be seen above in the collapsable section, it was not administered in error. Further, EyeTruth knew it had not been an error and did nothing to inform Bbb23 of that fact. A lie of omission is still a lie, and the earlier movement of the warnings onto his archive was most likely done for the purpose. He then went on to mischaracterize the event on Mark Arsten’s talk page here, portraying himself as some sort of victim. This behavior should not be given a pass. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      You are becoming too funny Gunbirddriver. FYI, my history with WP goes back far more than 5 years, so I do feel thoroughly underrated when you say it is just 5 years. And if you really didn't know about WP, or how to do very basic edits in it, five years ago... then I'm speechless! Also Bbb23 is not stupid. Stop thinking that your are the greatest genius that can comprehend anybody's mind. I gave Bbb23 links to every single thing related to this drama and he dug into it and came to his own conclusion. Your words are full of so much %#$@%&#%, I really don't want to give anymore comments. (BTW the censored text is nothing vulgar and it is not the four-letter word shit as some may insinuate). EyeTruth (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


      Okay EyeTruth, to clarify the deception seen in the sequence of events on the block issue, they were as follows:

      Editor EyeTruth is warned by Administrator Ed Johnston on 3 July here, with warning

      To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.

      The warning was removed from the EyeTruth talk page by user EyeTruth on 7 July and placed in an archive here. EyeTruth was warned a second time by administrator Mark Arsten on 3 August here. After ignoring the previous warnings, EyeTruth was blocked by administrator Bbb23 on 5 August here.

      When EyeTruth protested the block, Bbb23 appeared to become confused, commenting here:

      I've reviewed what happened again, and I believe my block was misplaced, although not for any of the reasons you've mentioned here or in the unblock request on your talk page. The tipping reason for the block was your alleged failure to heed a warning from another administrator. However, now that I've reviewed the events, your last revert on the article was before the warning, not after. And the other administrator had declined to block either you or the other editor when evaluating the first report.

      Here Bbb23 is clearly referring to Mark Arsten as the first administrator, who in response to EyeTruth’s complaint warned both EyeTruth and myself, though he declined to block either of us. In reality this was the second administrator warning EyeTruth. An earlier warning had been issued to EyeTruth on 3 July by EdJohnston here and here, where EdJohnston had said:

      Currently you seem to have no support from other editors in your desire to use the word 'blitzkrieg' in this article. To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus. Thank you.

      If EdJohnston’s warning had remained on EyeTruth’s talk page Bbb23 would not have been confused. If the move had just been an incidental transfer of information from his talk page to an archive, EyeTruth had the opportunity to correct the misunderstanding in the mind of Bbb23, but instead responded thus:

      It just felt so partial, and I was wondering if it was some planned and calculated move to help the other editor. I was just really curious. But it turned out to be a honest mistake. Apology accepted. Nothing else needed.

      Later, he went on to mischaracterize the whole event:

      Do you know that Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute? Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me.

      Indeed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      First off thanks Gunbirddriver for not telling me about this thread. Since you took the time to mention my name the least you could of done was let me know. Secondly, EyeTruth is not User:Blablaaa. I do agree with EyeTruth that the term should be used in the article and I've said so on the talk page. Things were being discussed and it was going well so I'm not sure why it was brought here. As for admin Nick-D I do agree with you Gun that Nick tends to favor certain editors with favortism. I've had my share of problems with Nick in the past and he was never fair to me and never fair to Blablaaa. If you feel your block was wrong then try to do something about it. In the past Nick was questioned over whether some of his blocks were correct. Caden cool 13:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, well that’s helpful, Caden. This complaint is not directed specifically at the discussion on the Battle of Kursk talk page, but is a more general complaint. I filed it when I did because I had gone away for a week, and upon returning it took some time to attempt to pull the threads together. I do not believe EyeTruth has been forthcoming in his interactions with administrators. In addition, during the discussion on the talk page it was clear that EyeTruth had extensive experience on Wikipedia, much more than his six month history would support. I do not believe the discussions he has been a party to have been conducted in an open and honest manner, and I believe this to be counterproductive to cooperative editing. I have been attempting to determine the prior identity of this editor. I take your word for it that he is not Blablaaa. That means then that we have yet to learn the prior identity or identities.Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Gun. When I first posted here, I didnt take enough time to look at your evidence. I have since read all of your posts here and I checked all of the links you provided. I believe you may have a case. I'm not so sure anymore about EyeTruth. After reading all of your links it's possible that he could be Blablaaa. Or he could be another banned editor. I'm really not sure. One thing I'm sure of is that his behavior towards you was far from civil and I'm surprised no admin did anything about that. Another thing that must be looked at is how Nick-D handled things. He didnt handle it well. The block Nick gave you was a bad one. He blocks you but lets EyeTruth off the hook? Makes no sense and looks like favoritism. Caden cool 06:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Gunbirddriver would have easily avoided a block if he hadn't rushed into editing right after Nick-D suggested that all editing should temporarily pause for some days. Also, summarily reverting an edit that had incorporated new points from the discussion and characterizing that action with a very misleading edit summary is what ticked off Nick-D (See Nick's post above). Normally, it would have ticked me off as well, but I'm already used to stuff like that from Gunbirddriver. Caden, you should see that edit summary. One of the most blatant lie I've seen in a while. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In all fairness to Gunbirddriver, he didnt see Nick's edit until after it was to late. As for Nick being ticked off, that's just not acceptable. He's an admin so he's expected to do far better than that. I do believe Gunbirddriver was and is trying to do a good job as an editor on the Battle of Kursk. I dont agree with the block Nick gave him though. Caden cool 15:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I can't tell when he saw it, but the fact that he attempted to use a very misleading edit summary to miscolor the situation was pretty bad, but that alone may not warrant a block. And I do agree Gunbirddriver is trying to do a good job, but he also has a few lapses in his good job. I'm not against his block, neither do I support it, nor did I wish for it. EyeTruth (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


      Convienence section break

      Eyetruth, please start making positive assertions showing the misstatements by Gunbirddriver instead of just saying "You are becoming too funny" as a euphamism for "You're full of ****". Also consider disengaging from this thread other administrators will look over the thread and ask questions of you if necessary. At this time, all I see is a very large boomerang that is in transit. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hasteur, I already spent so much "making positive assertions showing the misstatements by Gunbirddriver". Sorry, but I'm not wasting it again. I explicitly pointed out Ed Johnston's verdict to both Mark Arsten and Bbb23. They both know fully well about it. You should also look at the full verdict in WP:ANI. It was fully binding on how the DRN turns out, of which you clearly knew how it turned out as unresolved with a slight majority in favour of a "compromise". This drama has gone on for too many months, but this time around I just don't have enough spare-time to keep dragging myself through this quagmire anymore. Frankly, really don't. (Oh BTW, pls don't even start by insinuating that I said "You're full of ****". I didn't censor a four-letter word. So no, I didn't say "you're full of shit" nor was I even remotely implying that.) EyeTruth (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Why not just let us know what user names you used in your prior editing on Wikipedia?Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. If you want to see Gunbirddriver in action then see the Battle of Kursk talkpage and see our discussion on his talkpages. I would start posting them all here one by one if I still had that much time on my hand as before. You see stuff like "cover your mouth because it is disgusting when your food is flying out" or "kid now grow up" (maybe not exact wordings). And almost half of our convo is nothing but his attempts to twist the hell out my post, and me trying to figure out what the heck is going on. For example, I once stated that Dianna had pulled out from the drama and later Gunbirdriver came around and wrote that I claimed or suggested that Dianna conceded to the argument. Stuff like this just kept happening over and over again. Even in the essay he posted above certain things are presented out of the chronological order just to miscolor the whole situation. For example, while he is talking of stuff that happened in August, he throws that Sturmvogel and Binksternet also reverted my edits (which actually happened in early June) but he conveniently forgets to mention that both editors are now in support of a balanced solution to the dispute and have now advocated the inclusion of the term in carefully worded passage. The above essay he wrote has so many stuff like this, and I've shown his misstatements time and again in different venues over the past four months. But doing that all over again now is simply beyond the capacity of my schedule, as I don't have 2 or 3 days of constant editing to spare anytime soon. So before you digest just one side of the story take some time to look deeper or talk to others who have gotten closer to this drama. The only thing anyone could prematurely hold against me is my sometimes harsh language to Gunbirddriver; but the guy have sometimes used language harsher than anything I've used for him as well. BTW, "harsh language" doesn't include when I call him out on violating WP:V or WP:OR. Even Sturmvogel, Irondome and Howicus have very politely called him out on it. (But those mistakes were most likely made in good faith). EyeTruth (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Certainly I would be fine with any administrator reading through the discussion on the talk page. I think I was fairly constrained. In contrast, I would not expect creating section titles such as Blunders in the article and The real discussion would be the best way to go about reaching out to the other editors and create a consensus. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed this discussion by chance; I should have been notified immediately that my name was mentioned. Eyetruth, you need to notify everyone above that you mentioned by name. You can use the template provided at the top of the page to do so. The reason I left the Battle of Kursk page was remarks by EyeTruth such as "Diannaa, this better be a mistake instead of being some twisted attempt to spite me loool..." (directed at me) and "that was before I realized you had zero regards for accuracy or adherence to sources, and absolutely no squirms throwing in original research" (directed at Gunbirddriver). These are examples of the toxic environment and time-wasting discord I encountered when I edited the page again briefly in June (I have edited/watchlisted on and off for over three years). During the period I was on the page, EyeTruth was at the root of the discord, in my opinion, not Gunbirddriver. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have consistently supported BGD in terms of the present blitzkrieg discussion in terms of content. Till now I have not had any doubts as to the impartiality of involved eds. I did not look until recently at the long and often nasty discussions before I began to participate. ET, you obviously have loads of experience on WP. Your smooth navigation from procedures to technical skills admit that. I do not think you are baablaa, but you are a former ed. Lets just cklear the air here. It may wipe the slate so we can all move together constructively. GBDs theories have slightly poisoned the well, so clarity would be good. No way taking sides here. Just like to know where I stand re other eds. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Asaram Bapu

      I have previously brought my administrative actions on this article for review in this forum. My reaction is that there was no consensus that my actions were incorrect. Since that time, I've been trying very hard to move the involved editors to discuss the policy issues. At the same time I've been removing BLP violations from the talk page itself. Those removals have met the most resistance because many editors - wrongly in my view - believe that the issues can't be discussed without repeating the BLP-violating allegations. I have tried to keep my actions as consistent as possible, including most recently removing User:Jimbo Wales's addition to the talk page.

      If there is a clear consensus, particularly from other administrators, that some or all of my administrative actions have been unjustifiable, I will abide by that consensus. If anyone thinks I'm enjoying this, they're dead wrong. It's a royal pain in the ass. However, unless and until that happens, I will continue to act administratively as I see fit.

      I'm bringing it up again mainly because of the spill-over into so many other places on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is ridiculous. The allegations are all over every Indian newspaper and (300) police are actively looking to question the person being charged. For a parallel case I suggest you look at the history of the Rolf Harris article, where mentions of the allegations were there long before he was formally charged. It is completely not a WP:BLP violation [5] and that you stealthy removed my edits without even informing me is rather annoying. There is absolutely nothing in the BLP policy against mentioning these accusations and proposing text around them.
      What's even worse is that you haven't tried to justify anywhere why it's a BLP violation, but are rather repeating a mantra that it is. A quick google search should show any reasonable person that covering this is not a BLP violation: [6]. This is an incident, it should be at ANI. Jimbo Wales addition to the talk page was to list some reliable sources: [7] yet this was also removed as a BLP violation by Bbb23. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Rather than move the discussion to ANI, I've left a small comment there to attract people over so this can be resolved quickly (considering the time sensitive nature of the coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd also like to note as far as I can tell, Bbb23 has been making changes to the article over about 7 days, and then looked the article in place and reverted to his preferred version. I think its preferable if an admin who locks an article is not one who has been editing said article ... IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with IRWolfie on this one (but obviously I would). I have attempted to further the conversation there by posting exact quotes without editorialization from a variety of reliable sources, along with information to explain the nature of the sources - these are simple factual quotes from the largest non-tabloid newspapers and television networks in India about allegations that are clearly of encyclopedic interest. There is zero policy rationale for censoring discussion of what the article should say about these allegations, and furthermore Bbb23 has not even remotely attempted to justify his actions. I hope others will revert because I'd rather not do it myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never seen such a bunch of ill-founded accusations by experienced editors since I've become an admin. Twice I've taken this issue here for review. And twice there's been no consensus that my administrative actions have been inappropriate. As for the allegation that I haven't justified my actions, that's pathetic. I've done so over and over again. Editors may not agree, but I certainly haven't just stated conclusions without support for them. To accuse me of stealth is absurd. I have many faults, but sneakiness is not one of them. I've been as up front as I know how to be and as consistent as I know how to be. And now I have Jimbo telling me I know nothing about BLP and User:Crisco 1492 accusing me of edit warring. Ridiculous and offensive. If that's the way it's going to be - with virtually no attention to proper procedure - then I'm not going to continue trying to protect the article or the talk page, even if some think that's what should be done. As I said before, I'm not enjoying this one little bit. So, I intend to unlock the article and cease any involvement in the article or talk page. Knock yourselves out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you call your (at least) five reverts then, if not edit warring, particularly if consensus (a policy) is against you? That discussion is going to ANI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I, too, would like an explanation for exactly how you thought that removing my exact quotes from reliable sources was in any way consistent with policy. It is incumbent on you as an administrator that you be able to justify and explain your actions with reference to policy. This will be difficult, since this was merely aggressive and completely and totally unsupported by policy in every respect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the policy which is creating confusion, not Bbb23: In addition to what I have told in Jimbo Wales' talk page, WP:BLPCRIME has a set of instructions on BLP crime, and right after that at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply it is told, that BLP are applicable in talk page too. It is misleading. Since it means, one needs to follow the same guidelines in the talk page too which were instructed for article space. It should be clearly written that: editors may post reliable sources in talk page to discuss on the issue. But, the aim of posting such references should be attempt to improve the article and not to make fun of the subject or to defame him. Any irrelevant and unnecessary comment or references will be removed (so and so). --Tito☸Dutta 00:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no confusion in policy. WP:BLPCRIME does not say, or even suggest, that discussion of exact quotes from reliable sources can be removed from talk pages. Bbb23 has indicated that he lost his cool and asks to be left alone for a while to calm down. That's what I recommend. If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I will respect your judgment to allow a "cool down" period; however, I independently already started a subthread below, "#Involved admin should resign at Asaram" after investigating the actions of Bbb23 wp:INVOLVED with deleting 3 sections (w/o prior consensus) and later full-protecting the article, then double-deleting talk-page sources, as evidenced in subthread. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do agree that there is no such indication or suggestion, and I am one of the editors who were debating with Bbb23 over this. But, please note, when we were saying the same thing last week (BBb23 came here to have his admin acts reviewed by others), we did not get a single support, actually editors endorsed Bbb23's acts. This is surprising. --Tito☸Dutta 00:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The sources that are here now where not the sources there last week. An admin should recognise when something has moved on. That no consensus you cite is just exactly the same people as are commenting here now. I'm not sure what you think that is meant to show, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jimbo Wales: Well, disagreeing with Jimbo isn't cause for desysopping. Threatening to have an admin's bit removed because he removed some of your comments from a talk page comes off poorly, to be honest. I'm not defending Bbb23's actions in this case, but it's clearly a good-faith dispute in which he's trying to err on the side of BLP compliance--that's not at all cause for de-adminning. Every admin makes mistakes, so calling for desysopping over one dispute is inappropriate. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jimbo Wales: Do you really believe that removing the sysop bit from Bbb23 will change anything? This is one of the attitudes that make people believe that being a sysop is some kind of trophy or high position rather than a responsibility. — ΛΧΣ21 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • While there does seem to be consensus now that posting those quotes is fine, it seems that Bbb23was trying to uphold BLP policy. That is one of our most serious policies, and it is a major exception to the 3RR; possible error in upholding BLP in one case should not be grounds for desysopping, particularly since Bbb has now disengaged from the article. We do not want to institute a chilling effect on admins enforcing BLP. LadyofShalott 01:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I doubt anything can have chilling effect on majority of admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's perfectly possible to read our BLP policy in a way that makes the removal of Jimbo's comments from the talk page acceptable, even proper. If anyone thinks that Bbb was too heavy-handed, you may say so, but calling for an apology and his head on a platter is too much. Protecting BLPs and upholding the spirit and the letter of the relevant policy is one of the most important duties an admin can take up, and many of us are not prepared to go as far as necessary, or as far as they think is right. In the meantime, he has pulled away from the article, so a block would be just punitive. And we don't, of course, do punitive blocks. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Drmies, I'm not looking for an apology. I'm looking for a recognition that what he did was incorrect and is not in BLP, so that this silent deleting of BLP conforming talk page comments doesn't repeat itself. As an aside, what BLPCRIME says is that 1. Innocent until proven guilty 2. If the person is unknown consider not mentioning it. Nowhere does it justify removing links to high quality sources about a famous person who is the subject of lots of media attention, nor neutrally written text on the talk page which are based on said reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You may not be looking for an apology, but Jimbo is, and presumably that's what Drmies was referring to: "If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed".[8] Calling for an apology for a good faith disagreement between admins about how to read an (on this point) not very clear policy is pathetic. Please cool down, Jimbo. Well, calling for "apologies-or-else" is pathetic at all times IMO (see WP:CGTW point 16), but particularly in such a case. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      Agreed. Disagreeing with Jimbo is not grounds for sanctions, not is Exploding Wales a recognized method of desysopping. I don't personally think the material removed violates BLP, but I can see how BLP could be interpreted that way. If we err, it should be on the side of caution. The WordsmithTalk to me 10:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's put the apologies stuff to one side and focus on the specific issue, which is to stop this repeating itself at some future juncture with a different article due to this misinterpretation of BLP. To move forward, that requires a recognition that this was in fact an overzealous action, and that it shouldn't be repeated. Also, good faith contributions from editors should never be silently deleted, no matter the circumstances. If there is an inadvertent BLP violation it should be deleted and then the person should be informed with precise reasons for why (and by this I mean beyond per WP:BLP or something). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have followed the article since August 23, and it did contain a lot of egregious nonsense with pile-on BLP-violating links to accusations posted on the article and its talk page. The subject of the article is now facing legal processes so it is possible to work on BLP-compliant additions to the article. It is most unfortunate that those arriving late have not understood its background. The best way to guarantee future BLP violations in a wide range of articles is to abuse an admin who has been doing the thankless work of cleaning out the stable. Bbb23 deserves thanks, not this pointless drama. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps it did contain egregious stuff back in the 23rd when bbb23 first started editing the article, but that doesn't excuse deleting BLP conforming material a week later from the talk pages. If the cleanup strays into silently removing good faith edits which are not BLP issues then there is a serious problem. He stopped the coverage of a major controversy in an article during a period where approximately 80k people where looking for factual concise information on the topic and disrupted any attempt at talking about the issue. He edited the article multiple times, and then locked in his favourite version so that the very widely covered allegations etc had no coverage at all. Then Bbb23 censored every attempt to discuss the issue and refused and continues to refuse to justify his actions. This overzealousness should never be commended. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wolfie, surely you know that a BLP violation is a BLP violation no matter where it is placed--article space, talk page, it doesn't matter. If an admin thinks something is a BLP violation they have the moral duty to remove it; User:Jimbo Wales could not disagree with this, I think. Now, it seems clear to me that you have a bone to pick with Bbb; I don't know why, I don't know what you two have been doing recently, but I do know that talk such as "'he' locked in his favourite version" is just tendentious language, pure rhetoric, and while I understand why you're doing it--you want Bbb censured--you know as well as I do, and I think everyone with a calm mind knows it too, that it's just hatespeak for "he protected a version he believed to be BLP-compliant". BTW, I don't see where Bbb refuses anything, though I do see that maybe you are the one who is here to right some wrong.

      User:Johnuniq, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I'm baffled that Jimbo Wales would take position here, and that he would take the position he did. Admins have a shitty job already; we don't often enough have the pleasure of simply blocking someone for the hell of it (this one's for you, User:Eric Corbett, because I love you and I'd make you admin in a heartbeat), and when we do act and take a position, a controversial one, you get shat on by the dramah regulars (and by the boss!) or are otherwise prevented from taking real action. Crisco, my friend, you know how that feels--see User_talk:Drmies#Images.

      Now, I have a few words of my well-known fatherly advice to share with Bbb, in the privacy of his talk page, but fo shizzle, get off his back. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      On the contrary, I have no bone to pick with Bbb23 and I think his actions are generally good as far as I am aware of them (I dislike this tactic that people that make a specific complaint about a specific incident are maligned as having some unspecified grudge, why does WP:AGF not extend to me, but do for the actions of an admin?). I can't think of any negative interaction we have had. " BTW, I don't see where Bbb refuses anything", Bbb23 was asked in several places to provide a policy based reason but did not do so (saying per WP:BLP is not a policy based reason) [9][10]. Nowhere was it clarified why edits were viewed as BLP violations. The onus is on admins to explain and justify their actions when asked. This doesn't make Bbb23 a bad contributor, this is merely things from the incident for Bbb23 to bear in mind and to improve from as a result, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh lord, another Jimbo eruption. Either way, Jimbo's statement that he was going to "recommend" that Bbb23 be desysoped was ill-advised. I am aware that policies do not have teeth when applied to Jimbo, but what he wrote is really cringeworthy, a "Do you know who I am?" moment. I am not quite sure what avenue or channel Jimbo contemplated using, but if it exists, I'm sure it is not there for the purpose of settling petty personal grievances.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      For the sake of rational discussion can we put aside demands that some have made for desysopping and focus on the issue, which can be resolved here. I would have suggested that the idea of desysopping is a straw man, but then from the subtopic "Involved admin should resign at Asaram", it seems there are people under all the straw. I think 99% of us can agree that we aren't talking about desysopping or anything of the sort, but some recognition that silently deleting good faith contributions in the face of massive coverage of an issue without discussion or subsequent justification is not desirable and that per WP:BLP isn't a get out of jail free card. i.e it should be explicitly shown why BLP is applicable when asked, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admin here. After a brief look at the history of this issue, I think your actions may have been an error. However, I'm something of a BLP hardliner (I had a part in the summary deletions of unsourced BLPs a few years back) so I'm a strong believer in the idea that if we err, we should err on the side of protecting the BLP subjects. So I think you may have done the wrong thing for the right reasons. Also, re:above, I second the notion that disagreeing with the Godking is not grounds for desysopping. The WordsmithTalk to me 09:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bbb23 was quite wrong in gauging the whole situation. From the fact that numerous IPs, new users took efforts to come to talk pages and put edit requests to get the news bit inside the article, one should have reconsidered their stance and given a second thought about it all. Something that was found so important by so many new editors could very well be a big issue off-wiki. Majority, if not all, editors were requesting to write that the subject was accused of a crime and not that he was a criminal and these numbers spoke of how the situation fell under WP:WELLKNOWN. I understand that Bbb23's stance for being away from the radiations of Indian media was fair enough at the start but that should have changed. Now apologizing or desysoping is hardly a curative measure but learning to listen from fellow editors would be good enough for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, Wikipedia's rules and the administrators who enforce them should be so tight and organized by now that there shouldn't even be debate over what just happened here. The fact that they aren't shows that not only is Jimbo's legacy with WP is as an incompetent leader, but that WP's administration has never been able to get its act together to make its decisions and actions in cases like this so consistent that arguments are over before they even begin. WP is broken, and there is no fixing it. If WP's rules were enforced consistently, then Jimbo would have known what he can and can't do. If WP's administration was consistent and competent in its actions, then the rules and consequences for breaking them would be clear. You all lose. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, enforcing BLP is important. But it's a very big hammer, and it's incumbent upon the wielder of it to get it right. BLP does not override consensus, it just allows for preliminary enforcement while consensus is still being gauged. It doesn't allow continued enforcement if consensus does form and it's against that. Rather, BLP, like all our other policies, is determined and enforced by consensus. I don't care that it's Jimbo. When any long-term, good-faith editor disagrees with the summary actions you're taking under BLP, or especially when many do, it's time to step back and take a close look at whether you have consensus to do that. Bbb is finally doing that, but that should've been done without this blowup. I'm not saying that Bbb did it here, but BLP is far too often used as a "trump card" in legitimate content disputes where well-sourced material is available. We ought to sanction misuse of BLP as harshly as violations of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thus, the period of admins not being willing to enforce BLP begins because they will be too afraid of whether or not them being wrong will make them lose their bit. One by one, we will lose admins who care about BLP, and be left with those who are too worried about their adminship. Makes total sense. Not. ~Charmlet -talk- 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Charmlet, I'm afraid that makes no sense. Admins, like all of us, make errors sometimes. If we desysopped every admin who made an error, we'd have very few admins, if any at all. What we do desysop and otherwise sanction for is not editors/admins making decisions that turn out not to gain consensus. That happens. When sanctions are called for is when a lot of editors in good faith are disagreeing with you, and you keep plowing ahead anyway, attempting to steamroll them. That's not acceptable in any case, be it a question of NPOV, BLP, OR, civility, attacks, inappropriate use of reverts/protection/blocking.... It doesn't matter. When a lot of people start in good faith to disagree with you, it's time to stop, engage with them, and determine if your actions have consensus. If you don't do that, you're guilty of far more than an error—you're behaving dismissively and disrespectfully toward your colleagues. That is when sanctions are generally required. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A majority of people saying one thing does not make it right. That's an argumentum ad populum. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And hence, it's not always a flat majority. But with BLP issues, I've sometimes seen a small minority using it to overrule a large majority making policy-based arguments, when the underlying dispute is a regular old content dispute, and "BLP" gets played as a trump card. That's really not acceptable either, is it? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reviewing the article and talk history, there was a valid argument by several that the critcism section was over weighted. I don't know what led Bbb23 to start participating in the article, but early on he was removing unreferenced accusations made by a few registered and nonregistered editors...this is in keeping with BLP[11]. Reliable sources were later added by editors including Jimbo which Bbb23 continued to remove. At some point, the BLP enforcement actions became too severe and not based in policy. I noticed in two cases where Jimbo added reliable sources to the talkpage, Bbb23 removed them within minutes, which indicates to me that Bbb23 didn't even bother to click the links to determine the veracity of the sources. Bbb23 may have simply gotten into a pattern of BLP enforcement where he continued to believe that the specific details of the accusations were BLP violations. A somewhat similar situation happened on an article on my watchlist...several editors were adding information to an article that wasn't referenced due to recentism and I removed it based on a lack of references. But within 24 hours I was able to independently confirm the information so I added it back myself and cited it. Jimbo isn't perfect, but I trust that if he's adding referenced material to a talkpage it deserves some scrutiny before it is immediately removed repeatedly.--MONGO 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen similar "BLP fundamentalist" interpretations of policy - for example, see Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 2 and Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3. We need to rule out the abuse of BLP to remove well sourced information, per WP:WELLKNOWN - since it's already a policy, admins acting this way may need to be chafed, but we could also make it clearer. We have a situation where sometimes the well-connected editors decide to rag on somebody (Qworty, an author still identified in the lede as mostly known for Wikipedia edits) and sometimes they shield them from all harm (even when it isn't harm). That arbitrariness needs to be reduced, somehow. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment from uninvolved non-admin: It's worth noting for the record that the aforementioned incident at Talk:Johnny Weir will not be completely visible on the archived pages because, as I recall, some of it was removed or even suppressed (improperly, imo) as part of the most egregious misapplication of WP:BLP I've ever seen. This case, and this admin, aren't comparable: here, Bbb23 was acting to protect a BLP subject from clear and demonstrable harm, made no chilling threats, and backed off (eventually) when challenged. It also might be noted that some of the publications used as sources in the Bapu article, while nominally reliable, do not have a stellar reputation for impartiality in their news reporting. While I have lately thought that Bbb23 may have been a trifle overzealous in enforcing WP:BLP elsewhere, I think the problem is with the policy and the community, not with this admin, and calls for blocking or desysopping are quite simply overreactions (and unseemly ones at that, especially on the part of Jimbo). In the short term, Bbb23—and others—should review WP:BLP vis-à-vis what it does and doesn't prohibit (and also WP:RS for what it says about certain blogs). Over the long haul, the community will have to deal with overhauling WP:BLP, a policy that often fails to protect innocent article subjects from damaging falsehoods while whitewashing the reputation of scoundrels more thoroughly than any PR agent could hope for. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Recommendations on BLP policy from Asaram

      Several users have commented above with suggestions to improve wp:BLP policies. Discuss below, for referal to wp:VPP policy pump or related. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Strengthen WP:WELLKNOWN. As currently written, the first "example" appears to invite questions of whether something is "important for the article", which is a very subjective decision for some people. It uses the criterion of "public figure", which is also very hard to define. I think that any fact reported in two independent newspapers (as a double check, perhaps specify from widely separated geographic locations) should pass WELLKNOWN and the policy should no longer be an issue for it. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let the subject have his say. This is a personal preference of mine that I think might actually be worth saying this in the policy. If a subject has gone to the news media and given them a quote or statement presenting his side of the story, we should never use BLP as a justification to leave it out. We're not here to put a muzzle on a subject "for his own good". (I think this usually comes up in the case of racial extremists, but probably elsewhere as well) We should also go out of our way to encourage responses to criminal charges and other allegations as a way of ensuring article balance. I cringe when I read someone saying that "of course he's going to deny it" in regard to some charge. It's not just pro forma - we should seriously consider the subject's statement as one of the valid perspectives the article should summarize. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not like the idea of making WP:WELLKNOWN completely mechanical. One publication on the front page of NYT obviously means much much more than twenty publications in supermarket newspapers and zynes.
        • I like the idea of giving subjects of media controversy their say. Just I am not sure what to do if their defense consists of attacks on the other party. Suppose an alleged perpetrator of a rape claims that his victim was a prostitute giving a juicy examples of her alleged sexual behavior. Should we put those allegations verbatim? Tone them down but provide reference? Would it be fair to the victim of an alleged rape?
        • I think we need two more changes to BLP:
        • Blogs, opinion pages, personal sites - any self published sources that does not go through an independent fact-checking nor peer review should not be used as a source for negative information about living people. Period. No exemptions for "news columns presented as blogs". Blogs can be used only as sources of attributed opinions of notable bloggers.
        • Talk pages have much more relaxed BLP rules for discussion over article contents than the articles themselves. Any web-sources that are higher in search engine results than our talk pages should be allowed during discussions. Otherwise we are bound to go in circles: editor A in good faith believes that info about a BLP is well enough sourced and discusses it on talk page, editor B believes that the sources are not reliable enough and instead of discussion removes A's entry from the talk page. Editor A believes that his sources are well enough consider actions of B as vanadalism and restores them, editor B protects BLP and removes them again, etc... The only way to prevent this is to allow borderline cases to be kept on the talk pages during discussion of their reliability. Talk pages are way more obscure than the articles, all entries in them are attributed opinions of particular editors unlike the article presented as objective truth. In most cases discussion on talk pages does not harm the subjects of the articles. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Involved admin should resign at Asaram

      This isn't WP:RFAR or WP:RFC/U. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      We don't desysop people at WP:AN, not even if we're Jimbo, who you appear to be channelling. You'll need WP:RFAR for that, and WP:RFC/U would be your first stop. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      These events have gone too far, and wp:INVOLVED admin User:Bbb23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should resign as admin, after having edited the page "Asaram Bapu" to remove 3 sections without prior consensus (dif006) and then later full-protect locking the page (dif001), and double-removing sourced comments (linked to wp:RS reliable sources) from the talk-page (acting again as wp:INVOLVED admin) and edit-warring (or wp:WHEEL-warring) over talk-page comments with User:Jimbo_Wales, the founder (hello?). There were just too many out-of-control actions by Bbb23, who should resign, rethink wp:BLP policies, consider the import of linking sourced police charges, learn to talk with the founder, and reflect on severity of actions, before re-applying to be admin again. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support, as nom. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose desysoping. I disagree heavily with Bbb23's reverts and unilateral redactions despite a clear consensus that inquiring about something which is in the news is not a violation of BLP, so long as it does not presuppose guilt (wonder what would have happened if the same thing had been attempted at Michael Vick...), and I still think a 24 hour block may have been necessary. However, I am going to assume good faith of Bbb23's behalf and only say that he had the best of intentions (and that being safe is better than being sorry). Jimbo, though he established Wikipedia, should not have any more power over the community than anyone else with the admin flag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      Black Kite, why do you suggest WP:RFCU when you closed this thread? No one is accusing anyone of sock-puppeting in this. Did you intent to say WP:RFC/U? Edison (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, sorry, just a typo. Fixed. Black Kite (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I just wish to point out that Bbb23 never took the "break" that he promised and is widely cited by many, which is evident from his contribution history.[12]--Crème3.14159 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The only "break" I see mentioned is the Bbb says they would unlock the page - an action that (s)he undertook four minutes after posting that comment - and disengage from the article and its talk page - which (s)he has followed precisely since making that comment. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 13:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Protect the article?

      I still think BLP policy should be enforced at the Asaram Bapu, and currently some editors are trying to include wild claims into said article. Can someone please fully protect it to prevent the rather serious BLP violations that are going on? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm surprised that you find that rather serious BLP violations are going on. It is my impression that the article is looking pretty good, and the talk page is courteous and shows cooperation. I can believe that things could get worse, considering that both political and religious issues are involved in the article, but for now it seems just fine to me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is a much better condition than what it was a couple of days ago. We may need full protection if the previous editors return (for these editors Bbb23 had to re-protect the article within few hours). --Tito☸Dutta 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering I removed, yesterday, an accusation that he murdered someone I don't agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering that the section was added by an editor that has been barred from further edits for a few days and deleted by you on Sept. 2 without further difficulties, I don't agree with your suggestion that we are having article problems. Gandydancer (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Quick archiving help needed

      No admin tools or privileges needed, but probably more admins than nonadmins know how to help me. The proposal about the article incubator has been closed, so it should be removed from {{cent}} — I can do that, but I don't have time to figure out the archiving. Could someone do both removal and archiving? Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

       Done 64.40.54.117 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Off-wiki canvassing

      What is the correct procedure if a discussion is being swayed by off-wiki means? At Talk:Paris#Changing_the_photo_at_the_start_of_article, the !vote after being slightly against changing the infobox photo has suddenly gained another 5 !votes for it, explained by Talk:Paris#.27Parachute.27_revisionists..--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've poked in that page the odd time, and it might be helpful if someone with a lot of patience were to help mediate the overall dispute. There definitely are factions pushing for control of various aspects of the article, which certainly is unfair to Dr. Blofeld's efforts to bring it to GA status. Resolute 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No need for patience, really - This complaint isn't about the article content itself, but the WP:MEAT tactic used to 'force' certain POV's; it doesn't matter whose POV's they are. There is no call to discuss article content at all. THEPROMENADER 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] . All non editors, most with new accounts all turn up within a few hours to try to sway an argument. Isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway? Not that those "votes" have an ounce of credibility anyway, but it is very concerning that Der Statistiker has no respect for other editors and seems intent on pushing his opinions whatever the cost. And yes, I've heard little but whining and sniping about my edits to the article which passed it as a GA. At one point they were proposing to revert back to the April version, which if you compare it to now it sums up what I've had to deal with.. I think if Der Statistiker continues to cause disruption and making derogatory remarks then a topic ban from Paris related articles might be the best thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: Following comment moved from separate section below. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A long and heated discussion over which picture to use to represent Paris has taken place. Some want to show famous Parisian sights, others want to show skyscrapers outside the city. Both arguments have merits. Unfortunately the discussion has turned ugly. Minato ku suggested that those who don't share his opinion want to show a city where "everybody is white" [18]. Completely beside the point, and a thinly disguised attempt at calling other users racists. Then, when the consensus seemed to go against his preferences for skyscrapers, the same user decided to go on a WP:MEAT-campaign. At the website skyscrapercity.com (hardly a neutral place), the user repeatedly encouraged members to go to English Wikipedia to comment and vote in favor of Minato Ku's preferred picture [19], [20], [21]. He even went on to instruct them how they should modify their profiles to appear more credible [22], [23].
      His meatpuppetry did have the desired effects, a number of new users turned up, their only edits consisted of being in favor of Minato Ku's desired photo change [24], [25], [26], [27].Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Mentioned above, Wikipedia:An#Off-wiki_canvassing. Might want to merge the sections so that all the discussion is in the same place... Ansh666 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. — Scott • talk 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Why was this archived? (Perhaps the 'done' in the message above triggered the bot) THEPROMENADER 04:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The bot is set to archive 2 days after the last comment. The only thing that changes that is a fake date stamp to manually delay archiving. Monty845 04:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Or {{subst:DNAU}}. Be sure to remove it once the thread is closed so it can be archived. I have added it above. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Much thanks - will do. THEPROMENADER 08:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A 'two-cents' second thought about this episode: Minato ku has been making (a few) edits to Paris-based articles since 2007, so should have known better than to rouse the off-wiki campaign as he did, but one question is bothering me: How is it that his first edit since a year and a half is a vote for the 'La Défense' image on the Paris talk page? It seems evident that someone involved in that debate before the vote 'put out the call' to draw that contributor here, so I (for one) would feel badly if he alone took the blame if he was not alone in organizing the drive. If this is the case, it would be kind (to Minato ku and all contributors involved in this) if that 'someone' came forward. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It is not because I am not active that I don't read Wikipedia. The Paris article was quite calm until a few months ago, I had no reason to participate here if nothing happened. In the few previous months, I was too busy and I didn't go in Wikipedia. When I decided to go again in Wikipedia page, I have seen big changes and debates, I had to put my opinion.
      ThePromenader seems to think that my interventions is only based on la Défense (I don't know what he has against La Défense). This is not true, my interventions are mostly based on a bad impression that I notice in many media and here. I have the impression that everything is done reduce to the minimum facts that are not according to the homogeneous, touristy, old and quaint stereotypes of Paris. I was even accused of calling people 'racist' when I have given this bad feeling about what is happening here.
      I hope I am wrong but many of the talks seem to confirm this fear rather than the opposite.
      I only put my two cents in the talk section, I didn't edit the article, I didn't bring people here for a vote that did not not even exist at this time. I have rebuked those who came and insulted some editors because of me (I am sorry for that).
      I find some reactions to be quite exaggerated here, as if it was a problem or suspicious thing to have people who don't agree with them. Minato ku (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies, your first intervention (after a year and a half) was two months earlier than any vote. Just goes to show that off-wiki maniplation can give everything a 'suspect' angle it shouldn't have. THEPROMENADER 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: personally I don't care about 'sanctions' (I didn't begin this thread - but it doesn't look as though anything is going to happen anyways), I just don't want to see anything of the sort happening again. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Interaction ban

      Is it appropriate to request an interaction ban with Crisco 1492. To my recollection, I have been banned blocked three times on WP. Two are in the last month in heated discussions with Crisco 1492. He has MFDed three of my pages last month, each garnering 2/3rds suppport keeps or more. He ANed and ANIed me three times in the last month. We just don't seem to be able to get along. I think most folks around here are aware of the issues, but I'll provide diffs if necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • @TonyTheTiger: Yes, there is a red-letter warning at the top of this page, and a warning in orange at the top of the edit page. They both say "you must notify", not "the editor will automatically be notified". As for libel, you stated five times I was a racist with no basis for that statement beyond your own malice. The textbook definition of defamation per se - putting it in writing makes it libel per se. Cdtew (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see the motivation here. If Crisco 1492 is successfully identifying things you have created that you shouldn't have, why should we discourage him from continuing to do so?—Kww(talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see how asking for an interaction ban is warranted when both times you've been blocked for something you really shouldn't have been doing anyways (edit warring and implying that other editors were racists without proof). I'm still waiting for an apology after you implied that I and others who disagreed with you are racists, but given your previous behaviour I know that's an uphill battle that's going to take over a month. Now, if you want me to stay out of your user space, I don't mind, and only ask that you return the favour (with the obvious exception of notifying each other when required, such as with ANI postings) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      STRONG oppose - This is just TTT's latest attempt to say "I am right, the rest of the universe is wrong!". PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


      Interaction ban between TTT and Khazar2

      I need a break from Tony. As a quick recap, I started a brief RfC at WT:FOUR after voting against Crisco's proposal for deletion and a failed attempt to get Tony to moderate his own draft RfC. Like Cdtew, I thought I was something of a neutral outside party on this--I'm not involved with MILHIST and have never won the award--but both us of quickly learned that anyone who's not 100% behind Tony gets on the enemies list in a big way. I believe Tony's now approaching 200 posts on more than 150 pages accusing me of bad-faith rigging of the RfC.

      Ranging from:

      to this a few hours ago:

      • "*I continue to feel that this is one of the most disingenuous processes I have been involved in on RFC... this sneaky process seems to have been used to make statements about having any leadership without any discussion of the rest of the organization of the project. There seems to be no interest in discussing the organization of the project other than to use an RFC about one role of the leadership to make statements about the overall leadership of the project. This all seems to be an attempt to throw the project to admins who have never expressed an interest in the project" [28]

      Or see the 150+ posts he made between 6:00 and 8:00 on 20 August, all copies of his claim that I had deliberately crafted my RfC "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions".

      Simultaneously, he's shown up at another project I'm initiating; he's already made about 15 posts critiquing it at WT:GAN, going so far as to spend hours creating a massive dataset in his user space to prove his points. Finally another user had to tell him to lay off there, too.[29]

      Despite direct and explicit requests from me that we not interact with each other for a while, Tony's pinged me back into the debate ("All along, I have said that Khazar2 either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience"), continues to post at the Million Award page, and continues to post his accusations at WT:FOUR.

      I've turned the other cheek on most of this--I voted against the last proposal to topic-ban TTT, for example, and I've voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion at WT:FOUR--but now that we're approaching hundreds of posts, his persistence is starting to wear me down. Is it possible for me to request here that Tony leaves me in peace for just a few weeks, or is the best solution to simply take a break from Wikipedia until this blows over? As a third alternative, is it allowed for me to simply withdraw my RfC? Frankly, the FOUR debate strikes me as a fundamentally trivial issue, and it's not worth this level of harassment. If there's no administrative will to police something like this, I'm prepared to just say he wins, take a break, and then get back to regular editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30 am, Today (UTC+7)

      Support - If there is one less editor for TTT to hurl baseless libel at then it can only benefit the encyclopedia. @TonyTheTiger: Before you start attacking me; Khazar2 is not making valid criticisms of you while Crisco is and as such your attempt to I-ban him is attempting to stop legitimate criticism while this one is to stop YOU from throwing around BASELESS LIBEL at another editor as though it was candy! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support temporary interaction ban of three to six months duration. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC) This would include making reference to or commenting on each other's activities anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; commenting about or posting at the talk pages of initiatives being worked by the two editors such as the Four Award or the Million Award; posting on one another's talk pages, except to give official notices; and undoing one another's edits in article space. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Support Per Dianaa. Why not just make it an indefinite one? My spider sense tells me that this would just rear its head again in 6 months. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support as per Diannaa. I would also recommend an indefinite ban (Indefinite =/= infinite), simply because I know that Khazar would feel free to request that it be lifted if circumstances required it (i.e. if there were some potential collaboration with Tony in the offing). I don't see any reason to sunset the ban in 6 months and risk disruption once it expires. Tony's comments in this thread smack of WP:IDHT, and that cemented the case for me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposing community ban of TheREALCableGuy

      TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) is hereby community banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and tendentious editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I have hesitated to take this action for months, but it is now obvious that I cannot hold off on this action any longer. The television station article community has been dealing with the combative TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) for the last couple years as the user has steadfastly refused to discuss anything regarding their edits or to come to a compromise on such little things as the grids in digital television channel sections. The user also refused to discuss anything on their talk page and only did so when threatened with any kind of block. In April of this year after six short blocks through the last two years, TRCG received a six month block with the WP:SO made if they wanted to come back and edit in a cooperative manner. The block was changed to indefinite a month later after IP and username socks were discovered, but the SO was still in play if they wanted to come back.

      Since that point however, TRCG has decided to sock relentlessly, and continue with the tenuous edits, along with a bizarre obsession with removing any mention of the FCC required E/I programming in articles, and an irrational hate of anything involving the Parents Television Council and Action for Children's Television, calling them "liberal" organizations that should not be mentioned at all in articles. I have attempted to reason with this editor over and over again, to no use, and through IP socks and several attempted usernames, they now edit using public terminals at libraries, cafes and Apple Stores, along with playing keep-away using what is either a Sprint phone or broadband stick where they dodge the moment they're discovered and continue to unplug their modem to grab a new IP number. They continue blank their IP talk pages without comment as seen here. Therefore I ask for the backing of a community ban; I never wanted to take it to this step as TRCG would have been good for the project if they followed our guidelines, but their refusal to do so has brought me to this step. Any further questions/concerns, please let me know. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Support, but it is superfluous: all of his edits can be reverted and all of his accounts can be immediately blocked based on the block evasion alone, and no sane admin would unblock at this point.—Kww(talk) 20:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Support as pew Kww; there is already a de facto community ban in place, so making it explicit shouldn't be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 September 2013‎ (UTC). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Support GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Support I'm not an admin, but I support this ban. It's unfortunate because his factual edits tended to be solid, but he was notoriously uncooperative with the community, and he deleted any and all criticism from his talk page almost immediately without responding. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Support per Kww. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Support and propose speedy close as per WP:SNOW. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Normally these things are held open for at least 24 hours.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I'm the CableGuy's only champion here, I suppose, and a lousy one at that. Moreover, as is pointed out above, he's de facto banned with Kww hitting mass rollback, no doubt, every time he runs into him. I've tried to connect with CableGuy, always unsuccessfully, but--as is pointed out above--his edits are solid. What a shame. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - I regret to say that I don't know whether "mandatory editor review" is an option that can be imposed by the noticeboards here, or whether only ArbCom at this point can do so. I wouldn't myself necessarily object to imposition of a topic ban pertaining only to the article-space pages themselves, not the article talk pages, to allow him to at least propose the changes he would want to make and allow them to receive discussion. If anyone thought that would be workable, I would definitely prefer that. I just don't know if it would be workable, or whether this individual is one who would accept such restrictions. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As he hasn't posted since 10 July 2013 (and that was on his talk page), and as it appears that he has resorted to socking anyway, I don't think he's likely to respond. The ban won't stop the socking, but it ought to be imposed;. That will leave no question open as to whether his sock edits can be procedurally deleted or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I wish it would work to use that suggestion, but we've tried to help the user over the last couple years and the user would only make a hurried comment when they were on the edge of a block rather than work with anybody (it took them a couple blocks before they ceased adding fair use television station logos to their userpage for instance). Seeing as they think the conservative PTC is somehow a "liberal" organization and made a revdel'ed personal attack against me and Kww in a sock edit though, I'm afraid it wouldn't work. Nate • (chatter) 13:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Proposal to change the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted

      I have initiated an RFC at WP:VPP#Proposal to change the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted that may be of interest to regulars here, widespread community input would be appreciated. Monty845 22:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Competence/English issue

      I've come across a contributor - Sankarveeraiyan (talk · contribs) that I believe may have an intractable English/Wikipedia competence issue. I noticed the page மேலப்பெருமழை, and tagged it with the {{notenglish}} tag, which the user changed to {{Tamil}}. This is the second time they have done this today. I've posted on their talk page, but since they have contributed solely in Tamil, I am afraid that the language barrier may prevent talk page messages from getting through. If anyone can write in Tamil, I would appreciate some help in communicating with them. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 01:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      To find a translator, you can try Wikipedia:Translators available#Tamil-to-English or Category:User_ta-N or Category:User_ta. Or you can try posting in English on the http://ta.wikipedia.org village pump.
      I'm not an admin. But my hunch is that you don't need to bother finding a translator. The same user has created an identically-named page on the Tamil Wikipedia: see their contributions there. Just tell the Tamil user (in English) to stop posting non-English articles, and if they keep on doing so, block them. Once they are blocked, they will go back to the Tamil Wikipedia and resume contributing there instead of here.
      [Edit: If it were me, I might start with {{uw-english}} plus {{uw-notenglish}} plus {{uw-create1}}. If that didn't help, I'd next jump straight to {{uw-create4}}. If that still didn't help, I'd request a block here or at WP:AIV. It might be possible to get the article deleted using CSD A2. Note that Twinkle provides a nice GUI which makes deletion tagging, plus user warning and reporting, easier: it's well worth using.]
      Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've deleted the page, since it does indeed exist on the Tamil Wikipedia, and left a note for the editor; they may well have created it here in error, that happens surprisingly often. However, nobody made a section at WP:Pages needing translation into English, so potential translators were not alerted. Please remember that next time when applying the not English template. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, I thought the template put it where it needs to go. I'll take a look at the template wording and see if it can be a bit more explicit. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 04:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There was someone who translated the uw-english notes to multiple languages and placed them as templates somewhere, I translated one of the notes to Tamil for them, I can't seem to find it, but those translations might be helpful in the future. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Found it. {{Contrib-ta1}}, the category has a list of templates in many languages. User:Jarkeld created these if I'm not mistaken. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      NAC: Not a matter for administrators, please take to WP:VPP or WT:MOS Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      An administrator has stated that I should begin a request for comment (as in here).

      The following is a request for comment on a proposal to have year-in articles henceforth add reader useful links within "monthly" section headings with respect to WP:MOS.

      Wikipedia:Manual of Style states in subsection Section headings that, "Headings should not normally contain links.

      I have italized the word "normally" because I believe that I have discovered an instance where a section heading should have a link. The link would achieve the wikipedian editors' accepted practice of helping the reader. The linking would introduce a labor saving step of linking to the source whereupon the following data was drawn from.

      Year-in articles (e.g. 2008 in the United States, 2010 in science, 2012 in film), as well as, year articles (e.g. 1982, 2013, 1603) are considered I quote, "intrinsically chronological articles" (as is stated here). As such, these articles gain a large, thou not complete, immunity from WP:OVERLINKING of dates.

      In the "Events", "Births", and "Deaths" subsections of these year-in articles data is routinely added to the monthly subsections by editors. Since 1999 and most especially since 2004, the quote/unquote events and quote/unquote deaths have been daily drawn from pages such as these May 2011 and Deaths in October 2008. The year-in subsections "Events","Births", and "Deaths" have been filled into monthly subsections by editors whom believe that certain daily items warrant notability.

      In particular, I state that I have for the last three years been far-and-away the major good-shepard editor of the year-in wiki articles for the United States (e.g. 2011 in the United States, 2012 in the United States, 2013 in the United States) as is proven here (ip 70.162 was me also), here, and here.

      I would like to add links within the months subsection headings (as I have done here). I would like to add links to the months instead of a "{ {see also} }" since it would be less ubtrusive and more accurate, and thereby, more useful, to the reader.

      Although I believe that all year-in articles should use this format I am only today seeking to change the year-in the United States wiki pages for the years that can be linked 1999 thru present since (1) these are the only years currently available and (2) "I" only routinely patrol the United States articles and do not wish to force other countries or catagories good-faith shepards to abide by this change if they are not so willing.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      A fix I can't make

      Could someone rm * [[:Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television]] to [[:Category:Television series by Disney-ABC Domestic Television]] from WP:CFDW. At the time of nominating this for speedy renaming I didn't notice, that this rename was already discussed at a full CFD, and therefore it shouldn't be renamed speedily. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

       Done - The Bushranger One ping only 16:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Seemingly heavy-handed semi-protection

      RESOLVED
      Article was unprotected. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The article David Mathison has been indefinitely semi-protected after one instance of IP vandalism in its entire history. If there are no further reasons for this protection (like oversighted edits), it seems to be rather misguided. But since one admin decided that I'm not allowed to post on the talk page of the admin that did the protection any longer, I bring this admin action (and probably needed admin re-action of unprotecting) here for discussion. If anyone else can post the necessary notification at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I'ld be grateful. Fram (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

       Placed notification template for you. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any requests from IPs to edit the page, no do I see much IP editing in the history. Is there a specific request somewhere? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There could have been a personal request as JW and DM have been in contact before. Agathoclea (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Casliber means there haven't been any edit requests, implying there isn't a reason for IPs to be able to edit the page. Having said that, this is not a relevant question. Protection policy does not allow for indefinite semi-protection based upon a lack of IP editing, nor based on a single piece of IP vandalism. Not even for living people. As an admin, I would have declined even a very temporary semi-protection following a single piece of vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there a reason why this has been posted here instead of WP:RFPP, where such routine matters are normally handled? I don't think that indefinite semi-protection was needed here, but there's a reasonable case for taking unusual steps to protect BLPs such as this which have few watchers and receive few page views and where the addition of potentially libelous material isn't removed for two days. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Qwyrxian - yes there are sometimes other issues that make the easiest approach a discrete semi. Not common but not unheard of. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That's why I mentioned the possibility of e.g. oversighted edits, and that's why I wanted to discuss it first instead of just removing the protection. Fram (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      RFPP step 1: "If you are requesting unprotection, it is almost always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here." I'm not allowed to do this. Fram (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you could have included a request to notify Jimbo as part of a RFPP post? Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Agathoclea. I was unaware that there have been previous contacts between Wales and Mathison, but I notice now that you are right: [30]. Whether the protection is the result of a direct request to Wales, or because Wales had the page on his watchlist and noticed the single piece of vandalism (or rather the reversion of it) is of course unknown. Fram (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've unprotected the page for now, but we should watch out for further vandalism. Just as a side note, I had to follow the links to even remember who this person is - he apparently interviewed me once a few years ago and then emailed me to inquire about the vandalism (which was pretty vicious and personal) so I semi-protected the page. He did not specifically request protection, he just wanted to know what to do about it. For those on the look out for conflict of interest editing - this is not a friend of mine nor even someone I actually know in real life at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I guess this can be closed now (and we should be watching out for vandalism on "every" BLP of course, that's what PC was supposed to be used for). Fram (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Is this legit?

      I noticed that a new self-declared single-purpose account, WF watcher (talk · contribs), has appeared with the declared purpose of "Keeping a watch on Wealthfront". Its sole contribution so far appears to be a series of allegations posted to Jimbo's user talk page [31]. It looks highly likely that this is a sockpuppet of an established user (whether in good standing or previously blocked). This doesn't really pass the smell test for me. What do others think? Prioryman (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree, Prioryman, this is not a brand new user by any stretch  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's almost certainly exactly who you might guess it to be, as his latest hobby seems to be looking for anyone who I may have ever met or known and then researching their business and personal interests and then searching for COI editing in order to confront me about it. I suppose the angle he's pushing is that I allegedly take a dim view of COI editing, but in fact allow my friends to do it at will. That's completely false, of course. (I also don't immediately lecture everyone I meet about COI editing!)
      Having said all of that, I think all the edits should be examined carefully and most of them reverted as obviously promotional. But for obvious reasons I'm going to personally stay out of it, since in fact, it has nothing to do with me at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Jamie926

      This user page bothers me somewhat. I feel that there is too much personal information on it, and things being the way they are I'm not 100% confident that it is autobiographical. However, I am loathe to just jump in and delete things from other people's user pages. Shortly after it was created I had noindexed it with the userpage template so that it would at least stay off the search engines, but now the user has deleted that template. Should I just leave it alone and walk away? Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I put the NOINDEX magic-underscore-thingy, which is perhaps less intrusive, on the user's page. That being said, Google already got to it. Assuming that everything stated there is true, the person would be in their early twenties, which means that a 'for your own good' deletion isn't neatly as likely as if the user were broadcasting that they were in their early teens. I'm not sure if this is a cry for help, or if it's someone confusing Wikipedia with a social networking site, but it is, if not irregular, certainly not common. That being said, people are free to say what they want about themselves, and I can think of plenty of users that have put more information about themselves on their user pages with little or no controversy. More clarity will come in time, as we will see if the user ever makes an edit outside of the user namespace or not. If it's the latter, I'd have no issue deleting the user page, or any other less controversial user page, per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I guess it's the third-person voice of it that worries me the most, as most of that text rightly wouldn't survive 5 seconds unreferenced in a BLP. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Give it a few hours, and if nothing changes, I would say that deletion is in order. The user's last edit was less than an hour ago, so there's a chance that they could come back. Normally I would say wait a few days before making a NOTSOCIALNETWORK deletion, but this is a special circumstance. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not quite sure how this is a special circumstance. NOINDEXing it handles the privacy concerns, so a hasty deletion would be simply BITEy. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree with you. However, apparently someone disagreed with you, because they've oversighted the page and the deletion log entry. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No someone, someguy (left note on user talk page) NE Ent 02:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      If someone had posted this as an article, it would be deleted immediately as a BLP violation. The fact that it is on a userpage makes no difference. The fact that the user who created the page claims to be its subject means only that we should be nice about it, not that we should allow the page to stand. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I feel compelled to voice an objection to all this. I don't know why the Oversight team feels they need to prevent people from identifying themselves as victims. You said some of the information on yours would be considered problematic if you turn out not to be the Jamie described there. I disagree. Saying that you were a victim of certain things, and that it had a negative effect on your mental health, is nothing to be ashamed of, and I struggle to see why it should ever be "considered problematic." Now, if you want to take a NOTSOCIALNETWORK stand, that's one thing, but I really don't think this merited OS. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Look at it from a different perspective: Was it actually Jamie who created the user and posted the info, or was this a well-disguised attack page? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a valid-enough argument, though I'm not sure I agree. But since when do we oversight attack pages? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have (much) of a problem with the deletion since the editor had no edits elsewhere. I don't recall seeing a name other than "Jamie," which isn't specific enough to make it a BLP. NE Ent 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it did contain a full name. But, once again, I don't see why OS was necessary. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Someguy1221. I now have a better idea of how to properly handle these as I come across them. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Based on editing history and patterns, it is clear that User:Jamie926 and User:Morales91 are the same person. Although I would like to assume good faith, it's likely that User:Morales91 created this alternate account in order to avoid the scrutiny, for lack of a better word, brought about as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Morales91. The user has been wholly unresponsive to attempts to engage him/her in a meaningful discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Query about closing discussions

      I'm asking here in case I'm totally off-base - is it possible for one user to repeatedly remove another user's statement of withdrawal from a discussion? I'd previously opened a thread at ANI (WP:ANI#Topic ban for Esoglou), but after some discussion, have come to the conclusion that RFC/U would be a better venue, and closed the thread with a withdrawal of my request (as a close upon withdrawal seems entirely usual), explaining that RFC/U seemed like a better venue and that the thread was devolving into personal attacks (unsupported complaints, "bitchy," users who had been following me coming in to stand on a soapbox about unrelated issues, the user the topic ban was proposed for repeatedly ascribing my edits to my sexual orientation). User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reverted this close (and reverted it again when I closed again). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he can actually compel me to pursue the request for a topic ban (which he seems to want to do because most of the users who have commented are supporters of the misbehaving user, although some others did support a block/topic ban after the user repeatedly brought up my orientation). I think that if he has his own problems with Esoglou, he's obviously welcome to copy my diffs but should start a new thread, rather than trying to force me to see a request through that I've repeatedly stated I do not wish to pursue in that venue. Is this correct? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      What, precisely, is your query? It looks from here that you ascribed the edits of an editor to their religious beliefs - which is quite likely equally culpable on your part as their improper comments about your sexual orientation were. When two are equally culpable, I wonder what the proper result ought be. Collect (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Using Wikipedia to promote a company or organization is not permitted whether or not one is personally affiliated with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the precedent is that if you have been involved with the discussion, which has seen substantial discussion from other editors, it is rather poor form to just close it saying that you are choosing to pursue an alternative route. Particularly as sanctions have started to be discussed. Preferably, you probably should have opened a subsequent section laying out that you are intending to pursue an RFC/U and would be incorporating diffs from the open ANI into it then asked an uninvolved admin to consider closing it up and redirecting it to RFC/U. I believe that you should let the topic ban discussion run its course and from that decide whether an RFC/U is worth the effort. It would probably be looked upon as a bit of a pile on though. Blackmane (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I largely agree with Blackmane. While we do allow people to withdraw requests and sometimes this may allowing simply closing the request like if you're the only participant or if you're directed to somewhere else, it's important to differentiate between your request and a community discussion. For example, if a nominator withdraws an AFD when no one has commented yet, people with be happy if they do the needful and close the request. If a nominators tries to close an AFD they initiated because they changed their mind when most people are supporting delete, then this generally won't be acceptable. They can withdraw their comment, but the AFD should be closed as it normally would. Similarly here, while you are entitled to say you are withdrawing your request, if there has been a substanial amount of community discussion, that's now seperate from you request and you can't just shut it down. It may be someone will feel that nothing is likely to happen and nothing productive will come from it and close the discussion, but leave that for a neutral closer. Even if you believe it's resonable to close your request, once someone has reverted you should take that as a sign the other person disagrees and leave it at that. You are free to ignore the discussion from now although bear in mind this won't stop any possible sactions on you being discussed although a request for you to be notified if that starts to happen seems resonable (and of course it could be something will happen which will make your RFC/U moot). To put it in the terms you did, no one can compel you to pursue a topic ban, but you also can't compel others to stop discussing that or any other possibility having been made aware of problems by you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds reasonable. What do you propose for allowing other users to continue discussing Esoglou's edits without disrupting any other administrative processes? (and preferably without serving as an open invitation for more personal attacks of the sort we've already seen) What I'm concerned about is that my decision not to engage further in the thread will be taken as evidence that the diffs did not show wrongdoing, when in fact the purpose of the RFC/U will be to explain them for people like those who have commented, who aren't familiar with the sources or subject matter. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Like Blackmane intimated above, withdrawing your proposal and closing the discussion are two distinct acts. Especially if the conversation ever discussed your own actions, it was probably improper for you to unilaterally close the discussion - essentially you were closing down a complaint lodged by other editors about your behaviour. So feel free to put a strike through your original complaint and add a note that you are pursuing the matter in an RFC/U, but closing down the entire discussion is bad form. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 00:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, as I alluded to above, something that's an issue in the current discussion is that people are flinging accusations left and right but, because it's a thread about someone else's misbehavior, they evidently don't feel compelled to present any evidence to back up what they're saying (even when asked). A new thread might give them the opportunity to do things the right way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm curious as to why Roscelese has not reverted their closure yet given the advice given above? NE Ent 01:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm hoping we can come up with a solution here to the problems I mentioned above, so that when the discussion is re-opened, neither I nor other users will again be subjected to the personal attacks and other off-topic discussion that went on before the thread was closed. Hopefully we can find something that allows people to air their concerns without making ANI a forum for unspecified and vague grudges, slurs, or homophobic commentary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Vandalism

      Please block this user TheRedPenOfDoom, because this user added vandalism tags & edits, and this user deleted/deletes infobox, television box and references on every articles. i think this user TheRedPenOfDoom is crazy. Please check their Contributes Or their edits diff in New & Old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.224.180 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There is apparently a pretty wide range of articles about Indian television shows that have had little input and oversight from experienced editors and so the pages have long functioned as free fansite blogs. The conversion towards more encylcopedic articles and coverage of the topics will likely be painful for those who have long simply used Wikipedia to post whatever they want. As the editors are mostly very dynamic IPs, getting communications to them is difficult. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Mafia state

      Was reading a few pages today and noticed that at Mafia state there is a 4 day old edit war going on. Think an admin should take a look. -- Moxy (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There is already an open discussion regarding the article at ANI.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Please close RfC at Talk:Tea Party movement

      MOOT OR SOMETHING
      see below, reporting user has just been topic-banned from this area by ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      There was a merge proposal at Talk:Tea Party movement on August 8 (27 days ago) — suggesting a merge of Agenda of the Tea Party movement with the parent Tea Party movement article, and while these things normally last 30 days, I see no reason to wait another three days for a close. The "voting" ended on August 10 (9-3 opposed to the merge, and the opposition presented policy-based arguments against the merge). The discussion ended on August 12. Accordingly, please close the RfC and remove the templates from both of the articles. Thank you. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Phoenix and Winslow The page you're looking for is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. What do we gain from not waiting a few more days? Hasteur (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User talk:SymbozOnline

      Continues to use talk page for spam after being blocked. Ginsuloft (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Re blocked without talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Beeblebrox. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

      An arbitration case regarding the Tea Party movement has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

      Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

      The current community sanctions are lifted.

      Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

      Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

      Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

      Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

      For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Requesting block of User:Thisgalladumc

      Resolved
       – for the moment, page is protected and both user warned for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      As this users history shows, they keep editing a single article by removing content that is well sourced. They seem to object to the negative implication of the addition & so continuously remove it. They seek to legitimize their removal by mentioning IMO arguments that have no relevance to the Wikipedia policy that they claim to seek to uphold. I don't trust that they are objective editors regarding the article in any sense.Fotoriety (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually, I've removed your edit from that article. That is extremely weak sourcing, the source only mentions her in passing and all it says is "A Korean official claimed she had used her title for personal gain." (emphasis mine). We don't write negative information about living people because a single source has a minor mention about a claim. You yourself should be afraid of a block. Please do not restore it, I'll be watchlisting the article and you'll be the one reported here if you do.--v/r - TP 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And read our policy on biographies of living people.--v/r - TP 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      RFPP

      There is high backlog at WP:RFPP. Mops are needed there. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Will look and try to help. Thanks for the HU. -- Alexf(talk) 12:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi'd one. Everything else looks taken care of already. Cheers. -- Alexf(talk) 13:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Removing "resolved" tag - we've been doing them a bit randomly so there are a few still to do. I need to hop off now so anyone else is welcome. There are some which require some thought too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The page is caught up again as of now. Everyone please continue to monitor though, as the situation can change rapidly -- Diannaa (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Mark Blocked Users script not working for me. Anybody else with this issue?

      Resolved
       – Issue cleared -- Alexf(talk) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A few days ago (about when some clearing bots went on strike), my Mark Blocked Users script stopped working. I've checked my monobook and see the script is there (from ru.wikipedia.org), but it is not working for me. The blocked users mark is very useful and a pain to work without. Anybody else sees this problem? I do not know who to contact for a resolution or fix. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 12:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm using NW's script (User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js), which also just imports the ru.wiki script, and I'm not having any problems. Try that instead? Or compare the way NW's page imports it to the way your page imports it (they seem to have slightly different syntax). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is the same as I had already except mine had http;//ru.wikipedia.org... I replaced with yours and saved. It works now. Thanks! -- Alexf(talk) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I had the Russian script to. All I did was remove the "http:" from the beginning so it was protocol independent.--v/r - TP 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/56

      The archive page is not displaying well. I notified the operator of User:VeblenBot, but he won't return until November. --George Ho (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I am busy most of the time and have little time to respond. The problem is that the page is too large, so the software cuts it off. There is a "partial transclusion trick" that the GA people used to use to handle this, by editing the longest reviews so they do not transclude. But the bot is not set up to handle the problem, it merely lists all the pages in the appropriate category. If any enterprising person would like to replace the VeblenBot system for GA and Peer Review, I would be happy to turn this task over to them. I will not have time to add any significant functionality in the forseeable future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      CluebotNG down

      Just an FYI for those unaware and can do something about it, CluebotNG has been down for over 2 days now. Transcendence (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      We appreciate your head sup, but your also giving the vandals a heads up. Email the bot owner and then delete this thread.--v/r - TP 22:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      News shortage

      We could use some nominations at WP:ITN/C. Have you recently updated an article about a current news event? If so, please nominate it for appearance on the home page. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Should I be nuked?

      Today I've (contributions) moved and edited quite some pages of Kiev related articles from Kyiv to Kiev as per our use English title policy, but now I doubt my actions as the English official sites of these entities do (deliberately) use "Kyiv" which may justify the usage of this non-English name of the place. "Kiev" on the other hand is not welcomed by Ukrainian users because it is transliterated from Russian language of the name. But in order to avoid unnecessary controversies with Ukrainian users, please nuke my edits to previous versions since 6 September 2013. Sorry for all the troubles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      See WP:NUKE. Unfortunately, we have no way to do a mass-undo of your edits; we'll have to do them manually. Regarding your request — are you simply asking that we undo every action (except for your request here, of course) that you took on 6 September? I don't want to revert something that shouldn't be reverted. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, my request was just undo my Kiev/Kyiv-related edits on 6/9/2013 (sorry for my silly rhetoric). Some action (article move and deletion of new category) requires admin privilege. I made the Kyiv-Kiev edits halfway through today but I realized that some of those might not be justifiable so I would rather undo them until we have a better clarification on this specific matter. The Kiev-Kyiv issue is increasingly more complicated because the Ukrainian/Kiev Governments and media insist on the renaming in English media. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=571747654"