Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Admiral Caius (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 11 February 2014 (→‎Block review:Kumioko/IPs: cmt). 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 three 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "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

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Riposte97: time sink

      (Initiated 4 days ago on 22 June 2024) Obvious consensus has formed for a community imposed topic ban from "Indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed". Admin close required. TarnishedPathtalk 09:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_User:Jamiesonandy

      (Initiated 10 days ago on 15 June 2024) Most participants believe that there is consensus around the issue(s) at hand. Likely to be unarchived if it is archived by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 79 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 76 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

      (Initiated 70 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Sunrise (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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]

      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]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 0 13 28 41
      TfD 0 0 0 12 12
      MfD 0 0 0 0 0
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 9 20 29
      AfD 0 0 0 1 1

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 29 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]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Block review:Kumioko/IPs


      • So, some time ago Kumioko deliberately got himself blocked. He later returned with the poorly named KumiokoCleanStart, which was obviously completely non-compliant with WP:CLEANSTART. An argument could be made that the creation of that account was block evasion, but that ship sailed all long time ago. So, late last month he abandoned the clean start account and began editing as an unregistered user. At least two of this IPs have been blocked. Geni (talk · contribs) blocked some of them with the block summary "I don't know who you are and I don't care who you are but you aren't a new user which means ever you are trying to play wikipolitics while avoiding having such activities connected to your main account or..." I undid one of those blocks and attempted to explain that it was actually quite easy to see who it was and the account was no longer active, which led to this exchange on my talk page. That IP has now been blocked again by Legoktm (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Trolling, bad faith commenting and other disruption." Leaky caldron (talk · contribs) also attempted to force them to keep old warnings on one of their talk pages. He became very upset when I spoke to him about this [4] to remind him that any user who is not banned is allowed to remove almost anything they like from their talk page. He also ordered me not to post there again, so hopefully the ping here is adequate notification of this discussion.

      I am not here to argue that there is nothing wrong with what this user has been doing. He acted pretty much the same before, and I and many others have told him previously that we found his comments obnoxiously unhelpful. And that is actually exactly my point. What troubles me is that he is being treated as though he were a banned "unperson" who is no longer allowed to speak his mind because he has chosen to no longer use an account. He isn't acting any differently except for the use of IPs instead of an account. The message that seems to be being sent here is that he can either behave that way or edit as an IP, but not both. I don't believe that is or has ever been how things are done here and would ask for community input into this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Every noticeboard has examples showing that Wikipedia's rules do not cover every situation. Something went wrong for Kumioko a long time ago, and the project would greatly benefit from a six-month break, and a debate about the means seems totally unwarranted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The blocks are all for one or two weeks, not six months. I have no objection to this turning into a ban discussion if that is what the community wants, but we shouldn't treat any user, no matter how obnoxious, like they are banned just because they have chosen to use IPs to edit. That actually is kind of important. It is also worth noting that some of these IPs are on the "sensitive" list. Admins who block such IPs are asked to inform the WMF communications committee] but I see no evidence this was done either. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, an argument could be made that the "abandoning account then editing as an IP" is a form of avoiding scrutiny. While when asked, he admits to being Kumioko, otherwise the connection is not disclosed, and it seems as if it's obviously an attempt to "avoid the baggage" of having an account. Now whether that rises to "sock and block" level, I'm not sure. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, there are three accounts involved: his original username was "Kumioko", but it got moved to User:Kumioko (renamed). Clearly not socking as far as the accounts are concerned. However, the use of IPs without explaining who he is, and bringing up or taking sides in disputes while logged out, is not in line with WP:SOCK. I quote from the end of the introduction: Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics. Some days ago, while with IP address 108.48.100.44, he raised an issue at WP:ANI regarding actions I'd taken, and by editing logged out, he was definitely avoiding scrutiny — I thought it was someone with no past history of raising grievances against me or against other administrators, and thus I addressed him and his words as a newbie, not as someone with a history of jumping into disputes. Note that the dispute eventually was sent to ANI by the editor on the other side of the dispute (WilliamJE); I'm not saying "he got me in trouble, and I'd have been fine otherwise". Rather, the situation was complicated because people didn't know who he was — someone ended up creating Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamJE, thinking that the IP was William. Regardless of his actions on other issues, William didn't deserve to be seen as a sockmaster, and this wouldn't have arisen if Kumioko had revealed who he was instead of avoiding scrutiny by editing logged out. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. I don't care whether Kumioko edits via an account or as an IP. It was his comments on WT:RFA that I blocked him for, and had be been logged in, I would have blocked his account for a week (well, length might have been different). He then proceeded to blatantly evade his block on my talk page, so I blocked the IP for block evasion (31 hours). And for the record, I did notify ComCom when I saw the popup in blocking the second IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoktm (talk • contribs) 04:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's good, I must have looked in the wrong place for the notification. My problem is you say you would have blocked him for his remarks at the RFA talk page, but I don't see anything there that is any more extreme than the kind of comments he has literally been making for several years. Perhaps if you could more specifically identify which passages of those remarks warranted blocking? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a quick note, meta:Communications committee says that it's fine to email them, wmfcc-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      @Beeblebrox:. First of all, I reinstated the blocked IPs Talk Page warnings under the terms of WP:BE - "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason." As an unregistered IP the page is not exclusively "his" and my purpose was to preserve the talk page's multiple warnings so as to facilitate those dealing with vandalism to quickly assess the extent of previous disruptive editing without having to reach into history. He was blocked at the time and I acted. You can apologise at any time for your inappropriate actions. Better still, just reinstate the talk page warnings per WP:BE. As for your unblocking a disruptive editor without first discussing it with the blocking Admin., I thought there were rules about that but I see that you are a member of AC so maybe you feel as though you can do as you like.

      The bottom line is that the editor behind these IPs (there are at least 4 others, BTW) has been WP:NOTHERE since their various RfA applications were comprehensively rejected by the community. They have become increasingly negative, disruptive and self-indulgent. They are quite plainly in contempt of the project and under the following specific headings:

      General pattern of disruptive behavior A long term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of other intentions.
      Treating editing as a battleground A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.
      Dishonest and gaming behaviors Socking. Evading WP:RFC/U as there is no registered account
      Little or no interest in working collaboratively A complete lack of interest in good editing conduct practices. Little or no interest in working collaboratively. :Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict.
      Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect.
      Inconsistent long-term agenda Seems to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance, primarily relating to the lack of trust in Admins and bitterness at his own rejection.
      Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods Repeated chances and warnings, all of which have been flouted.

      Finally Beeblebrox, your opening statement of facts is seriously flawed. Let's not obscure the actual facts for the sake of lazy research on your part. The editor did not, as you say, "late last month he abandoned the clean start account and began editing as an unregistered user." He has been using his registered account together with various IPs interchangeably and frequently within the same discussion sections for many months. It is relevant to the overall picture of this user's behaviour and why the blocks must be supported and why you were entirely wrong to peremptorily overturn the original block. TBH, there might need to be a discussion about your Admin. actions. Leaky Caldron 10:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      First I wanted to let you know you missed an IP on the list above, this one is for my home. Second, I am fairly annoyed and unimpressed that no one bothered to leave a notice on my old talk page nor the IP I added above eventhough you all knew what it was. I remember when it was considered inappropriate to open an ANI case on someone and not notify them, but then, this is the new Wikipedia where the rules don't apply to admins...kinda like I've been saying for a while now. I shouldn't have had to find out about it on Lego's talk page (that's why I left the note more than anything, to let you know I saw the message). Its pretty obvious the intent was so that I wouldn't be notified and you all would be able to have your little witch hunt and be able to twist the situation however you want before I had a chance to comment.
      I also wanted to point something else out. That is that much of what Leaky and Nyttend says about is complete bullshit (yes I am you both liers) I did, in fact create a new account more in the spirit of Cleanstart. It was User:ThePhoenixReborn but some quickly said I was socking and it became clear to me that cleanstart is pretty much a bullshit policy that's impossible to follow, so I created the KCS username to poke some fun at said BS policy since I was not going to be allowed to create a new one. Thanks to the cleanstart policy I have a "history" of socking. So my recommendation is to shit can that policy since its only going to be used as an excuse to ban editors from the site. That's why I cahnged it to KumiokoCleanStart. If I had my way, it would still be changed and frankly I knew that dumping my old account was going to give you all an excuse to accuse me of socking again because I am not using an account. Same thing with the comments about me having a conflicting attitude and having an irreconcilable conflict. Yeah I do, with admins and editors who blatantly violate the rules. Especially admins who often times are allowed to violate the rules or told they don't even apply (like WP:Involved). So the comments from Leaky and Nyttend are really off the mark and are just their way of misinterpreting my intentions (that's called failing to AGF) with the intent to try and get me blocked. Nyttend has a history of targetting editors he doesn't like and manipulating what they said and policy to justify it, so that really doesn't surprise me.
      I also think its kinda funny how its apparently ok to call an editors a troll above and that not be considered a personal attack. I'm sure no one will block Leaky for that like they blocked me and they'll probably find a reason to block me for the same or lessor comments just like Lego did before. In fact he's probably going to block this IP as block evasion just because I responded to this AN discussion about me. So cheers to all and happy witch hunting. If you all spent half as much time trying to deal with the abusive admins on this site, and less time dealing with me asking you to do so, this site would be a pretty good place to edit again....like it used to be when there was an environment of trust and AGF instead of assuming bad faith because you don't like the message. BTW, I have done more for this site than Nyttend, Lego and Leaky combined x2, so don't be assuming my intentions just because your abusive to other editors and I call you out on it. If you don't like being called abusive, then stop violating policy and being abusive. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, Leaky I'm going to call you a lier again here. Beeblebrox is correct, I locked my account January 27 as anyone can plainly see. So your the one that needs to do your research before accusing Beeblebrox of being lazy. Just because your looking for a reason to get me blocked, doesn't mean you can make one up out of thin air and then accuse another editor/admin of lazy research. I'm also not quite sure why someone didn't mention that sooner and why I had to do it. Geez people does policy and common courtesy not apply on this site at all anymore? 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Leaky caldron's statement appears to be mostly accurate. You may have stopped using your account late last month, but Beeblebrox claimed you "began editing as an unregistered user" after you abandoned your 'cleanstart' account. If you have been editing with an IP for several months then you did not begin editing as an unregistered user at the time (you may have continued editing as an unregistered editor as you had evidentally been doing for several months). Perhaps Leaky caldron could have been clearer but if you read their statement careful, they did not actually dispute you may have stopped editing or otherwise abandoned your account late last month, so evidence that you did so is largely irrelevant. They only disputed when you started editing with an IP, specifically they made the claim you had been doing so concurrently with using your account (in the same discussions) for several months. Since you didn't dispute this I'm guessing it's accurate.
      BTW, even if Leaky caldron had said something which was wrong, their message came about 1.5 hours before your reply. (In fact, it took me longer to point out your accusations appear to be misguided than it took for you to reply.) And at a time when, I know from experience, there's usually somewhat of a lull in activity on wikipedia (Americans are sleeping, Europeans are at work), particularly from admins and on noticeboards. And this is AN not ANI which tends to get less action. So your complaints about a lack of courtesy or people not pointing something out sooner are frankly just dumb, and suggest you have little idea how wikipedia works and unrealistic expectations of volunteers here (which is definitely not courteous).
      Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I may be unrealistic but I fully understand how Wikipedia works, doesn't work and should work. I also agree that I sometimes didn't bother logging in to edit. That's part of why I finally stopped logging in at all. I believe Beeblebrox's comment was more that I abandoned my account and only use IP's now. I also want to add that I wasn't wheel warring, voting or doing vandalism from the IP's I was just commenting and generally people knew who I was. That is until the community decides to Ban me from the project rather than deal with the bigger and more difficult to fix problem of dealing with abusive admins and a culture that more and more disregards our own policies when it suits them as noted by your personal attacks of calling me dumb, something I was recently blocked for I might add. So just to let everyone know I am going out of town Tennessee this weekend so unless I login from my hotel room you all will be free to insult me, talk about how much of a troll and a vandal, trade personal attacks (and certainly no admin will block you from doing so). You can even block me if you want because I know some of you want too. I probably won't be able to respond or comment till Monday at the earliest. If you want to be useful or use your time more wisely I would suggest starting a review of the admin actions being performed by admins for the last 90 days, you'll see comments and actions that would appall you. But, I'm sure you have no interest in doing that, because the system has been made so that it is inherently difficult to get rid of an admin...an editor though is just a block away. Cheers. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well you clearly don't understand much about wikipedia, what you've said has demonstrated that. Whatever Beeblebrox may have meant, Leaky caldron had quite a legitimate point that Beeblebrox's statement was quite misleading as implying you only started editing with IPs recently when you had been misusing them for a while. Which considering the core issues here, is important to the discussion. BTW I stopped reading after about your 4 or 5th sentence, not because your post is very long but because I found it incredibly boring (and this is from someone known for very long posts). But I will say whether or not we have a problem with abusive admins or whatever else you mentioned, people who behave like you have here and elsewere, are clearly the far bigger problem than whatever other nonsense you're talking about. It's unfortunate, to say the least, that you don't understand that. And I say this as someone who is not an admin and has never really been that interested in being one (I was asked a few times a while ago). Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone who follows Jimbo's talk page knows that I have been a severe critic of Kumioko. And truthfully, I believe you gave him exactly what he wanted. He abandoned being a productive editor a long time ago in favour of his little anti-admin crusade that crossed the border into outright zealotry. It was obvious from his comments (example; note edit summary) on Jimbo's talk page that he was outright trolling for a block. (I found it pretty hilarious that he expected I would play into his hands there.) Kumioko has a obvious martyr complex going and his WP:POINTy behaviour flows from that. Resolute 14:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking of abusive admins. Hi Resolute. Your are a great writer Resolute but why don't you leave the admin stuff to people who are good at it and have the proper demeanor. Your just upset because I'm not afraid of you and your admin super powers and I won't put up with your abusive BS anymore. I might act like a jerk sometimes but I am nice to people who are nice, I am a jerk to people who are jerks. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In this version of WP:RFA [5] you edited as Kumioko. In the same revision there are 25 edits by 108.45.104.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (clearly you). The following Interaction Tool Analysis show a small sample where you have edited multiply and a simple Ctrl-F highlights the sections in which your edits overlap. [6], [7],[8],[9],[10], [11],[12]
      On this subject of trolling, what would you call this? [13]
      Finally, unless I'm mistaken this could be you as well, interacting with your various IDs all over the place 71.126.152.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Leaky Caldron 14:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No that one is not me. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for proving my point, Kumioko. FWIW, I do generally "leave the admin stuff to people who are good at it". Doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade though. But perhaps you can answer a question for me. Are you trying to nail yourself to a cross because you really want to be a martyr, or are you doing it because, despite numerous "retirements", you realize that you are unable to voluntarily separate yourself from a project you've long since given up on and are hoping someone else will do it for you? Resolute 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I dont really see how I proved a point about anything. To answer your question though I'm not really trying to be a martyr but if that's what it takes to call attention to the projects problem of abusive admins I guess I can be. I still think its a shame so much time and attention is being paid to me when everyone including n the admins know there are some abusive admins who shouldn't have the tools. Instead of addressing that, they would rather attack me because, presumably, they 1) don't like the message, 2) its easier and doesn't require the to go to Arbcom to do it and 3) don't like the inferance that they are abusers are enablers of abusers. The reason I keep coming back isn't because I cannot stay away, its because although I think this project is essentially a lost cause, I still hold this little tiny piece of hope that you all will listen to what I am saying, get off your lazy butts and do something to make the project better and get rid of some of the abusive and/or inept admins. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You cannot be as naive as you appear, but surely you recognize that if you have an issue with a few specific individuals, your habit of tarring everyone with a broad brush is the easiest way to cause people to dismiss you entirely. As a revolutionary, you are a hopeless failure because you methods defeat whatever message you might think you have to share. Resolute 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Its Kumioko again, I just wanted to clarify since I am posting from an unusual IP.

      • I thought about it a lot on my drive and I decided if the community decides that they would prefer to ban me from the project than to do something about the abusive admins then I will abide by that. Its disappointing but that's the culture here, if your not an admin, then you cant be trusted and are therefore not trustworthy. Trust is a big part of the problem with this site and which will IMO lead to its failure. Just post to the KumiokoCleanStart user page once everyone is done voting. I already know the outcome so I won't keep posting after this. I also added 2 more IP's to the list above. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Site ban

      • Clear-cut case of not being here to build an encyclopedia. I can't believe this much time has been wasted on this disruptive user. I favor an outright ban on his main accounts and appropriate blocks to any IPs used. -- John Reaves 15:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support a site ban based on recent behavior. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban, frankly the statements here are enough to convince me, and what little I've seen elsewhere also support that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This thread was started as a discussion of a block review and has morphed into a call for banning when there has never even been an Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kumioko? I also believe that given the nature of "anti-admin" language that the admin noticeboards aren't the best place for this. If banned from here then it looks like the admins did it. The community at large would be more appropriate for commenting and making any decisions via consensus. This would allow the non-admins to take a more major role in reviewing this situation. If folks are worried about martyrdom then don't fuel it.Berean Hunter (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That account is abandoned. He doesn't have a substantive account, just various IPs which are identifiable from the content. Leaky Caldron 15:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know whether this will hold up but so far, in terms of those who have actually !voted (all 3 in support), only 1/3 is an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is it relevant how many are admins?--Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the point is that Kumioko sees himself as being targeted by admins, while casting fewer aspersions on non-admins; if non-admins are also calling for him to be banned, Kumioko's arguments are weakened. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also, as a response to people who commented just below: (1) WP:AN is where community bans almost always get discussed, and the exception is the bans that get discussed at WP:ANI. (2) As OrganicsLRO says, a ban can be imposed on someone with a dynamic IP. To quote WP:BAN: Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans. Also, if you have a surplus of time, go read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors: there was an entire arbitration case for someone who only edited through dynamic IPs. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note that my reply was directed at Berean Hunter per the indenting. Berean Hunter said this was a bad place for a site ban discussion (despite the fact, as others have pointed out, it's the norm for such discussions to be held here or at ANI which I presume they were aware of) because it may seem like the admins did it. And considering Kumioko's apparent problem with admins this would be undesirable. I'm not saying I agree, but considering that, I thought it relevant to see how true this was. Since of course, most editors in good standing are welcome at the admin noticeboards. At the time, the statistics were 1/3 people were admins !voting to ban which IMO makes it difficult to claim 'the admins did it'. The statistics now include more admins, but I think (I didn't check carefully for alternative accounts only at the user rights of the linked account) it's still 7/10 non admins are supporting a ban and 4/5 admins supporting a ban (i.e. a total of 15). Of course consensus isn't counting votes (for example, I only counted those those who clearly expressed a support or oppose even though there are obviously some e.g. Berean Hunter who appear to be supportive or opposed but didn't express a clear opinion). But still from this simplistic look it doesn't really seem it will be a case of 'the admins did it' if a ban is enacted. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as improper circumstances. AN isn't the place for community ban discussions. An RFC/U would be more appropriate, per Berean. KonveyorBelt 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Point of information - As is noted above by others, AN and ANI are the two locations where community ban discussions happen, and there is no specified order of preceding enforcement / community actions required prior to someone proposing a ban. If someone proposes a ban for unjustified reasons that will be noted, of course. This statement is merely informational regarding the ban process and is not an opinion for or against the ban proposal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • On what, a collection of IPs? (I haven't advocated a ban, btw). Leaky Caldron 16:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dunno. Maybe you ought to ask the person who started this ban discussion what exactly could be achieved by site banning proxies and dynamic IPs. KonveyorBelt 16:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought a site ban was on the editor, rather than the account? The account may be long abandoned but it is clear that the editor is still here, and in the absence of any other common name, starting an RfC in the name of Kumioko (a name the editor clearly identifies as and responds to) would make more sense than any alternative I can think of. OrganicsLRO 16:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't add the header, but I did propose the idea. I don't see any net positive to spending more time this editor. Perhaps it would be best to redirect this section to an RfC if that's the desired route. -- John Reaves 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify a few comments above, I was here to build an encyclopedia and as far back as 2010 and especially back in about February 2012 I was shown that isn't the priority anymore Its better for admins to protect their Wikifriends even if they are wrong, to jump to conclusions rather than perform due diligence and review all the facts and protect the articles they own and the WikiProjects they belong too. Even if that means using their tools and violate policy to win disagreements. So no, my priority is building an encyclopedia but too many here just want to be Wiki Politicians and control everything to ensure their POV gets pushed. So regardless of any site bans or blocks I am going to continue to advocate that this situation gets fixed so this project won't soon go the way of AOL and MySpace. I also want to clarify another point its not going to matter where you hold this discussion, there are a lot of admins and wanna be admins that will show up to vote me out. Which is fine if you would rather send a message that abusive admins and editors are allowed here. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Also to the commentors here, don't believe everything you read, there is a lot of spin being added to this discussion by folks who want me gone so they can continue to push their POV and do what they want with no repercussions. So read between the lines of what they are saying and take into account how long I have been here and how much I did for the project. Why would I just go high and to the right for no reason. Think about that for a minute. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Multiple attempts to encourage Kumioko to move onward from their platform of "Admins are bad because the community wouldn't make me one". The benefit that the community has derieved from their contributions has been overshadowed by the general disruption and drama caused. RBI on recognition of the editor should be authorized. If the credentials to the "Clean Start" account have been intentionally trashed then we should take that as a permanant request by the editor that they don't want to edit here ever again. We've already granted this editor more benefits than most other editors who have followed a similar path. WP:DIVA should be followed and the "user" should be sent on their way. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If you really think I believe "Admins are bad because the community wouldn't make me one" you are gravely mistaken and really don't know me at all. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I normally skip ahead when I realize that I'm looking at another whine from Kumioko, but recently I gave a snarky response and received two "thanks" messages (not just clicking a link) from editors who are also tired of the pointless time wasting. The sad part is that if Kumioko took a few months off and returned without the grudge, they could resume useful contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, and I say that as someone who has probably blocked him more than anyone. I'm really sad it's gotten to this point. I agree entirely with Johnuniq that Kumioko would benefit greatly by just forgetting about Wikipedia entirely for a few months; the method he's pursuing of effecting the changes he wants here is simply not working, and that has to be frustrating for him. But I don't think a ban would have that effect. In fact, I don't think it would have any effect other than alienating him further. It's not like he has a shortage of IP addresses he can post from if inclined, ban or no ban. 28bytes (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That argument applies to all ban discussions and the standard reply is that the purpose of a ban is to allow swift closure by WP:RBI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      RBI is designed as a response to vandalism, not to pesky critics who won't shut up. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      ? Probably the majority of site bans are not for vandalism, it isn't necessary. When someone is a vandal it isn't needed to site ban them to establish the person isn't welcome. Site bans are much more commonly used for editors who are not vandals but are still highly disruptive and just won't either change their behaviour or leave when it becomes clear their behaviour is unwelcome. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support as long overdue. BMK (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the community would do well without you here as well BMK. But then the community won't ban abusive editors or admins, just those who speak out about them. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • "And the community would do well without you here as well BMK". Possibly, but the community will determine that, not you.

            For someone who's annoyed when they're called a "troll", you're pretty free with the much more serious charge of "abuse" - you basically deal it out willy-nilly to anyone you dislike, sometimes on the flimsiest of rationales. But, for the record, my determination that it is appropriate that you be site banned has little to do with your being abusive of others, although, you've spewed out a number of NPAs recently (as have I, to my shame and regret). No, it's because you're become a net negative to the project. You're clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and what commentary you do "contribute" - in Wikipedia space and on user talk pages - is unhelpful, repetitive, boring, childish, defensive, teaming with WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes and fraught with an essential misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how the Wikipedia community works - although you clearly deem yourself an expert on that subject. Much of what you write appears to have the primary purpose of getting a reaction from someone, and if that's not "trolling", then nothing is.

            The bottom line is that the project will be better off without you, and you will probably be better off settling in as one of the resident shrieking voices at one of the Wiki-criticism sites, which will be much more attuned to your current program. If you ever decide to become a productive editor again, you can ask to be reinstated, but I'm sure that the leash would be extremely short - if, that is, you can convince enough people to give you yet another chance. BMK (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support as one of the admins that Kumioko considers "abusive": [14][15], Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KumiokoCleanStart 2 Quite frankly, for someone who claims that admins have immunity from the same standards that regular editors are supposed to follow, he has been given much immunity, even though he should have been blocked long ago for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, personal attacks, abusing multiple accounts (User:ThePhoenixReborn), block evasion [16], and other disruptive behavior. On this site, making serious accusations against any editor without evidence is not allowed; I don't see why my name has to repeatedly be dragged through the mud, and nobody will do anything about it, just because I am an admin. --Rschen7754 00:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your correct I do count you there Rschen (but your not the only one) and you should have been blocked as well for many of the same reasons Rschen and yet not only have you not been you are an Arbcom clerk. That puts you firmly in the protected from persecution category. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support as 2 accounts & god knows how many IP's and yet still being disruptive, Perhaps the WP:ROPE'S just ran out?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, BMK's rationale above spells the reasons out quite nicely - as do Kumioko's very own comments in this very thread. Whatever his past contributions may have been he's here now for the sole purpose of personally attacking people. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban. A no-brainer; this has been getting increasingly disruptive for some weeks now, and the editor is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. It's a shame that it has come to this, but I don't see anything useful that Kumioko is contributing at the moment, and I see plenty of things that are not useful, as noted by Rschen7754 above. It would have been better to help Kumioko realise that the way he is attempting to reform the system is not working and not helpful, but that has been tried already. A ban seems to be the only route left. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Insufficient evidence presented to merit this ultra-extreme outcome. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Carrite - Has there ever been a site ban that you have !voted in favor of? I can't think of one. BMK (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Kumioko, what would you like to see happen? What would you consider a win, and if you got it, would you be willing to take a break? - Dank (push to talk) 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I do not see the excessive harm about mentioning past problems, and often Kumioko's comments have been helpful to remember other issues by an editor with 400,000+ edits. I think blocking all IPs would likely do more harm, than good, because other anon editors would be locked out from editing at those numerous IPs. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - appears to have left constructive criticism behind some time ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, with the strongest possible recommendation to Kumioko that he take six months away from the project before coming back again; at that point, i hope, his great productivity would have a chance to be better/stronger than his equally great frustration. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, it's about time. The user has had plenty of second, third and fourth chances, but still can't edit productively and it is apparent that he is incapable of taking a voluntary wikibreak. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support a site ban on the registered accounts, after which the IP addresses can be dealt with as block-evading sock puppets. If there is no "community consensus" here, recommend that his case be referred to ArbCom. (I think that "community consensus" at these noticeboards is a will-o-the-wisp, but that is my opinion.) I sympathize with but don't understand the suggestions that this editor voluntarily take a break. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - He may be playing the victim, he may be getting on some people's nerves, but my own interactions with the user have been positive and productive. The user cares about Wikipedia quite a lot, to the point that conflict in the name of defending it - and apparently being removed from the project seems better then simply "throwing the towel in". A month off Wikipedia is more than enough time to get the priorities in order. A site ban under the circumstances is not going to help Wikipedia as much as it will validate the negative views. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment RfC/U are beyond pointless. They don't cause people to change their behavior and are little more than a "who can drag the most people's names through the mud the fastest contest". As for the site ban, I think it would be best to abstain from voting in it. Kumioko considers me to be a founding member of the evil league of evil. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • sigh I'm going to let you all in on a little secret. It involves a mailing list discussion so the identity of the other participants will have to remain undisclosed, as well as exactly what they said. When the "clean start" account was started there was a discussion on the functionaries mailing list about whether or not it was socking. Because he deliberately got his old account blocked by, as I recall, publicly posting the password, it was not really a normal block. I believe the account was actually globally locked, which is a steward action that even arbcom cannot reverse on its own authority. By creating a new account and resuming exacly the same activities as his old account he was undoubtedly evading the block. I argued at the time that although he was evading the block he seemed to be doing what he was doing for attention and if we let the baby have his bottle that might take some of the wind out of his sails, mixaphorically speaking.
      I won't say I regret having made that argument, but clearly I was wrong as it is now clear to me that all it did was prolong the day this discussion was finally had. And now he is doing the same thing again, deliberately testing the borders of the socking policy, pretending to walk away and coming straight back and doing exactly what he was doing before.
      As much as I dislike the out-of-process blocks and attempts to end-run the banning policy I sympathize with the intent behind them. This is a user who is extremely tendentious in his arguments, who almost never has anything positive to say, and who again and agin stirs up trouble for no apparent reason other than to make a scene. When a user repeatedly quits WP in dramatic fashion and then immediately returns under another identity and continues what they were doing before, that is not an indication something is wrong with WP, it is an indication that something is wrong with that person. I don't pretend to know what that something is but I do believe the best thing would be if WP and Kumioko had some time apart. Like others here I would prefer Kumioko just saw the logic of that and showed some self control for once and just walked away, but I don't hold out much hope for that actually happening. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You are correct it was globally locked because I posted my password, I asked for my account to be locked and any admin could have done that but since I was denied I posted the password. That was, as I said, because I wanted my account locked and to edit as an IP, as is the case now, that was not allowed, so I created the ThePhoenixReborn account, that was called socking so I created the KumiokoCleanStart account because I had too many edits to simply rename the old account, they had to move it. So now that I am an IP again, its again an issue. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support In Principle -- I think enough is enough with Kumioko and his shenanigans. However, the one who imposes the blocks on the accounts and numerous IPs are going to have to make sure that the IPs are not highly dynamic. Perhaps a range block would work, in addition to blocking the accounts? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I find this discouraging because Kumioko has the potential to be a very productive member of the community. I haven't followed the history to know what went wrong, but I wish there were a better solution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose -- less extreme measures should be used first. For instance, require the user to operate a single account or if they want to edit as an IP, we make some sort of restriction that they don't use IP's to evade scrutiny. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Per Carrite, per ChrisGualtieri, per others. --doncram 20:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support something I can't tell if the User is evading a block or what, but the status quo: the repetitive unhelpful posts, the casting generalized and personal aspersions, the multiple unregistered accounts abuse needs to stop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose- Per beeble's first comments on thread. What he's doing while some consider annoying is that he is not using his account. I don't see that as site ban worthy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose, because Beeblebrox is wrong is saying that is not an indication something is wrong with WP, it is an indication that something is wrong with that person. Beeblebrox is not incorrect because nothing is wrong with Kumioko's approach, but because this is Wikipedia: nothing is black and white / binary. We even espouse that in one of our five pillars (WP:IAR). While K's engagement style has become chronically ineffective -- I find the validity of his points is lost in both the volume and lack of structure in their contributions, and find myself skimming over their longer posts in discussions I otherwise have interest it -- there is no doubt in my mind that they value Wikpedia-the-Encylopedia and correctly identify some of its shortcomings. In the long term, we would better off at listening to some of Wikipedia's more critical contributors on-wiki rather than compelling them off-wiki, because a) the criticisms could be seen and evaluated by more editors, and b) on-wiki criticism is less likely to exceed the bounds of decency that sometimes occur off-wiki.
      While personally I don't have a problem with the IP editing because I can identify K almost immediately by the style, I understand most editors probably won't, so I would support a ban on intentional IP editing; that is, K should be required to create yet another account and use that exclusively because, honestly, if they've got to the point they feel that just having to log in is too much of a burden, it probably is time for a wiki-break.
      What no one has suggested or provided a link to is any instant of K disrupting mainspace -- you know, the important stuff. If their contributions in DR forums are disruptive, remember The oyster makes the pearl. NE Ent 20:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So if you never edit in mainspace, you're allowed to personally attack anyone you want as much as you want in other spaces without consequence? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose site ban. I think any user who proposes the ban of a user that does not result in consensus for the ban ought to be sanctioned their self, progressing in short order to their own topic ban against such nominations. I'll bet we would see an immediate reduction in these specious ban requests and an equivalent increase in RfC/U; in other words, a return to propriety.—John Cline (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The result of that would be chaos as nobody would ever propose a ban. And in many cases (including this one) a RfC/U is pointless bureaucracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • So only users with the gift of precognition and an affinity for process may propose bans? -- John Reaves 21:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm nearly certain yours is but rhetoric, though I will proffer an answer: No.—John Cline (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Kumioko started out as a productive editor, doing lots of bot-style small improvements, and working very hard to promote Featured content such as List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients. He assumed leadership of WikiProject United States, and there he began to run into trouble with other editors who did not agree with him. His failed RfA was a turning point; after that he was angry at the RfA process which did not give him the simple tools he needed to do more bot-style improvements. From that point forward Kumioko has been a thorn in the side of the RfA process, and an attention-seeking drama troll. He's threatened to leave Wikipedia many times. I support a site ban because Kumioko has long since become a resource drain on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify the reason this ban is being discussed, is because the community would rather ban me for criticizing admins than to actually do anything about said admins. That's it, plain and simple. The nail that sticks out gets hammered and I am sticking out. Its not surprising that a large portion of those that voted support here (not all, in fact there are some editors I have never seen before) are also the same editors and admins who I think are the trouble. Another note is that I have little respect for those who would block me for "personal attacks or harassment" but then allow the editors I am responding too to call me "DIVA", "an attention-seeking drama troll", and others. Its pretty hard for me to respect someone who only enforces the rules when they don't like the editor or when they feel like it and not when the situation warrants it. If admins cannot separate themselves from their Wikifriends and enforce policy fairly and evenly then they/you shouldn't be admins, period! If that hurts your feelings, at this point, then I don't care, because its obvious no one cares about my feelings or the project which I am trying to get the community to make better. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Your "clarification" is nothing but yet another reiteration of your same-old tired screed, and entirely misses the point. You are being considered for being banned on the basis of very sound policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:DIVA, WP:NPA and WP:DISRUPTION, all of which you are egregiously in violation of. This would be the case if your behavior was precisely that same as it has been, but your message had nothing whatsoever to do with admins, because it's the behavior which has caused this problem for you, not your specific viewpoint. The fact that you cannot see this, or how your behavior is seen by others is a major part of the problem.

      It really would be in your best interest to stop commenting here - you'd get more "oppose" !votes that way, whereas every time you post, you dig your hole that much deeper, since every comment is a display of exactly the problems that are being discussed. BMK (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh, and to those opposing the ban, I suggest you check out Kumioko's veiled threat to resort to massive sockpuppetry in the section below, where he writes: "if I want to edit, blocking the 2 or three [IP accounts] above is pointless. I also know how to get around the checkuser program if I wanted to do that and create an army of throwaway accounts." Yes, he does follow this by saying that he won't do that, but surely he is letting us know that he could if he wanted to. That, to me, is an implicit warning to us of his capability to disrupt Wikipedia, and an attempt on his part to coerce the discussion in his favor, since there was no real need to reveal this information otherwise. BMK (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No again, since you didn't read my comment that is not what I am saying. I am saying don't waste a bunch of time worrying about blocking IP's because its pointless and ineffective. That's it. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I parsed your comment quite closely. I know exactly what your statement meant on a superficial level, and that may even be what you think you were saying, but it was also, quite clearly, a implicit warning of what you are capable of doing. BMK (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Look BMK I was just stating that from a technical aspect there really isn't anything you can do to block me if my intent is to do so. 28bytes said it above as well and so did a couple other people. It doesn't really matter at this point, you folks are going to think whatever you want and there isn't anything I can say to change your mind. No one wants to do anything about abusive admins, it would rather silence me for trying. I edited up till about August of this year (along with advocating changes) and about August 2013 I just stopped making edits to articles because it became clear that it isn't a priority of the project anymore. People would rather protect their articles, they would rather blog in talk pages and act like they control the project. Then you have the WMF tearing up the project by releasing garbage like Visual Editor and soon Flow. So I feel like I am the only one around that even cares about the project. Am I? Certainly not, but it feels like it because all people want to do is rail on me. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If everyone "cared" for the project the way you do, the encyclopedia would wilt on the vine, and we'd all drown in WP:DRAMA. I, and most other editors care for the encyclopedia in a positive way, by improving articles, writing templates, categorizing, and so on. We care for it by making the encyclopedia better, that's what being a "productive editor" means. BMK (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, unfortunately. A couple of days ago on ANI I said I didn't think the level of disruption warranted a block, but I've since changed my mind. For example, the comment below, "I also know how to get around the checkuser program if I wanted to do that and create an army of throwaway accounts." sounds very much like a user who is totally off the rails and extremely unlikely to return to productive community editing. Sad that it's come to this, but here we are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, this is exactly why I don't trust you as an admin. Your picking and choosing pieces of the comment to justify what you want. Read the whole comment, not just the first sentence. I was just suggesting they not spend a bunch of discussion time on something that was irrelevant. Its like me just looking at your comment of A couple of days ago on ANI I said I didn't think the level of disruption warranted a block and justifying that you are saying I shouldn't be banned. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't be silly, what I want is for you to return to productive encyclopedia editing, or as a second choice to at least leave with some dignity and your head held high. Regardless of how the votes tally up, I won't be getting what I want because I'd say both those bridges burned awhile ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support a site ban. Honestly, all this stuff got old ages ago. The user rarely if ever produces constructive content anymore; most of what I've seen from the user consists of whining about admins and the RfA process. TCN7JM 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. The problem isn't Kumioko, it's all the people responding to him and giving him attention. Personally, I think he has made constructive contributions and has a lot to offer. His whining about not being an admin is annoying, but I ignore it, and so should you. I don't understand this need to block him and I oppose it. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, the problem isn't with the guy swinging his fists, it's with the people who get in the way of the punch. BMK (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the problem is with people who poke the bear, and then blame the bear for the problem. I've had several encounters with Kumioko and I don't see how he deserves a site ban. He actually deserves to be left alone. I hope that's not beyond your ken. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he was a productive editor, I would totally agree with you, but as he himself admits (see above, where he writes "I was here to build an encyclopedia and as far back as 2010 and especially back in about February 2012 I was shown that isn't the priority anymore") he's "seen the light" and is no longer here to build an encyclopedia, he's on a self-appointed Mission, with a capital "M", and we're not here to accommodate that. If he were to become productive again, he should indeed be left alone to make his contribution, but there's no way the project can allow his kind of behavior from a rampant free-loading non-contributor, it sucks up time and gets in the way of the work.

        You're also wrong about people "poking him", if by that you mean they come to him to bait him. It's actually just the opposite, he haunts the high-profile pages, provoking people and whining when he doesn't get his way. If he's being "poked", it's because he actively went out looking to be poked, in order that he could, yet again, repeat his litany of what's wrong with Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      That's not what I am saying BMK, as usual you are completely misreading what I said. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Kumioko, you cannot deny the meaning of your words. There is no "misreading", there is only what you said - why is why you should really not comments any more. BMK (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Andrew Lenahan and BMK. Kumioko appears to largely be here for the drama these days, and not to contribute to developing an encyclopaedia in a direct way. Their statement about block evasion below is concerning. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the point I was trying to make by saying that they're here for the drama now. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment – Kumioko mainly inhabits drama boards these days, where nothing much real happens. He is not disruptive to the main task of building Wikipedia. Sure Kumioko is tedious with his endless whinges about not being an admin. But we all have our quirks, and I would have thought the admin corps would be flattered by this inexplicable yearning of Kumioko to be a part of them. Aside from that, Kumioko is one of the now vanishingly small breed of editors willing and able to articulate accurate critiques of the system. The widespread admin stategy of treating able critics of the system as vandals and trolls by ignoring and marginalising what they have say, is of course effective. It is the strategy to be be expected from a bankrupt system which has no persuasive or rational counters to draw on. The last remaining strategy, and the system seems to be moving steadily that way, would be to somehow shut down constructive criticism altogether. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd appreciate a diff of some "constructive criticism" from K. BMK (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is such a wealth of material there that I am not going to do that BMK. You can't have been actually reading what he has said. Just search back into the past on Kumioko posts practically anywhere and you will find constructive criticism. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (My goodness, my reading comprehension seems to be the subject of the moment.) No, I assure you that I have read what he's said (how could I avoid reading it, when he says it over and over and over again?), and I've found his criticism to be puerile, superficial and unconstructive. In point of fact, I've not seen him provide anything like a constructive suggestion to alleviate the faults he trumpets so loudly - he contents himself with complaining and tearing down, not with fixing and rebuilding. I was rather hoping that you would provide me with something constructive that he's said, but it seems that you're unable to do that, which is a shame. BMK (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I said nothing about your "reading comprehension". The first step in constructive criticism is to clearly identify dysfunctional areas in the existing system. Kumioko does this repeatedly and often well. He naturally repeats these "over and over and over again", because the typical admin response is to ignore such concerns and pretend they don't exist. Acknowledgement has to be there before there is any point in moving to constructive alternatives. Somebody needs to be listening. Nonetheless, Kumioko often suggests constructive alternatives. His arguments should be listened to and responded to with reasoned replies, and not just blown off with emotive language like "puerile and superficial". --Epipelagic (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunatly saying two editors "are jerks and should be banned", then later referring saying one is "a jerk to everyone" and "[should have] been stripped of his admin rights long ago for being a jerk to everyone" (full disclosure, he was referring to me) isn't 'constructive criticism', but rather personal attacks, and this isn't anything new but is, rather, his long-term M.O. It's regrettable, but since he either cannot or will not accept that what he might very well believe is constructive criticism is unacceptable to the Wikipedia community, well, that's why we're here. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand you are upset Kumioko said you were a jerk. Was Kumioko rude to you for no reason, or did you say something prior that upset him? Do you think that because you are an admin your feelings are more important than his? Are you saying you want Kumioko site banned because he hurt your feelings, and that this is what this issue is really about? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I'm not any of the above, but I am very dissapointed in the assumptions you've made that underly the statement above. I am not upset, my feelings are LESS important than anyone else's, and I do not "want" Kumioko site-banned. This issue, however, is really about the fact he makes and continues to make personal attacks and sees no problem with this, and thus as he either cannot or will not abide by Wikipedia policy and has declared below (whether he admits, or even realises, it or not) that he will continue to IP-hop sock, a ban is the only remedy left. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You say you don't want Kumioko site-banned, yet you vote to ban him. You say you are not upset Kumioko said you were a jerk, yet you say this is what the issue is really about. Did you discuss with him rationally what led him to make that comment? Kumioko's IP-hopping is pretty transparent and is only a problem for people who choose to make it a problem. He stated clearly below that he will not IP-hop if "the community" decides to muzzle him. A decision coming from a board like this, habituated by little more than admins, admin wanabees and drama board devotees, is certainly not a "community" decision. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I doubt if there's ever a World War III the people who turn the keys will want to turn the keys, but the keys will still get turned. I am, as mentioned, not upset in the least - to me, the insult is water off a duck's back. However, the repeated and flagrant violations of policy are the reason I don't see any other option but the ban. As far as discussing why he views me so negatively, I'm quite willing to if there is a prospect of progress. However the fact that, AFAICR, the only real interaction I had was where I opposed his usurpation of WP:FLORIDA by WP:US and things there seemed collegial at the time, means I haven't the slightest clue why he thinks I'm such a jerk. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The difference between theory and practice. In 1983, the keys did not get turned. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps that's in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps it's there, as potent as a B-2 stealth bomber. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh please Bushranger, I called a spade a spade. This is nothing more than silencing me from continuing to call out abusive admins. That's all this discussion has been about. The starter if this discussion never intended for this to turn into a site ban discussion but you and a few others saw this as your opportunity to get rid of me. If I called someone abusive they did something first that provoked me to do so. I didn't just pick admins at random. As for personal attacks. I have been the target of personal attacks that no one gives a shit about for years. Calling me a vandal, a troll, a DIVA, then abusing the tools and blocking me for personal attacks because I responded in kind and didn't just stay in my little corner and take it. Now you and BMK and a few others want me to just stay out of the discussion while you twist what I say out of context, include blatant lies and distortions of the truth so you can justify banning me from the project? Please, that's not how I am wired. If this comes down to a ban then fine, but I am not going to just stand aside while I am still able to post and allow a few of the most abusive admins and editors on this site run this discussion. No one on this site cares about abusive admins or what I have to say about them at this point but when I am gone and they aren't under the gun and able to do whatever they want again its going to get worse. This discussion is just serving as an enabler to those. They are watching and hoping I get banned. This ban is just a disgraceful attempt to get me out of the way so a minority of the project can justify running it into the ground. I think it should be important to note that the people who voted here represent an almost insignificant portion of the community, far less than even an average RFA, and most are those that I think are abusive or bad editors and I have called out as being such at some point. At this point frankly, it really doesn't represent anything even remotely close to a community consensus. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Kumioko, there is a lot of sympathy for your views about abusive and ineffective Admins., not least from myself which you will know from many past discussions at RfA. Why, I have even be the subject of such within the context of this very discussion. Your problem as I see it is that you take your anger out on anyone who gets in your way, Admin., "bad" Admin. or non-Admin. You called me a liar twice up there without the slightest justification for pointing out your obvious use of multiple Ids while editing and for highlighting a blatant example of trolling, namely "Lol Ding ding ding. See, no need to login at all.", when challenged about it. You have too little to say and you say it too loudly, I'm afraid. The fundamental point you wish to highlight is being lost and you are now exasperating those who otherwise would agree and support you. I think the best way to deal with this is to ignore your off-topic rants via a modified version of WP:RBI, revert and ignore without the block, while leaving your useful contributions to speak for themselves. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Moreover, it's just too confusing with these different ID's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I'm sorry Kumioko. I really like you, and I enjoy every time we talk, but you need to stay out of Wikipedia for a while. It's for your own good. Six months to a year might do very good, but without a formal note that you are out I am sure you will just come back and back again until the end of time. You cannot separate from Wikipedia to take rest and come back fresh by youself, and so I feel forced to support a site ban I would not support under any other circumstances just because I know that it will be the best for you :( — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 04:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strongest possible oppose - but hey, it's from an IP, so you might discount it. This proposal is blocking a user for speaking against the established consensus - doing so is repressing free debate, and leads to repression of ideas that can wake up this damn project. You are clutching at straws, saying he isn't here to "build an encyclopedia". You claim that the only way to help the project is to write articles - when it suits you. There are other ways to help - and one way is absolutely discussing the problems. I expect the Thought Police will win this argument though. 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      This cuts to the heart of the issue. There are over one thousand admins, and they have positioned themselves so they now have the power to close down the last remnant whimpers of constructive debate on Wikipedia. Prominent admins are pointedly endorsing blocking admins with awards and offering testimonials to the rectitude of admins who make unjust blocks. It is an increasingly fraught environment, where soon only admins and their yes men will have a voice. To say Kumioko isn't here to build an encyclopedia, as the OP of thi thread claims above, is gross misrepresentation and a more vexatious form of incivility than any Kumioko is guilty of. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      How many of those 1000+ admins are active accounts? We do need adminship reform as Kumioko has so plaintively addressed for the last several years, but the way he's gone about it has been all wrong. He's got good ideas, but his social skills need work. That's the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why hasn't anyone invited me to join the admin cabal Epipelagic has uncovered? Am I not evil enough or something? Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe you spend too much time writing content, & not enough time cultivating drama? Like me? (That's the only reason I have for why no one complains about my bitter attitude.) - llywrch (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support To be honest I can't believe the community has put up with his nonsense this long. It should have been done a long time ago. Heck it should be been done when he evaded previous blocks by using his old bot account. He wastes so much editor time and causes so much harm to the wiki that it blows my mind that he thinks he is helping it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If only you would calm down, I could stop whipping you. Really folks, if Kumioko isn't buggering articles, just leave them alone. If they make inflammatory comments, find somebody who gets along with them to ask them to chill out. This whole process is just exacerbating the problem rather than solving it. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Totally agree with Jehochman. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      • Oppose. Is this really the worst thing about Wikipedia anyone can find to start a thread about? Sure Kumioko is always talking about admin abuse, but is that worse than actual abusive admins? Banning someone because you disagree with them is extremely bad form. —Neotarf (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - If the Wikipedia treated its critics less like pariahs and more like people, there would eventually be less of a need for external criticism sites. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I don't like the idea of a ban for this user, who has shown himself to be as capable and committed a contributor as Kumioko is, but his disruptive behavior has reached a point that I have to conclude that a ban is appropriate. The fact that Kumioko's IPs ended up being the subject of an SPI case on another user is indicative of how broadly disruptive his behavior can be. Resolute's comments about anti-admin zealotry are on target, and Leaky caldron's bill of particulars is (unfortunately) accurate. A ban should be for a defined period (not indefinite, as this is a user who *should* be welcome here). I hope that Kumioko can control himself enough to abide by such a ban -- so that it doesn't get extended for bad behavior, but I'm not real optimistic about that. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support site ban. User is clearly not here any more to contribute. --AdmrBoltz 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Has anyone paid attention to what he's been saying in this thread? His comments include repeated accusations of lying and corruption; look at the paragraph beginning with "I also wanted to point something else out", for example. He's been responsible for jumping into tons of situations that don't involve him, only inflaming the results; let me remind you of the sockpuppet investigation for WilliamJE that I linked above, which clearly wouldn't have happened had he been editing with a username or had he not come in at all. This is not a simple critic: he raises WP:ANI threads while not mentioning an identity that everyone knows, and the results of the situation are markedly different from what they'd be if he'd noted who he was. That's the most basic element of WP:SCRUTINY. Throughout his comments, we're told how the eevil admins (me especially) are out to get him, without any evidence whatsoever. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and serious accusations require serious evidence. Make those accusations without presenting any evidence whatsoever, and why should we permit you to continue? Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      For what its worth Nyttend your not the worst admin, there are a couple I would consider worse. And just because your personal attacks are passive aggressive instead of direct doesn't mean they aren't personal attacks. And didn't you already vote in this discussion once above...or was that just a passing comment jumping into a situation that doesn't involve you, only inflaming the results? Or is this situation different because your an admin and I am not? BannedEditor (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. This edit, which comes across as little more than trolling, is the final straw for me. The repeated IP-jumping, now coupled with throwaway account creation, is unacceptable. SuperMarioMan 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I see "things they do wrong" above, but I don't see reasons for such a huge and serious action. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. There's evidence of problematic behaviour, specifically personal attacks, and probably a battleground attitude, but not enough to justify a ban. Maybe try dispute resolution first; if that fails editing restrictions (such as interaction bans) would be more appropriate than a site ban. Peter James (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is best to know a little about a case before commenting on it. Suggestions about dispute resolution and interaction bans may be fine for a run-of-the-mill problem, but they are totally inapplicable in this situation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose – What Jehochman says is totally on the point; Kumioko isn't doing things that are egregiously harmful to Wikipedia, so he should be let off the hook with a lesser punishment. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose per Jehochman. Chill. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Questions for Kumioko

      So of us have questions before replying -- Moxy (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Kumioko what is your intent here at this project? What are your plans on being constrictive to the project. At one time you did edit articles in a positive manner...is this something you plan to do again or are you here to advocate a change in how things are done here?-- Moxy (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Sensitive IP list

      The sensitive IP list should be automated to produce a warning when blocking one of them, and an email to WMF should be generated automatically. When blocking IPs I would bet that most admins don't exhaustively checks the sensitive list. It's ridiculous to ask people to do such checks manually when software can do the same job with much greater vigilance and accuracy. Jehochman Talk 20:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      My experience with sensitive IPs is that the block log is generally indicative of their status as such (e.g. comments in the summaries and multiple short-term blocks). -- John Reaves 21:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It already does - see screenshot. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Good. I've complained before about this. I'll check the IP against the addresses on the blocking page, but I'm not going to go to the main list and check against that. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't get too wrapped up with the blocking of IP's unless your intent is to restrict all IP's from editing because if I want to edit, blocking the 2 or three above is pointless. I also know how to get around the checkuser program if I wanted to do that and create an army of throwaway accounts. I have already stated if the community bans me from this site I will live with that. So unless your willing to ban all IP's, don't spend too much time talking about blocking my IP's and whether their restricted. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You are not scoring point with that statement. What are you upset about and if you have a justified grievance, how could I help you? Jehochman Talk 09:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      My grievance isn't with you, its just a simple statement being blown out of proportion. You guys are assuming its technically possible to block me if I choose to continue to edit and its not. Short of banning all IP edits and making it so people have to request an account be related and their identity verified. I know too much about how the Wikimedia software and Wikipedia and the checkuser program work so your just wasting your time discussing blocking or not blocking sensitive IP's. If the community bans me then I will stop editing. You don't need to get wrapped up over blocking IP's. With that said, most of those who are calling for me to be banned are those I have identified as being abusive or a detriment to the project in the past so its hard to consider this a consensus of the community unless more uninvolved editors weigh in. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      A lot of people here, including you Kumioko, are making valid points, but I think this last comment is definitive. You don't recognize this as a valid forum, or these critics as valid critics. You know how to subvert the system, and intend to, if you have to. So ... I'm not sure what this discussion can accomplish. There seems to be no enthusiasm in this discussion for an RfC/U ... the problem isn't that more information needs to be generated, it's that people on all sides of this discussion have more information than they want to have, ... and that leads to votes intended to "just get it over with", which can't be fair to you, Kumioko ... or to the people who feel that you're interfering with the jobs they perform on Wikipedia. All that leaves is ArbCom. Are there any objections to moving this discussion to that setting? - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Not so much an objection @Dank:, just a practical concern that we will end up with 2 months of highfalutin waffle from a group of functionaries in whom I have probably even less confidence that Kumioko does about Admins. (look at the pigs ear they made of the recent WMF motion, almost all too eager to jump on an Admin. here at the behest of a bullying WMF staffer without taking time to consider the wider picture). This isn't rocket science. Kumioko can accept a suggestion to use a new registered user and have his content subject to removal or hatting when it is wildly off topic or the same thing to the various IPs he uses. He has never demonstrated good-hand, bad-hand socking behaviour and I think just ignoring the diatribes while discussing his valid points can be a possible way forward. If he agrees.... But either way, Arbcom. would come up with God knows what sort of impenetrable sanctions which defy implementation. Leaky Caldron 14:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that Arbcom's decisions have sometimes seemed odd ... perhaps they were looking at a different set of facts than I had access to, perhaps not ... but I don't think that's a reason not to refer a case to Arbcom, if there's no other suitable setting for the case. If we're worried that the Arbcom case will fail because it won't take X into account, then we should try to get consensus for the statement: Arbcom, we're referring this case to you, but we want you to make sure and take X into account. I haven't ever gotten the sense from Arbcom that they don't want to hear about what goals the community is looking for in an Arbcom case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      sigh - Ok, maybe I wasn't being clear enough the last few times so here goes again. The statement above was not intended to be a threat or a message of intent, it was merely a statement pointing to the technical limitations of the Wikipedia software. I say again, I have no intention, of posting after this ban takes effect. Also as a further point of clarification you are correct that I do not think this discussion is an adequate representation of "consensus" of the community however in addition to the supports and opposes here I have also gotten at least 3 dozen emails from various editors, more of which are supporters than opposes of this ban, but chose not to vote here for various reasons. They did feel compelled to explain their reasons in private to me however which is totally fine by me. In addition to that, this is a high traffic, high visibility page and a lot of people by now have read and chosen not to comment, so in sight of the fact they didn't oppose it, I am counting them as in tacit support of this ban. As such, if no one noticed, I already added the Community ban banner to my old talk page and I am going to add a thank to the folks that opposed this ban. Other than that, my suggestion would be to close it. If you still feel inclined to take it to Arbcom, feel free although from my experience with them I am going to say that's probably going to be a waste of your time...but its your time to waste. Aside from that I would just close this as ban implemented. Although it might be useful in the future to define what the ban is and what the duration will be so that anyone who sees this in the future doesn't think the community does everything half assed just because they don't like the editor in involved. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Okay, let me just throw out a suggestion and we'll see how it goes. You've added a ban notice to the talk page for User:KumiokoCleanStart. Can you deal with a three-month ban, and would you be willing to check in with me after three months? At that time, I'd like to hear how things are going, whether your perspective on any of the above has changed, and if you have ideas for things you'd like to do on Wikipedia. Then I'll submit your ideas to the community and we'll see how it goes. I'd like to see you working on things you enjoy again. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Kumioko's reply is at User talk:KumiokoCleanStart. I don't think he'll be back any time soon, and I'll stop watchlisting now. I'm sorry I couldn't come up with anything helpful here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      "I don't think he'll be back anytime soon?" Why? Because he made yet another dramatic DIVA display and labelled himself a "banned editor" when he has not yet been banned, and may not be? (Those tags are inaccurate and should probably be removed.) Kumioko's pattern is to go all DIVA, says he's leaving for good, and then come back almost immediately as an IP. After a while, he creates a new account and starts up again. I have no doubt that if he's not banned as a result of this discussion, he will do this exact same thing yet again. The tags mean nothing, and are no guarantee of his future behavior. BMK (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I just want to clarify something because its important. Bans do not prevent people from editing. They put more work on the community, admins in particular. They make it more difficult to edit and they make it more difficult to create an account. They are not a magic spell, fairy dust or unicorn poop that suddenly makes the individual incapable of editing. So putting your personal attacks on me aside BMK, because no one cares about who attacks me, how or why and they never have, a ban will not "stop" me from editing if that's what I choose to do. Also, its a well known fact that the checkuser program is garbage and can easily be avoided if I wanted to do that. Its also prone to false positives so since I have edited from several IP ranges that would affect the outcome of the result, if you want to ban a bunch of extra editors and accuse them it was me, then feel free. I'm sure you will find several you can add to the list of "Kumioko socks" since you seem intent on justifying your accusations that I am socking, which I am not. Just as I have restricted my edits to those related to this page or relating to this discussion, after this concludes, that will be it for me here. Not because this magical barrier was put in place, but because I choose to abide by it. BannedEditor (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah! Another unclarifying "clarification". In your fantasy, you may have these magical powers, but, in fact, if you are banned by the community, and "choose" not to comply with the ban, you will be dealt with like any other ordinary puppetmaster. Unless your socks return to actually editing the encyclopedia (something you haven't done in any volume for years), your posts will be immediately identifiable as being yours by their subject matter and style, and your socks would be squelched as quickly as you can make them. Since you clearly wouldn't be satisfied to simply make productive edits, and would inevitably slip into your complaining mode, your socking career is not going to be very successful. Besides that, once you start socking for real, any hope of returning to the community is gone. I guarantee you that most of the "supports" here would oppose your re-entry, as would some of the "opposes" if you took that pathway.

      So, please, stop acting as if banning is no big thing, and that you'd be doing the community some kind of favor by adhering to it. You've dug yourself into an extremely deep hole, and you're in serious danger of not being able to climb out again. These pronouncements portraying yourself as in some way a good Wikipedian because you're planning to abide by a ban (if there should be one) are absurd - your ban will be policed the way every other ban is, and unless you're going to abandon the project altogether, abiding by it is something you must do, not something you'd do to be nice to us. BMK (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Darkness gathers... --Epipelagic (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Children will be children.... Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Kumioko/"BannedEditor"'s recent behavior

      Anyone who reviews Kumiokos recent behavior (starting with the pointy creation of yet another account, BannedEditor) can easily see the problems quickly ematating from his actions. Kumioko's apparent goal is to abandon constructively contributing to Wikipedia altoghether in order to pursue any admin deemed "abusive", actions that cannot be described as anything short of trolling. Also intriguing is the threat to continue socking and disrupting no matter what sanctions the community imposes upon them, stating that "a ban will not stop me from editing", "it is a well known fact that the checkuser program is garbage and can easily be avoided" and other such threats. It is obvious that Kumioko has become nothing less than a Wikipedian representation of Statler and Waldorf, albeit with little humour involved. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Reverting fixes of equations

      No need for administrator action, discussions are better concentrated at WP:VPT#Math aligned environments failing to parse.--Salix alba (talk): 20:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Let's get a consensus. For the past 2 days, the MediaWiki math-tag software has been unable to format math formulas with "{align}" or "{alignedat}" as discussed at wp:PUMPTECH for Template:Bugzilla:
      Template:Nb10• "wp:VPT#Math aligned environments failing to parse" (02:05, 7 February 2014)
      Meanwhile, my attempts to re-typeset the broken formulas with math-tag "{array}{ll}" (left/left as "ll" for 2 columns) have been reverted 4 times by User:Ozob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in 2 articles:
      Template:Nb10"Integral" (reverts: dif574, dif518) or "Spherical trigonometry" (reverts: dif931, dif585)
      I think the proper way forward is to edit major math articles to replace the broken math-tag "{align}" or "{alignedat}" which show red-error messages with other markup, but I fear an edit-war will result. Many articles seem to be affected, but I would start with major pages, such as:
      Template:Nb10• Fix "Calculus" & "Fundamental theorem of calculus" etc.
      So, I am asking if anyone knows if the math-tag software will be fixed soon to handle "{align}" or if we can agree to copy-edit math articles and re-align equations with the equivalent math-tag "{array}{rl}" or similar. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:59, revised 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I think we should sit it out until it is fixed, and have a site notice explaining the problem. Editors using MathJax do not see any errors, so they don't know why these edits are made and revert them. — Edokter (talk) — 10:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Those math-tags have been generating red-error messages in major pages, as in page "Calculus":
           :<math>\begin{align} y&=x^2 \\ \frac{dy}{dx}&=2x.\end{align}</math>
           has shown: Failed to parse(unknown function '\begin'): {\begin{aligned}y&=x^{2}\\{\frac {dy}{dx}}&=2x.\end{aligned}}
      Instead, using math-tag "{array}{rl}" will show:
                            
      Major math pages have been viewed more than 10 per minute (such as "Derivative" at 2,900 per day), and so I was fixing the equation errors to use "{array}{ll}" to display the indented lines. -Wikid77 14:54/15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      This is already being discussed at the Village Pump and Maths project. There's no need for yet another discussion here and nothing requiring immediate admin attention.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Vandalism backlog

      There's currently a backlog at WP:AIV, perhaps admins could please help out there?

      Thank you,

      — Cirt (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The board is clear as of now. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Hrm, looks like it's backlogged, again! — Cirt (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a very busy board today. If people could pop over there now and then, that would be great. Thanks Cirt for reporting this. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Kendite/يوسف حسين

      User:Kendite/User:يوسف حسين has been a disruptive presence on the Yemen-related pages for some time. Over the past week alone, issues involving him have included (but are not limited to) general rudeness, calling another editor out of name, page owning, using gratuitous racial language, abusing multiple accounts, revert warring with multiple editors including an administrator, avoiding talk page discussion, ignoring standard talk page etiquette, ignoring administrator instructions to seek consensus, and deleting another editor's talk page comments. He has in the process showed little to no understanding of the gravity of his actions let alone contrition, despite having been blocked twice over the passed few days, with his Kendite account indefinitely banned.

      He originally used to post using the Kendite account, but later abandoned that for the يوسف حسين account. The user first started using the يوسف حسين account in April 2013, in the midst of a heated exchange with another user on the Sheba talk page [17]. He changed the signature two minutes later to point to Kendite [18]. The other editor in the dispute then sock-tagged يوسف حسين's userpage [19]. Kendite promptly removed this tag [20], claiming that يوسف حسين was “just the account i use on another wiki project” and that he “edited one page using this account without realizing it”. This was of course an absurd excuse since an account first needs to be registered on English Wikipedia before one can use it here. Instead of publicly disclosing on his user page that that was an alternate account, the user continued to edit-war with various users to conceal this fact. This was despite the fact that both accounts were used almost exclusively to edit (and in an often disruptive manner) the same set of Yemen-related pages. The Kendite account was eventually indefinitely blocked about a week ago after a sock case confirmed the relationship. However, an administrator generously gave the user a second chance by allowing the يوسف حسين account to remain unblocked, and warned him not to repeat this behavior [21].

      Despite this, Kendite/يوسف حسين continued to edit disruptively, revert-warring on the Yemen page over slavery-related material with a number of different editors, including User:Inayity, User:AcidSnow, and administrator User:Materialscientist. The user in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he simultaneously revert-warred on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue ([22], [23], [24]). More disturbingly, a number of editors including myself also noticed certain racial overtones in the user's remarks. The most glaring example of this was Kendite/يوسف حسين 's gratuitous use of the antiquated epithet "Negroes", although the source itself did not use this language [25]. He was eventually blocked a second time within a week for disruptive editing [26]. However, here again the blocking administrator was generous and gave the user another chance by not indefinitely blocking his account. Instead of showing contrition and pledging to improve his behavior, the editor in his unblock request proceeded to attack other users and refused to acknowledge that he had even violated 3RR. His unblock request was predictably declined by another admin [27].

      After coming off his second block in a week, Kendite/يوسف حسين promptly attempted to revert the same material on the Yemen page that he had been edit-warring over to begin with. He only stopped reverting when I reminded him of the blocking administrator's condition to “consider agreeing to wait for consensus” [28]. Instead of sincerely attempting to reach a consensus, the user proceeded to ignore standard talk page etiquette, accuse me of attempting to "show off" when reminding him to adhere to it, take my words out of context, repeatedly call me out of name, make snide remarks about what he presumed were the ethnic backgrounds of the other editors (which none of us had actually divulged), and aggressively answered comments I never even made [29].

      Besides the foregoing, the user also has major WP:OWNership issues. He at one point threatened the user AcidSnow outright to "just stay away from any Yemen related article" [30]. One of Kendite's last actions in this vein was to delete the talk page comments yesterday of the user Inayity. When Inayity protested [31], Kendite claimed that it was another accident. The user then gave Inayity permission to post his own comment again, but told him to “refrain” from doing so “if it's not related to the discussion” [32]. To add insult to injury, the user signed this dictum with a smiley face. Ironically, this very thread likewise owes its existence to one of Kendite's myriad orders/taunts (“file a complaint! you keep circling around this in a pathetic way you know that?” [33]).

      Given the foregoing, it's clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين has expended every last ounce of good faith that has been conferred upon him. He was repeatedly given second chances by administrators, whose collective trust he squandered by not only re-engaging in the same disruptive behaviors as before, but actually intensifying and multiplying them. I therefore propose either a permanent Wikipedia editing ban on this user, or at the very least a lighter permanent topic ban on editing the website's Yemen, Arab world and Horn of Africa-related topics. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I would add I seriously believe my remarks, which were to the affect be concise on the TK page, spare us the extensive bulk of text. From the edit history it was NOT an edit conflict, but a deletion. I suspect the user, since believing he WP:OWN the page is in control of what I can post. As he has asserted I have no role on the page only to "Help a friend" my comments are worthless. I may have replied with some minor incivilities, because it is shocking to be told to keep the talk page relevant by a prolix TK violator *the cheek*. --Inayity (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually the excuse that he/she “edited one page using this account without realizing it” is not as absurd as Middayexpress thinks. The يوسف حسين account was used on Commons and Wikidata in 2013. When he/she registered the Commons account it would have automatically created accounts in all languages' Wikipedias. If you have a Commons account under a different name than your Wikipedia account, then you also have a Commons account under your Wikipedia name, and a Wikipedia account under your Commons name. It is possible to accidentally edit Wikipedia under your Commons name if you click "keep me logged in" (and vice versa).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. However, he was apparently not talking about his account on Commons but rather one on the very different looking Arabic Wiki [34]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Inayity must have utter balls to appear on this board after the shenanigans he was involved in. His comments were rightfully perceived as worthless. 173.245.221.11 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


      I was not engaged in any disruptive editing, see the Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and Talk:Yemen#Najahid. User Middayexpress ( i had to write that right because apparently he takes it seriously) reported me several times on different occasions. He accused me of having multiple accounts and sock puppets but this user check proved him wrong. I was blocked again not for having multiple accounts but for edit waring because i believed that this edits were unjustly reverted. So i was blocked for 48 hours and i was told to engage in a discussion before reverting even if i did not break the 3 reverts rule, so i did. I did not revert their edits until i could receive census in Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and the usages of words like "black" and "Ethiopian Slaves" in the article because apparently user Middayxpress perceive them to be offensive or " too general", therefore specifications must be made.

      Regarding my other account, User middayexpress said that an admin gave me a second chance! You should not have resulted to this because anyone can check the page history. The admin indeed thought that i had a sockpuppet account but the user check proved that it was not. any admin can check that i have the same email for both accounts, this one and the "kendite" account. i explained myself to many editors that i have simply changed my name in Arabic language wikipedia from "kendite" to "Yousef Hussain" and did not create another account. I did upload a lot of pictures to commons indeed and maybe i forgot to log out i really do not know what happened. But one thing i am positive about is that i did not claim to be a different person or engaged in disruptive editing using multiple account. User Middayexpress keeps bringing this issue up even though the case is closed and i have read somewhere in here that this is against Wikipedia policies.

      As for my edit warring in Yemen, the reason i got so convinced that arguing with user Middayexpress and his group is pointless, was because i got engaged on multiple discussions where the users disregard every modern scholarly work and reference to prove their own personal views. So i decided not to argue with what i perceived them to be "Afrocentrists" or "Pan Africanists". I still believe them to be but i realize now that by refraining from engaging in a debate i was only hurting my position. I got blocked for being unwilling to talk to any one of them any more without explaining my reasons to any admin. The block was lifted but as you can see user middayexpress and his friends keep bringing that up every time, here or in Talk:Yemen and i do not think that constitute a good faith. User Midday express accused me of every obscenity one can make while editing in Wikipedia. His friends called me a "liar" and "stupid" and above that they kept threatening me that they will report me, as if they own the project and have some sort of superior power on me. [35][36]

      I never threatened User Middayexpress or claimed that i own the article. Read Talk:Yemen#Najahid to see what i am dealing with. This user disregard every source i provide to prove a preconceived notion. In all of his contributions, he never made a solid argument but kept referring me to Wikipedia policy pages and reminding that i got blocked for edit warring. He accused me of incivility and calling him out of name. I did not pay much attention to his user name and sincerely thought of it as Midwayexpress , i did not see the big deal but apparently it is. Nevertheless, they kept referring to me using my previous user name to indicate that i was accused of having a scokpuppet account. His attitude in general was not that of someone who wants to reach census on an issue but to discredit me and disregard my efforts to show my side of the story. Because i did try to reach a common ground with him but instead of agreeing he jumps on talking about a completely different topic. like he did here. I agreed about his usage of an awkward term like "Jazali slave" instead of "Ethiopian slave" although these "Jazalis" are basically an Abyssinian tribe which makes them Ethiopians in the end of the day. But i agreed to his condition and asked him to keep the historical narrative. He refused and started talking about another group in Yemen called Mehri people, to prove that the "original Yemeni" ( a term that i first saw here) public are black.

      User middayexpress accused me of taking his words out of context. well, he quoted this text :

      the culture and pigmentation of the people of the Tihama is testimony to the closeness of Ethiopia and Yemen both geographically and historically

      and said that this a prove that "dark complexion" of Tihama is a native feature of Yemen. The reason he is so preoccupied to prove that the "original Yemenis" whatever that means are black, is to say that usage of words like "black slaves" or "Ethiopian slaves" (mentioned in the references) is not logical in the Yemen article since the population is black! that's his main goal behind all of this effort. I refused this interpretation and quoted the sentence just before the text he quoted :

      Ethiopia is Yemen's nearest sizable non Arab neighbor and one that had an important impact on Yemen over the ages

      and told him that the author he quoted is actually agreeing with what i have been saying that slavery and emigration (back and forth) between the people of the two opposite coasts, contributed significantly to the ethnic admixture of the Tihama region (western coastal strip), as i proved with many sources i provided. He insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis.

      Bottom line is, proving that Yemenis are black is a big deal for him, and i as someone of a Yemenite background absolutely refuse to alolow such notion to be emphasized in the article. That does not mean i am a racist, Yemen is almost a failed state so there isn't much to feel cocky about but i do not want Yemenis to be described as something they are not. He stubbornly refuse to understand that the Najahid Dynasty did not rule the entire coastal strip of Tihama. Tihama is a geographical term as i tried to explain, it is not a name of a country or a specific land. It stretches from Aden in South Arabia to Aqaba in the far North. I told him that the Najahid were princes of Zabid and its surroundings. No sign of understanding was ever presented and he believes that this black slave dynasty ruled the entire coastal strip of Arabia just because he so badly wants to believe so.

      regarding my smiling at his friend, i told him that i have received a message about an edit conflict. I was debating with user Middayexpress and asked his friend to please leave the discussion relevant. He started talking about how stupid that comment of mine was and i was just recently blocked. He came to support his friend and i told him it's fine (meaning that it does not bother me not that i own the talk page) just keep it about the topic not me personally, because he started the discussion by saying :"I see you are using the talk page now!". I do not think there is any problem with me believing them to be Somalis. That's not a snide comment i totally believe that they are and there is nothing uncivil in pointing that out.

      As you can see user middayexpress keep circling around cases that had happened in the past, about the usage of the word "negro" or me telling him or his friend to "stay away from any Yemen related article" . I stopped using the word "Negro" because i was told the word is not proper in modern English, and i stopped and i only used it once or twice in my talk page. i never claimed owning ship to anything but i was disgruntled by his group effort to emphasize a sort of ethnic link and connection between Yemenis and people from the Horn of Africa. and as evident, that is their primary concern in editing the Yemen article and its related pages. He removed a sentence and a picture [37] about Sheba from the introduction and ancient history section of the Yemen article because according to him, "it's not widely viewed as such" even though the link he himself uses in the article identify Saba as biblical Sheba.And he then removed the picture because the source in common says :"own work"!! i am not proposing anything other than sticking to the sources not your personal interpretations. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Despite being told about how a page is supposed to be used he comes here and writes a book. This is not the place for discussing the specifics of an article, And I wonder who this ip is ip out of the blue. The above text and the general attitude of this users is characteristic of an unreformed person who needs editor a block or a mentor. Now he says he did not know the word "Negro" was offensive. I cannot WP:AGF with this editor.--Inayity (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why don't advice your friends about "how a page is supposed to be used"? and yes it's really not offensive since i was discussing Ethnic features with your friend. He used the term "negroid" himself. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Kindly stop making things up. The only time I mentioned "Negroes" or variations thereof is when quoting your own apparent Freudian Slip [38]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not deny using the word negro in my talk page, so you posting a link to my talk page is pointless because i never denied using the word. But you used terms like "Negroid" or "Negrito" or whatever in a previous discussion. I am pretty sure of it but i am not apologizing for this because first, i used it in my talk page to describe an ethnic group. I did not know that "it fell out of favor after the civil rights movements" because i thought the other famous variation of the word is the one that i should avoid using. Anyway i used it once or twice in my talk page and by the way, the word Negro is equivalent to the word Zanj and neither are considered offensive. You will never get them to ban me on racial grounds, stick to "disruptive editing and second block in a weak" --يوسف حسين (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Kendite/يوسف حسين apparently missed the instruction at the top of this page stipulating that this noticeboard is not intended for continuing disputes. This is for actual editor behavior, which Kendite/يوسف حسين has indeed had continuous problems with. The rant above is an excellent, typical example. Those are not at all the facts of the situation, nor what I stated or how the discussion actually transpired. For starters, Kendite/يوسف حسين's claim that I supposedly "insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" is a fabrication. What I did actually do was quote a passage from a book stating "it has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea" [39]. So that assertion was neither coming from me personally, nor did the source itself even mention any "black" Yemenis or whatever. But since Kendite/يوسف apparently believes that anybody dark=black, he came to the personal conclusion that this is what I had asserted. Another example of the user's problems with the truth is his claim above that I supposedly "removed a sentence and a picture about Sheba". To "prove" this, he then proceeds to link to an edit by User:AcidSnow (!). Furthermore, although the user claims otherwise, he has indeed made many snide remarks about what he presumptuously believes is my ethnic background as well as those of the other disputants (please see AcidSnow's summary of those here). He has likewise repeatedly called me out of name in both talk page comments and at least one edit summary (e.g. [40]), which I have had to textually correct a number of times where possible. But of course, like his gratuitous use of the epithet "Negroes", he probably chalks this up as yet another "accident". From his rant above, it's also clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين still refuses to assume responsibility for why he was blocked (twice), even though an admin had to literally spell it out for him ("you were edit warring, plain and simple" [41]).

      Bottom line, Kendite/يوسف حسين has long had major behavioral issues. They almost all in some way or another involve association of Yemenis with individuals and populations he perceives as being too "dark" (not "light" peoples, mind you; he doesn't seem to have any problem with that association). Although he tries in his rant above to re-frame the Yemen/Najahid dispute as one between him and "Afrocentrists" (I actually oppose Afrocentrism), the reality is, accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi. He employed the same tactic in an earlier, equally heated exchange with another user on the Sheba page. Predictably, that discussion also in part involved pigmentation; Kendite/يوسف حسين strenuously opposed an historical manuscript depiction of a dark Queen of Sheba for what his opponent described as "apparently biased reasoning" [42]. He actually revert-warred on two separate occasions to remove that image, and was reported for it too [43]. Similarly, he just attempted another non-consensus revert on the Najahid dynasty page despite admin sanctions [44]. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Anyone can read the pointless discussion at Talk:Yemen#Najahid and Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture Middayexpress , if you know the page policy better than i do why did you start talking about the "dispute" now? you could've just let me rant for ever. i'll be back shortly to respond.--يوسف حسين (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Since user Middayexpress couldn't just let me expose myself with my rants, i think i am obliged to respond. He claims that i have fabricated facts about his work. I am quoting him right now :

      You also automatically presume that the Tihama's dark complexion (which is hardly exclusive to them amongst Yemenis) is a legacy of recent admixture ( i actually never claimed that) , when there are in fact several alternative explanations. The main one is that the Tihama were the earliest inhabitants of the region i.e. the first/original Yemenis : "It has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea

      So where did i exactly fabricated your words Middayexpress ? Aren't you trying too hard to prove that the "original/first Yemenis" are black or "dark skinned"? Your source does not describe them as the "first/original Yemenis", he stated that it has been assumed that this confederation which is the largest in the southern Tihama, was the earliest inhabitant of the region, but he does not know whether they were of Arab of African decent and may i add that your quote was a snippet review? i am pretty sure there is more to that quote of yours. Meanwhile, i provided many texts, WP:RS that can be used in the demographics section. You disregarded and said and i am quoting you :

      the author is mistaken because dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen

      and you attempted to back your own personal claim with a picture of Mehri people. I think that is your personal opinion that you are working too hard to prove. You can say the author is mistaken and bring a reliable source to debunk his conclusion, Because nobody wants to read your own. I think Wikipedia has a clear policy regarding original research. The fact that i got blocked after your bogus accusation that i had multiple accounts does not count because i do not have multiple accounts and user check proved so. I do not have to explain myself over and over again, the fact that you keep bringing that up proves who is suffering from behavioral issues. My edits are not disruptive and they never were, and i think i explained my point of view regarding the Najahid ruling of Tihama before. As for the discussion with user "Till Eulenspiegel" that absolutely has nothing to do with you, he was disregarding modern scholarly works and archaeological evidence and say stuff like :"these European with their arm chairs what do they know about Ethiopia"? or "you have agenda against Ethiopia". How am i supposed to discuss anything with such users? anyhow, stick to your encounters with me because the discussion i had with user "till Eulen.." in Talk:Queen of Sheba was normal. Even assuming that i had a " biased reasoning", that is not enough to ban from editing and i haven't completed my discussion with that person. Do not take it personally man --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The above is another prime example of Kendite/ يوسف حسين's low regard for website policy, including this noticeboard's instruction to not drag disputes here. He asks where exactly he fabricated my words, something I literally just pointed out. I never stated that "these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" like he claimed in his first post above. In fact, not once in my entire discussion with this user have I mentioned any "black Yemenis". Only he has and repeatedly, as a look at the Yemen talk page readily shows. As I wrote, the user does not make a distinction between "dark" and "black", and instead readily conflates the two even if his interlocutor does not. He also does not appear to understand how the "earliest inhabitants of the region" is essentially the same thing as "the first/original Yemenis". Regarding Kendite/يوسف حسين's first block, it was over one User:YemenWarriorBoy. While Kendite may not have been guilty of malfeasance here, that whole episode and especially YemenWarriorBoy's aggressive, precocious remarks definitely does not inspire confidence. His second block was over "edit warring, plain and simple", as an admin put it [45]. Further, while Kendite above disassociates his previous encounter with Til Eulenspiegel from the Yemen/Najahid affair, it's definitely related since it too involved the intersection of Ethiopia, Yemen, rulers and complexion. That discussion was more "normal", though, in the sense that Kendite back then actually used to write much shorter, more concise, and often even polite posts, including during my own initial encounter with him on a related issue [46]. Unfortunately, something changed along the way, and he inexplicably became really agressive under his new يوسف حسين account, now writing long-winded, semi-coherent rants. I nor any of the other interlocutors actually had anything personal against this user. However, from his numerous antics and snide remarks, it's apparently not reciprocal. That said, if Kendite agrees to from now on communicate with myself, Inayity and AcidSnow like he used to under his previous account -- i.e. using short, concise posts, no personal jabs, actually listening to others and working with them -- I am willing to close this thread. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Middayexpress, do you really think he well stop just because you asked him to again? We have all requested him countless of times before to stop; so what makes you think he well stop this time? He has even asked to get reported several times and this is exactly what he got. So why change his ways now when he was told several times to stop and asked to get reported? Most of all he has broken the precursor to his return which was to receive consensuses for his edits which he would ignore and continue without it several times. As we can all see from his actions he has no desire to change. So what good well come out of a third chance to "reform" himself? AcidSnow (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, looks that way. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no desire to discuss the issue here as I have already done that before. I am really sick of "Kendite/يوسف حسين" continuous inappropriate behavior, as have constantly asked him to stop it yet he continues to do so. I would also mention the things he did before he was banned, but Middayexpress already did; for example when he threaten me to "stay away from any Yemen related article". Anyways, after I had originally told him to please not to call me Pan-Africanist, Afrocentric, etc, he still would not drop it. All of this is part of his "theory"; which is significant flawed as he also thinks that Til Eulenspiegel is African when he is not. He has also straight up lied when he claim that there was "support" for his "theory" from EdJohnston and that he said we are "pan-Africanist". In fact he said not such thing or even supported/agreed, but rather "As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss.". So where did he get that EdJohnston agreed/supported him when there is no evidence?
      I also never called him a liar (so once again he has twisted my words), which he claims, again and again with no evidence. Inayity also never called him stupid, but rather his comment was. I have not attacked him in any way, but he on the other hand has continuously attacked me through the discussion; for eexample when you threatened me.
      After he finally kept his "theory" to himself he began to move on to speaking for me, put words in my mouth, and try to twisting my words against me. This does not help him in any way as anyone can see what I have written. After each time he attacked me I would tell him to please stop, yet he would not, but rather use a different technique to so. As for "threatening" him, his diff does not show that. In fact it says "would you also like us to file one on the racial overtones of your messages and edits?. I said this in response it to "file a complaint!" to see if he would also like to include that as well in the report. This is no where near as threat, but clearly was a question. As you can see from this discussion he got what he asked for. I don't see the point of him doing that as everyone here can clear see and read the diff.
      He also continues to tell me to stop "talking" about him when I am not. Its even more frustrating because he is doing the exact same thing! He tells me to stop when all I am trying to defend myself from his false accusation against me. He also told me to stop "ranting" about him and stick to the discussion. As you can see from here he would rather ignore all my request for him to stop, be hypocritical and pin the issue all on me!
      He also claims that I have "completely ignored" his quotes when I have responded to them in every single one of my responses. When I told him that I was unable see his "quotes" because he deliberately changed them, he said in response, "if you can't find them than it's your own problem". I have no idea why he is acting so inappropriate even though I constantly told him to please stop. He not only says that, but that I have no even discussed the issue at hand. Its odd that he would continue to lie when anyone can see that I have. It appears that he would rather ignore most of the things I have written and would rather see what he wants to. Besides the "quotes", he goes on to claims that I have not even talked about his sources! I am really hoping he is joking as I have been doing it through the discussion. For example, if his "quotes" are coming from his book and that am discussing them am I not also discussing his sources too? He also continues to mention the picture I removed and says all this stuff about it when there is nothing in the image summary besides Art from Ancient Yemen, so I have no idea where has gotten it from, but he claims to be "sticking to the sources and not personal interpretations". Maybe this is just another way for him to discredit me? He has been doing it before through this discussion, on his own takepage, and on the Yemen talkpage too! He also knows fully well that there are sources that go against him for the Sheba discussion, yet he continues to add it. This is why I never bothered to bring up sources that go against him, as he clearly from his past action would not even bother to read them. He has done the same by ignoring my comments about his "quotes" and sources and even continues to claim that I never said anything about them. "Just read his latest response on the matter. it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand", as you can see here he is being deliberately annoying. I highly recommend everyone in this discussion to read my second to last entry at the Yemen page and decided if I have discussed the issue or not!
      I also never claimed that the link was mine; it just happen to come with my revert. Could you show me where I said it was mine/my own? Not just these, but he was also asked to use the talk page before he made edits so he could receive consensus. He, however, went on without receiving consensus not once, not twice, but rather three times! I wont revert him right now since nothing good could come out of it.
      Unfortunately, with no evidence he still believes that this issue is a "personal matter" of mine; once again he is still bring up his "theory". Just as EdJohnston said before, I am loosing interest following his continuous inappropriate behavior. AcidSnow (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That sure is a lot of bolding. I thought you were trying to tell a story-within-a-story, but I can't make it out. Should I read it in reverse? 134.241.58.178 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how this could be a "story-within-a-story" nor how reading in reverse well "help" you. If you want to by all means go ahead. Anyways, who are you? You are the third "ip" that has "found" his/her way into the discussion. AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

      Semi'd for a couple weeks 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Hi, there seems to be a little bit of vandalism on that page (history) coming specifically from an address prefixed with "71.169..." so I was wondering whether we could semi-prot the article or rangeblock the IP (prefer the former). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Please fix main page DYK, it's NOT Lewis Leakey

      All fixed up. For reference, WP:ERRORS is generally where this gets reported. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      It's Louis. -(AfadsBad (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

      Materialscientist (talk · contribs) has just fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      For reference, WP:ERRORS is generally ignored. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

      Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 8

      Bot thing, done 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Hi. Could someone please look at this? Things are quite dead, and this need to be done soon. A number of articles are partially updated, and so is the main {{Infobox dam}}. It's a mess. There is consensus, and no objections. Can we get this going right away please? Rehman 10:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC) " Done Bot's been approved for trial run. NE Ent 12:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Banned user suggesting edits

      A curious situation has arisen regarding Mathsci (talk · contribs), who was banned for harassment by the Arbitration Committee in October 2013 [47]. He has apparently been sending emails to User:Rschwieb suggesting edits to the article Mutation (algebra), as reported here. He has also edited his own talk page [48] to make similar suggestions.

      The suggestions (on the talk page: I have not seen any emails) do not seem unconstructive in themselves, although I would not necessarily accept them. There is of course a general position in Wikipedia:Banning policy that "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad". However I would add a personal concern. In April 2013 I had a rather unpleasant experience with Mathsci in which he displayed a surprisingly aggressive level of ownership: condescending unwillingness to engage in serious collegial discussion and lack of interest in finding consensus. I was not happy with the situation and decided to remove myself from the conflict [49] -- Mathsci's response [50] did not demonstrate any desire on his part to resolve the situation. I recently decided to resume editing (some time after Mathsci's ban). My concern is that Mathsci's comments relate to the article Mutation (algebra) which I created less than a week ago. It seems disturbingly likely that Mathsci, while banned, is in fact following my edits and is attempting to influence other editors to edit the articles that I am working on. This could be considered disturbing, although I am myself quite happy to consider any sensible and constructive suggestions he has to make, provided they are not accompanied by his previous levels of condescension.

      I leave it up to the admin community to decide what to do in this situation. Deltahedron (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Followup: in these edits Mathsci condescendingly emphasises that in his opinion I should not have created the article in question at all. I am sorry that his response to my posting here is to continue his entirely negative attitude towards me and my edits -- if Mathsci had been able to take a more collegial line, I would have been inclined to view this situation more positively. As a direct result of his response, I now suggest that normal banning policy be applied, that Mathsci's email and access to his talk page be revoked, and that the one-year timer on any possible ban appeal be reset to today. Deltahedron (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing wrong with creating this. He's been indefinetly banned from Wikipedia, per the first link you showed.

      That means (per WP BAN , he's allowed to post to his talkpage to appeal the ban only. He can't post with any other account either. So, he shouldn't be using his page to "talk" about that article or any other, nor should he have emailed anyone with suggested changes.

      Further his talk page post smacks of gaming, especially his last line " That is a slight plus for would-be editors ". I'd move to strike it and block talk page access. (I haven't, I'm under a 0RR agreement with Floquenbeam, so someone else would have to ). But yesh, IMHO, he's gaming his ban.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

      Render under arbcom what is arbcom's -- I've filed an ae request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mathsci NE Ent 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RFPP backlog

      No backlog at this time, 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Nothing major but there are currently 22 (and growing) unanswered requests over at WP:RFPP, the oldest being from 10+ hours ago. If anyone's around and could head over and check it out, it'd be appreciated. Gloss • talk 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • There's a request that has been up there for a while now, Justin Bieber, it was protected earlier this month over edit warring issues. That protection ended and since then, the edit warring has sparked back up again. Whether the solution is to fully protect the page again or issue warnings and/or blocks, this should be taken care of soon, though the administrators tending to the backlog at RfPP seem to keep skipping over this request. Gloss • talk 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User:96.246.198.77

      A glance at User talk:96.246.198.77 and Special:Contributions/96.246.198.77 shows the problem. Might a brief block be the best next step? 82.132.219.129 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Horrible RfPP backlog

      No backlog at this time, 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      There is a long list of requests for page protection needing attention.--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Yiannis Theophanous

      05:18, 10 February 2014 Drmies (talk · contribs) deleted page Yiannis Theophanous (expired BLP prod) 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Could someone please delete Yiannis Theophanous when they have a moment... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Apparent linkspam in progress

      Bog-standard spam, not an AN thing. 88.104.19.171 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Reviewing Special:Contributions/120.28.112.109, the IP appears to be engaging in linkspam across many articles. I'd like a second opinion before I rollback all of his edits and warn him. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      You don't have to bring it up here. Issue a spam warning from Twinkle and yes, remove his edits. If he persists beyond a level 4 warning then report him to WP:WikiProject Spam.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It certainly looks like spamming to me; I agree with Berean Hunter that rolling back the link additions would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, done. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Also you can use a link like essentiallygroup.com.au (*|search current) to find other occurrences within Wikipedia in case they have been using other IPs and accounts.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Conversion of Oversighted edits to Suppressed edits

      At some point in February 2014, a script is scheduled to be run that will convert edits that were oversighted using the now-deprecated Oversight extension into suppressed edits using the Revision/Deletion extension. Please see this backgrounder and FAQ for further details. See also Template:Bugzilla for technical details. Risker (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Admin wanted

      Please, will one of you read over the ANI thread "Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting" and assess the situation? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      AWB Check Page

      There are multiple requests on the AWB check page that need administrator attention. Could one of the admins here please evaluate the requests? Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm about to step out, but I've done one (yours). Here's the link to the check page for any other admins who have a minute to help out. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      potentially contentious article needs fresh eyes

      Genetic studies on Arabs has much useful information, but is poorly written and could be taken as a slam piece.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      RFC on PC2 - 3rd admin needed for close

      Colleagues; one of the 3 volunteer closers for the above-noted RFC has had to remove himself at the last moment. In a large, potentially controversial RFC like this, I continue to believe it best to have a triumvirate of closers. Accordingly, we need a new third.

      As we have not yet really begun on deliberations, you're stepping in fresh and untainted. The sole requirements appear to be a) you're an admin, and b) you've never made any statements in favour or against PC2 at any point.

      Please drop by the RFC talkpage to volunteer. ES&L 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting page move

      Hello, is anybody here, who can move User:Euku/markAdmins.js to User:Brackenheim/markAdmins.js and delete the redirect on User:De.Spongo/markAdmins.js? (I asked Euku for permission this afternoon, see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Euku#en:User:Euku.2FmarkAdmins.js. Regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=595010648"