Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Proposed siteban for Logicus (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am closing this discussion, as somebody has to ultimately - it's been open for 7 days (longer than a typical AfD and similar to an RfA) and this is AN, a high-volume noticeboard with usually a quick turnover. There is a clear consensus in favour of a siteban. Editors supporting as well as the RfC have identified major conduct issues extending over a long period of time. Alternative proposals did not attract significant enthusiasm. If the editor objects, he can still edit his own talk page and there is always the option of taking it to ArbCom. Orderinchaos 06:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Logicus has been editing disruptively at various articles since 2006 (original research, refusal to accept consensus, tendentious editing). Basically he has unorthodox ideas about the history of science and insists upon interpreting primary sources. Similar problems recur wherever he edits. He refuses to engage in dispute resolution; he just ignores it or raises nonexistent procedural objections.

• First conduct RfC
• Content RfC
• Second conduct RfC

Ample diffs of disruptive editing are available at the second conduct RfC, which is unanimously supported by all involved and uninvolved editors other than Logicus himself. A review of the dispute resolution attempts and User talk:Logicus demonstrates that the problem is much worse than usual for a short block log: when warned for NPA, edit warring, etc. he just switches tactics. His posts are classic Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense, so since he rebuffs all attempts at engagement am proposing a siteban. Durova³⁸⁶ 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal: By way of an executive summary of this troublesome and troublemaking business for those with no prior knowledge of it, the very simple problem at the root of this dispute with Logicus can be put very briefly in the following simple nutshell. In what is now 3 RfCs, user Steve McCluskey and some others have alleged Logicus has inserted OR claims into articles, and even into a wide range of articles. But they have never identified nor even less proven any claim(s) Logicus has inserted into any article to be OR, and thus never provided any 'Evidence of the disputed behaviour'. And Logicus disputes their allegation as wholly false. But he has always shown willing to be persuaded otherwise and repeatedly invited his critics to identify where and why they think he has committed any OR claims in articles in order to enable evaluating the validity of their otherwise empty abstract claim and so to possibly resolve the dispute. But they have all failed to do so and refused to engage in any valid dispute resolution of their disputed claim. All other breach of policy allegations raised against Logicus seem consequential upon the primary OR allegation being valid and proven to be so, along with unfounded interpretations of Verifiability, Consensus and OR policy statements.

Contrary to the false impression and misrepresentations conveyed by Durova and McCluskey, the demonstrable fact is that Logicus has been a highly productive and improving editor, the great majority of whose many edits or consequential revisions of claims have been consensually sustained without challenge or controversy. Only a small minority of his edits have been contested without resolution by editors unable to accept Logicus's eliminations and corrections of claims in articles that he has validly demonstrated to be OR. McCluskey who is the troublemaker here is such an editor.

For those interested in a detailed demolition of the many false claims made in Durova's proposal here, Logicus is preparing a critique to be submitted shortly. But will contributors please show forbearance for the fact that Logicus is currently overwhelmed in trying to respond fully to the many injustly hostile claims made against him in this season of goodwill. Thank you ! --Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly encourage others to hold off on any final action, but in exchange I expect Logicus to refrain from making any edits to article or article talk pages save pure vandalism or copyvio reversion until this is settled, assuming that doesn't take more than a few days after he posts his critique for the issues to be resolved, excluding holidays. I also expect Logicus's critique to be well-documented and convincing. Anything less may do him more harm than good in the long run. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question I assume I would be correct in believing this ban is to be under an "indefinite" tariff. Under the circumstances, is indefinite understood to be "until they provide an undertaking to address the various issues" or "until consensus for an unblock arises"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Standard offer. If they choose to appeal it would consider after 3-6 months depending upon activity at other WMF projects. Of course Logicus would need to acknowledge that a problem exists and pledge to remedy it. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I would have anyway, but hopefully Durova's clarification will allow other reviewers to come to a better informed decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, although with some reluctance. This editor appears to be bright, well read, and articulate. If Logicus used these faculties to help build this encyclopedia, in accordance with this community's policies and guidelines, he could be a valuable contributor. Instead, Logicus's main activity on Wikipedia is to self-publish his own opinions, re-interpretations of primary sources, and critiques of respected, reliable secondary sources. Logicus demonstrates no interest in collaboration with (as opposed to arguing at) other editors or respect for consensus. Many other editors have attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage Logicus about these problems on his talk page, on talk pages of articles that he edits, and in a current RFC/U. Indeed, Logicus has chosen not to submit a statement at the RFC/U; instead, he wikilawyers on the RFC/U's talk page, arguing about alleged procedural objections that are without substance. Since Logicus's objectives are not compatible with Wikipedia's objectives, his participation here is largely disruptive and his manner is tendentious. Unless this user commits to substantial changes in his behavior, and carries out a commitment by in fact conforming his behavior to community norms, it is time to end this user's disruptive participation.—Finell 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Question — should this be moved to WP:ANI? I had the impression that it was more suited for matters such as this than this page is. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  There have been recent problems with siteban proposals that were closed too quickly; one early closure indirectly caused a very contentious proposed arbitration case that is currently under discussion. So for a better heat to light ratio the slower of the two boards is preferable. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support I understand the general reluctance to impose a long-term siteban on any user, but Logicus has been engaged in disruption for a long time, and following the first last Conduct RfC, in which he declined to participate, he suspended and then resumed his disruption. He stopped editing with the posting of the RfC in early February, 2007, resumed active editing in June 2007, and by August was involved in a new dispute over Original Research at Bayesian probability. Adding to this the continuance of many other controversial edits over an extended period, the long-term tenacity of his disruption suggests that a long-term solution is called for. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have watched his behaviour at Tycho Brahe and the result was not pretty. The damage he incurs on the encyclopedia is twofold, one is the obvious one introducing his own OR into articles, the other, which is probably worse, is that he wears down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Logicus does appear to be very well-read, but he also appears to have an enormous blind-spot when it comes to critically evaluating evidence and arguments relating to points of view he feels strongly about. He also seems to have an inordinately exaggerated opinion of his own competence in matters of mathematics, physics and logic. In the discussion where I first encountered him, he committed at least three outright blunders in these areas—all delivered with the air of certainty one might expect from an expert. Subsequent experience has shown that this was not an isolated occurrence. Apart from those observations, Finell's remarks above seem to me to be a succinct and accurate summary of the problems with Logicus's activities on Wikipedia. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. Durova does not readily give up on people. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Logicus can head this off by constructively engaging in the RFC or working in good faith with an admin or mentor to avoid future problems, but shows no interest or inclination to so do. Lacking a good faith effort to understand what they are doing wrong and change it, I see no alternative right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen a bit of Logicus around and have seen very little good. As someone else mentions here, he doesn't communicate, but rather pontificates. As this is a collaborative work, communication is absolutely necessary for any meaningful cooperation and work to be done together. I don't see this behavior changing anytime soon. He's pretty much backed us into a corner after multiple attempts to help him see the light. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I encountered Logicus at Charles Darwin. I'm still not sure what the actual problem was, but it involved a desire to change the article as well as the use of a serious quantity of text which can be seen in the talk archives: 6, 7, 8, 9. Some editors are simply disruptive and it is relatively easy to bid them farewell, but other editors (like Logicus) are more of a problem because we can see that there is talent and potential, yet they can impose an incredible drain on resources due to the need to handle their repetitive arguments. Reluctantly, I agree that Logicus shows no sign of following the collaborative style or the no original research requirements here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, though willing to see something on the lines of the alternative proposals allowing an appeal in 3 to 6 months subject to a new willingness to collaborate, express himself concisely and avoid original research. Johnuniq covers the issues well. As Logicus is currently disuputing any accusation of original research, this case shows Logicus arguing tendentiously and at length that a clear point about Darwin demonstrated by modern sources and by a relevant primary source should be overturned by Logicus's idiosyncratic interpretation of a foreword from 1950, followed when challenged by Logicus producing his own misleading interpretation of the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on evolution, and even arguing that Darwin was convinced of the opposite of what Darwin had written. When the discussion was archived, Logicus copied a large part of the discussion to a new section and resumed tendentious arguments, again being advised by other editors that this was unacceptable original research.[1] Dealing with such long-winded and repetitive distractions diverts attention and effort from the improvement of articles. . . dave souza, talk 16:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I haven't had any interactions with Logicus, but having looked at the contribution history and the diffs. linked in the RFC and above, I don't see any viable alternative to an indefinite ban - in fact I am surprised that the disruption was allowed to continue over two years, without any sign of change. At this point the onus is on Logicus to show that they can edit collaboratively and within wikipedia's core content policies; if Logicus can establish this in a few months, they'll be most welcome to resume editing (perhaps with some conditions), but any timed ban, which allows them to return automatically, will be ill-considered. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is too long a time to allow disruption to continue. I understand that the editor is bright and could in theory be a boon to the project, but the lack of cooperation shows that there's little hope of that ever occurring. -- Atama頭 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with no mentorships For me, his comments at Talk:Celestial_spheres#RfC:_Original_research.3F are more nothing than enough to see that a) he is not interested in adapting to wikipedia, b) he doesn't think that he has done anything wrong at all c) he is in possesion of the WP:TRUTH about wikipedia how should work d) any attempt to get him to change this attitude will be rebuffed or gamed e) he'll just go back to the previous behaviour. Any mentorship would be fruitless and it would only burn the mentor. P.D.: Looking at his draft reply from yesterday there is no way in hell that giving him two weeks of time is going to get an acceptable reply, he just kept blaming everyone else. Any delay to give him more time is going to accomplish nothing. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As a clear example, see how Logicus was given a painfully detailed explanation of why translations of primary sources are still primary sources, including several scholar sources, but he still refuses to get the point[2] (search for "translations" to find the relevant paragraph). This user is just trying to impose his own unacceptable interpretations of how wikipedia should be edited. I don't see how his stay could possibly benefit wikipedia, he's only fighting other editors that try to uphold basic wikipedia policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Logicus, it's clear from pursuing this thread, the RfC's, and your contributions that you're an incredibly intelligent fellow. So are the other people you're dealing with in these disputes. However, you have been given the opportunity at every turn to productively engage with the community, to use your intelligence to help build this encyclopedia. The hand of cooperation has been extended to you, and you dig your heels in deeper and harder- that you decided your draft response should be called "Demolishing Durova" [3] is prima facie evidence you do not want to cooperate. You are the one that could have avoided this measure even being considered. You could have stopped it, even at this late date. I firmly believe you know what behaviour is desired, and have chosen not to take the advice you have been given to heart, and that you would similarly ignore a mentorship if offered, leaving little option other than a site-ban for now, that you can appeal some months into the new year. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

Proposal one

• Proposed alternative: General topic ban from science, pseudoscience, and related articles, sections of articles, and even sentences within articles that touch on science and pseudoscience, along with a 1-revert-restriction project-wide and a mandatory mentor during the first few months after being allowed to edit science articles again. Personal bias alert: I'm against site-bans except for those who are either deliberately working against the project or those for whom all lesser sanctions, e.g. editing restrictions, mandatory mentorship, 0-RR parole, etc. have been tried and failed. This is not the case here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose alternative per this discussion. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Do you believe his intent is to disrupt the project, that it's not his intent to be disruptive but his actions have that effect and he doesn't seem to want to change, that he wants to change but doesn't seem capable of change without help, that he wants to change but he doesn't seem capable of change even with help, or some mix of he above, or something else altogether? Your edit above suggests he may not be aware of/willing to admit there is a problem. This is unfortunate. His attitude, his self-awareness, and his ability to change even if he wants to, with or without help, are important factors when crafting a solution to the problem. The better the attitude and more willing and able he is to change, the less the need for a site ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts on that are expressed in the outside opinion at RfC, with followup at its talk page. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Question Do you see the proposed topic ban as extending to Talk pages, where much of the Disruptive Editing has taken place? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would need to study the edits on the talk page more carefully. In general, if an editor is doing things like changing other people's comments enough to be disruptive, then yes, ban him from those talk pages. If he's using the talk pages to discuss things other than the articles, then probably. If the editor is just repeatedly making the same point over and over again about how to improve (according to his own definition of the word) the articles, I'm more inclined to give leeway - most of us are mature enough to just ignore article-improvement suggestions that have already been discussed and rejected, or politely say "rejected per last week's discussion" and let it go. I haven't checked his edits enough to determine the nature of the disruption on the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeThanks for the reply. The disruption, which you described as "just repeatedly making the same point over and over again" has the effect, as Saddhiyama put it, of "wear[ing] down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust." Since this takes place primarily on Talk pages, this proposal won't cut it without a clear inclusion of this crucial aspect of the problem. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose alternative. This editor's disruptive behavior is not topic-specific; it is rather the nature of his approach to Wikipedia. He doesn't "get" what this project is about and, more importantly, clearly does not want to get it. I was unaware until now that he caused similar disruption at Bayesian probability, which is outside the top ban that this alternative proposes (it is in the fields of statistics and mathematics). While Logicus has on a few occasions deleted talk page content—he repeatedly deleted an RfC tag at Talk:Celestial spheres#RfC: Original research? and deleted a tabulation of the results of that RfC, both based on specious misinterpretations of policy—his main talk page disruption is extraordinarily lengthy harangues, with lots of boldface shouting, condescension to everyone else (he imperiously refers to himself in the third person), which interferes with normal discussion among the article's editors. Indeed, although that RfC was unanimous that his proposed (actually, inserted and later deleted by consensus) contribution was original research, he argued on and on against the closer, who reached the only possible result. His behavior at talk pages is similar to that which led to broad topic bans (including all talk pages) and probation of two editors in the recent Speed of light arbitration decision.—Finell 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If he truly does not want to get it, then this is sad. I hope that whatever the outcome, if he demonstrates that he wants to "get it" and work constructively with a mentor until he does, he will be allowed back in with no more restrictions than necessary. I would recommend his first few weeks be "no article, no article talk, without mentor approval" and see how it goes from there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Proposed alternative 2: Ask Logicus what self-imposed-but-community-enforced restrictions, if any, would help him become a better editor. He probably knows himself well enough to answer this question, if he thinks about it and is willing to accept that we, the community, are willing to help him help us build a better encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He was asked at the current RFC/U, but declined to answer. Have you actually looked at this editor's conduct, or at the 3 RFCs cited above as the basis for this proposed community sanction?—Finell 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it but did not study it. I missed that he had declined to answer. Assuming he did not answer the question privately, i.e. he is ignoring it, and assuming he didn't just miss the question as I missed your question earlier (btw thx), this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus comments: I also missed where I was asked this at the current RfC. Where is it please ? Could Finell please produce it here ? As a life long supporter of the Co-operative movement also interested in Wikipedia becoming a democratic co-operative, I am perfectly willing to have community help to become a better editor. But the current difficulty I have with the as yet unfounded allegations of my inserting OR claims into many articles is that until somebody shows me where I have done so and howso, how can I possibly even begin to understand what it is I have done wrong and must improve on ? I showed my willingness to revise challenged material in the last RfC in response to Wilson’s unique allegations that some identifiable specific claims in it committed OS. I don’t understand what else I can possibly do. I find this whole business utterly bewildering, and nobody else I know can make any rational sense of it either. If I may charitably say so, I think you all need to seriously reflect upon the utterly appalling impression of Wikipedia it creates.--Logicus (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)) Logicus: You were asked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Desired outcome, which I quote:

That Logicus will:

• Defer to consensus.
• Accept the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia Policy on Original Research
• Supply secondary sources for interpretive material.
• If no secondary sources exist, publish in a reliable vetted source before seeking publication in Wikipedia.
• Cease using Article Talk Pages to debate the subject matter of articles.

And, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Response was put there to give you a place to respond. You chose not to respond. If you had agreed to these conditions, which require no more than compliance with the policies that already apply to all Wikipedians, the RFC/U would have ended, and this siteban proposal would never have come about. Instead, you just argue, argue, argue, and argue, which, not surprisingly, is just what you did on several talk pages, which is what led to the RFC/U, which in turn led to this siteban proposal.—Finell 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus does not communicate; he pontificates. I think Durova has clarified that a site ban is now the only avenue of communication that remains - if he wants to overturn the decision he needs to communicate in an appropriate manner (that is, in good faith and to a determined purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest an initial 3 month block with parole on return, appeal allowed via ArbCom. It's acceptable not to take part in an RfC but it's unacceptable to ignore well-founded criticism from people genuinely trying to help, which is what has happened here. The problem behaviour is also of a particularly troublesome kind, involving original research stated in ways which seem calculated to appear as if it is compliant with policy when it clearly isn't. Other steps having been tried, we have only a very few options left, and I fail to see how this would result in anything other than a ban if taken to arbitration at this stage. So let's short-cut the drama, give the user a time-out, but make it short enough that if he is prepared to reform, he can. If on return the problem behaviour resumes then we know what to do. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the original proposal is for an indefinite block with an option to appeal in 3 to 6 months. He would need to build up a good history on a sister WMF project in order to get a review at 3 months. But the review wouldn't be hard to pass if he requests it. Durova³⁸⁶ 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not hand out indefinite bans. Should we? There is also a risk of sending someone on an anti-Wikipedia mission into sister projects (we have enough of that already). Guy (Help!) 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Community bans," bans where no admin is willing to un-block, are de facto indefinite. The arbitration committee has also handed down bans with language like "should the editor return, it will be under these conditions" which amounts to an indefinate ban, where the banned party gets to choose when or if he is willing to abide by the conditions of return. In general I see nothing wrong with an "indefinate" ban if there is a clear, reasonable path to lifting the ban. As a matter of routine, anyone who has not edited in a year who is under any indefinate ban should be allowed a {{second chance}} unless that was explicitly proscribed by whoever imposed the ban or it would conflict with post-return restrictions imposed at the time of the ban. Also, as a matter of routine, any indef ban can be appealed to the then-sitting ARBCOM at any time, but I would expect them to reject any appeal if the original ban was fair in process and outcome, and the conditions that led to it have not changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An "anti-Wikipedia campaign" at a sister project wouldn't hasten anyone's return here. :) As someone who's sysopped on three of those smaller projects, please accept assurances that editors who run into trouble here in the big city often fare better at the small towns where the pace is slower and everyone knows each other. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to close

• It's been about 48 hours since this discussion started, so time has been given for everyone to respond from different timezones. It also is unambiguously going in one direction. I'm thinking of closing this in a little under 24 hours...unless there is some material objection? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  If you mean closing "Proposal 2" that sounds good. If you mean the whole discussion, see "Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal" and my reply above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel that since this problem has gone on for several years, we can afford to give it a little more time to resolve it properly. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just read Logicus's latest draft response on his talk page, I would emphasize the word "little" in the above. This draft shows no sign of engagement in dispute resolution (except in the OED's sense 8 of engagement: "The state of being engaged in fight; a battle, conflict, encounter.") --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be allowed to run its normal course, and should not be closed prematurely. The subject of this proposed siteban has asked for more time to submit a more complete response, and it is only fair to allow him to do so. Because of the holidays, many editors are less available than normal, and Logicus himself mentioned (on the RfC/U talk page, if I recall correctly) that his was the case with him. Given the seriousness of the sanction being considered here, Logicus should be given whatever time he needs. So far as I am aware, he is not engaging in any current disruption; should he do so, that can be dealt with quickly, even while the siteban proposal is still pending. Further, Durova explained above that she brought this matter here, rather than AN/I, because she did not want a quick close, as has happened in some recent cases at AN/I.—Finell 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's some risk of him gaming the process with delays in order to prevent a sanction from happening at all. He's aware that the clock is ticking, and was advised in advance that a siteban proposal was coming. A failure to complete a draft response within a reasonable time frame is not reason to prevent action on a clear consensus, especially when the draft shows no sign of engagement in positive directions. See the bottom two threads on his user talk page. Durova³⁸⁶ 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean an endless amount of time, but rather a reasonable one in the circumstances. We can say when enough is enough, should it come to that. I also agree that Logicus shows no sign of recognizing or addressing the problems with his behavior, which itself is a big part of the problem. I've been as critical of his behavior as anyone. Still, we should allow him some reasonable additional time so that he cannot say with any justification that he was denied a sufficient opportunity to be heard.—Finell 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Finell ought to familiarise himself with how things work here before foolishly pretending this discussion has not run its normal course. If he or the banned user wants to appeal to ArbCom when this is closed, that's perfectly acceptable (in fact, I welcome it with open arms) and they can make their case for why it should be reconsidered. However, the call to unduely extend this discussion stems from straightforward disruptive conduct. Gaming of process is unacceptable; persistent wikilawyering to further other disputes is even more so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to all:Thanks to those few with a few relatively kind words here. This is just to let you know I have no internet access from this afternoon until next week. Meanwhile you may possibly enjoy the following Xmas carol that is one of the many co-operative products of the author of Logicus, namely NoisyNite1 @ www.celsere.com/Kumbella .

Given what he has posted on his talk page, I'm not at all sure what additional time would do. His comment above doesn't suggest that he intends to move from his current position which is to deny that he's done anything he shouldn't do and to deny the validity of any RfCs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My take is that with Logicus's limited computer access over Christmas, Boxing Day, and the holiday weekend, a reasonable time to wrap this up would be the beginning of next week, i.e., before the end of the year. This would provide enough time for him to finish his response, but a clear limit to discourage any gaming of the system. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Logicus is not editing elsewhere, then flexibility as regards timelimits should be easy. Once they respond (and editing elsewhere would be considered as such) then the matter can be progressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good example of the sickness at the heart of wikipedia. Twenty or so people get together and agree (almost in secret) that another editor should be banned—or indefinitely blocked, makes no practical difference. What should happen is that all those so keen on bans are banned themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that you have not previously seen the RfC and the discussion here previously does not mean it is being held "in secret" - and the editor concerned has had plenty of notice (and their disdain to engage also does not mean the ban is being imposed without consultation). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Further this - the RFC was listed on ANI and AN page headers since it was filed ten days ago, and the site ban discussion/proposal has been on AN for three days plus. These are noticeboards for a reason - they're the location of record for such discussions. Both time periods are longer than usually held to be required or standard for RFCs and ban discussions; Logicus has been given plenty of time to respond, as has everyone else.

Regarding the "twenty or so people get together..." - The right of the community, via consensus, to issue sanctions and bans has been established for many years now, Malleus. This is the standard place that they happen (either ANI or AN). Nobody is "keen" on a ban - people have been working with Logicus for months now trying to get him to comply with policy and edit and content standards. This is the end of an unfortunately unsuccessful effort to reform or mitigate the probelems. I urge anyone who thinks this was sudden or escalated too fast to review the talk pages of the articles he edits, his talk page, and his edit history. The problem's been stewing for roughly 3 years and been sufficiently problematic for action for at least months.

We need to be sure that we're not using "exhausted patience" lightly or without significant sustained provocation and good cause. But this case qualifies. Nobody has rashly acted without seeking discussion and community consensus. I literally have never seen anyone who so thoroughly didn't understand what they were doing wrong that they'd think that they could or should delete the certified RFC against them, before this case.

It is unfortunate that this has come down to the community having to defend itself from good-intentioned disruption by someone who wants to contribute positively successfully here. But, here we are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: I just do not know how to respond to all this. I cannot see how anybody could be more constructive than I have been. Will somebody please tell me what it is they want me to do ? Would it be to stop challenging, revising or deleting material I regard as OR and failed verifications, or that I cannot persuade anybody else is such ? I would be perfectly willing to do so for some period until misunderstanding is resolved.--Logicus (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals of how to respond to these concerns were clearly spelled out at the RFC/U's desired outcomes. Read them carefully and you should get some ideas of what changes of your behavior are needed. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus has been given a reasonable amount of time to respond to the concerns raised int he RfC/U, and in the ban proposal. The community's view is clear and has not changed, and it is the wikilawyering by some users like Finell that is unhelpful. If Finell is unfamiliar, inexperienced or incapable of understanding precisely what constitutes a reasonable time for a ban discussion on Wikipedia, then he would be advised to find out before commenting on that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected) Ncmvocalist: As you see above, I support the proposed site ban. I have not said anything that can be described as wikilawyering. Further, I am not "unfamiliar, inexperienced or incapable of understanding ..." The fact that I called you on one of your blunders, Your reversal of John Vandenberg's "Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist", and for doing so by editing a section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that "is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators" (when you aren't an administrator), does not make me fair game for your potshots. (Please include among your New Years' resolutions to stop carrying grudges.) Similarly, it is inappropriate for you to announce that you are "thinking of closing this" proposal on the Administrators' noticeboard (as opposed to suggesting that it be closed by an admin) when you aren't one. (Just so we are clear, I am NOT saying that closure would be invalid because you are the one who proposed it; anyone can do that.) However, whenever it is closed, it should be closed by an administrator.—Finell 01:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Finell, your input (albeit, noise) has been repeatedly unhelpful (and for that reason alone, unwelcome). Firstly, you've been the one carrying a grudge ever since I dismissed your bad faith comments and cries over the result concerning Lapsed Pacifist. If you had an issue with this, you should've discussed your concern with John Vandenberg first - you still have not done so to date which demonstrates precisely how disruptive you can be. In other words, beyond the talk page comment you found, John Vandenberg and I have already discussed this - in other words Finell, please stop beating a dead horse like a tendentious editor. Secondly, there is no requirement for an administrator to close the discussion - if you want to very foolishly appeal previous ban discussions I've closed in the same manner, be my guest; it'd be great for you to finally demonstrate what the real blunder is here - you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected 18:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)) My comments to you were not in bad faith, and my response to you here was not "disruptiveness", as your your edit summary describes it. There is nothing to discuss with John Vandenberg: he already reverted your "revision" of his close at Arb Enf. Further, your grudges, to which I was referring, are not limited to me. I have the same concern about your behavior that others have expressed to you: you meddle in disputes that have nothing to do with you and you do so officiously, as though you were an administrator or arbitration clerk. You have not been elected or appointed to those, or any, position of responsibility on Wikipedia. Your conduct is not beyond criticism, and those who do disagree with your conduct are not necessarily wrong. In the 2 recent instances where you and I interacted (not counting the current one or Vandenberg's revert of your edit), your position was rejected and the consensus agreed with my position; I'm sorry if you consider that to be "unhelpful". So please consider your actions more carefully and discontinue your self-righteous remarks.—Finell 18:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Denying the truth will not change the truth, even if you think it appears self-righteous; please stop wasting valuable time and wiki-space with this nonsense. The fact that you persistently refuse to accept that a/ you don't know what you're talking about, and b/ neither John Vandenberg nor myself feels that your commentary is accurate or warranted, suggests that your behavior is nothing short of tendentious and grudge-bearing. That is, this goes way beyond what you think you know: exceptionally little. Prior to making criticisms, you should be familiar with all the relevant facts and circumstances - your failure to do so (like in this case), and you repeatedly refusing to do so, is reflected in your comments which aptly demonstrates your mind-boggling level of foolishness. What you should have done is reviewed your own repeatedly unhelpful commentary and then actually make an effort to learn how to resolve issues without causing a detriment to this project. Another example, you've repeatedly tried to allow problematic tendentious editors to damage Wikipedia with their edits for as long as possible in similar circumstances to this case: that is what is unwelcome and utterly unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You and I obviously disagree about each other's conduct. I won't belabor this further here. Please be civil.—Finell 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than indefinitely keeping this discussion open, it would be better to enact the community consensus, and revisit if necessary in the future. Perhaps a few users can keep watch of Logicus' talk page in case he wishes to present something that either warrants a modification or removal of this sanction, or a proper appeal? This will give him all the time he needs to prepare whatever else he wishes to say. I think it's the preferrable method rather than introducing another shoddy precedent that allows for the gaming of the system by unhelpful and needless delays that clog up a community noticeboard. I also note that the support for the site-ban continues to pile-on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Two days ago I gave Logicus advice how to respond to this ban proposal.[4] I was willing to modify the proposal if he followed those suggestions. Finnell soon provided more input[5] and Logicus gave thanks for the advice.[6] Yet his subsequent draft was worse[7] and he follows up today by claiming he doesn't know how to respond and announcing a weeklong break. At Talk:Celestial spheres and other places he strung out discussions by claiming that things should remain his way as long as he didn't understand explanations that had already been given. He may appeal to the Arbitration Committee at anytime by follwing this link and emailing the address provided there. Durova³⁸⁶ 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • From looking at the timing of Logicus's past 500+ edits, I'm reasonably certain he's editing from a public facility that shuts down at specific hours. Given the extent that the UK closes down for the holidays, his plea that he will not have computer access over the weekend is probably bona fide. Taking that into consideration, I feel we should cut him a little slack until he's back on line. I can guess how he'll interpret the situation if he comes back Monday and finds a ban was implemented while he was away. We won't lose anything significant and I don't want to give him any excuse to claim some sort of unfairness in the process. My preference is still that we hold off until early next week. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree - your arguments are very persuasive. Let's not give him any excuses. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Are you suggesting any appeal body would be stupid enough to grant an appeal based on such an excuse, absent of any assurances regarding the underlying concerns? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Of course not. Or was that question aimed at SteveMcCluskey? Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
            • My concern is not only with formal appeal bodies, which as Ncmvocalist points out should easily see through such claims, but with other audiences to whom Logicus might characterize Wikipedia procedures as a "nakedly hostile 'lynch mob'". SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP AND READ: I've read a few of this fellow's posts and it's clear to me that he has some cognitive challenges. Prior to giving him the boot, he should be temp-blocked while a very linquistically adept admin dialogs with him on a talk page so as to corroborate that he actually understands what's being asked of him - and how it is that he is running afoul. I'd be willing to wager that this fellow has a learning disability or other personal communication challenge. Chasing him away like this is cruel. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that "learning disability or other personal communication challenge" you claim has allowed him to run amuck these past few years. Logicus has to be brought to heel, plain and simple. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Peppylemew reverting and refusing to post to talk

Please help As you can see, Peppylemew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account only used to edit a handful of articles on Eels (band) and generally to revert changes. Some of these are helpful (e.g. this application of WP:EL), but most of these edits are removing germane and sourced information from articles. I have posted several times to the user's talk page and he has refused to post on any user talk or article talk pages to discuss exactly what he wants changed or why. I'm at the end of my rope and have warned the user that if this constant reversion without any rationale continues, I would seek someone's intervention, so I am doing as much now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again

Please help (again) See these two edits: 1 and 2 after being admonished twice thrice on his talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

reported Peppylemew at WP:AN3. Koavf, next time you have to post an edit warring report at WP:AN3, or a page protection request at WP:RFPP. You will get a much quicker response. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandal account

Please take a look This new user with a somewhat controversial name—Big Brother Maroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—just appeared setting off the repeating characters tag four times on Aminatou Haidar, itself an article with recent edit wars and POV disputes. Someone may want to investigate this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is to warn starting from level 1 to level 4, and then report to WP:AIV. Twinkle makes this process much easier ;). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting move of today's featured article

The name "French Texas" was apparently made up, as it doesn't seem to appear in any sources. The article should be moved to Fort Saint Louis (Texas). There's some discussion on the talk page with no opposition. I would have done it myself but the page is move protected... --NE2 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the {{Texas History}} template's terminology, it would seem preferable to leave it where it is, notwithstanding that it may be strictly incorrect. --AlisonW (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend waiting until it falls off the main page, then opening a discussion on Talk:French Texas and/or WT:WikiProject Texas. A move while it is on the main page would be highly visible and wouldn't be worth the disruption. Also, WP:NODEADLINE applies here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What disturbs me is how this problem was overlooked in the FA review process. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't. See Amerique's comment and the discussion underneath it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French Texas. As the discussion indicates, there is no obvious ideal solution, and so the current less-than-ideal solution was adopted, even though other suggestions were also in the air. In order for the FA process to be halted, though, someone would actually have to have opposed over the title, which no one seemed inclined to do (probably because titles are so rarely a serious issue at FA). Chick Bowen 20:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images that do not identify the copyright-holder

An ongoing DRV has reminder me of an issue that has long been in the back of my mind--images used under a fair-use rationale that link to a source on the web that is clearly not the copyright holder. As I say at that DRV, I think this is a site-wide problem that should not be addressed in regard to a single image, so I am not expecting the image discussed there to be deleted at this time. However, I do think we should be aware of what we're doing, and should discuss whether it's what we should be doing. In practice, we allow non-free images that link to an external source that is clearly a copyright violator, which goes against two policies--external links, which prohibits such links, as well as image policy itself. Part of the problem here, though, is that WP:NFCC is ambiguous--it reads that the image page must include "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder." That "where possible" can obviously be understood in several different ways (possible without effort, or possible under any circumstances?). Citing sources contains the same problem, saying "It is important that you list the author of the image if known (especially if different from the source)"--so does "if known" mean "if you personally know it" or "if anyone knows it"? What this means, in short, is that we are far less careful about attribution for non-free content than we are for free content. In my mind this is a serious problem, but there are probably thousands of images affected, and we should proceed carefully. I would like to hear others' views on the issue. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• A few examples (I started at the beginning of Category:Fair use in... images, which is why these all start with A): File:1965 eleanor cameron with leonard wibberley.jpg, File:AageSamuelsen.jpg, File:AageStentoftwithDirch.jpg, File:AartKoopmans.jpg, File:Alphonse Alley.gif, File:Alphonse Pierre Juin.jpg, File:Alphonsehalimi.jpg, File:Amador Bendayan.jpg, File:AmadoriArgentina.jpg. In some cases these linked directly to the image, and I was unable to determine whether the original site listed the author/copyright holder or not; in some cases the link was dead; and in some cases the linked site did not indicate the copyright holder. Chick Bowen 23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Images whose source is just a link to a random website are deleted on FFD when contested.--Damiens.rf 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Often, but not quite always, as you know. But I'm suggesting that one-at-a-time is not the best way to deal with them. Chick Bowen 21:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is an important discussion to have, but let's do it after the holidays are over for maximum participation. At this time, I myself won't be able to participate in it as actively as I want to. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry about the timing, ours are over and I genuinely forgot about the other one (somehow). I'm happy to close this and bring it up again in January. Chick Bowen 05:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why wait? There will always be some reasons can be found for delay. I wonder if the root of the problem is the confusing language can be traced to Wikipedia:Image Use Policy#Adding images where it says "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from". This seems to be being read as "any random website will do as a source if you can't be bothered finding out who owns the copyright". Anything resembling the rigourous application of common sense would produce a huge wave of nominations and deletions.

There's nothing terribly wrong with that in principle, but the stuff that would be deleted wouldn't necessarily be the things which we would want to get rid of first in a purge of non-free content. Many of the unsourced old files without a decent source may well be free (published without copyright or copyright never renewed), but this is not easy to prove. Deleting probably-free-but-we-haven't-proven-it-yet content would be the wrong thing to do. I'd certainly like to see us doing something on this front, and the sooner the better, but we should be careful about how we approach it: A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. My proposed bad measure would be to start with unsourced non-free images created after 1 March 1989. There's no "was there a copyright notice" &c to be considered for these so they are not maybe-free, they are the most likely to be replaceable and they should be the easiest to source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We should also probably start by requiring only newly uploaded images to state the copyright-holder, and then go back later and deal with the pre-existing ones once we see how that goes. You're right that that "or" at the image use policy is problematic. Chick Bowen 01:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks everyone for yet another successful year on Wikipedia. We've met new issues, but as ever, we find some way to resolve them and move forward. Our articles have continued to improve, and in spite of seemingly continuous criticism, we're slowly but surely becoming a more reliable and credible resource.

With that, I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy New Year, or otherwise just a pleasant few days. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on a WP:SPI case

User:Mljet, the latest (very obvious) sock of User:Ragusino is wreaking havoc and editing all over the place (as quickly as he can before he gets blocked again, I assume). In case there's any doubt, there is no question whatsoever as to his identity, he fully fits the standard "Ragusino template" (same articles, same POV, same edit-warring, and yeah - he hates me with a passion :). The user also keeps copy-pasting some HUGE nonsense conversation he and his banned buddies had on some forum, so there's really no room for doubt. I filed a WP:SPI report [8], but it isn't getting any attention, probably because of that MASSIVE illegible forum stuff he keeps copy-pasting everywhere... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked per WP:DUCK, but perhaps you should continue with the SPI in case there are other sock maturing in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly possible. The SPI is there, awaiting attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlog

There is a request that has been sitting on AIV for over three hours, others have been dealt with and this one has been completely ignored. Would someone mind taking a look? Thanks :) ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 12:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Checking: — Kralizec! (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, there are few things AIV-patrolling admins hate more than chastising established editors (let alone one with more than 24k edits under his or her belt), especially in defense of a clueless IP or new editor who could well turn out to be malicious. The risk of ending up with egg on our faces (if the questionable editor does turn out to be up to no good) or turning an established editor into an enemy for life ("that admin dared to question my judgment on this issue?!?") dramatically exceeds any good that can come from defending a poorly treated newbie. As such, AIV-patrolling administrators often tend to pass the buck for hours on end hoping that someone else will deal with it instead.

However since you asked, and because I had a good holiday and my kids are happily playing with their new toys in the next room, I have spent the past hour looking into the issue and composing this reply. Right now I am fully steeled against having the inevitable egg on my face and turning you into an enemy for life ... yet I also recognize that this time tomorrow I will no doubt wish that I had just kept my mouth shut like the other 30 admins who ignored your AIV block request because they did not want to touch it with a five foot pole.

If I had to guess, I would say that the AIV report was ignored for three hours because it looks like a classic case of WP:BITE. Speaking as an outside editor who has never spent any time on the ChuckleVision articles, it looks as if this newly registered user made what looks like 14 good faith edits to List of ChuckleVision episodes, which you undid with an edit summary of "UNSOURCED" without any attempt to explain to the user what they were doing wrong. The new user, no doubt having zero idea what they did wrong, then undid your undo. You responded by reverting their edit as vandalism, and slapping a level-3 warning on his or her talk page [9]. From there, it goes down hill fast.

Considering the warm way this user was welcomed to Wikipedia and patiently introduced to our rules, can we really pretend to be surprised when he or she immediately gets into an "undo" fight? I mean come on ... the first message left on the person's talk page was a level-3 warning! Had my participation in the project been greeted that way, I doubt I would still be an editor here, let alone an admin! While I appreciate the hard work and dedication TreasuryTag has given to the project, I really think he or she needs to lighten up on the newbies. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If a user is tossing around block- and vandalism-reporting-threats, making personal attacks, directing me to telephone the BBC to verify a source (!), editing while logged out, persistently edit-warring to restore unsourced information, threatening continued disruption, deleting references and instructing other editors to "shut up" (yes, I can provide diffs for each of these allegations), I think that they no longer deserve the leniency which would, customarily, be granted to them under WP:BITE and WP:AGF. However, I do thank you for taking the time to look into the issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't deserve leniency because they didn't understand how things work here and you did little to help them figure it out? Doesn't look like this belonged on AIV in the first place. I don't see how it could in any way be considered vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 15:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that revert-warring unsourced material into articles, announcing an intention to continue protracted disruptive editing, deleting references, making personal attacks, socking around with IPs and falsifying signatures could quite easily be considered vandalism. It appears that I am not alone in this seemingly extreme interpretation of what constitutes bad-faith activity.

I would also point out that I should not have to do more than what I did to "help them figure out" that personal attacks are disallowed, that falsifying signatures is frowned upon, and that deleting references isn't the done thing. Equally, the fact that announcing an intention to revert-war indefinitely constitutes disruption in violation of policy should be apparent to a semi-lobotomized chimpanzee. We are not talking about the nuances of content policy here; we are talking about simple and obvious behavioural norms. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, TreasuryTag, for not being more clear on what I wrote. My belief is that all of the negative, disruptive behaviour you have described is a direct result of the fact that the new editor saw 14 of his or her good-faith edits go up in smoke without so much as a clue as to what the person did wrong. When the editor followed your lead and clicked the undo button, you reverted their edit as vandalism and issued an escalated warning. While the editor clearly has no clue how Wikipedia works, he or she looks like they are trying to improve the project, so seeing {{uw-unsourced3}} added as the first edit to the person's talk page is especially distressing. Considering the user's willingness to discuss things on the article talk page, I suspect that if a more welcoming and friendly version of this had been left on their talk page after your first revert, we would not even be having this conversation. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

< (edit conflict) I'm not sure what you mean by the user's willingness to discuss this on the talkpage. Given all the IPs etc., I'm not sure precisely which comments were left by which editor, but phrases from first-posts such as, "The user is a troll," "I will continue to undo your changes," "I shall keep adding it back in, and believe me I am a very persistant person when I know I'm right, so just try me," and "Obviously you have no reasonable right to be editing this page anyway," do not suggest any willingness whatsoever to operate in a collaborative manner. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we really assume that all of the IPs editing the article are the same person? Some of the IPs make good use of wiki markup ([10]) and even attempt to add references ([11], [12], [13]), while others appear to have a middle school student's grasp on grammar and spelling ([14]). However even if all of these IPs are the same person (and I really do not think they are), is it any wonder they view the article as being a giant pissing contest when their efforts to add to the article are met with reverts titled "Don't add unsourced shit to articles. Why is this difficult for you to understand?" and their work to improve the article is reverted with edit summaries like "No badly-spelt unsourced crap, please"? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN

An update for ITN is now overdue and there is consensus for an item on WP:ITN/C. It would be much appreciated if an admin would add it to the template. HJMitchell You rang? 18:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Borderline AIV

Can someone please take a look over Special:Contributions/Ben 28920. The user is clearly quite experienced as they have registered an account and done nothing but bugger around with HotCat causing a lot of problems in their wake. They are editing EXTREMELY rapidly (one per minute for MANY minutes at times). I've written them a customised (non-template) warning. Please investigate and also check out their User page where they have reverted me. Regards. Zunaid 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD Relistings (vs admin closure)

This has briefly been on a few other boards in the past month, but all quite stale and something I think needs a broader view discussed. The general starting topic there is non-admin AfD closures, where my concern is with non-closures.

I'd like general thoughts on this diff[15]. The editor's name I am deliberately not going to speak; This is a procedure question and not any suggestion whatsoever of an "incident" or anything but the best of faith. No need for them to come up in a query by name. Concern is mostly on the view that of little participation being a distinctive reason to relist versus closing. Isn't this frowned upon, as it's impossible to expect equal and high levels of participation everywhere? Can't outcomes be clear with little discussion, or with very precise opinion from a smaller number of persons? Why only relist unpopular AfDs? How about anything XfD? Point being, high participation and a wide range of views represented is not a requirement of AfD, and it seems a lot of articles have discussions ongoing needlessly long per "low participation".

As a non-admin hanging out in admin-style areas doing quite the same as this editor I hate standing up at our little table to say this, but shouldn't relists be Admin-Only? Without that, we end up with a hundred relists per day that could well have what would be a clear case to delete, but are being relisted instead since a deletion close is Admin-only. I'm sure there are also plenty that are reasonable keeps but a non-Admin can't close because of our tiny window of justified actions. What if it's a BLP? Does the relisting user actually research the article topic, or just counts !votes? How many is "enough" on participation? Why relist if a full week isn't up yet? Does that not steal a closure decision away from an admin? Aren't non-admin AfD actions in general restricted to essentially-unanimous discussions and only after falling into "old" after the standard week and the rare speedy keeps?

The user quoted in the diff above is an outstanding editor so I feel bad having to ask about something in contrary to actions and have no reason whatsoever to doubt the intent of these contributions, but I would like an admin opinion. AfD is not a place for infinite discussion, and having non-admins buzz through the daily log of dozens armed with only "Keep" or "Relist" isn't appropriate. I'm sure the user does leave would-be delete closures alone, but then we have that whole participation "requirement" again. If by any means I am being entirely ignorant of something in the bigger picture please tell me (I'm often wrong!), but a lot of this appears to be quite contrary to WP:NAC (though an essay) and everything I've ever been taught/told about non-admin AfD matters from some of "the regulars". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a very long winded question, however, in essence, you make a valid point. I think that non admin relists can often be productive- for example, if two or three editors voice an opinion but do not reach any kind of consensus, it would be entirely appropriate (IMHO) to relist and a non-admin doing it saves time for the admins who can delete those articles which need to be deleted. Obviously, if an article should, by rights, be deleted after it's had its week, then to relist it does nobody any good. What we need is some kind of clear guideline on when to make a non-admin closure or relist and when not to. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest three editors (including the nom, if none have a COI) would be a minimum for a "delete" close, less than that, a relist might be in order. HJMitchell You rang? 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"What we need is some kind of clear guideline on when to make a non-admin closure or relist and when not to." That's a reasonable-sounding good-faith position, but I would disagree with it. We have a clear guideline: Use common sense, be mindful of context, and respond constructively to any dispute that may arise. There's no need to codify everything into rules, "of thumb" or otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's not a personal issue, I would still appreciate it if someone could notify me when one of my posts is mentioned. As to the substantive issue: (1) I'm not familiar with the other processes so I can't really comment on them, but lack of participation in AfDs is sometimes a serious issue because sources can and do slip under the radar. Sometimes a unanimous "keep" becomes a "delete"; sometimes a unanimous (or close to unanimous) "delete" becomes either a "keep" or a "no consensus". I rarely relist debates with more than two non-SPA !votes on either side. (2) When there are more than that, relisting requires judgment. For example, you have four people saying "delete no sources", then a fifth editor turns up and says "here are the sources: A B C D". Under these circumstances a relist is probably optimal because we don't know if the sources are good. (3) If someone erroneously relists a clear-cut delete, or a clear-cut keep, those are dealt with easily. Several admins regularly go though Category:Relisted AfD debates and close AfDs if they think a consensus has formed.

The point with AfD relists for insufficient participation, in my view, is that at AfDs, most of the time the decision depends on the existence or lack of sources. But since one cannot prove a negative, our system says that if multiple editors tried searching for sources in good faith and can't find any, then we consider it unsourceable and therefore deletable. However, with only one or two people looking, the probability of reliable sources being overlooked is too high to be tolerable, so more time for consideration is appropriate. I'm not sure if this kind of scenario is present in other XfDs. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Discussions with no input except the nominator should generally be relisted once, and it shouldn't matter if an admin or non-admin relists it. There's very little judgment here.
• Discussions with only the nom and 1 other voice, or three non-unanimous voices, are greyer and I would prefer someone with experience making these or similar calls make them. I'm not saying an admin has to make them, but it's not for an editor who decides "hmm, what's the is Articles for deletion thing..." and decides if someone else can relist he can too.
• On occasion even a 4- or 5-voice AFD may warrant relisting, particularly if new information became available that might have changed the mind of the nominator or early responders, and they haven't updated their comments.
• Remember, AfD is not a vote. Sometimes you see things at AfD that are arguably speediable, and deleting after a nomination with no second may be appropriate. Likewise, a lopsided "vote" might should close in the opposite direction based on the strength of the arguments. This applies whether the participation is 1, 2, 3, or 30 editors.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RM backlog

Hi. There's a very long backlog over at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If some admins and other editors can chip in, that would be great. (Not all moves require administrative actions, and non-admin closings (or relistings, though we prefer closings) are welcome.)

I would remind everyone that the standard for moves is easier than for deletions - a request that draws no objections in a week may be carried out without the need to generate discussion over it. We may assume that a move is uncontroversial unless it's shown to be otherwise. (The text on the actual Requested moves page might or might not reflect this fact - there's kind of a tendency towards over-caution and over-prescriptiveness.)

Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)