Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:00, 20 May 2012

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship .paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 143 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Courtesy ping to Ratnahastin. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 140 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 124 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Courtesy ping to TarnishedPath. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 90 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 58 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 53 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Soni (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni Thanks for closing, but my revert of the original close wasn't out of process and it was discussed in a couple of different places including the editor's TALK. WP:CR says non-admin can close as long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. The editor never responded or justified their close. Given the contentious nature of the discussion the RFC required a better close. Nemov (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that talk page just afterwards. On second thought, I agree with you. I had mistakenly thought you were involved with the discussion, which coloured my opinion on this. I would have still preferred striking and clearly showing the removed close (given at least one editor disagreed with the revert), but I guess going through Close Challenge just for the sake of it would be pointless bureaucracy.

I still hold to my overall close; that RFC was getting punted to the second discussion no matter which way it closes. Soni (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree with the close. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 44 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 44 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 36 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 35 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]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 27 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 18 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	21	16	37
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	2	0	2
FfD	2	3	5
RfD	37	40	77
AfD	0	2	2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 53 days ago on 21 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 32 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 19 days ago on 24 April 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 50 days ago on 23 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 128 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 128 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 122 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 119 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added a script to help me close RMs, but it failed to mark this as a technical move request(?). Is there a manual way to ask for help on "I closed this RM but the UI did not allow me to"? Right now I used CSD G6 to allow for the move, but I suspect there's a more suitable way. Soni (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni: Are you aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests? I usually use that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now am. I vaguely saw that page earlier, but I think I decided to keep looking because it wasn't clear to me based on other sections if "I closed an RM" counted as a "uncontroversial" technical request. I'll use that page or the user script from now, thank you. Soni (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does. In fact, I'm certain I read somewhere that technical requests by RM closers should be honored even when the page mover disagrees with the close/expects that it will be challenged, although now I can't find where. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, paragraph #4. Although my memory of what that section said did not serve me well. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! Soni (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 110 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 104 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 104 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 97 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 90 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 64 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cumnock (original) railway station#Requested move 14 April 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 14 April 2024) No new comments for over three weeks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 26 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list

(Initiated 16 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 15 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 days ago on 1 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Charcoal feather (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 11 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 10 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike

I really, really do not like making this proposal. If anyone checks the records, they will in fact see that I have historically been one of the few editors who has been somewhat on DeknMike's side. But the editor has a fairly long history of trying to get the content of the main Messianic Judaism article to support some internal positions of the group, specifically that they are older than independent sources seem to support. User:Jayjg has been most heavily involved in this, trying to get DeknMike to produce independent reliable sources that would support his contentions. I've tried to find such sources myself. So far as I had been able to see from the databanks I checked or the independent reliable published sources, the position is not supported. I and others have also tried to reason with DeknMike, to no apparent avail.

In this section, Jayjg indicates much of DeknMike's problematic behavior to that date. A check of the most recent article talk page comments would indicate that the problematic behavior of DeknMike hasn't changed. He misrepresents sources, emphasizes non-independent sources, and otherwise engages in disruptive behavior.

Although I am personally somewhat sympathetic to DeknMike's positions, as is apparent from some of my own comments, I have to say enough is enough.

I would request that DeknMike be banned from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well. There is not yet an article History of Messianic Judaism so far as I can see, but I would not rule out the possibility of such a page being created and possibly being subject to the same problems. Other related pages might also be subject to the same treatment if the editor is banned from only the main article.

I will myself continue to check the independent reliable sources to which I have access, and, if any of them do ever provide independent support for the MJ's positions, trust me, I will let everyone know on the article talk page. But none of us have the time to spend dealing with the problematic behavior which does not seem to be likely to stop without action of this sort. Based on the lack of existence of an article on the MJs history, I guess I would have to support at least a ban on the main Messianic Judaism article, and possibly on any yet-to-be-created article on the history of Messianic Judaism. But I am not sure that material might not be added to other related articles. On that basis, much as I dislike it, I think that a topic ban is possibly the option that would create the least trouble for others, and on that basis am proposing such a ban, although I would not necessarily object to more focused bans if such are proposed by others, and will try to comment on such . John Carter (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, please be more specific about the latitude of the proposed ban — either you need to list all of the pages from which you're asking him to be banned, or a description of the type of pages (e.g. "All pages dealing with the history of Messianic Judaism") from which you're asking him to be banned. If we enact a ban with "possibly related Messianic Judaism pages", there's too much latitude for him to claim that he's not editing a related page and for his opponents to claim that he was editing a related page. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undedrstood. At this point, I propose the ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed. If a relevant extant article, like History of Messianic Judaism, already existed, I might consider limiting the scope of the ban to a few specific extant pages, but the present state of the content makes that a bit problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jayjg, et al have repeatedly stated their opinion that Messianic Judaism 'arose' in the 1960s. The word 'arose' is particularly troubling - what does it mean? Stood up/started? Emerged from the shadows? The sources used don't say. Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century...he tension between the Messianic Jewish movement and the Hebrew Christian movement had always been present. After the inception of the HCAA in 1915 Again, Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s... These external sources have been on the page for some time. What is 'disruptive' about citing the sources already on the page to say what they say? Except that I refuse to be bullied into ignoring true and reputable sources? I have admitted many times that the name was not mainstream in the US before 1967, and that it has seen significant growth since then (arose?). I have presented many sources that say the movement existed outside the US before the 60s, but the others in this conversation will not consider any sources they don't agree with or that says anything but their stated notion. I myself am not Messianic, though I attended their services in several cities, and have talked with leaders in the movement. I am an outsider trying to make sense of ALL the literature, not just the sources that agree with the opinions I held before the research began.--DeknMike (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a more accurate and less self-serving comment would be more along the lines of "you insist on indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the basis for including material which does not meet basic wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the more obvious recent examples is to be found at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Jerusalem Council as source, in which you appear to take the position that because a self-published source makes a declaration about a specific group within the broad field of Messianic Judaism, that statement is true of Messianic Judaism as a whole. Such a position is not only contrary to policy, but actually even contrary to basic logic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Pesky non-admin intruder again ...) Comment: is this just another US-centric problem? Pesky (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because Messianic Judaism started in the US and remains overwhelmingly a US-based movement. Zad68 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support a general topic ban for DeknMike for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages. Reasoning:

I was going to type up a long and detailed history of the issue, but it really has already been laid out pretty well here: Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. The basic issue is a very long history of civil (well mostly civil anyway) POV push. The description at Wikipedia:CIVILPOV fits the situation perfectly.
The civil POV push is built on consistent (and sometimes sneaky) misrepresentation of sources. The editors at Messianic Judaism no longer have any faith or trust in DeknMike, and for good cause. Every one of his edits now is viewed with suspicion, and requires us to get him to show us the full text of the source he is trying to use, in context. Almost invariably, the source does not support his edit. This is really appalling.

Here is just the latest example of misrepresentation of sources: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Another_source_misrepresentation_.2F_inaccurate_edit_summary.3F. The edit summary doesn't cover the whole edit, and the edit doesn't match what the source says. This misrepresentation of the source sat in the article for several days before somebody noticed.
In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_21#Deleting_reliably_sourced_accurate_material_again, there are more examples of sneakiness, where Mike was using the minor edit button to try to slip in significant content changes to the article. (He has since stopped trying to use the Minor button in this way.)
More examples of misrepresentation of sources from the archives:

DeknMike inserted the following text into the article:

In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.^[1]

What the source actually says, in the chapter on "Hebrew Christianity," is

On 9 September 1813 a group of 41 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews' Chapel. These Jewish Christians met for prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening.

Note, nothing about it being "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations".

In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_20#Misrepresenting_sources_again, from over a year ago, DeknMike is trying to do the exact thing as he's doing in the latest example, so clearly, this is a long-term, protracted problem that is still continuing through today.

The Messianic Judaism article is itself in pretty bad shape. It used to be a good article but quickly fell apart. I think it has the potential to be restored to Good status, but I see DeknMike as an impassible obstacle to improving the article.
Attempts by John Carter to encourage or mentor DeknMike in improving the article in areas other than history consistently fall on deaf ears.
I have had, occasionally, some productive interaction with DeknMike on the Talk pages of the Messianic Judaism article, see for example Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_22#Non-summary_statement_in_Lede where we actually worked together and came to an agreement on a change to the lead, which still stands today. Although I've felt I've been on the receiving end of some personal attacks from Mike, honestly they aren't that far out of line from how lots of other editors I've seen behave on Wikipedia. For these reasons, I am proposing not to include Talk pages in the topic ban.

Zad68 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting. Zad, how would you define the phrase "Jewish Christians?" Pesky (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article Jewish Christian does a reasonable job of addressing that question. However, I cannot see how it is acceptable according to policies and guidelines, including WP:SYNTH, for any editor to instantly assume that any "Jewish Christians" must necessarily be among those described as being within the group Messianic Judaism. There are and have been other groups and individuals prior to modern Messianic Judaism who have been described as Jewish Christians. If we were to accept that argument as valid, we might just as easily call them Cerinthians, Ebionites, Elcesaites, Essenes, Nazarenes, Nazoreans, or Saint Thomas Christians, or followers of Antinomianism, Marcionism, or any number of other names that have been applied over the years to individuals who have been roughly described as "Jewish Christians." John Carter (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should avoid getting into a content debate here, this is about editor behavior. If we find one of the examples I have listed questionable, I'll provide a different one. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[non-admin observer comment]. I thought it might end up here. I've pretty much stopped watching the page (or rather stopped bothering to click through to follow the daily edit summaries) so my comment has little recent value, but might provide some background. Firstly, John, there is a history page, Hebrew Christian movement, which has the same editors but gets less traffic - partly I suppose because it mainly represents the more "assimiliation" minded and Gentile-funded Victorian Jewish missions. It also contains the same 9 August 2011 edit as Zad68 points about above as OR that the 41 member 1813 Hebrew Christian congregation in London was the "first" - which I can't see how is a problem on a content level as putting [1813 "Hebrew Congregation"] into Google Books immediately pulls out 3 sources supporting that this (correctly r not) in sources is regarded as the "first" (since two of the 3 sources - Stan Telchin & Rich Robinson are anti-MJ Evangelical works I'm assuming they aren't internal sources). The reason I mention that is that if that's the worst example of DeknMike's OR, and we have to go back to August 2011 to find it, then how come it's supported in Google Books? ......that said, the issue here isn't content so much as constantly pushing edits and pushing with a slant - which usually get reverted. I initially thought Jayjg was being too picky in some of the edits being blocked, but have come round to see that in almost every one of DeknMike's edit a sourceable factoid is being accompanied by a tail with distinct POV/OR characteristics, meaning both the sourced factoid and the tail get reverted. In addition John Carter - who is evidently neutral if not vaguely favourable - has offered DeknMike the opportunity to pass edits through him first. I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something. What I personally would suggest is that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article, and others commit to check every week or so, with more leisure than now. There's also another potential issue with a topic ban - POV concerns aside I'm not sure that it's healthy for en.wp to ban the only active User of a particular religious group from editing his/her religious group's article. Particularly as MJs are a group, like JWs?, to which most of their religious cousins range from suspicious to hostile. That may be a consideration outside AN scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that we pretty much banned every western Falun Gong practicioner from that content some time ago, for POV pushing, so there is precedent for that. But I would think that only two months would be far too inadequate. Procedurally, there have been indefinite bans from a topic in the past, which are reviewed later and ended. That would probably be the best way to go here. And I do think, maybe, allowing him perhaps to leave notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish Christianity, for anyone to see, might be sufficient for him to propose new edits. If, however, DeknMike were to agree to a self-imposed topic ban, I would probably agree to that. If he would agree to that. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe a bit more listening to each other, in a more relaxed atmosphere, might be good. I don;t think a self-imposed topic ban is the way to go about that, personally, but if it's the only thing that works for you, he may have no option. Looking at the above information, though, I'd like people to think about "Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s..." and "Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century" and see if they can understand why DeknMike believes that saying it arose in the 1960's is wrong. See if you can discuss this one carefully with each other, looking to understand the "other side's" reasoning. Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead? Pesky (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. Zad68 correctly stated the article is within the category 'formerly Good Articles', but including it in a discussion about me might lead some to conclude is was delisted BECAUSE of me. In fact, it was delisted in 2008 [[1]] and I didn't join the conversation until March of 2010 [[2]]. To say otherwise misrepresents the issues even more.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DeknMike is correct on the dates of the article's delisting and the start of his involvement editing it, and it was not my intention to imply that his editing caused the de-listing. My point was that DeknMike's involvement at the article was an impediment to its return to Good status. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeknMike, I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". There was just something (well, several somethings) about it which rang warning bells for me. I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. I think there's far more to this than meets the eye, and that what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it. I'm not saying that that is intentional (though of course there's always the possibility that it may be), just that these things happen. I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first. Pesky (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether I would qualify under the terms of TPC above, but I had gone through the sources available to me on EBSCOHost, JSTOR, ProQuest, NewsBank, and other databases, as well as the materials in the local public libraries and the libraries of Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis University, and Webster University. There is very little in the way of academic books dealing with the topic of modern Messianic Judaism. While it is included in a few encyclopedias and dictionaries of religion, none of those I saw, including some of the most relied upon, trace the MJs to before the middle 20th century. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ThatPeskyCommoner, two points:

First, when you say 'I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".' what exactly is the deviation from truth that you are concerned about? What are the "warning bells," exactly? When you say, "what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it," what are they? Please be specific. It appears that you are questioning the truth of something being presented here, and if so, we need you to identify exactly what it is so we can address it. This is Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, this is as serious as it gets on Wikipedia (short of ARBCOM). John Carter did not list this case without thought or in haste, and I am not participating here without thought or in haste. I hate being here. I don't want to do this. But John Carter and I feel it has to be done for the benefit of the Wikipedia project as a whole.
Second, when you say:
I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. ... I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first.
Sorry, "may be needed"? What else do you think a topic-ban request at Administrators' Noticeboard is asking for? We are asking specifically and exactly for an experienced, uninvolved Admin to review everything in detail. Are you suggesting we're hoping to get our request get rushed through without careful review, or that Admins don't normally review topic-ban requests carefully? John Carter, the editor who brought this request, is indeed a "scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin," is an Admin, has over 150,000 edits (please take a moment to reflect on this!), has religion-related articles an area of his special expertise, and has been only minimally involved in the edits at Messianic Judaism--he has not edited the article at all during the time-frame we are discussing, and has less than two dozen edits to the article Talk page in the time-frame we are discussing.

Pesky, you are asking others to make a careful, painstaking review of the detail; have you done so yourself? Have you read Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again? Have you reviewed the edits and compared them to what the reliable sources say? Of course everyone can contribute to these WP:AN discussions, but contributions here can't be valuable if you haven't done your homework. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counting isn't necessarily a mark of quality or knowing what you are talking about. John Carter became an admin on 14 Jan 2008, if it matters (I have no interest in the subject) Secretlondon (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the date. I understand what you are saying. I was trying to come up with some objectively quantifiable, independently verifiable way to determine if John Carter is an "editor in exceptionally good standing" as Pesky requested. It's difficult to be a very, very active editor and also keep sysop over a very long period of time, so I think it says something. Perhaps what Pesky is asking for is too subjective to satisfy. Zad68 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all difficult given the near impossibility of desysoping. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then Pesky will have to leave it to the individuals reviewing this to make their own, subjective determination. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban. DeknMike has strongly held and fixed personal views on the topic. This wouldn't be an issue, except that he continually edits the article to conform to his personal views, regardless of what reliable sources actually say. A classic (and the most recent) example is this edit. The source in question is discussing Christian missions to Jews; from the early 1800s to the mid 1900s mainstream Christian churches established Missions to Jews (often in areas where significant numbers of Jews lived), attempting to convert them to Christianity. The source itself states

"Missions to the Jews during the period were conservative evangelical institutions. It should be noted, therefore, that the years from the 1920s to the 1960s were not ones of decline but rather a period of growth for these enterprises in size, experience, organization and sophistication."

DeknMike "summarized" or "paraphrased" this as:

Its leaders used the decades to build a strong, respectable reputation, and hired Jewish converts as missionaries. Among the missionaries were Martin (Moishe) Rosen, who later founded Jews for Jesus.

This shows the heart of the problem. The source itself says nothing whatsoever about "strong respectable reputation", "hir[ing] Jewish converts", or Martin (Moishe) Rosen. Moreover, when asked what the phrase "its leaders" in his insertion refers to, he states "Why the Messianic Judaism movement, of course!". The source itself is discussing Missions to Jews by established Christian churches, and also explicitly states in that chapter that the "Rise of Messianic Judaism", the "first phase of the movement", occurred "during the early and mid-1970s". DeknMike is well aware of this.

This has been going on for three years. DeknMike has fixed beliefs about the origins of the Messianic movement, and cannot accept what reliable sources say on the topic, so he attributes things to them that they don't say (in the past he would also delete them, but he doesn't do this as much any more). As the various links provided above show, he has modified one specific statement in the article, sourced to seven reliable sources, twenty-three times, simply because he cannot accept what they say. When confronted on the article's talk page, he makes unsubstantiated claims, often accompanied by irrelevant comments about other editors, then typically goes away for a couple of months until the furor dies down, before repeating. There seems to be no way of making him accept what reliable sources say when it disagrees with his beliefs, nor any way of convincing him to edit in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban. I rarely even look at that article any longer specifically due to this problem. Previously, I was quite an active editor at the page and had numerous encounters with Mike. The problem was exactly as already described: Mike would take vast liberties in claiming that a particular reference stated something when, upon examination of the source, the reference did not. The agenda-pushing was obvious. In fact, without wishing to cast too negative a vibe towards a fellow editor, I often felt that Mike's methods of POV were sneaky - that, if able to get away with it, Mike would re-insert or re-attempt the agenda-pushing after a short time in what I perceived was a hope nobody would notice. This grew tiresome. and only Jayjg appeared up to the task of constant enforcement, whereas I drifted away from the article. Lastly, I agree that the article at one point was in better shape - if I recall correctly, it was written by consensus without the need to tilt it in one direction or the other. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2000). Messianic Judaism. Continuum. p. 16.

Arbitrary section break (DeknMike discussion)

My apologies for having been away from this thread for a short while (thus leaving questions unanswered). Too much going on IRL. The biggest qualifier I had for someone to look through the entire history was the completely uninvolved one. That really means someone who has, to date, expressed no particular opinion. And someone who doesn't focus on religion-related articles, too. I really mean completely uninvolved. @Zad, no, I haven't had time to do a thorough review (too much going on IRL, again, and I'm spending quite a lot of time researching a different history, at the moment). As for "deviations from truth", it's a kind of nebulous, skewy thing; a smudging of borderlines, the inclusion of things like (for instance) the "delisted GA" being included as if it had something to do with DeknMike; as if there was some desire to encourage people to assume that it did, and so on. I'm not saying that it was deliberate (yes, I said that before, and I'm saying it again now, to avoid people feeling that they have to attack me, too; attacks on me are not warranted, and they upset me probably a great deal more than most people realise). I can think of one user off-hand, who has previously shown an exceptional talent in going through old history. I have no idea whether they're involved or not, or could spare the time to assist, but I will ask them (some time soon) whether they could / would take that task on; just the dusting off, bringing into the light of day, the old stuff (everything relevant, not just what's here. That's what I mean by The Whole Truth™). Pesky (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky, can I ask you to do me a favor--Please step back from your suspicions of what you think might be going on, assume good faith, at try to look at it from our point of view for a minute. Can you see that your involvement in this discussion so far appears to assume that the concern that John Carter and myself and Jayjg have been dealing with isn't legitimate? Can you see that you have made vague but pointed statements that appear to question whether what is being presented here is truthful, but you bring no specifics that deal with the heart of the issue for us to review with you--in fact, you then admit you haven't actually reviewed the details? (This was made especially clear when you wrote, "See if you can discuss this one carefully ... Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead?"--the archives show we've been trying do exactly that for well over a year!) Can you see that you imply we are trying to hide the truth? Pesky, these assumptions feel like an attack, and are upsetting. However, if you feel you know someone who meets your standards (and they are good, high standards!) please do invite them to review and comment here. We want the same thing as you. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: the "warning bells" thing stems from a real-life hat which I've worn for nearly ten years, not a WikiHat. Pesky (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by this or how I'm supposed to address it. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zad (and others!) – apologies if I upset anyone; that wasn't my intention. Sometimes we get so tied up / bogged down in a situation that it interferes with our ability to see the big picture as a complete outsider would. (It's that Confirmation bias thing.) I can see that you all have problems with this situation; my suggestion of discussion wasn't about discussing the article, as such, more about finding a page where you could all get together and discuss the history of your problems with each other, try and unravel them, everyone (DeknMike included) walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, and that stuff. Sometimes that works much better than discussing the article itself (but I do know how much yer average male dislikes openly discussing his feelings! Gross generalisation, I know, but it often holds true!) It's a shame you can't all go down the pub and have several beers together ;P I did email the editor I thought of, but they are on a break and haven't responded (yet). Hugz to all concerned, anyway. I hope you can work something out with the minimum of pain all around. Pesky (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. However, I tend to agree that, intentionally or not, your own comments seem to imply that myself, a self-described devout Catholic, and Jayjg and Avi, who are I think both Jews, are in some way sharing a single confirmation bias. I do not see how such a position is very reasonable itself. In fact, the talk page history will reveal, in fact, that I have engaged in rather substantial discussion with both of them regarding whether there has been any sort of authoritative rejection of the Jewishness of the MJs, which would I think go even further to weaken such claims. This complaint however is not about that. Like I said before, there isn't a great deal of academic material out there on the MJs. I've checked the Washington University libraries, counted as one of the ten best university library systems in the US, the Saint Louis University libraries, counted by Gordon Melton as one of the best religion libraries on the planet, the local public libraries, seminary libraries, and other libraries, in addition to the various databanks. As Jayjg indicated in the section I linked to, DeknMike has a fairly clear recent history of misrepresenting sources, producing material which fails verifiability, and other conduct issues which are, I believe, sufficient cause for action to be taken in this instance. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky, we're not looking to start a personal relationship with DeknMike, we just want him to edit in conformance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. That shouldn't be too much to ask, and yet this has been going on for three years now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am certainly an involved editor as relates this article. DeknMike has had, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of patience shown to him as regards his edits. He tends to misrepresent sources, promote fringe or insufficiently (for Wikipedia) substantiated opinions, and does so with the intent to promote a particular point of view (to which he is entitled to hold, of course) which certainly does not reflect the vast majority of reliable and verifiable sources written by peoples of all creeds. He may disappear for a while, but comes back performing the same non-wiki-acceptable edits, despite the policies abd guidelines having been explained to him again and again. Whilst unfortunate, I agree with the above editors that at this point, DeknMike is acting as an impediment to improving the article, and has acted in a way that makes it difficult to trust that he will edit the article in accordance with our policies and guidelines in the near or forseeable future. A one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions) would seem appropriate; perhaps focusing on other areas for a while will help DeknMike internalize the policies and guidelines, and the extra care needed to maintain the necessary neutrality when we edit articles about which we have a strong feelings. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What this comes down to is an opinion that Messianic Judaism as a belief that is illegitimate and is nothing more than a new name for Christian missions, created in the 1960s. There has been a consistent push (beginning before I joined) to delegitimize it as a religious movement that is separate both from traditional Judaism and Christianity. The methods include emphasis on why it's the wrong name, discounting sources that give alternate views on the movement, and attacks on anyone who writes otherwise. My so-called 'strong feelings' are for a fair and balanced article that lets the movement talk about itself as freely as other editors let outside/opposition viewpoints be heard. I'm grateful to the other editors for improving my skills, for spurring me to additional research from more sources on all sides of the issue (my opinions aren't 'fixed'); I wish these others could approach the topic with equally open minds and not make it fit their preconceived notions about it. If the content reverted to the 2008 version, with minor updates, it would be much better. They have been trying to reign me in to their views, yet I keep reading sources that contradict their POV. When I've asked for OUTSIDE opinions, they follow me to those boards and make the same tired accusations. This POV won't accept any source that doesn't align with their preconceived assumptions. If Feher, who said its "origins can be traced in the United States to the Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries" had meant 'began' she would have said 'began' and not 'arose.' Of his oft-repeated 7 sources, four say a segment of the Hebrew Christian movement emerged and changed its name and one says it existed in the 1940s. Yet they continue to harp on that one undefined word with no thought as to finding consensus, though I have tried over and over to find a synonym that squares with the 'approved' sources, even discounting the sources they veto as 'not authoritative enough'.--DeknMike (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, Mike, it is generally understood without saying that the person being proposed for a ban disagrees with it. Second, your own comments above clearly indicate why the ban is sought. And your clear statements which directly violate WP:AGF contained in the above statement also demonstrate part of the problem. You accuse others of "preconceived assu\mptions", which have to my knowledge never been demonstrated, as an apparent excuse for avoiding dealing with the issue of your own violations of policies and guidelines. The "tired accusations" you rail against are in fact attempts to get the material to abide by policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:SPS, and WP:WEIGHT, and, in your individual case, WP:POV. In short, you have been regularly acting out of accord with policies and guidelines, and sought instead to impugn others as an attempt to distract from that. I personally have no opinions one way or another about the MJs, about whom I have no particular interest one way or another. The fact that you keep reading sources self-published by MJs does less to demonstrated the POV of others than perhaps the POV of those sources, and perhaps that of an editor who seems to seek out those sources. Like I've said, I have been to several libraries, and consulted all the online sources available to me. It is so far as I can tell your own preconceived notions which are the issue here, not those of anyone else. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Sadly, as the latest edits to the Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism (my latest edit here), and Mike's latest edit here, show the behavior causing this WP:AN discussion to be created in the first place is continuing right through this moment. Regarding Messianic Judaism, Mike's ad hominem that the other editors at the article are on a mission to "delegitimize it as a religious movement" instead of a embarking on a good-faith effort to get the article to reflect what multiple, independent reliable sources say is a new attack that fails WP:AGF and continues a disruptive editing pattern. Mike's suggestion that the article should be rolled back to what it said in 2008 (which was "Modern Messianic Judaism was reborn in the 1960s," supported by a single reference to the outrageously non-WP:RS anonymous blog "Messianic Judaism - The Best Recipe. RabbiYeshua.com. Kehilat Sar Shalom.") is a conclusive example of his desire to push a POV using sources in a way that is entirely unacceptable to WP:V, over having the article reflect what reliable sources say. Regarding the content (especially Mike's latest untrue contention here that "one says it existed in the 1940s"), please see the latest on the article Talk page--this WP:AN thread is about editor behavior issues, article content discussion is at the article page. Zad68 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it untrue that reference 10, by the same author as reference 3, says quite clearly: "When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form. ... It conveyed the sense of a new, innovative religion rather that[sic] an old, unfavorable one. The term was used in reference to those Jews who accepted Jesus as their personal savior, and did not apply to Jews accepting Roman Catholicism who in Israel have called themselves Hebrew Christians. The term Messianic Judaism was adopted in the United States in the early 1970s by those converts to evangelical Christianity who advocated a more assertive attitude on the part of converts towards their Jewish roots and heritage"? How, then is my direct quote of the source 'untrue'? I keep assuming good faith, but see little in return. I acknowledge my own point of view and guard against it, but see little reciprocity. I tolerate wp:weight with regards to detailed lists of why others don't believe MJ is a valid religion. I don't remember a single instance in the past few years of WP:SPS, though perhaps you've been keeping track.--DeknMike (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is true, your interpretation of it is not, as I mentioned before this content dispute is covered here: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism. At this point I'm going to leave this to the review of others. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I became aware of this problem last October. At the time, DeknMike was doing exactly what is being raised here. Multiple reliable sources stated one thing, DeknMike disagreed, so he insisted on changing what they said, or interpreting them as saying things they did not say. When challenged, his answers were mostly inventions, tangents, OR personal attacks. I don't think there's any hope he'll stop, after this long. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the topic ban for now, as too many potential analogies of babies and bathwater come to mind. I think I'm neutral enough to chime in here -- I've been an occasional editor at the article in question for a while, and have watched various debates involving DeknMike from afar. I can see the basis for claims of POV-pushing, but he absolutely has contributed constructively to the article. In the case of this edit, Mike's statement actually is backed up by the latter two sources. Though the text shouldn't have been placed behind several refs that did not explicitly support it, that doesn't look like a blatant misrepresentation of sources to me. I've countered some of Mike's arguments before, but I give him the benefit of the doubt here, and note that he actually made a change to the article which comported with multiple sources cited. Granted, there are places where he hasn't done this, but I've also seen other editors ignore sourcing at least as much as Mike ever has. For example, Jayjg completely ignored the source's actual words when he reverted an edit made by Dalai lama ding dong that was basically a matter of syntactical nuance only, and should have been completely non-controversial. The fact that I had to revert a revert that wouldn't have taken place had Jayjg bothered to scroll to the bottom and read the source excerpt just irks me, and makes me suspect of this whole situation.

There are problems with the article. For sure. Until I fixed it, one ref had been used to back up a statement exactly to the contrary of what it actually said. No one who has edited the article of late is innocent, but it's completely unreasonable to single out Mike alone in this regard, and the fact that it's being done like this just makes me uneasy about some editors' motivations, particularly given other seemingly nonsensical changes to sourced material by Mike's opponents that seem to only serve the purpose of distancing the content of the article from what associated organizations say about themselves, no matter how non-controversial the (sourced) statements may be. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has said that Mike is incapable of making any good edits - as Marwood says in Withnail and I, "even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day". The problem is that the vast majority of his edits on this topic have consistently been problematic, a fact your comment fails to address. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point, though, is that many of the claims (made by multiple users at the talk page) of certain of his edits being nonconstructive or uncorroborated by sources simply were not true. His edits were reverted and combatted on that basis, but in some cases (not all) that basis was either incorrect or nonexistent. I haven't gone through every one of his contribs, so I can't verify whether or not the majority of his contributions were nonconstructive, as you say. As far as I can see (and I'm not all-seeing by any means), he doesn't deserve his topic ban. I rather liked In ictu oculi's suggestion of a voluntary sanction, but a full topic ban is totally inappropriate at this stage, in my opinion. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evan would you please, please, please read up on the full history here, there plenty of links are here for you in this WP:AN discussion, it's distressing that you would !vote without reviewing the contribs and Talk page history. Please read my !vote above in support of this topic ban; I said specifically that I have indeed had constructive interaction with Mike at the article and gave a link to a specific example. This is actually already taken into account in the proposed action--the ban would not include topic-related Talk pages for that very reason. Question back to you is, how low can the signal-to-noise ratio be allowed to go, and for how long, before action needs to be taken? One good edit out of... 10? 100? Take a look at the history please and tell us if it changes your mind. The rest of what you wrote, such as questioning a revert of Dalai Lama Ding Dong by Jayjg, is basically "nobody has clean hands" and reminds me of how WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that I haven't reviewed the contribs or the talk page history? I said that I hadn't "gone through every one of his contribs". I'm familiar with the situation; in fact I have been for months now. How many of Mike's 1,661 edits have you personally reviewed?

The Jayjg revert is relevant because it shows how much attention (i.e., none) several of the editors pay to edits before getting revert-happy on the article. I'll respond to your question on the signal-to-noise ratio by inquiring as to how many times constructive edits (a few of which Mike's, most of which weren't) ought to be reverted before action is taken. There is no mathematical ratio established by policy that deals with that sort of thing. You know that as well as I do, so don't be facetious.

I've already shown that at least one of Mike's contested changes to the article was backed up by at least two sources, while it was disputed and removed from the article under the false assumption that it was not backed up by any of them. In other words, a large part of the reason we're here is because the reverting editors didn't take the time to actually check the sources before reverting Mike's edits based on a hunch. Is that acceptable to you? Don't we have a responsibility to honestly and thoroughly evaluate changes to an article before dismissing them out of hand? Or are we at the point now where a group of editors can completely override verifiability? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been shown above that the majority of Mike's edits have been in direct opposition to Wikipedia's core principles, have been engaged in trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a personal point of view, and have been continued despite multiple explanations and warnings. Most of Mike's work has been carefully reviewed and found to be wanting, if not outright inappropriate. Bringing in one revert by Jay about the term "religious", done to the edits of a different editor, not Mike, does not in any way shape or form detract from the well-documented history of Mike's inability (or outright refusal) to follow the rules which he agreed to follow by creating an account here. If anyone has an issue with verifiability, Evan, it's Mike, not Jayjg. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't removed under any "false assumption", and the issue here is that DeknMike is completely overriding verifiability. It might make sense to review all the evidence provided. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose topic ban. I can see easily why everybody's got heated here, and everybody (DeknMike included) has excellent points. Also, I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation, and moving forwards. Pesky (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky, did you read the history as was asked of you before !voting? This !vote does not at all address any of the well-documented, long-term, persistent disruptive editing. It appears to be based on a desire not to see someone's feelings hurt, rather than a desire to allow improvement to Wikipedia content. How much weight should be given to a !vote that doesn't address any of the core issues raised? Regarding "I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation"--I am not seeing any evidence to support this statement because DeknMike has not made any article edits and has not at all joined the discussion on the article Talk page since you started providing input there. All the current activity at the article proves is that when Mike is not involved in editing the article or in the discussion, progress can be made. Zad68 13:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Zad here. Pesky, your opinion does not address the issues brought in the request, instead talking about "points". This is not an issue of feelings, but of a documented long-term pattern of someone who refuses to abide by the guidelines and principles that Wikipedia requires of all its members when it comes to a particular topic area. Instead, this person persists in violating said core principles to further a personal agenda. This has been going on, if I am not mistaken, for multiple years. The project needs to enforce protections of its core principles somehow, and, at this point, I do not believe Mike can edit in this area in accordance with our rules. Some time off from this area, allowing Mike to develop that ability, is warranted, in my opinion. As an aside, Pesky, which points of Mike's do you believe are "excellent" and simultaneously in accordance with our policies and guidelines? -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per the problems outlined above, specifically editing inconsistent with the given sourced and edit warring. Editors with far less egregious behavior have been topic banned from subjects that they edit as an SPA. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of massive evidence: A topic ban requires an extensive amount of evidence, not just several users expressing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Because Wikipedia is not a witch-hunt, I must oppose a topic ban which lacks massive evidence of disruptive editing, or lacks numerous personal attacks against other editors, etc. Disagreement is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would ask you to perhaps read a bit more thoroughly the comments above. Avi's comment that, and I quote, "...the majority of Mike's edits have been in direct opposition to Wikipedia's core principles, have been engaged in trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a personal point of view, and have been continued despite multiple explanations and warnings. Most of Mike's work has been carefully reviewed and found to be wanting, if not outright inappropriate." That goes far beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but clearly states that the editor has behaved in a way which is directly contrary to wikipedia core principles. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!vote summary (DeknMike discussion)

Summary of opinions (last updated 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC))

Here is summarized only the !votes and proposed scope and timeframe of the ban; arguments for or against are not covered here. NOTE: summary was written by me, Zad68, hopefully to make reviewing the current status easier. It is MY UNDERSTANDING based on the contributions here, and I have done my very best to reflect what people have proposed accurately. If I got it wrong for you, or if your mind has changed, PLEASE CORRECT IT. (Please do not change the entries of users other than yourself.) Zad68 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

At this time, there is general agreement among supporters for topic ban on article pages defined by content area (as opposed to a specific list of pages), but the exact scope has not yet been made unambiguously clear. The idea of excluding article Talk pages from the ban has been proposed and no supporter has objected. Two supporters propose a one-year duration, but there has not been significant discussion about the duration of the ban.

User:John Carter as nominator, topic ban "from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well"; updated as "ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed."
User:Zad68, topic ban "for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages."
- I update my proposal here to specify a time frame of one year. Zad68 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jayjg, "Support topic ban" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
User:A Sniper, "Support topic ban" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
User:Avraham, "Support ... a one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions)"
User:Plot Spoiler, "Support" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
User:Brewcrewer, "Support" without ban scope detail or timeframe.

Non-!voting comment

User:In ictu oculi - "I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something" suggesting "that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article."

Oppose

User:Evanh2008, "Oppose," but Evanh2008 does go on to say "I rather liked In ictu oculi's suggestion of a voluntary sanction, but a full topic ban is totally inappropriate at this stage"
User:ThatPeskyCommoner, "Oppose topic ban"
User:Wikid77, "Oppose due to lack of massive evidence"

Named party

User:DeknMike "Oppose"

Request for closure

This thread had been moved to the archives for lack of activity before being restored. I would very much like to have an uninvolved administrator review the discussion and close the conversation one way or another. I cannot believe having the matter unresolved will in any way be useful or productive to the editors involved in the content under discussion. Thank you in advance for closing. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community Ban Proposal for editor Horizontal Law

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I propose yet again another community ban against Horizontal Law (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's already a mastermind sockmaster, who puppeteered the account Flowers of Romance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and created another set of sockpuppets under that account, which is somewhat the same way how GENIUS(4th Power (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) masterminded the Rusty Trombone accounts. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him/her. Khvalamde : Holla at me 01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There's plenty clear and convincing evidence, and his/her Sockpuppet archive clearly tells it all, and well as his inappropriate conduct on Wikipedia. Khvalamde : Holla at me 01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - blocked users who use sock puppets must learn their place. It's game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - based on history of significant abuse of sockpuppets. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what has he actually done? Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong, I just haven't the faintest idea what he has done because all I see is less than a page of minor edits by one account, that look weird but not obviously ban-worthy, and no edits by another one. Are there a bunch of deleted edits? Egg Centri c 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of massive evidence: A community ban requires an extensive amount of evidence, not just several users expressing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Because Wikipedia is not a witch-hunt, I must oppose a ban which lacks massive evidence of disruptive editing, or lacks numerous personal attacks against other editors, etc. Disliking is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The user has abused multiple accounts, all of which have been promptly blocked under existing policy. I don't quite see the need for a community ban, as any future sock activity that isn't a "Fresh Start" would be considered illegitamite and dealt with accordingly anyway. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Spam is broken

Wikiproject Spam has spam reports going back to April and with an addition I just made to the page, the template expansion has now passed the point where it renders correctly. Not sure who patrols that page, but it looks like some reports need dealing with and some probably need archiving. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Template:Link summary and didn't see any obvious optimization that could be done to it to lower its expansion burden; perhaps someone more well-versed with templates could take a look at that one, {{IP summary}} and {{User summary}} and see if there's any room for improvement. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One could probably shave off a few bytes by eliminating all of those HTML comments. There are 29 HTML comments in {{Link summary}}. Multiply that by the number of times that that template is transcluded, … Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived one old discussion to bring the template expansion below the limit once more. This appears to regularly happen at this wikiproject. MER-C is one of a handful of people who regularly hand-archive things. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad there's no archiving bot over there. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is, but we've had a really quiet period followed by a really busy one. I've shortened the archival time to 14 days (from 21). MER-C 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C, you may be a "spam-fighter", can you explain what the actual purpose of WT:SPAM is? I tried a few times, years ago, to ask there / offer to help but my questions basically scrolled away above a flood of postings which didn't actually need action. The page has always been large enough to destabilize my browser, so I basically gave up on anything to do with battling spam. Maybe this is a good place to ask what it's all about? Franamax (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page serves as our institutional memory. Recividism is common and spam campaigns often last years, with breaks of months in between scattered over multiple IPs and accounts (current example: WT:WPSPAM#Best China Hotel spam on Wikipedia: spam edits up to two years ago). The historical record is an important resource when it comes to justifying blacklisting. Spam fighting is hence a data-intensive activity (this explains the pile of reports with no action). Spamming is often a highly organized form of vandalism. The other side sometimes consist of paid (black hat, or just incompetent) social media marketers and SEOs. MER-C 02:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Between looking at the main spam info page and the page with all the reports on it I'm blown away that it seems TWO PEOPLE are doing all of the work over there. MER-C and Hu12 should get a raise. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose tripling their pay.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created for the good of education

Apologies if this has already been covered in another forum somewhere. I searched all admin noticeboards for "t mills kelly atlantic" with no results.

The Atlantic has published a story detailing how a professor encouraged his students to write fake Wikipedia articles to make a point about the weakness of information on the Internet. Preacher/choir here.

The class is being offered again and per the story in the Atlantic, the prof is again "warning the Internet" that he intends to do the same stuff.

Can we preemptively block these folks? A controversial all-institution block on the school? Because that's why AN exists. For controversy. --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. A breaching experiment consisting of hoaxing is an addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and doing it multiple times is absolutely grounds for blocking. Usernames, please? Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have this article, and I assume the original article on Edward Owens was deleted as vandalism. Some usernames should be in the deleted edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect new students taking the course will create new throw-away usernames. Blocking the old ones won't prevent that. Even IP-blocking the entire university probably wouldn't have much of an effect (except making our displeasure at such methods known). Huon (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest perhaps blocking account creation from the start of the course & implementing some sort of "in-your-face" notice politely requesting people from that IP address don't abuse Wikipedia. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most interesting take from this whole story is that the AGF nature of WP allows WP to be severely abused by those that have the will to do so. Makes for a pretty strong argument in favor of registered users. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should qualify as a Terms of Service (TOS) violation which should then be formally communicated to the institution. If it doesn't, then appropriate terms should be put into place. "Creating deliberately misleading or false content" should be a clear violation. If the institution does not act, then their entire IP address range gets blocked. One step at a time. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the 2012 class ended a week ago and the editing took place on WP in April, according to the course syllabus. If you read the Atlantic article linked above and follow the links in it, the class created three articles on Wikipedia this term, none of which were hoaxes in themselves, but were used to add credibility to the two hoaxes they had posted elsewhere, this one and this one. The WP articles they created were Brown's Brewery, Alice Walsh, and Florence "Diamond Flossie" Reilly (the latter two deleted at AfD). One of the editors involved and his socks were blocked after Sockpuppet investigations/Ceravantes. Don't know about any of the other students. Re the SPI, I suspect not all of them were the same person, rather several students working on the project. The check user noted that they only matched in pairs, but all were editing from the same institutional IP. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the event is over, but for future instances, I'd rather not preemptively block anyone. We'd be better off to monitor any names created as part of the experiment, revert vandalism as it appears, and block users who do it repeatedly. In other words, follow our normal process, and if there is an honest article written about the results, it will report that the experiment was an abysmal failure. Note carefully: I am not advocating doing nothing. If there is a way to monitor who the new user names are, we should aggressively add them to multiple watchlists and monitor. I don't know enough about the tech side to be specific, but I assume that someone can watch for new names arising from an IP or IP range.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Edward Owens (hoax) article was the hoax itself; over its history it's been converted from the hoax to an article about the hoax. I deleted the Brown's Brewery article earlier today, but I quickly restored it after I realised that we have reliable sources speaking of it as having been a real place. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I should have checked this. The creator of the Edward Owens article, Savethepirate, was indeffed for vandalism in 2009.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the same is true of Scottieraz, the only other person to make substantive edits to the article before this edit converted it from a hoax article to an article about a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ToS violation I'm was thinking along the same lines as User:VєсrumЬа on this one. This appears to be a terms of service violation and I'd like to see legal get involved contacting the institution.--v/r - T P 15:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meta:Terms of use, for convenience. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their one and only hoax article/ToS violation on Wikipedia, Edward Owens, was over three years ago. The articles they created this time were not hoaxes. The two deleted articles were on real people and can be sourced from newspapers from the period, e.g. this one and this one. They were deleted per WP:ONEEVENT. Perhaps they got the message about putting hoaxes actually on Wikipedia after the 2008 brouhaha. Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For the most recent course, they appear to have been using meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry to slip articles through the Articles for Creation process (judging by the SPI you linked above). Not a ToS violation, perhaps, but not exactly nondisruptive behavior, either. Deor (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the ToS issues, what this professor is doing is very unethical and serves as a spit in the face to those who work hard in maintaining the quality of this encyclopedia. If George Mason University is not going to take any action against this professor for his conduct (my guess is that they would cite academic freedom), then we need to; to that extent, I fully support blocking all IPs that belong to George Mason University, either indefinitely or, alternatively, treating them as if they were open proxies. We cannot allow such willful and deliberate efforts to undermine this encyclopedia to continue unopposed. --MuZemike 16:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand peoples reaction to these things. However count me as someone who thinks that indef blocking an entire university is a step that should have actual Foundation involvement & Backing, and not just a small WP:AN consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treat it like any other vandalism. As usual, a few very sporadic vandals at a university are not grounds for blocking the whole thing, regardless of any perceived official backing they may have. Prodego ^talk 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Blocking the entire university seems a bit over-the-top since the hoax article incident was a one-off that happened over 3 years ago and has not been repeated. The AfC shenanigans were mildly disruptive, but in fact any of those users could have just put the articles directly onto Wikipedia without going through that process, and as I pointed out they weren't hoaxes. I've seen a lot worse stuff get approved at AfC. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Why through the WMF? We did it before with Scientology (albeit that was an action by ArbCom). I think we are responsible enough to decide for ourselves what to do. --MuZemike 17:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for off-wiki action based on violations of the TOS, you'll have to talk with WMF, since Arbcom can't take legal action. If you think that on-wiki action will suffice, there's no need to go to WMF. This is not simple vandalism — someone in a position of authority is requiring others to vandalise Wikipedia. Any future violations need to be given wider-ranging responses, and I expect that only a total campuswide block would be able to prevent this type of editing, unless we tried to get WMF to be involved on legal grounds. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it won't be my ass on the line for blocking a 25K student university.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Let me clarify: I was concentrating more at on-wiki action as opposed to off-wiki action; the latter would need some Foundation-level assistance, but that shouldn't stop our editing community from taking any actions (i.e. via blocking) ourselves, even in the meantime. --MuZemike 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But he hasn't "required" them to vandalize Wikipedia this time and in any case, they didn't vandalize it at all. The article on Florence "Diamond Flossie" Reilly (still visible here) was considerably more encyclopedic and interesting than a lot of the other schlock here. It's also unclear whether he required them to create the 2008 hoax article either, although he clearly acquiesced. Apart from the "feel good" factor, what exactly would such a block prevent? The students could simply edit from their home computers. The course only runs every 2 or 3 years. Is the university supposed to remain blocked forever on the off-chance that the students might repeat in 2014 what they did in 2008? Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the creation of hoax articles is definitely vandalism; that's why blatant hoaxes are deletable under speedy criterion G3, vandalism. And notice that I said "future violations"; I'm not suggesting we do anything now or in the immediate future. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we are far from a situation justifying drastic action, but I don't see any downside in calling WMF legal's attention to the Atlantic article, perhaps with a summary of what has happened on Wikipedia to date. They can act or not as they see fit. A letter to the university's legal department asking how this behavior fits with their standards of conduct might be appropriate, for example. At least WMF legal should be aware in case the situation gets much worse in the future, perhaps with other schools encouraging students to hoax us as an "exercise."--agr (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Voceditenore for drawing this to my attention. :) I will make sure that the Legal & Community Advocacy Team is aware so they may consider any appropriate reaction. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC) (Oh, P.S., just in case it's unclear: I don't mean this in lieu of any community response.)[reply]

The only hoax article from this course that has been documented so far made The Signpost (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-10/News and notes#A notable hoax?) and the administrators' noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Edward Owens) three years ago, as you can see, while the AFD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens (hoax)) was open. Let's-rangeblock-a-university didn't really gain much traction even then. Also notice that the 2012 Atlantic article itself quotes Jimbo Wales as responding to this two years ago, in a June 2010 interview at the Chronicle of Higher Education. You know where User talk:Jimbo Wales is if you want to ask Jimbo whether The Atlantic is quoting him accurately and in context, or draw his attention to this year's course that apparently does not involve hoax encyclopaedia articles. Uncle G (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put a blackout frontpage redirect from en.wikipedia.org, with a notice instructing those pondering a hoax to please test their products on Reddit first? Nathan^T 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a scale of 1 to 10, this is about a 2, despite Atlantic coverage. Just need to keep a good lookout. I don't think monitoring of the ips from the University would be justified, let alone blocking them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the timing, I won't personally lose any sleep or whether or not the University IPs are blocked, but I still think such actions are wholly reprehensible and that the professor in question should be ashamed of himself for pissing on our encyclopedia like that. --MuZemike 19:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic story says: This time, the class decided not to create false Wikipedia entries. Instead, it used a slightly more insidious stratagem, creating or expanding Wikipedia articles on a strictly factual basis, and then using their own websites to stitch together these truthful claims into elaborate hoaxes. Which would imply no Wikipedia policies were violated. Nobody Ent 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest in a teapot. It was like saying paper isn't useful because water can make it fall apart, then this professor grabs a fire hose. Either the guy is a serious intellectual who wants to keep his students on their toes by thinking critically, or he has a big grudge against Wikipedia. Either way, I really like the quote: "If there's a simple lesson in all of this, it's that hoaxes tend to thrive in communities which exhibit high levels of trust." Reddit killed the hoax. Wikipedia's extensive logging system helped them kill it. While you can deface the walls here, you simply can't keep the paint from being easily wiped off. -- Avanu (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. The articles four years ago were a problem for Wikipedia. The edits in this semester were real articles, with no ToS violations. Creating factual Wikipedia article to be used as references for a hoax elsewhere may be a problem elsewhere, but it's not a problem for Wikipedia per se. --Ben (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's Brewery now exists. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest in a teapot and a 2 on some arbitrary scale on the Administrator's Noticeboard where no consensus exists that this is even problematic behavior. This is what Dr. Kelly means by saying Wikipedia has a weak community. I wonder if I showed up in Dr. Kelly's class uninvited and maligned his credibility in front of his students how his community would respond. Maybe if I ask pointed and loaded questions about how he feels about plagiarizing his dissertation. I don't know if he did that nor do I care, but I just want to prove how easy it is to blather on about shit I know nothing about. I bet I'd get escorted from the classroom by campus police as I became more persistent. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for social experiments because it's clear Wikipedia's amoral society is strongly influenced by apathy, confusion, and misdirection. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your facts -- Kelly didn't say Wikipedia has a weak community, that was the article writer Applebaum. Kelly's 2012 class's interactions with Wikipedia violated no policies and his later comments were not Wikipedia bashing. Kelly quotes Applebaum's point in a later blog post and says that it's an interesting idea worth exploring, but doesn't go beyond that. -Ben (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does this address any part of this problem? Kelly is clearly taking advantage of this kind of communication, where this community's standards have been breached and through the lack of focus and clarity at AN, he's welcome to continue. Your comment instead is an example of how easy it is to misdirect attention from a problem by attempting to refocus on a minor detail. AN is adrift in lack of consensus to act despite clear standards already laid out. The easier it is to stall action by downplaying problematic behavior the more evident Wikipedia's weaknesses are. Kelly said it/the article's author said it. Shit, I'm saying it. This is a weak community. It has no clear focus or goals. It cannot decide to act when it's priorities are compromised. It cannot pragmatically decide what its priorities are: protection of content/credibility, making the site available to anyone, or a complete lack of priority? --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which problem? That's the core of the issue. My comment addressed yours of 21:48, 17 May 2012 above, which I read as taking near-personal offence at something Kelly never said. Apologies if I mis-read your intentions, but that's what I was responding to. Back on topic, we need to decide on what the problem actually is. Yes, in 2009 his class violated Wikipedia standards with their hoax article and were banned for it. A pox upon them all, I guess. However, the incident I thought we were discussing here is that in 2012 his class--with malice aforethought--created three factual, reliably-sourced, not-especially-notable Wikipedia articles.

The community response to this incident is unfocused and apathetic because it's not clear that anything bad at all happened from Wikipedia's perspective. Yes, the incident caused an Atlantic columnist to call the Wikipedia community "weak". But a lot of the outrage is a reaction to the 2009 hoax, which was resolved already and should be old news to anyone discussing the 2012 articles. (Also, compare the quiescent status of that hoax with the continuous vandalism of Elephant, thanks to Stephen Colbert fans.) You write as if Mills Kelly is some prank-playing Wikipedia-hater, sending off his student minions to create (well-researched, factual) articles, then cackling as he watches Wikipedians in this discussion thread scurry around in disarray. That's really not the case, as his writings about Wikipedia [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] show. If it were, we'd all be in favor of torpedoing his undersea headquarters and letting his Persian cat drown with him, but it's just not obvious.

Were the articles later used to troll reddit? Yes. I don't think that it's Wikipedia's job to patrol the places it's cited, however. Fair ball. (Full disclosure: I once commented on Kelly's blog[10], I have commented in some of the same threads as Applebaum where it's possible that we conversed directly with each other, and I've been an occasional editor of Wikipedia for a very long time. I am not disinterested.) -Ben (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard in public domain

You guys have put this noticeboad in the public domain, unrestricted. Is that a good idea, considreing what's discussed? I'm just trying to be helpful - don't shoot the messenger. Wickwack124.178.51.186 (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? The purpose of this noticeboard is to notify administrators of things requiring their attention.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative commons license is not public domain. Nobody Ent 02:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is he talking about the whole noindex thing? Arkon (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's more it, as copyright isn't really a concern from the "considreing what's discussed" angle — Wickwack sure seems to be concerned about the content being available for anyone to see. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's not talking about copyright, he's implying that AN should be private. Night Ranger (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In AN, you are discussing trolls, vandals, hoaxers, and other undesirables/nuisances, and what to do about them. And the whole world including such undesirables, who may not even be registered wikipedians, can see it, and edit it. This may incite/enable/inspire them to wreak further nuisance. I won't spell it out further - I don't want to give anyone ideas. Wickwack121.215.64.119 (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, people like you who aren't registered Wikipedians sometimes get pestered by those trolls, vandals, etc., and people like you often have good ideas about what to do about them. If we didn't let people like you see this page, we'd have a harder time keeping the encyclopedia in order. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up the top it says:

deletion of sensitive personal information → requests for oversight. Please DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone.

Everything else should be fine in a public forum. Note that it is a noticeboard for discussing things that are elsewhere in a public place, and private discussions have different, sometimes serious, issues of their own. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a well meaning, but perhaps unfamiliar, comment that isn't obviously going to change anything. I suggest closing it up. Nothing to be done. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is very likely the "reference desk troll", who has just been banned from Wikipedia as per the above discussion. --MuZemike 05:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not even on the same continent. German reference desk troll is German, and Wickwack's IPs are all Australian. I'm curious to how you arrived at this. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Nyttend: It isn't working, is it? Take a look at Ref Desk. The quality of questions, and answers, is dropping. These days its full of stuff like "Did I see the moon?", "Forcing another arsehole", and similar junk, plus frequent requests for medical advice. Some of the Wikipedia articles are dropping in quality too - they can seem like just someone running off their mouth, rather than being informative.

In answer to MuZemike: I can't tell whether you meant I'm the "reference desk troll", or you meant Shadowjams is the "refrence desk troll". If you meant me, then a) you have it wrong, b) you are shooting the messenger, so up your nose with a rubber hose, and c) banned??? banned from what???. If you meant Muzemike, well, I can't speak for him, but (c) still applies, and probably (b) as well.

Wickwack124.178.61.235 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean about it not working? There aren't any relevant threads here that I could find, but I found at least two threads at WP:ANI right now where un-logged-in Wikipedians are using the page as they're supposed to — in the middle of a controversy, one has proposed sanctions in a reasonable manner against another editor, and the other has participated constructively in a discussion about vandalism. When un-logged-in Wikipedians need administrative assistance, they need to be able to go somewhere, and if we didn't let just anyone see this page, where would they ask for help in problematic situations? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi. A poet is famous enough that his newly published books and poems -due to their political content- attract notable news coverage from main-stream news agencies. However, he has never won any major prizes. I wonder if he qualifies for notability to have a Wiki article. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTIST. Who is this poet and can you point to a few articles on their work? ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the guy. The articles in main-stream news agencies are not in English:

--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at most of them and only a few look like they cover the subject in a substantial way. Can't really say more because I have no clue if any of these are considered reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead, he is most likely notable. Just source every statement, since for most of us it is not easy to check with the Farsi sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANd use English-language sources whenever possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, add English language sources when possible. Do not omit the best sources merely because they're non-english--a good way to deal with cases like this is to include in the notes translations of the key passages that show the notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to be even clear, if there are no english sources available at all, but these are otherwise reliable for notability, just make sure to provide snippets of english translations (we assume accurate) when citing said sources (per WP:UE). Notability does not require sources be in English (though preferred if at all possible) --MASEM (t) 06:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your clarifications to my statement. The editor should make a positive effort to find English-language sources if they exist, or provide translations where necessary. Whenever possible, English-language sources should be used, so that our English-speaking readership can verify the citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for editor Echigo mole

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_proposal_for_editor_Echigo_mole

Nobody Ent 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since 2011, he's been repeatedly creating sockpuppets as per here to evade his block over a 1 year period, and It appears that he's just egregiously trolling, disrupting lots of Arbcom cases, and to many, he's just another disruptive troll and nuisance on this project. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde : Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout 01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Due to the nominator of this ban.
Support on procedural grounds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but Echigo has been indeffed. As I understand it, an indefinite block is more "effective" than a ban. See WP:BP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are, but that's ok :) Banning doesn't change the fact that he is indef blocked as well. Banning means the person is no longer part of the community (indef blocked people still are). See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Unofficially, banning offers more teeth in reverting and dealing with the user. A single admin can't undo a ban, only a block. And there is the statement part of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, this is the seventh time I am reporting an editor on ANI to get them banned. Khvalamde : Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout 01:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is nuts, these constant ban votes for editors that have been indef blocked forever are 100% pointless. And no, it isn't that I don't understand the difference, it is that banning Echo-whoever, and all the other trolls and puppeteers and vandals, isn't going to change one single thing for anyone. No admin was ever going to unblock him unilaterally. No one was ever going to get nailed for reverting him because he wasn't banned. No one considered him part of the community. We're not making any "statement" whatsoever. The only conceivable benefit is the warm glow in the belly from a good 2 minute hate, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. Khvalamde, I will pay you $5, a barnstar, and one free pass to say a rude word to someone here without getting blocked (or, if you are blocked by someone else, I'll unblock you immediately) if you just promise to never bring another ban discussion to this board. Please, I am begging. Stop this ridiculousness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thank you Buick Century Driver, that's an obvious one I forgot to list. There is no chance that the ban is going to convince them to go away. If anything, it might make them want to stick around to prove the ban is toothless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally I have nothing to gain from this. I surmise that Khvalamde was personally involded and this could be a last resort, but I could care less if Echigo mole comes back and makes good edits. Of course if the activity is vandalisim the best way to stop them is to protect the page they're targeting. Once they know they can't edit the page, they'll probably give up on what they were doing. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - To make sure I'm being clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ban them because they might become rehabilitated. Semi-protection isn't going to work on serial sockpuppeteers, it would be useless. But so is community banning them. We shouldn't have these votes all the time because they make no difference except to waste time and give a false sense of security. Echo-whatsis (along with the other VFB's here recently) is already defacto banned; there is no benefit to making it a formal ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not one to participate in these discussions, I seriously doubt this is going to keep this person away from the site. If efforts were made to steer this person away from his or her disruptive behaviour and they ignored, then there is nothing I can do to avert this person's fate. If not, then I strongly suggest we mitigate the block for 1 year and suggest he or she can return in the future. I also strongly belive that bans should be handled by the arbcom. They're experts in policy and usually wind up giving a fair sanction. Often these bans lead to nothing more than an endless game of cat and mouse with the user and the time it takes to keep them off could have been used to improve articles. –BuickCentury Driver 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see absolutley no harm in converting a de facto ban into a concrete one. If there's even a scintilla of a possible benefit in doing so, then it's a good thing. These are people for whom the collective good faith has totally run out, and I see value in the community affirming that -- or, if the proposed ban fails, in the community's realization that there is still some perceived value in keeping the possibility of the editor returning alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BMK, what scintilla of a possible benefit would that be? What possible benefit is there? I think it's far more likely that being banned gives them more incentive to mess with us. If anything, there is a scintilla of possible harm. The only benefit this thread will bring is the small joy I get from typing the fun not-used-often-enough word "scintilla" multiple times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Floquenbeam: One benefit is that the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight, which is not true of the edits of block-evading indef-blocked users. As for incentive, given his record, Echigo mole already has sufficient incentive to mess with us, ignoring him isn't going to change that, nor is banning him. -- I think Mathsci can confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, banning isn't a death sentence, things can change, community bans can be removed by the community, should there be a change of heart and a sincere demonstration of having turned over a new leaf. There's no particular reason to avoid an appropriate ban simply because it's a more restrive sanction than an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An indef blocked editor can't make edits, so what good does the revert on sight protocol do?Nobody Ent 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to enforce - editors do not need to spend quite as much time dealing with the disruption caused. As a one-off thing, it's no significant difference, but when it happens often, it can be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Floquenbeam has a good point. Why have a ban or block when said user can very easily step around that? See User:Grundle2600, User:CentristFiasco, and User:Ryan kirkpatrick for good examples of that. --MuZemike 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF -- user is already banned (defacto) and Floequenbeam's point is spot on. Nobody Ent 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not the ban, but the process of seeking a formal confirmation for it just for form's sake. We have a perfectly adequate policy on this: per WP:BAN, users who get themselves indef-blocked and then continue with a persistent pattern of block-evading sock disruption, already are considered de facto banned. The recent fashion of bringing up all these cases for formal reconfirmation of the ban has the effect of watering down this good old rule and spreading the myth that the old principle of "a banned user is any user who no admin would ever want to unblock" somehow is no longer valid. There is no difference between a formally enacted ban and a de facto ban of this sort, except that theoretically the threshold for an admin to try to override it and unblock a user would be lower for the latter type. But in most cases this possibility is remote and any unblock would quickly be overturned with a massive troutslap, so it doesn't really matter. For this reason I basically agree with Floquenbeam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the opposes are less than convincing as to the merits of whether or not Echigo is considered banned. I am a little more than appalled at the logic that we shouldn't ban or block an user just because they can find a way around it; why bother having useful edits made to the encyclopedia if all the work are inevitably going to be damaged by vandals, tendentious editors, and other users who should not be editing Wikipedia? While I appreciate the frustration regarding why should we necessarily confirm a ban from so long ago just because of some recent socking, that does not really warrant an oppose to this ban because it does nothing more than confuse/complicate matters - an oppose would mean there is some willingness to unblock the user (so a ban is not warranted), while your rationales apparently contradict that as there is no clear support from you regarding the ban itself. If you are getting annoyed with an user unnecessarily bringing up ban discussions on an ongoing basis regarding indef blocked users where official bans are not necessary (in light of the defacto bans), comment on their talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - when too much editor time is unnecessarily being wasted on cleaning up, I am not going to oppose efforts to cut down on that - purely because some admins fail to appreciate the difference this will have on other editors who do not have the luxury of extra buttons. I also don't agree that this is the appropriate discussion for "watering down our normal practices", so I am changing my comment to clarify my support for the ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I tend to think "what's it going to hurt to have a formal confirmation", but FPaS' point about this watering down our normal practices is convincing — this ban won't have a practical benefit and is part of a pattern that's not going in a good direction. Community ban proposals should be for people who aren't already (1) blocked indefinitely, and (2) obviously blocked permanently. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban due to abusive sockpuppetry. And as sick as some people are of seeing ban discussions I'm equally as sick of seeing them endlessly bitching about it. It's been discussed a million times. A community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single administrator. And the entire "de facto" bollocks is an utter debacle as I knew it would be. Every time there is a ban proposal there is this endless bullshit about "de facto this" and "indef is fine, nothing changes with a ban" that. Clearly it is different or there would be no such thing as a "ban", admins would just block people and leave it at that. The fact that ban proposals repeatedly come up indicates that you're not going to get your way and ban proposals will not stop unless you either eliminate the concept of a community ban or you change the way Wikipedia works, namely via discussion and consensus. If you don't want to participate in ban discussions nobody is holding your feet to the fire. But quit derailing every ban discussion with this endless bitching and griping, it is FAR MORE DISRUPTIVE than any ban discussion has ever been. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Floquenbeam. Thanks, Dennis, for the explanation and pointer. Could we make it any more complicated?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Strong support for community ban of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole Echigo mole started out life as A.K.Nole. He has wikihounded me since 2009 first as A.K.Nole and then using the account Quotient group. (On Wikipedia Review, he had the account Greg, if I remember rightly.) At that stage he was unwilling to admit to being an alternative account, but Shell Kinney interceded in 2010, corresponding with him by email, and he admitted to being an alternative account of A.K.Nole and agreed to stop wikihounding me. That promise did not last. He subsequently edited as:

Taciki Wym (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Holding Ray (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Julian Birdbath (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Zarboublian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

He trolled on arbcom pages using ipsocks in the range 212.183.1.1/16. The edits he made relating to me are catalogued here:

User:Altmathsci/vodafone

That editing was clarified by the arbitration committee in January 2011, when it was unclear whether these edits were by A.K.Nole or Mikemikev. Elen of the Roads informed me that they were by A.K.Nole and the ip range was blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney along with the above named sockpuppets. The other sockpuppet accounts can be found on the investigation page and include the following accounts:

Echigo mole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Krod Mandoon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
A.B.C.Hawkes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Glenbow Goat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Laura Timmins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Old Crobuzon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Reginald Fortune (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Tryphaena (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
William Hickey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ansatz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Southend sofa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
The Wozbongulator (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Since December 2011 they switched from vodaphone to the ip ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16. The diffs of all the edits related to me were described during the current arbcom review. That information was gathered up to 13 April, but there have been about 30 edits since then and several ipsocks blocked by either arbitrators or administrators.

Edits in the range 94.196.1.1/16 : [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]
Edits in the range 94.197.1.1/16 [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]

This person follows my edits and pretends to have expert mathematical knowledge (they are barely at a second year undergraduate level in mathematics, probably only have done a course in computer science, and are generally clueless about any mathematics that is graduate level or beyond). They troll on arb com pages, arbcom clerk talk pages and arbitrator talk pages. Instead of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, MuZemike could have attended to the outstanding checkuser case (Krod Mandoon) which Courcelles dealt with by indefinitely blocking the account and removing his trolling edits on the Requests for amendment page. This user has worked out my real life identity and has attempted to out me in various places. Amalthea has suggested that a Long Term Abuse file be prepared for this editor. It would not look very different from the above, but I would be cautious in describing the way in which this wikihounder goes about outing me. I have to be continually vigilant. Having said I would support a community ban, the LTA is more helpful. I do know of one community banned editor who is editing through another account. At the moment it is not worth reporting, since his editing patterns are not disruptive (he has started university in a new location and that I would guess is more suited to his personality). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. The user's record is appalling. We don't need this kind of disruption. Prioryman (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of de-facto-banned users

Perhaps we should look for a more general solution to this issue of de-facto-banned users. As the thread above shows, there is, on the one hand, the long-standing practice, enshrined in WP:BAN, of treating indef-blocked users with persistent disruptive sock habits as de facto banned. On the other hand, there is perhaps a legitimate feeling of insecurity among some users confronted with the ugly task of cleaning up after such users, because without a formal ban decision they don't feel confident they can safely invoke the 3RR exemption while dealing with the socks, or they feel they might less easily find admin support for getting them blocked, etc. However, as Floq's comment shows, some of us have misgivings about the trend of having a growing number of such cases brought up here for confirmation merely for form's sake.

Maybe we should think of a simpler alternative to solve both problems? How about we add a "de facto" section to the official list of banned users at WP:BANNED? Any admin could add a user name there if (a) the user has been indef-blocked for a longish period; (b) there has been a significant, persistent pattern of disruptive block evasion; (c) the reasons for the block are such that the block appears likely to remain permanent. On adding a name to the list, the admin would merely give a brief notification to WP:AN, without the need for a formal confirmation through a !vote (but an AN discussion about the user's status could of course be held if there are objections). The listing would serve the purpose of giving other editors a formal assurance that socks of this user can be treated with full "banned means banned" force, and it would also be a signal to other admins asking them not to consider unblocks lightly and without prior consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a good solution to the issue (although this solution is far too logical and practical for me to expect it to be implemented by this community). Sven Manguard Wha? 15:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me an example of an editor getting in trouble for reverting a de facto banned but not de jure banned vandal, puppeteer, or troll? I have never seen this happen. We remove the edits of block-evading indef-blocked but not-officially-banned users all the time. Who has ever tried to revert Echigo mole, for example, and been stymied or threatened because someone said "Echigo mole isn't banned"?
If that happens, then de jure banning makes sense; but I don't think it happens. The only time banning makes a difference for reverting all edits is when someone who is indef blocked is making edits that some people want to be able to revert, and others don't. But that is not the case with de facto banned vandals, socks, and trolls that get brought up in votes for banning so frequently.
If the fear of a 3RR block for reverting a de facto banned editor is driving this, wouldn't it be much simpler to just change the wording of WP:EW to say that reverts of de facto banned editors is exempt too? That would certainly match current practice, anyway. Better than another process, IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What's to change? WP:NOT3RR already lists "indefinitely blocked accounts." Nobody Ent 15:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. (pause) Nevermind. I don't think it used to say that. Then yes, I don't see a need for anything more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Sven Manguard; this proposal does seem to sort out a large chunk of the problem. As to the alternative "change the wording of EW" proposal suggested after that, imho, the same problem would exist: there is too much of a grey line as to whether (and the point at which) editors can actually consider certain users as de-facto banned - with admin support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's gray? Open the users block log -- if they're indef'd as a sock they're de-facto banned and their edits can be reverted. Nobody Ent 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, that understanding is not quite right. An indefinite block for being a sock does not automatically mean the user is defacto banned, at least from my reading of sockpuppetry, blocking, banning and administrator policies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although you have made this change to sockpuppetry policy since my comment, I don't think that quite cuts it either. I can see a situation where an editor (who evades a particular block made by a certain admin) proceeds to make constructive edits; in that case, even though the blocked user should theoretically wait for the official unblock to be granted, it does not mean that a reversion of the constructive edits is permitted by default. In fact, a flawed original block may be what led the user to appeal in that misguided way. The distinction between that user, and a banned user, is that only after careful consideration, the community have deemed that the unconstructive edits of the banned user outweigh the positive contributions the banned user may/will produce - which is why any edits by that user may be reverted on the spot. I am of the view that enacting Fut Perf's proposal may produce a more meaningful outcome in terms of settling this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reservations about using something like "de facto" banning as acceptable, because there is always the unlikely but possible chance that, for instance, someone who is apparently a new sockpuppet isn't a sockpuppet. The legal system had similar problems with executing people who were later found innocent, for example. Having said that, I do think that it makes sense to have some sort of confirmation of "de facto" banned users. Maybe a rather unfortunately legalistic vote to formally ban a list of "de facto" banned editors on a somewhat regular basis, like every three months, might work best. This would give individuals who are not sockpuppets a chance to maybe build up a case before the axe falls on them. At the same time, it would help admins who hesitate to perhaps go beyond what they see as being clear in policy regarding "de facto" banned users have the question cleared up for them. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta support in that it reduces, but does not eliminate the problem. The problem can be eliminated by not bothering to have these discussions about such obvious cases, but OK, fine, if someone wants to create a list, as long as the list contains a phrase which says that not being on the list doesn't mean anything, than fine. In other words, the existance of a list of de-facto banned users does not mean that a person not on the list is not also de facto banned. That is, disruptive users who continue to be a disruptive force continue to be treated exactly like every other banned user regardless of any discussion or placement on a list or anything else. The list is fine, and if it can reduce these discussions, fine, but that doesn't mean that we should suddenly stop reverting disruptive users on sight merely because some pointless bureaucratic event has not occured first. --Jayron32 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The "De Facto" crap needs to be destroyed with fire. As long as it exists, people will spend endles kb arguing over what it means, who can tag as "de facto" banned, etc. And "De Facto" banned is nothing different from an indef block meaning any admin can come along and unblock them while a community or arbcom ban can only be overturned by community consensus or via Arbcom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a user who is blocked is evading the block, they can and should be treated as a de facto banned user. To take any other approach is to encourage block evasion. Rather than creating a new list or having these long discussions again and agin, we should just make this clear in the policy so we don't need to do either of those things. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Burpelson's point is a very good one: when a single admin can undo a "de facto" ban, and the boundaries of what is and isn't a de facto ban can be endlessly argued about, the community ban provides a straightforward statement of the editor's staus, one that can't be argued away, can't be undone by a single admin having a bad judgment day (it does happen occasionally), and requires the voice of the community to overturn. Along with the increased latitutde to revert edits, these are concrete benefits to continuing the institution of the community ban, and not undercutting it by refusing to implement it for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actions and behavior of the subject editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a block

Resolved

–

User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please block User:Qais13 for good? The user has been turning Wikipedia articles into a mockery for over a month and nobody seems to have paid any attention to that. This is what the article about Shahnaz Pahlavi looked like before that user started tampering with it and this is what he or she turned it into: claims about Farah being a monarch and the Shah being merely a consort, photographs of Queen Dina of Jordan and the singer Googoosh being presented as photographs of Shahnaz Pahlavi, claims of a dual Empire of Iran and Budapest, etc, etc. The user has done the same thing with a number of other articles, as can be seen [75]. Therefore, I once again beg that someone blocks this user. Surtsicna (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qais13 looks to me like a vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user made some of the most bizarre edits I have ever seen. My jaw cannot help dropping when I discover another articles visited by him or her. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Block I had the Shahnaz Pahlavi article on an informal watch due to having to remove some other nonsense a few weeks back. Qais13's edit history (there and elsewhere) shows a definite pattern of adding details of a bizarre fantasy world inhabited by certain royals and pop-cultural favourites, with absurd alterations to personal details and factual and historical records. Messages to the talk page have not been answered, and seemingly ignored, as these edits continues without any sign of attempting to adhere to guidelines. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this on WP:AN instead of WP:ANI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BW is correct that this is more appropriate for ANI, but since it's here, and easily resolved, probably easier to leave it. I looks like some of the edits are real (not sure, the subject matter isn't my strong suit), but so many are so obviously goofy or fantasy or wrong that we can't be expected to sort which is which each time he edits. Combined with the lack of response to talk page messages, I'm indef blocking... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

We have a back log of stuff at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.Moxy (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request closer for old, complicated RFD

We have an open RFD that is now approaching 2 months open. It can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Tai chi, and the discussion is quite involved. But at almost 2 months of discussion, with the last comment well over a week ago, this needs closing. But the complexity is likely a good part of why no one has stepped up to close it. So if someone with a bit of time is willing to wade into closing this one, it would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks to Jc37. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

GRANTED

Autopatrolled granted. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was told to post this here if I ever wanted to get any rights, but I suppose this is the place to say that I got nominated for Autopatrol. I was nominated by Breawycker public (Breawycker) earlier today. The nomination by Breawycker was supported by Dr. Blofeld. I have no issues with this, but I want to see what others have-to-say. I also had a barnstar on my talk page, which told me to go request it (after I was nominated) because I spammed up New Pages with articles about beetles. I would like the community's voice on this. (I had nothing to do with the nomination before seeing it.) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I literally mentioned this on your talk page seconds before you posted here. You're clogging up New Pages Patrol with your damn sourced, notable, well-intentioned articles. :) elektrik SHOOS (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been told 'hundreds' (not literally) of times today. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I made 250-300 'acceptable stubs'. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re-open

I would like to re-open the above thread, as it appears to have been prematurely closed by the requestor. Tom asked me this week here if I was willing to revisit his topic ban from requesting userrights to have autopatrol and I said no, as people were still finding copyvios and issues with his mass new page creations. I find it fairly disingenuous of Tom to post at Wikipedia:PERM/A#User:Tomtomn00 and not mention his restriction or my recent denial of autopatrol or this other ANI thread about misuse of automated tools. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't request them, I don't honestly need them. Take 'em away if you like. I'd have no issue with it. I can't take responsility for this, as it was supported, and some of my pages were patrolled by the admin who granted me it.--Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. The rights should not be granted unless this user creates more articles in different areas for atleast 1-2 months without any deletion or copyvio issues coming up. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 22:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support or, actually, until April 2013 perUser_talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/15#Blocked. Granted, technically he did not request the right, but the spirit of the agreement suggests that he should not accept them, either. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I'm not asking you to take responsibility for other people's actions. I'm saying I think it was disingenuous to participate in the discussions they started about giving you autopatrol without disclosing other relevant information. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly realistic to expect Tom to turn up at such a discussion and start listing reasons he shouldn't have rights proposed by someone else. Quite adequate for someone else to provide that information.

Nor is there any suggestion that him not speaking up in such a way was an attempt to allow the nomination to carry on "under the radar". After all, he opened this section here so that there will be plenty of scrutiny from anyone with an interest in it. (He shouldn't have closed it quite so fast, but that was easily fixed.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but he did that in the earlier request on his page, so I was surprised he did not continue his openness at the RFPERM. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I absolutely agree! Asking for the community's 'voice' and then closing the discussion after only 1 comment (and less than 50 minutes after opening it), is certainly not a good thing. Tomtomn00's article creation history (other than the single sentence, single source 'beetle' articles) leaves a great deal to be desired, in my opinion, and, despite the fact that autopatroled has already been granted, deserve a closer look. Tomtomn00's proclivity for deleting (quickly) negative comments on his talk page and almost hourly archiving (in a number of different places) make it difficult to review the history of comments. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have no comment on whether or not he should have the autopatrolled right. However, I should point out that numerous users today, including myself, independently and with no prior knowledge of his rights record suggested on his talk page that he should apply for the right. This was because today alone he created 40+ stub articles about assorted species of beetles, all of which were adequately sourced and notable. Assuming good faith here, it's likely that he requested the right because several people thought he should do it, and not because he was trying to get around admins and game the system. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created around 300 stubs. I was nominated. I got support from a few unknown editors - I didn't ask. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If NPP think he should have it, by all means grant it as you guys are the experts in that area. I don't think he was trying to game the system either, but there have been enough blanked complaints and deletion notifications on his userpage that I thought this matter deserved further attention. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the admin who granted Tomtom autopatrolled status after seeing his many creations today and the threads on his talk page. I was unaware of his history of copyright violations and topic ban. While I do think that absent that history, what he did today would justify granting autopatrolled, I'm not thrilled to realize I granted it without full knowledge of that history. I can only blame myself for not looking at the history of his talk page. If anyone with more detailed information about Tomtom's history thinks his getting autopatrolled status today was not a good thing, I have no objections to its being removed again. Also, feel free to slap me with a trout. LadyofShalott 03:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on the formatting of the beetle articles he created. I see that the year was linked in "It was discovered in (insert year here)." What's the latest ruling on WP:MOSDATE? Yes or no to linking year in general? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATELINK says that Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter — that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. →Σ τ c. 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Σ, okay! I'll fix 'em later. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 06:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small solution to this. First, someone takes a look at my article creations (while I have autopatrol) at the end of this month. Second, if they're 'copyvios' or just nonsense, the right should be removed. If not, it should stay. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution is to prevent recurrence of the original problems. Having had Tomtomn00 on my watchlist for a long time, and have seen even fairly recent issues, I am taking LofSh up on their offer and have removed the autopatrolled bit. There is no way this editor should have the ability to bypass patrolling, especially considering their recent history. Give me 6 months of no problems, feel free to re-apply with pure honesty and open-ness (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Lady I was also unaware of the topic ban and copyvios. Either way though I'm sure the editor learned his lesson last time and won't do it again. I say give him two weeks trial and if he botches up stubs then remove the autopatrol.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned since then. I passed Demiurge1000's copyright mentoring course a few days ago. Dr. Blofeld, I like your suggestion of giving me it back, with a two-week trial — however, I would extend to 3 weeks for more information. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have only slightly learned, and your attitude is showing it. Look, when a med-student takes a course in surgical implements, I'm not going to send him into the operating room the day after. Practice practice practice, especially after your history: heck, if I remember correctly you were almost given a long long break from this project. You need to prove yourself, and acting like this is quite the opposite (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess... I'll have to try and not spam up NewPages with beetle articles, as I've got 100's-of-thousands left to do. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your FIRST step is to go back and fix the problems with the ones you created already - do not create a single stub until every single one of the originals are fixed according to the WP:MOS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. I was told the stubs are good, but I'll have a go. Doing.... --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Yes, the rights have gone and been removed (I would've liked a vote before they were removed). As fixing the Category on the pages would take a while, Dr. Blofeld suggested I should get AWB. Quote:

“

You should apply for AWB to make repetitive editing mistakes, would save time..

”

— I replied stating the fact that I cannot do that. After that it was suggested I apply for autopatrolled myself by Mr. Stradivarius. Quote: "Hi Tomtomn00. Let me add to the above remarks that you shouldn't be marking these pages as patrolled yourself, either. (E.g. this one.) That's a bit of a wikiquette no-no. :) You probably want to apply for the autopatrolled user right instead." Thanks for reading, --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*blink* Marking your own creations as patrolled? Make that 12 months, problem-free before requesting the permission in the future. Just because someone who doesn't know your entire history suggests something, doesn't mean you try and get it - especially when you personally know your own issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mark them as patrolled, that was when I was autopatrolled — but they thought that. I was meant to point out the autopatrol bit. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 11:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that above that Bwilkins did go ahead and remove the autopatrolled right from Tomtom. I don't disagree with that move at all. As far as marking one's own edits as patrolled, I'm willing to take Tomtom's word that he didn't do that; edits were just autopatrolled during the few hours he had that right. However, I am quite surprised to learn that it is even possible to patrol one's own edits. I didn't think the system allowed that. Surely that's a technical glitch that could be fixed? We should not ever have a question of if someone patrolled his/her own articles. LadyofShalott 12:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If someone gets the bit it means they are fit to patrol articles. If they have understanding which articles could be patrolled, why can not they patrol their own articles which are still available in the queue (provided of course they are fine to be patrolled)?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now as I though about this, probably if someone becomes an AP, all their articles in the queue get patrolled. If this is correct, there is no issue about partolling own articles. I am not sure however.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have figured out in your second post, yes, if a person has the autopatrolled right, their new articles are automatically patrolled - that is, in fact, what it means to have the autopatrolled right. LadyofShalott 14:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you did not get my point at all (and did not bother to check the logs, for instance my patrol log, to make sure you did), but never mind. My point was that if it is technically possible for someone to patrol their own articles, I do not see anything wrong with patrolling their own articles. I am not sure though this is technically possible. It is anyway definitely not the case for Tomtomn00, as they never patrolled their own articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your patrol log has to do with it, as I was never commenting about your patrolling at all. Anyway, I am glad for the confirmation from Reaper Eternal that patrolling one's own edits is not technically possible. LadyofShalott 19:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles which I was 'believed' to have patrolled myself were the ones when I actually had the right, and were done automatically. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that it is not technically possible to mark your own page creations patrolled, and if you are autopatrolled, they will never be unpatrolled to begin with. The aforementioned log entry is due to the 'autopatrolled' flag. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that Reaper Eternal. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-autopatrolled user X created an article Y and next day became an autopatrolled, does the article Y become patrolled?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not — I noticed that when I had autopatrol. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean then that one technically can patrol their own articles (I know you did not do it)?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Only the new pages are automatically patrolled, that is all. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am lost. I am an AP and I am doing NPP on a regular basis. I just go to the list of new articles, see which ones are non-patrolled ("yellow") and patrol them (usually editing first). If I would see my own unpatrolled article (which is not going to happen, since I have been an AP since august), what would technically prevent me from patrolling it in the same way?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is prevented, even if autopatrolled, or sysop, or 'crat or anything. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I would not see this "Patrol this article" clickable link in the bottom right of the page if this is my own page?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will see it, but you can't patrol it. See the notice you get here. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia town

I recently discovered this news story about "Monmouthpedia". The launch of the "Wikipedia town" is tomorrow so it might be good to keep a close watch on the pages in Category:Monmouth, Wales. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely going to be some bad eggs there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA. I still think/hope that QR codes are a fad that will soon pass once a more compact form of information known as the "name" is introduced. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global blocking interface message needs to be migrated

Note that this was posted at WP:VPT but no-one paid any attention whatsoever. Instead of MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked, MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked is now the message shown to users when they are globally blocked. These two messages do not have the same number of parameters (4 for the former, 5 for the latter). Can admin please make the conversion of MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked to something like MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I'm not even going to read the thread below, as I know I can't fix that!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you do realize that the two don't have the same parameters?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not fixed then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe $6 is optional. All that needs changing is $4→$5 and $5→$6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fae

Here is yet another case of an editor (Cyberpower678, in this case), starting a noticeboard thread about another editor (Fæ, in this case), without trying to work out the dispute with that editor first. So I'm closing this on that basis, and also on the basis that:
(1) as LadyofShalott says, we don't do "proposals" to open an ArbCom case with voting, you either open one or you don't,
(2) people (even Jimbo) ask people who annoy them to stay off their talk page all the time; this is not something that needs administrator intervention,
(3) the Fae/Ash stuff has already been belabored to death in the RfC, and further belaboring it on AN will do no good whatsoever, and
(4) if you want further action such as requiring a reconfirmation RfA, you'll have to go to ArbCom, because administrators cannot compel anyone to do a reconfirmation.
And to reiterate, please stop opening noticeboard threads about your fellow editors without first trying to work out the problem or dispute with them directly. 28bytes (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved from WP:ANI#User:Fae.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this user hacked at by a lot of people but, I've been impartial when it always happened. Today, an incident that happened at commons, was discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales where User:Fae has been very inappropriate making harsh statements at almost everything demonstrated here: [76], [77], [78] (Actually it's best if you look at the thread here)

Many users as evidenced in the thread complained about Fae's attitude and some even wondered why he hasn't been banned from Wikipedia.

This eventually led to the result of Fae getting banned from Jimmy's talk page.

I am sure that this is not the only time Fae has acted this way and is certainly not what is expected from an administrator. This repeatedly has demonstrated qualities an administrator should not possess. On top of that during their initial RfA, he failed to disclose his previous account, User:Ash (which there seems to be heavy speculation about by a vast amount of editors), which would have almost certainly caused that RfA to fail had it been known earlier. I am suggesting an Arbitration case be opened concerning User:Fae's ability of being a fit admin. Involved parties best recuse from this however they may comment. I am open to comments about this but I ask that fellow editors be constructive and civil about it.

I will notify all the users involved in this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the primary members involved. Others maybe notified too if need be.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I might add that User:Cyberpower678 did not notify Fae of this discussion (I've done so), did not sign it, and put in a structure for !voting before anyone has even commented (I've removed that). I, too, see no evidence of any of the assertions Cyberpower makes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have give me time to notify users.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have no opinion one way or the other, but for the record this is the diff about the talk page...request...by Jimmy Wales, not the diff linked to above. - Sudo Ghost 01:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)The diff was fixed. - Sudo Ghost 01:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I saw this much earlier today, and it looks like Jimmy has already handled it by asking them to stay off his talk page. I don't see a need to labor the issue here. This has already turned into a train wreck of bad diffs, bad formatting and strikes. Maybe we should just go do something else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beats the constant edit conflicts I keep getting when I try to correct what I wrote or respond. Boy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There was only one diff wrong and the this thread is about whether Fae should face ArbCom or not. Everyone makes mistakes, especially me since I am half asleep at this point and pulled the wrong diff.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly talking about Egg's participation more than anything, as far as the screws ups are concerned. But I also don't think it needs to be at ANI. Jimmy handled it. If Fae doesn't stay off his talk page, that would be different. AN might be a better choice that ANI if you just want a discussion, as the "incident" was already handled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important for UK Wikipedians: I read the vid's description, and figured, since I'm in the Isle of Man if that is what I think it'll be it'll either be legal (possibly even encouraged if yer hubby's at sea!) or I would be disembowled next week. Figuring there was no chance of a prison sentance, I took the plunge. Anyway, it is definitely illegal in the UK to "possess" that video, which by current case law includes having it in your browser cache. I strongly recommend that no one based in the UK view it. Egg Centri c 01:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion at Jimbo's page about The Good Old Naughty Days made it clear it had an "R18" rating, which I don't think is as illegal as you say. Wnt (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was before the extreme pornography laws (mostly designed to be censor bdsm type stuff, based on a murder case where frankly the evidence agains the accused was extremely weak from what I can see - everything I have read about it makes me believe it was a miscarriage of justice (although I was not at court) and if he had "dunnit" it's hardly a reason to censor things for the rest of us </rant> which also happened to meak bestiality illegal, to the extent the CPS tried to prosecute someone for a film with fucking Tony the Tiger in it, going "this is grrrrrrrrrrreat". Admittedly it was thrown out/dismissed/overturned on appeal - can't remember which off the top of my head, but they FUCKING TRIED TO PROSECUTE THAT. If you think they'll leave that alone just cause it has a rating, good luck to you... Egg Centri c 03:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If our article R18 certificate is wrong, please fix - it says that possession of R18 material is not illegal. I see about the Tony the Tiger prosecution [79] - it was dropped, but under the most ironic terms. The soundtrack indicated that a necessary element of thoughtcrime in the possession crime was not present! I am hoping that some court in Britain had some ability to uphold rights and put a stop to that more firmly, but I don't know... Wnt (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhoo, clarification please?

Is this purely about Fae's conduct? If so I have to agree with Mr. Brown. It seems that this is primarily a meta issue (and I'll be the first person to say that meta is full of bastards, you should see what I got a month block for) while Fae's conduct on Jimbo's talk page, while regrettable, is basically between them and Jimbo and tbh unless Jimbo says that he wants to make something official, by my interpretation of the rules they can still post on his page. More interesting is whether any user may remove their comments from Jimbo's page on sight, and my personal opinion is that they could remove contributions to threads, but not threads started by fae or posts their-in. D U C Y? Egg Centri c 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Ok, thank you Cyber. I'm still of the opinion that Jimmy has already handled the sitution, but taking it here is much better than ANI. I'm still a little vague as to the purpose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, now I see you are asking if Fae should be sent to ArbCom. My answer is no. A public spanking by Jimmy seems adequate punishment for the single "crime". At least Jimmy thought so. I noticed you were rather vague when saying "I am sure that this is not the only time Fae has acted this way" which isn't convincing without diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't care about calls for Fae's adminship were it not for the fact that some of the people who've been talking past him (names can be provided) have been equally, if not more so, unreasonable and belligerent. Much of this seems to stem from a few people who take an extreme position on BLP and Commons and attempt to ram their personal opinion on it into everything, screaming for people's heads if anyone dares to offer a different opinion; they're sometimes successful because a lot of people don't take the time to carefully check over their claims. Let's see how this plays out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I was acting premature in opening this discussion?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's necessary (and incidentally, you are not one of the people I'm referencing above), but I'm persuadable. My initial impression isn't always right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to be impartial about everything.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I don't think you have yet provided enough information to support your claims, however. I'm assuming that could be fixed, and would recommend it. For instance, I've been around Fae a few times, but I avoid the BLP dept. and don't have an opinion on him one way or another. If you were looking for input from uninvolved persons, more diffs and detail would be needed. Otherwise, you tend to attract only those that have fixed opinions in the matter. I will have to just check in the morning and see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blade here. So far as I understand Fae's "crime" is saying "the bestiality video [argument] that Jayen466 has been spending his time promoting and shouting about, so often and on so many platforms." Well I know I wouldn't have watched the silly thing if he hadn't pointed it out at [80]. So I regard Fae's statement about that as factually accurate so far as I know (I know nothing about the e-mails, but I heard no dispute of them), and altogether appropriate. Whereas the complaint against him is VolunteerMarek's response "the bestiality video that Jayen466 has been spending his time promoting - What the fuck Fae, did you really just write that? As in, explicitly stating that another user is promoting bestiality videos? WHY. ARE. YOU. NOT. BANNED. FROM . THIS. PROJECT????? Come on Jimbo, it's about time for a little bit of common sense here. This really has reached Level: Insane." Now I must have an unimaginative definition of 'civility', because I found Fae's comment to be what I'd call "snarky", whereas the response ... well, suffice it to say that I am disappointed in Jimbo for seemingly accepting that response as A-OK, and appearing to agree with it. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I put no stock in Jimbo's opinions at this point. His views are very disconnected from those of the community, yet people still treat his word as gospel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respect Jimbo for what he's accomplished, and for laying down many good principles. So I've tended to fall toward a more Dutch Revolt sort of political position; that Jimbo is the good and rightful monarch, whose ear has been bent by bad advisors. Also, I have to recognize that there are elements out there hostile to many aspects of Wikipedia's free-ranging pursuit of information, and that Jimbo often may find it politic to humor them to some extent. I only hope that by putting forward the appropriate opposing arguments, I might somehow help him to resist... still, as I said, in this case I am disappointed. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put not your trust in princes... Prioryman (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of merits, the question you have to ask is what would arbcom say to the case you're considering submitting. Arbcom has already declined action regarding the RFA situation. Arbcom can be inconsistent, but they tend not to accept cases that are solely "conduct unbecoming" that don't involve any sort of tool usage. If they followed pattern they'd probably point you to RFC/U.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cube lurker, can you point to the page where Arbcom declined action regarding the RFA situation, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble locating the exact conversation. I have recollection of this conversation happening, but I think only observed, so I don't have a good diff trail. It's possible though that I'm remembering wrongly, I should change my wording to "I think arbcom declined..."--13:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My advice for Fae is to just focus on articles for a month or two, unwatch all the drama boards and just find a quiet part of the project to hang out in. Maybe try to get Soulforce or Cathedral of Hope up to good or featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to do the same on Commons--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really familiar with most of the discussion, but I have one question: would Fae be willing to stand for a recall/confirmation vote as an admin? In other words, if s/he was applying for adminship, what are the chances s/he would be elected? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were two RFC/Us: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ. The first was initiated by User:Delicious carbuncle, highlighting problems with misuse of sources in BLPs, but was closed with "User has stopped editing Wikipedia. Delisted due to inactivity." When it became apparent that the user hadn't stopped editing, for even one day, but had simply changed his user name, Delicious carbuncle restarted the process under the user's new name.

Several issues were discussed in the second RFC/U.

Ash/Fæ pretended to be retiring from Wikipedia and so avoided looming sanctions (a probable topic ban on BLPs).
Ash/Fæ gave the false impression at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fæ that he had successfully gone through an RfC/U without sanctions - effectively a community endorsement.
Many editors called for Ash/Fæ to resign and re-apply for adminship.
Others called for him to voluntarily avoid BLPs, particularly those of people in the porn industry.
Ash/Fæ chose to do neither, and has since taken on a senior role at Wikimedia UK.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I just realised how bizarre this is, how can a Wikimedia member be banned from Jimbo's talk page? Egg Centri c 05:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole, it's very misleading of you to omit the fact that many editors felt that the attacks on Fae were part of a campaign of harassment (per Russavia; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ#Outside view by Russavia) and that Fae had not misled anyone (per Hobit; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ#Outside view by Hobit). Each of these outside views attracted at least three times as much support as your own view. I didn't participate in the RfC/U myself but there was substantial evidence that Fae was indeed being targeted for a combination of factors - personal enmity, political sniping against Wikimedia UK, and outright homophobia. It's perhaps not surprising in the circumstances that the RfC/U was a complete mess and came to no consensus on any of the claims against Fae. Given that the community didn't agree with the proposition that Fae should stand for re-adminship, and that any such RFA would be hopelessly tainted by off-wiki activism, I can't see any good reason for making him stand for reconfirmation as an admin. There's no suggestion now or previously that he's misusing the tools and an RFA would be the mother of all drama-fests. But I do agree that Fae would be well advised to keep a lower profile going forward. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two views you mentioned did get more !votes than mine, true. But the most endorsed view was that from Themfromspace:

"Ash quit under a cloud, with an active user RFC containing serious allegations about reliable sources and BLPs. If Fae really is Ash, ArbCom erred greatly in letting him stand for adminship without disclosing his past account to the community. With full transparency, its very likely the RfA wouldn't have passed."
— Themfromspace

It isn't a question of feeling, Prioryman. Fæ said at his RfA that he'd changed his name "after" an FfC/U (rather than during). That, coupled with his declaration that the former account had no blocks or sanctions, is a clear mischaracterisation of his standing and the circumstances under which he abandoned that name. I don't know if he intended to mislead. I do know that he did mislead. Seriously. When it became very apparent during the RfC/U that he had significantly misled at least some !voters at his RfA regarding his previous standing, the responsible thing to do then would have been to ask for reconfirmation.

Regarding animosity toward Fæ, I have none. I have found him to be pleasant, intelligent and helpful in the only direct encounter we've had. I'm not a homophobe, and I'm not a prude. The only issue I have with him is he ignored the very reasonable expectation that he should ask for reconfirmation and instead simply impugned the motives of the editor who drew attention to the facts.

Perhaps there is an evil campaign against him - I haven't a clue. But for our purposes here it is irrelevant. I am part of no campaign against Fæ. Though his misleading at the RfA may have been inadvertent, his refusal to acknowledge the problem and respond appropriately when it became clear that he had misled was deliberate. If this meets the behaviour standards of the admin corps, so be it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of Fae's responses are in themselves responses to a harassment campaign being conducted both on and off-wiki (through the likes of Wikipedia Review, though now it's moved to Wikipediocracy more). I mean, there is currently a thread in the main section discussion on Wikipediocracy about Fae, where the users there are just going back and forth insulting him. And since a number of those users are also editors on-wiki, his reactions aren't really that surprising. Silverseren^C 08:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a key element here. The attacks on Fae are crazy to me on many levels. What is going on with these people's lives that directing so much anger at someone online they've likely never even met seems like the best way to spend their time? Given Fae's involvement on non-enWP specific projects, I agree that a low profile on enWP drama boards for at least a few weeks might help move things forward. I generally try to stay far away from them - but in this case feel that the attacks on Fae are reaching a bizarre level. However, if the underlying homophobia, sexphobia and cyber-bullying against him continues, it seems unlikely he will, or should be expected to, take it all in silence. Jumping on each instance where he responds, and not going after instigators and trolls, is likely a waste of everyone's time - and certainly not for ArbCom. IMHO, Jimbo's unfortunate reaction seems more than enough of a response for the situation being discussed here. --Varnent (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear in the Jimbo discussion that Fae was being attacked by Wikipediocracy members, who were explicitly involved in that discussion, such as Volunteer Marek, who is one of the more main proponents attacking him. Not to mention Youreallycan, Jayen, and Cla. Silverseren^C 19:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what happens off-wiki and on Commons, but that kind of things requires an administrative recall and confirmation because our administrators suppose to be the most trusted members of the community, and there is a serious problem out there if he/she is not trusted even by the Founder.My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, most of us don't care what the founder thinks and, likely, aren't "trusted" by him. Jimbo's response is rather irrelevant. Silverseren^C 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you don't care what the founder thinks but many many users do. Your claim that his opinion is "irrelevant" beggars belief.Youreallycan 19:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should rephrase that. His opinion counts just as much as any other editor, per his own statements of how he wants us to treat him. Silverseren^C 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem is an interesting read on this subject. FWIW, I like Jimbo, but the man gets things wrong sometimes--just like everyone else. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all get it wrong sometimes - however some few people are inspirational and have tremendous creativity - and that is what created and still drives the project and we should/can and do take continued guidance from that source - The simple fact of asking the user not to post on his talkpage is pretty uncontroversial as far as it goes, pretty standard procedure. Youreallycan 19:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I agree re: continued guidance etc. It's certainly worth respecting his wishes about his talk page, which occupies a sort of special role here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also works both ways and in future any discussion of Fae's contributions should be closed down on Jimmy's talkpage as he is no longer able to respond there, which will help to reduce dispute/tension for the User. - I think this thread would be better closed as well. Youreallycan 20:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Going off of what I am reading, and getting mixed answers about Fae and his conduct. Therefore I have made a proposals subthread where we can make proposals regarding the course of action against User:Fae. Anyone is allowed to make a proposal but they should be logical, reasonable, and on topic. If non of the proposals pass, this matter will be closed with no action taken against Fae however, if a proposal(s) passes, this thread and discussion will remain open until proposal has been carried out. I have 2 proposals which anyone is welcome to vote on. I will remain neutral on this and not vote on any proposal.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

Condition: User:Fae is requested and required to submit themselves to a reconfirmation RfA. The user must disclose any previous accounts, sanctions, or possibly discussed sanctions. The community will then determine if Fae should remain a sysop or not. If the RfA fails, Fae will be desysopped. Fae is however, able to then submit themselves to another RfA to regain the bit at his discretion. Should User:Fae fail to open an RfA within 2 weeks, one will be opened for him.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Proposal 2

Condition: User:Fae is to undergo the process of arbitration by the arbitration committee where they will decide what to do with Fae.

I am aware that this proposal will most likely not pass but, input is welcomed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

You don't need a proposal to open an ArbCom case. You just do it, and they accept or not. (I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging this action; I just think a proposal about it is not useful.) LadyofShalott 20:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cyberpower, I think ArbCom has stated that there needs to be another RfC on Fae before they intervene. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the page, Cla68? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at WP:SPI

Clerks, admins & CUs needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly request from a 'crat

Hi all. I'm going to be excruciatingly busy this summer in real life. I'm not going anywhere, but I won't be able to give the project the focus I've been able to do over the last year. I'm here because WP:CHUU and WP:CHUS are still regularly backed up and people keep turning up at my userpage because they see I'm the most active person doing renames and want to know why I haven't gotten to their rename yet. I'm asking if people who think they are ready for RFB could please consider getting around to it so that they're in place for the summer. I'm glad to see we have one RFB currently running, but really think we could use at least a couple more crats to spread the work around fairly. If people are interested and want me to look over their backgrounds, I'm going to not be insanely busy for the next two weeks. As always, my email inbox is also open. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nirzhorshovon

Nirzhorshovon (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Just wanted to put this new user on others' radar. (Noted it at AN/I too.) They seem to be confused about editing. - jc37 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cohn-Sherbok, Dan (2000). Messianic Judaism. Continuum. p. 16.

[1]

@@ Line 607: / Line 607: @@
 Hi all. I'm going to be excruciatingly busy this summer in real life. I'm not going anywhere, but I won't be able to give the project the focus I've been able to do over the last year. I'm here because [[WP:CHUU]] and [[WP:CHUS]] are still regularly backed up and people keep turning up at my userpage because they see I'm the most active person doing renames and want to know why I haven't gotten to their rename yet. I'm asking if people who think they are ready for RFB could please consider getting around to it so that they're in place for the summer. I'm glad to see we have one RFB currently running, but really think we could use at least a couple more crats to spread the work around fairly. If people are interested and want me to look over their backgrounds, I'm going to not be insanely busy for the next two weeks. As always, my email inbox is also open. Thanks. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
+== User:Nirzhorshovon ==
+*{{user16|Nirzhorshovon}}
+Just wanted to put this new user on others' radar. (Noted it at AN/I too.) They seem to be confused about editing. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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