Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Closures needed on citation-related discussions

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SFD

Can some admins please come and help out at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion? The backlog there is out of controll again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Would admins close the following SfD discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub - already handled
2. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates - Needs action, see below
3. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub
4. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport- Needs action, see below
5. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies- Needs action, see below
6. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub- Needs action, see below
7. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28 - already handled
8. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2 - already handled
9. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6 - already handled
10. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories - already handled
11. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories - already handled
12. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/9#Several new English football stub types
13. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Ivory Coast sport templates
14. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Template:China-road-stub
15. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Category:Pakistan rail stubs
16. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/15#American football offensive lineman, pre-1900 birth stubs
17. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/16#'Pre-' category maintenance

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed, but left unactioned as I didn't know what to do :3 Stop by my TP if you can tell me what specific action is needed. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Agathoclea (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing many of the discussions listed above. I've added several more SfDs, which have become overdue. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did all the new categories and templates for the rail transport but found a few categories and templates that were not nominated at that I recorded at User:Agathoclea/AWB#strays Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals) closures needed

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Another merger requires an uninvolved party

Merge proposal regarding "2005 Ahvaz unrest" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close an outdated discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored unresolved request from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Being accused of sock/meat puppet with no solid evidence

When being accused, am I guilty and having to prove my innocence on Wikipedia? Or is it the other way around? Cause it sure feels like that here. I've done some research into an old group called Technocracy. It is pretty interesting to me, which is why I'm researching it still, but does that automatically portray me as a Meat or Sock puppet of someone else? I tried to meet middle ground on an edit war which occurred on the Technocracy Movement article. It was immediately reverted and I was accused of being a sock puppet and meat puppet of another user who was banned a few years ago. It also happened 7 months back when I was another user talk which you can see I expressed on my talk page....and from that user page you could find who I was when I didn't have an account. I think my edits were neutral and at the time seem non controversial. Until I kept on getting reverted and labeled a sock/meat puppet of the same user I mentioned earlier. I just want to know is this how wikipedia operates because it makes it very difficult to even contribute to something you seem lacking in encyclopedic material. That is why I started editing there. Because when I was researching the group and information related to Technocracy I found there was quite a bit of wrong information and even material that seemed very negative. Like calling the organization "fascistic" here [[1]]. I've even tried to talk about the issues on the talk board and still get zero responses from the editors who are reverting and accusing me. Googlesalot2 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's weird how three editors are working in collusion against me. That seems like the strangest thing of all. I remember one editor named epipelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic who came from nowhere last time and accused me of the same thing. He never edited on the articles before when I was in conflict with user Johnfos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnfos 7 or so months ago. Now another user Larwencekhoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo is now putting a tag of sock puppetry on my account. My edits ARE NOT EVEN NEGATIVE, POSITIVE, OR CONTROVERSIAL and I'm being labeled a sock puppet!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlesalot2 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your motives for editing here are the same as many of us: we Googled something that led us to WP and it was wrong, we realized we could influence that wrongness, and now we're here. But since Googlesalot (talk · contribs) is not blocked (and you admit this is also you), why would you feel the need to create Googlesalot2? You're probably not supposed to do that without an official name change. You explain on your page that it's because you like the number "2". That could sound like an odd reason to some people. Doc talk 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the rules that says someone can't abandon an account and create a new one. People actually do that all the time. As long as the editor isn't evading a block/ban it should be fine. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually lost my password a long time ago and didn't really bother to try and get it back mainly because of how I was treated previously when I was User: Googlesalot. I choose my current name to establish who I was and because 2 is actually my lucky number. When I registered this account about a week ago I was going to edit an article but just gave up, again, because of how I was treated the first time I came here. A week later I saw an article on the wall street journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html(discussing technocracy) and decided to check and see if the technocracy article was improved and low and behold, there was an edit war occurring. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see what the editors who have been accusing you of sockpuppetry have to say, so I have notified them of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some history is in order here. Some years ago we had two editors, acting in tandem, who strongly pushed a pro-technocracy POV on Wikipedia; the editors were Skipsievert (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked in November 2009 (see here) and AdenR (talk · contribs). In February 2011, we again had two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who engaged in disruptive POV pushing at Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated; the editors were FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot (talk · contribs). And now we again have two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who have engaged in disruptive POV pushing at various Technocracy-related articles; the editors are FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot2 (talk · contribs). The pattern of editing is the same in each case, only the names are different. Johnfos (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To read what Googlesalot2 has said above you would think that he is one of the best editors we have on WP, not a WP:SPA. G has said several times above that his edits are non-controversial, but that is far from the truth. Consider this edit. POV pushing is evident in that anything that may have portrayed the limitations of technocracy has simply been removed from the page. The statement that technocracy reached its peak in the early 1930s has been removed, and G generally portrays the technocracy movement as a vibrant going concern in 2011. Reliable sources have been removed. The edit summary does not adequately describe what has been done. As often happens, Googlesalot2, has directed any editors who disagree with what he has done to the Talk page; a better approach is to discuss controversial changes on the Talk page before they are made. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To add to Johnfos's history, the background disruption extends well beyond technocracy articles into sustainability and economic areas. Lawrencekhoo (above) has experience with the disruption to economic articles. In the sustainability area, the massive disruption of Skipsievert and his later partnership with AdenR is apparent in these talk page archives. Skipsievert stymied progress on this particular article for over a year, co-opting AdenR as the pressure built. You can quickly get the flavour of this disruption by searching on Skipsievert in this archive. To get another perspective on just how destructive Skipsievert is to the project, here are some ANIs about him: [2][3][4][5] and here are some other postings to noticeboards: [6][7][8][9][10][11] As Johnfos points out above, FidelDrumbo/Googlesalot now operate on technocracy articles with the same MO as Skipsievert/AdenR. Skipsievert and FidelDrumbo both occasionally resort to IP edits when they want to do additional reverts, and the location of those IPs match. Googlesalot appears just in the nick of time when FidelDrumbo needs him, just as AdenR did, in a manner that cannot just be coincidence. That is why I referred to Googlesalot as a meatpuppet. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC) FidelDrumbo has just now reverted the Technocracy movement article back to his POV, with an edit comment typical of the way Skipsievert games the system. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't "tandem" edit or "POV" push. If I have, then by the same logic I can accuse you of the same thing. I've have talked on the talk pages and have actively tried to discuss issues on the talk pages. Lawrencekhoo, epipelagic, and you haven't done anything of the sort. You tandem edit with both editors in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo. You all revert to same disputed material. You even revert small edits when the wording of the material is changed to meet neutrality. Like this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technocracy_movement&diff=453158380&oldid=452957615.

I've already had a talk with user Johnphos on the administrator board when I was accused of being a sock puppet. [[12]] That should be looked into for some history as well. I Want to continue the conversation from the past noticeboard material as it has some relevance here. User epipelagic came out of no where and started accusing me. He edited on the Technocracy movement article for the first time (twice) [[13]] [[14]] and then accused me of being a sockpuppet in the same day. [[15]].

I honestly think these users are working together to obstruct progress on the technocracy articles. They obviously knew or where in contact with user:skip and now want to "get back" by POV pushing negative material in the Technocracy articles.

I want to thank Johphos for actually trying to discuss the issues on the technocracy article. Thank you. Why can't you do that on the talk page? Here's a the quote in question.

Technocracy's heyday lasted only from June 16, 1932, when the New York Times became the first influential press organ to report its activities, until January 13, 1933, when Scott, attempting to silence his critics, delivered a rambling, confusing, and uninspiring address on a well-publicized nationwide radio hookup

I think the quote is fine except for the second part which is a bit strange to have. I'm guessing it's okay to put on the article since it is quoted material...but I thought any quoted material can be deleted if it is disputed? I'd be fine if it was written more neutrally and not a direct quote. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnphos has an ax to grind as to controlling some articles connected to that subject. I am not connected to any former parties mentioned, my account is not.

Apparently if anyone shows up on Wikipedia to edit the Technocracy related articles they have to put up with edit warring from Johnphos and his cohorts already mentioned by another editor here in a negative light as to their editing.

Looking at the history here it seems that Johphos does not like having a neutral presentation of the material on the Technocracy movement and the articles on the founding organization was repeatedly attempted by Johnphos to delete. The most notable group connected to Technocracy, he wanted to get rid of the article entirely. His arguments of those articles for deletion he created himself is telling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technocracy_Incorporated ... it appears he is casting around for negative and non neutral edits on this subject.

Looking at another player who reverts and edit wars there is a pattern of making as negative of an article on this subject as is possible.

Calling an organization fascist that is still around or editing to imply fascism is not accurate. The actual group was against fascism http://www.archive.org/details/GreatLakesTechnocrat-JulyAugust1947 but that information by some source keeps returning that they were a fascist group somehow. It is libelous maybe to a currently running group or at least not accurate at all to present it that way, not neutral.

Simple things like saying 'demise' of something is reverted. Demise means death or of something being over, and as an historic organization from the 1930's that is still around again it is not accurate to say it demised itself in the 1930's but that is the edit that is being negatively done by Johnphos. Read this article by a government website about the current status of that group, scroll down to the Technocracy section in the social security government website, these are the kinds of links that Johnphos has taken off http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Johnphos does not seem to care on neutral editing this material, to have articles controlled by little groups that want to slant things negatively and then accuse of socks and puppets and so forth when challenged, instead of making talk page discussion.

Johnphos who claims to be retired mostly from editing is a constant watchdog of putting old and not accurate info back into this article and as said tried a couple of times to have other articles connected deleted and does not contribute on the talk page as the other two people he edits with also do not. Wikipedia is a joke in many ways when tiny editing parties try to control presentation and then claim those that differences are part of an editing plot. Mostly I have ignored his insults and accusations but was alerted on my talk page to come here.

Looking at the history of Lawrence Khoo on these articles also being mentioned as a tandem editor with Johnphos it seems that he is a mainstream economist in the real world who also is enforcing negative edits and possibly is disgruntled by differing information from his published points of view. That seems pretty wrong if true and a problem with experts that try to control info on en. Wikipedia seems like a bad wrinkle and a non neutral trap. In other words its a competing system from his views and he seems to regard it with disdain and negative not accurate edits. Fidel Drumbo 04:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

The three users are now trailing my edits and reverting for no good reasons. What am I supposed to do with this behavior? Is this even allowed? Can I just revert anyone on the assumption that I think they are tandem editors? Here [[16]] on the Technical Alliance article, user:Johnphos has reverted my edits that includes reliably sourced material and then accused me of being a sock puppet. Here's another revert done by user:Lawrencekhoo [[17]] who also calls me a sock puppet. They are obviously working together. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? Groups can work together and accuse other editors without even discussing the edits in question?Googlesalot2 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think FD and G have gotten carried away with themselves, and that what has happened with the technocracy articles on WP is very sad. There are no doubt well-meaning people with a genuine interest in technocracy, and I respect that. And I wonder what they must think of what has gone on here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they think that the very acrimonious and public controversy which has been perpetuated here by just two editors is a terrible advertisement for the technocracy movement. Johnfos (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what you and your other two friends have done is a terrible advertisement for Wikipedia in general. Also, what do opinions on the perception of the technocracy movement have anything to do with the issues brought up on this board? The issues are that you and your two Wikipedia friends User: Lawrencekhoo and User:epipelagic are accusing an editor(me) of sock puppetry on nothing but flimsy opinions. You revert my edits which should't be controversial, and if they are then you three should at least talk about the issues on the talk page or at least revert the edits you contend instead of the whole revert. I honestly can't understand how you can come on here and talk about what I have done on the wikipedia articles as "very sad" when you barely try to work on the issues you believe I've done. I've tried to meet middle ground when you were editing warring with user:Fideldrumbo by just fixing two edits I saw as bad encyclopedic material. Like the "fascist implications" and the "rambling, confusing radio address quote". I immediately get reverted by your friend user:epipelagic instead of discussing it on the talk page which I have ask you all to do. All I get from you three is no responses and you guys just revert my edits. I've even tried to talk to you and user epipelagic directly and you guys just ignore me or delete your message off your talk pages. What kind of constructive behavior is that! This is why I believe you guys have some serious axes to grind that you must accuse an editor of sock puppetry just so you can keep the article to YOUR liking. When this is WIKIPEDIA where users can edit freely. It sure doesn't feel welcoming of Wikipedia to have to go to an article, edit and then get accused of sock puppetry from nowhere. Googlesalot2 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is clear behavioral evidence that FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot are socks. For example, Skipsievert used to insinuate that editors he was edit warring against were 'under investigation' by Wikipedia for bad behavior, just as FidelDrumbo did here. And here, FidelDrumbo goes to Skipsievert's talk page to remove an ANI notice. Googlesalot also shows amazingly good knowledge of Wikipedia's workings and terms for a supposedly new editor that has made a total of 43 edits for both accounts (including talk page edits, this ANI report and page reverts). I have filed a detailed SPI report on this matter. Please see here. LK (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, when LK says above that "FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot are socks" he doesn't mean they are socks of each other. The position is that Skipsievert/FidelDrumbo are socks of each other, and AdenR/Googlesalot/Googlesalot2 are socks of each other. From the behavioural evidence, there can be no doubt that is the case. In addition, AdenR+ clearly behaves as a meatpuppet of Skipsievert+. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. So I must be in cohorts because I know how to read and file complaints as was done previously to me when I was labeled a sock puppet 7 or so months back? I guess learning from others is an experienced editor thing? And apparently reading some articles every now and then on how to edit Wikipedia and applying that knowledge also makes me guilty? Now, after reading what I'm really accused of...which is a sock puppet of a probable sock puppet or meat puppet(AdenR) of skip seivert(was he a sock puppet too?), this is honestly becoming a circus. I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's sad. I'm not connected to any other users. I'm surprised admins haven't blocked you three or made a notice or something. I guess I don't really understand how Wikipedia works. I probably won't edit here again...maybe every now and then(won't lose my password this time, I might have to go through this all over again!). Heck, maybe another user will get accused as well of being a sock puppet of a sock puppet of a sock puppet cause they want to edit a few things on the Technocracy articles. Way to ruin Wikipedia LK for others. I guess only serviced editors of Wikipedia are allowed to edit articles. Tell your friends Johnphos and Epipelagic what I said for my defense on the SPI report. I'm done here. Thanks. Googlesalot2 (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This post from Googlesalot2 mirrors beautifully in manner and grammar the style of AdenR, see for example. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Case concluded here --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Treasury Tag

I regret to say that I have utterly failed at the first hurdle in my attempts to mentor Treasury Tag. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Perhaps a more skilled mentor would have more success. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So what shall we do? Propose a topic ban for all deletion nominations? No nominations for deletion for AFD or prod permitted. But permit copyright violation and attack and vandalism speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame, but perhaps not a surprise. I thought your proposed beginning editing restrictions during mentorship were fine - apart from "Don't write any whole words in edit summaries" which I just didn't understand. But I suspect this is because I didn't get the background problem which this is supposed to address. However TT flatly declined all the other proposed temporary restrictions (which would have left the vast majority of article space free to edit in) and as such I think no more skilled mentor could have achieved anything better. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While it may have left the majority of article-space free for me to edit, I don't edit the majority of pages. Nobody does. We all have specific interests. While I wouldn't be banned from writing about the music of Argentina or God in Hinduism or cricket in Zimbabwe, I have no inclination and no competence to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This idea of "there is a whole wiki to edit" always strikes me as missing the point (not to jump on you specifically Kim). I have zero interest in most of Wikipedia - and if the community stopped me editing pages I was interested in my response would just be to stop editing... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, these restrictions were designed to be temporary and allow Dweller the manouverability to focus on the areas that were shown to be problematic. That TT dealt in absolutes and refused to even discuss them - even attacking the only editor who came forward to put himself out to help TT has actually disappointed me. If you don't understand a reason for a restriction then the best way to deal with that is not through sarcasm.

I know that discussions regarding sanctions were largely postponed due to the fact that there was a mentor available, if TT does not appear willing to try, then I do not see any other option. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be a "start being a little nicer to people in words and actions" half of a two person mentoring team (if acceptable to TT). It would be limited to analysis, commentary and suggestions on behavior just in that area. Would be slower motion I have a 9 day period coming up when I'll be off the grid. The other person / half would would be more attuned to understanding/watching and dealing with their complex range of activities. Just an idea, don't know if it's viable. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a mentor that I could trust, thanks, North8000. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, with that declination (and that mis-characterization which ignores the outcome) I'm bowing out. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you would be willing to work with a mentor? Your comments on your talk page look to me like you are not willing to compromise, to limit yourself even in the early stages of the mentoring process. If you would like a mentoring team, perhaps I could help. You know my history and would you believe, I'm quite knowledgable on Doctor Who too. I do think you need to stop dealing in absolutes though and finding a solution that's acceptable to all Worm^TT · (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly on my talkpage, I'm happy to work with a mentor provided that a compromise can be reached that doesn't involve an outright prohibition on all my normal Wikipedia activities. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is your 'normal Wikipedia activities' that are precisely the problem here. But let's try this another way.

• What, as you see it, is the problem with your editing that so many people have raised so many times?
• How do you suggest these problems be addressed? → ROUX ₪ 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  Roux, you seem to believe that I'm under some sort of imperative here to (a) provide timely answers to any questions you may demand, and (b) to find a mentor and actively seek out editing restrictions.
  I won't insult your intelligence by going into detail about why (a) is bollocks, but as to (b) I think I should remind you that I am not currently blocked. I'm not currently topic-banned. There is currently no active proposal for me to be either blocked or topic-banned. And personally, I'm quite happy to 'take my chances' without a mentor, without being prohibited from editing in my areas of expertise, without being subjected to pathetic childish point-scoring and without receiving ultra vires demands to account for myself at any given opportunity. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the simple thing is to preclude any activities that violate WP:BATTLEGROUND, pure and simple. Just stop trying to pick wiki-fights with people - I mean initiating this a whole 41 minutes after Dweller suggested this was...er...actually adjectives fail me here. Does anyone think TT will actually listen to any mentor anyway. I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main problem is TT's inclination to delete everything, 2nd to the comments and demeanor when those deletions are contested. I would suggest that the comment given above by Graeme is a good one that TT be limited to prod deletions only relating to copyright violation, attacks and vandalism speedy delete nominations. At least temporarily. If after a couple months they get the communities trust back then perhps the restriction can be lifted. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems more than a little unwise to have tried to delete Casliber's userspace draft without asking him first so quickly after the block ended. At worst what possible harm does it do for it to remain there indefinitely? I'd say very little. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, given this reply, it is obvious TT doesn't think he's done anything wrong whatsoever, doesn't need a mentor, doesn't need sanctions, so in which case, is there any other option but an indef block here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to see any productive editor blocked, much less indefinitely, but it does seem like mentoring has failed. I'd suggest, as does TT himself on his talk page, that he takes his chances now, along with the inevitable consequences if things don't change. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish to speak against the casual application of indef blocks to experienced editors.  Why should this block be for more than 4 months at the outside, unless the powers that be are quietly encouraging a sock puppet to reappear that will be hamstrung?  Consider my viewpoint as that of a newbie, if that is appropriate, but after seeing what happened to User:Rememberway, I don't think the admins should ever be assigning indef blocks to experienced users.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Renewing topic ban proposal

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

As it has been several days since this was proposed and there is strong consensus for enacting both Georgewilliamherbert's and Floquenbeam's proposals for a topic ban, I am closing this as "enacted". Specifically, as proposed by Floquenbeam, "a full topic ban on initiating all CSD's, PROD's, and XfD discussions for any page in Wikipedia" will be applied to User:TreasuryTag. As TreasuryTag is currently indefinitely blocked, this topic ban will take effect when and if the block is lifted. The restriction may be reviewed by the community at TreasuryTag's request six months after it takes effect. I will notify TreasuryTag and update the edit restrictions page accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

---

This was deferred last week in lieu of letting the attempt at mentorship have its chance, but there seems to be universal agreement on all sides that mentorship is not going to happen now. With that in mind, let me reintroduce this community restriction proposal, attempting to limit TT away from the focal point of most of the recent blowups:

To protect TT from that backlash and avoid the controversy becoming an ongoing sore point, I propose the following community sanction:

TreasuryTag is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from article deletion of speculative fiction related articles, broadly construed. This restriction may be reviewed by the community at TT's request after not less than six months have passed since its enaction.

Proposed (again) - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as an over-the-top reaction to a tiny number (what is it? 1? 2? 3?) of Doctor Who AfDs which I initiated and which closed as 'keep'. That is a normal part of the consensus-building process. Most editors who start AfDs and have them closed as 'keep' are not topic-banned. There is really no reason to make an exception in this case, other than the fact that a lot of editors don't like me and will welcome this opportunity to pile on – ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If we aren't going to just let him take his chances, then I think the sanction should be bigger than this - I would suggest preventing him from participating in the deletion process at all. The case with Casliber's userspace draft was hardly productive and its clear his judgment with regards to deletions is very poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, although I'm not sure I'm allowed an opinion here, not being an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you're normally expected to provide an explanation to help the consensus-building process rather than just plonking down a vote. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I think you've just demonstrated once again why this episode is unlikely to end well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support as well if meaningful given non admin etc. per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you're normally expected to provide an explanation to help the consensus-building process rather than just plonking down a vote. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone can and should comment here, regardless of adminship-status. :) --Conti|✉ 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support in order to temporarily eliminate a field of activity which has led to much "more-heat-than-light" activity from TT and opponents. If there are truly bad articles, other editors will find them and tag them for deletion; TT need not fear that WP will go to the dogs if he is not around to police this area. This will also allow TT to concentrate on article building and to practise a style of editing which is less confrontational and more collegial. Once this has been demonstrated (and assuming that it is) the temporary ban could be lifted by consensus here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification in light of further proposals below: I would prefer this more limited restriction as my first choice, but if the consensus were for a stricter, wider restriction up to and including no participation in any deletion-related activity, I would support this in preference to "no action". Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum restriction, but would more strongly support a topic ban from Dr Who articles, broadly construed. The deletion trouble seems to be a symptom of TT's inability to engage neutrally on the topic of Dr Who, so I would rather nip that entire issue in the bud now than be back here in a week when TT manages to get himself into new Dr Who trouble. Frankly, given TT's history, I probably wouldn't oppose even stricter restrictions than a Who topic ban, if someone proposed them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Based on the copyright symbol and Casliber XfD's, I believe it would be better to keep it simple, and topic ban Treasury Tag from initiating all CSD's, PROD's, and XfD discussions for any page in Wikipedia. He is correct that editors are not normally banned from XfD simply for proposing deletions of pages that are ultimately kept, but that is not what is happening here. I was tempted to leave an opening for F7 CSD's (which is necessary but unpopular work), and the standard attack page/vandalism CSD, but upon reflection I think that's a bad idea, as it would provide too many boundaries to be tested, and Treasury Tag seems unwilling or unable to avoid testing boundaries. Better a flat out topic ban, to be reviewed in a few months. Also emphasize that the unblock restrictions he and HJMitchell agreed to are also still in force. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• support but modified by what floquenbeam suggests. If something needs deleted, others can get to it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Mentoring was entered into to avoid this requirement, but as attempts at mentorship failed quickly, and even a more recent mentor volunteer was told he wasn't "trusted" on rather trumped-up grounds, the only option is this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. His restrictions should also be made clear to avoid all Dr Who-related articles broadly construed. Buffs (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I prefer Floquenbeam's modified version, however I fully endorse Georgewilliamherbert's proposal if it helps put a cap on this never-ending uncontrolled gush of drama. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Browsing TreasuryTag's recent contributions, I fail to see the problem. I find Wikipedia:Editor review/TreasuryTag, but saction discussions seem to have missed the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct step. I think there is too much gut-reaction going on here. XfD is a robust process that can handle all sorts of nominations, and TreasuryTag's are not really so bad, and I cannot see a reaon for blocking. Leave him alone until something blockable happens. If it is a longterm low level issue, document it via an RFC/U. If sanctions are required, they need to be simple, and directly related to the reason for blocking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Had the opportunity to make the most of mentoring and decided to spit on it. So this appears to be the next best option so we don't have to further waste the communities time. -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's modified proposal. The Copyright Symbol AfD established that TT's participation there is too disruptive at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's version I find the preamble in the main block proposal extremely troubling. Topic bans should not be used to protect an editor from themselves, they should only be used to protect Wikipedia from the editor. That said, I think something does need to be done to protect Wikipedia from harm. The topic ban should be limited to nominating for deletion, I haven't seen much to justify a broadly construed ban on participating. Monty₈₄₅ 02:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support for either Floquenbeam's more general approach (preferred) or GWH's more specific ban, whichever receives the most community support. TT's disruptive behavior and uncollegial demeanor across many situations and in many venues calls into question his basic capacity to fit in here. He sucks up more time than his participation is worth and needs to be reigned in. I would say bans such as the two suggested are the minimum response to his misbehavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be willing to attempt mentoring TT. As a fellow Whovian, i'd be more likely to navigate the intricasies of the topic area with him successfully and return him to good standing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  I am not personally encouraged on that regard by TT above and the thread on his talk page today on the topic of mentoring. That said - If you can help work with him, and he's willing to work with you and the community, that is probably an improvement on the current situation. I would recommend a new thread on his talk page to sound him out on the idea. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  As I've said, I'm happy to consider any specific mentorship proposals, but if they are going to basically prevent me from doing anything I would wish to do on Wikipedia (ie. in particular, editing Doctor Who articles) then I will not agree to them. ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 07:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would prefer Floquenbeam's more general approach. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Question—before everyone jumps on this ridiculous bandwagon of banning me from all deletion including CSD, can someone produce some diffs demonstrating that I've abused CSD in any way? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 07:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  The theory here is to try to get you to do something besides deletion-related things. I already mentioned that, for example, I don't know offhand of any F7-related errors. I still think a ban that includes initiating F7 CDS's is a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Question to TT I would appreciate a comment from TreasuryTag regarding two old and unrelated issues that I noticed because I am wondering how TT feels about those issues now—would they be repeated if the same situation arose again? The first issue was discussed at WT:Civility#Vulgar jokes where an editor mentioned that at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle an editor (TreasuryTag) had made several edits opposing the removal of an off-topic and vulgar joke. TT's first edit reinstated the joke; see the history for the ensuing saga. The second issue involved a new editor who made this edit (their first and only edit—a valuable edit, although the edit summary revealed that the user was connected with the topic). TT left {{uw-coi}} at the user's talk page. I joined in as the third editor to remove the warning per WP:BITE: one example of TT re-adding the warning is here, and my discussion with TT is here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that these issues are exactly as you say, old and unrelated, I really don't see how bringing these up here is helpful. Can I plead with you Johnuniq to retract this question and not derail the discussion. And can I plead with TT not to respond to this question in the mean time, in the interests of keeping this thread on-track? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The second edit was discussed in the now archived discussion which we are continuing here as mentoring failed and therefore relevant to the current discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support barring TT from any xFD or PROD debate as these are vulnerable to battleground behaviour anyway, and his involvement often descends into battleground-type behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  <snot>(There's not really any such thing as a PROD debate)</snot> On reflection, I would also support a ban on any deletion related activities at all, including participating in other people's XfD discussions. Although if I had to choose I'd probably lean towards starting out with a ban on initiation, and see if that was sufficient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support a mix of Floquenbeam and GWH's versions. TreasuryTag is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from article deletion of speculative fiction related articles. In addition, TreasuryTag will be restricted from participating in any deletion-related areas. HurricaneFan25 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the above - restricted how? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

By "restricted," I simply mean "banned". Reworded for clarification. HurricaneFan25

What's the point of the first sentence of that proposal? It's already covered by the second... ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support TT has wasted far too much of the community's time, and has shown over and over again a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an inability to contribute to AFD in a constructive, colloquial, and collaborative manner. I'd rather see him topic banned from the whole of the deletion process, but this is a start. Frankly I'm suprised he has yet to exhaust the community's patience entirely. N419BH 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support  Reasonable, and suggest that if TT is blocked this topic ban starts when he/she returns.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The ban wording has some problems. "article deletion of speculative fiction related articles" is not an intelligible topic. I think what is meant is more along the lines of "TT may make no edits concerning within deletion discussions that concern speculative fiction." It should be made clear whether TT should be allowed to participate in general discussions on deletion that would impact SF articles. The review mechanism is flawed. TT may request an abeyance or overturning of his/her ban at any time and the community is empowered to do so at any time. As written, it implies a restriction of both TT's ability to appeal and the community's discretion to grant it, which I think is broadly understood to be unacceptable barring extraordinary circumstances. Generally speaking, ban reviews are tough to corral over ANI, and if you want it baked in, it would be better to grant one or two administrators discretionary review.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I object, my grammar only smelt of elderberries. "concerning within deletion discussions" ? 8-)

I believe that the context and "broadly construed" makes this clear enough; at this point, if anyone else has a scope question it can be reasonably discussed, and if he does it's strike eight. However, closing admin can clarify syntax if need be. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Continued disruption

Are pointy edits such as this really improving the encyclopedia? I don't understand why this type of behaviour by TT is tolerated by the community. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...arguably, TT seems right - the citations to support the statements there in the lead are a bit lack on a casual readthrough of the article, and not readily apparent in the body. That said, there's much less pointy and combative ways to say "this needs more references". --MASEM (t) 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And to be fair that is probably the way to go - rather than this earlier edit by TT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that it was a completely pointy edit that served only to disrupt an article which receives approximately 1000 page views daily. If there were concerns they could have been expressed on the talk page, or through discussion when the edit was initially reverted. This was pure disruption to prove a point, regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced weasel words from the lede of an article is not disruptive. It is Wikipedia policy. The fact that the article is frequently-viewed makes it even more important to adhere to our standards of verifiability. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, because the owners of that article feel unable to provide citations for the glowing praise of its subject, I've initiated an RfC on the talkpage. Well done folks – instead of just doing something simple, we're going to have 30 days of bureaucratic discussion. Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

An RFC before even approaching a talk page discuss is further flaming the issue. As a simple comment on this whole thing, I think that's the problem that is at the core. TT is thinking in absolutes, those being the ultimate processes for resolving disputes (xFD, talk page RFC) instead of stepping through the steps that are more preferred and generally more helpful and friendlier to all involved. There's no requirement that these steps be done before the ultimate step is taken (sometimes its necessary), but at the same time, when this is the only steps that TT seems interested in taking, at the volumes TT edits at, that's disruptive. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely over the top - as no non-RFC talk page discussion has been suggested first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Disruptive and not even borderline. I agree that the lead needs to be supported by cited text in the article body but there are a simpler ways of making that point rather than starting an RfC on a hitherto undiscussed issue. --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't feel able to engage in constructive discussion with an admin who baselessly accused me of being a "POV-pushing vandal." ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I've stated on my User talk page and at Talk:The New Yorker, TT's edits related to The New Yorker are clearly deliberate disruption -- and this is disruption that is unrelated to the ongoing topic ban discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that at least one of them is completely correct? The article claims that the New Yorker is well known for its fact checking, yet in the article the first mention of that is of a scandal where its fact checking was claimed to be poor! That's just bad writing. Either leave the {{cn}} tag there or remove the sentence. No opinion on the rest of it. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It took me just a couple of minutes to find a source for the assertion and add it to the article. I'm not sure who deserves blame, but making a huge, time-consuming dispute out of an easily fixed omission is disrutpive.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

In light of the ongoing combative behaviour not conducive to a collaborative environment, along with violations of the terms of his unblock (making allegations of misconduct in edit summaries rather than on noticeboards [18] [19]), I have placed an indefinite block on TreasuryTag's account. I believe TreasuryTag has exhausted the community's patience, but give leave in advance for another administrator to lift ^{or modify} this block if they feel it is no longer necessary or was made in error. –xeno^talk 21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) ^{22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)}

Can't help but unfortunately agree. His argument that we have to follow a specific escalation pattern is pretty moot: he's wikilwayering, and just as we can skip from a 1m to 4m warning based on circumstances, it's clear that TT is testing and pushing a non-existent envelope. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the only option left. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that (for all it's worth at this point) post-block, TT published an unauthorized IRC excerpt on his talk and, when advised that that was prohibited by irc policy, suggested that "someone had better block me, then". Does this call for redaction of the excerpt? Revdeletion? Removal of talk page access? None of those? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest removal of talk page access. Revdelete sounds good as well. Agathoclea (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised that TT was allowed to publish IRC scripts. I think this is entirely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the excerpt-related content and advised TT to not restore it. I'm agnostic on the issue of revdeletion, and am fine with it if someone else decides to take that extra step. If TT does restore the log despite my warning, I very much suggest removal of talkpage access. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gwen beat me to the decline of the unblock. Good block by Xeno, good unblock decline reasoning by Gwen. Exceptionally poor form by Treasury Tag. TT has demonstrated a remarkable resistance to mitigating his problematic behavior and has torpedoed good faith efforts to mentor him I think the therapy session is over and it's time to 86 him for a while. WP:OFFER might be of some use, but I agree that a timed block is unlikely to do any good in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "for a while."

I'll stand a round if his latest "indef block" lasts longer than a week. It'll be reversed in a day or two and he'll once again chalk it up on his "scoreboard" of invulnerability.

I don't care about him publishing an IRC log if only he'd apologize afterwards, and maybe admit that he'd been in the wrong. As it is, everything is always someone else's fault and he's perpetually wikilawyering away at loopholes to prove it. We just don't need that behaviour at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. He contravened my request that he not restore the irc-related content and restored the thread minus the log itself. Rather a neat way of saying "fuck you" while retaining some chance his talkpage access won't be removed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What? TT is a wikilawyer? He'll fight you tooth and nail on that charge (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, that's going to be a giant tab at the pub! I think the block is good and the unblock refusal is good. The editor is a net negative, taking skilled eyes away from improving the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please call these guys, who are a mere two blocks from my house, to arrange that beer. I prefer their porter. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorse block. We may want to consider closing the thread and having an uninvolved admin judge the consensus on the topic ban. When TT is eventually unblocked I believe such editing restrictions thus entering into effect will serve to help avoid the issues that have led to the present situation. N419BH 04:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its rather sad for the project that people feel that this block will be reversed sometime soon. If it is it will show severe lack of judgement from the unblocking admin given how practically universal the arguments for stronger restrictions on treasury tag have been. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is his third "indefinite" block. As blocks just don't stick to this editor, he has developed a mentality that they shouldn't stick to him and that blocking is just something for the little people. An editor who keeps a scoreboard that's positively crowing over how little block time was actually served, "TreasuryTag has received 907 hours' worth of blocks, plus two times ∞, though has only actually been blocked for 356 hours and 12 minutes" just isn't realising that the problem might be with their behaviour, not the blocking admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship offer by Worm That Turned

FYI folks. User:Worm That Turned has offered to mentor TT ([20]). I think if TT accepts mentorship, he should be unblocked. I know Worm's mentoring and he is a great mentor. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why enacting the topic ban (which would be valid during mentoring) is important. The only understanding - should TT accept mentoring - is that if either: TT formally (by words) or informally (by actions) stops being mentored by Worm, OR Worm determines that mentorship is no longer fruitful, the indef block is reapplied. Might wanna have a 3 strike rule, but that might be wikilawyered to death, so make it an LBW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What, and he'll suddenly find these "unacceptable' restrictions acceptable? I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How much time do we have to waste on this? 99.9% of our userbase manages to behave reasonably - shouldn't we concentrate on them? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea that mentorship of TT at this time will be beneficial to the project is not one I would support. The topic ban wouldn't help either, he would just choose another sector to disrupt. Something happened to TT's interaction with the project a couple of months ago and since then he has been a train wreck in action. WP:Standard offer and only if he accepts mentorship in six months time would be my offer. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted this. Firstly, thanks PC for the vote of confidence, I really appreciate it. I wasn't planning to mention it here, since anyone interested would already be watching TT's page. In my experience, the community is a very forgiving one, and if TT and I can come to some arrangement whereby he is not causing issues and we can move forward - I expect the community in general would allow me to have a go.

For the record, I have mentored a few other users when they were teetering on the edge, and I have had both successes and failures. Importantly, I think it should be known that I am willing to step up to the plate and summarily block my own mentees if mentorship is failing, and the only reason that they are unblocked is my mentorship. As such, it can be properly regarded as a "last chance"

However, the whole thing does take (at least) two willing participants, and so this whole point could be moot depending on TT's level of interest. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Worm's idea. Although I've not personally interacted with TT, I've seen some of his interactions with others, particularly when he appears on ANI, and in general he doesn't help so much as fan the flames. Be watched or be gone, I say. Perhaps, something more "in your face" is required to make sure he knows that this is his last chance; TT should accept Worm's mentorship unconditionally or face a community ban. strong words, I know, but sometimes hitting them with a tree works better than smacking them with a twig repeatedly. --Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If I can add my non-admin opinion here, I would at this time say this is a bad idea. The numebr of blocks that TT had had, including the indef-blocks that were reverted strike me as a "and we really really REALLY mean it this time" gesture, and aren't taken seriously. At this point, I feel it's better for the project if TT stays away for a period of time, and if they come back with a genuine mindset to be civil, them maybe this should be considered. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

seeking consensus on the legitimacy of a type of talk-page refactor

I would like to establish the legitimacy of a (for obvious reasons) disputed talk-page action. Note that is about the action I would like to take in general, not about the particular situation or the actions of the other participants, so I have not notified them and expect no action from administrators with regard to them or the page in question (and I don't really want to bring them into it, because it would just transfer a personal dispute over here - no sense in that). This is just used as an example of a general concept that I want permission for.

The action in question is the in-line archiving of trouble-making statements. example as follows:

• I ask that we find an admin to close an expired RfC (one that's been trouble-ridden) [21]
• and editor responds with a valid comment that is wrapped in innuendos and personal attacks (a reasonable assertion that RfC's are not votes, preceded by accusations that the request is provocative, unhelpful, and inappropriate, and followed by the suggestion that I am somehow violating wikipedia procedures) [22]
• a couple of posts later, I obscure the offensive material with an in-line template (as well as removing my own somewhat pithy response to it), without changing the meaning of the post. [23]

Note that this is already technically allowable under wp:TPO, wp:TPNO and wp:RPA, it just hasn't been legitimized as a practice. That's what I want to address.

The reasons I would like this legitimized are two-fold:

1. On the community side: comments like that add nothing to the page: they are at best ad hominem gambits designed to prejudice uninvolved readers against one side of the discussion and at worst efforts at BAITing intended to enrage an opponent. They really have no place on talk pages anywhere, and do nothing except gum up the page with defensive explanations and counter-accusations.
2. On the personal side: while I am generally level-headed, I have a very bad temper if I get pushed far enough, and when I lose my temper it inevitably gets exceedingly ugly (that's just a fact; sorry). It would do a lot to help keep me from reaching that point if I were allowed to obscure insulting comments of this sort. Obscuring the insult precludes the need to respond to the nonsense and allows me to focus on the productive aspects of the discussion.

Of course, this would apply all ways; I would have no problem with someone doing the same to my posts, so long as they were careful not to change the meaning of what I say. If this were legitimized as a matter of consensus it would not need administrator intervention (not much, anyway). The distinction between content-related material and personal commentary is not all that blurry, and once the right to redact personal denigrations is established, editors can find a balance about what stays in talk and what is excised on their own (as opposed to the current situation, where editors will immediately revert to restore even the most insulting statements, and the effort to remove the insults often approaches the level of edit warring).

All-in-all, it would make talk pages more congenial, and it would make me a much happier camper. win-win, as far as I'm concerned. Can we reach a consensus on this? --Ludwigs2 23:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This sort of behavior can, and has, also be used as a tactic for controlling or misrepresenting the conversation by selectively hiding certain parts and not others. Many editors, myself included, do not feel that editting of others' comments on talk pages is an acceptable behavior at all, except in very extreme cases, and as such this sort of behavior is more often than not an open invitation to talk page edit warring. Ludwigs2's own history of using hat-hiding on Talk:Pregnancy is an excellent example of this potential problem. The best response to baiting comments is to simply not bite, robbing the baiter of any effect or power. siafu (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not uninvolved in the immediate history of Ludwig2's behavior on this point, but strongly disagree with refactoring, especially by the target. I used to try doing it between third parties, and results were mixed at best, and that was in a calmer time. I've since learned it is almost never (never say never, lest an impish deity make you eat your words) a good idea. Inevitably, the practice inflames passions and distracts editors, which is precisely the opposite of the goal of civility and personal attack policies. We don't need more invitations to people arguing about civility on Principal.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: WP:ANI#User:Ludwigs2, User:HiLo48, User:Tznkai and Talk:Pregnancy.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It can also be used to clarify the conversation by removing tendentious or emotional material that gets in the way of the discussion. It is not difficult to see which is happening when it happens (anyone can tell whether a comment is about the content or about the editor), and if someone tries to abuse it it will not make the talk page any worse (the talk page is already in trouble if you have people trying to pull that kind of ploy). where's the downside? --Ludwigs2 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The downside is that people start accusing you of trying to control the conversation and edit warring to keep personal attacks and commentary in the talk page. Which makes it really obvious who is being disruptive, so that's not really so much of a downside now is it? But really truly, don't do it any more, at least not in this situation. Ignore, or report. And never, ever edit war to hat or remove personal attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this specific case I'll refrain, as you prefer, but as a general principle I will continue to do it because I think it's a good idea. I'll even continue to encourage others to do it, and help them with ti if they don't quite get the principle. I understand the objection, mind you, just as I understand that petty thieves and bookmakers think that laws are an invasion of their freedom; it's just not a position I have a lot of sympathy for.

At any rate, let's avoid the specific case (which isn't what I'm here about) and focus on the general case to see if we can reach some consensus about it. --Ludwigs2 03:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My impression as a complete outsider to this specific matter is that there is a consensus, you just don't like it and declare your intention to ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accustomed to ignoring things. There have been (so far) a small handful of people (I count 4, including you) who have commented, and some of those comments have been off topic. I see no consensus in that. If there's a discussion or consensus somewhere else that I am unaware of please provide a link so I can read it. Otherwise, you are simply expressing a personal perspective, which is just one small (but important) part of the consensus process.

I swear, it's astonishing how many people on wikipedia think that merely declaring that there is a consensus is a valid substitute for intelligent discussion. It's like the project has somehow become a FOX News affiliate, except without the conservative bent. Interesting... Tragic, but interesting. --Ludwigs2 04:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The "downside", Ludwigs2, is what actually happened, when you used this approach. You might want to review that before asserting that this is a good idea. siafu (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem there, Siafu, is that I used it far too late in the discussion, after we'd all lost our tempers and had a huge, collective hissy-fit. At the point where I recovered my aplomb and tried to apply it I'd already engendered a whole lot of bad blood and was faced with editors who were dead-set on contradicting anything I did. Had I had the presence of mind to begin with it early in the discussion (back around the 6th of september, when people first started using mild personal comments as elements of their arguments), it would have been a different matter. People would have been less emotionally invested in the dispute, more willing to consider the idea that such comments were not in the best interests of the talk page, and disinclined to dogmatically edit war solely to keep rude personal comments in. After a discussion has reached the stage where editors firmly believe that attacking other editors is correct and necessary, nothing is going to save the page short of an admin stepping in with dire promises. Done early and conscientiously, however, this could have saved the page from making that decent into madness.

Had someone applied this to my posts I would not have reverted. I might have adjusted their edit if I thought they removed too much, but I would never fight to maintain some supposed right to be rude to other editors. I think most of us would behave in the same way when we are in our right minds; it's only when we are in a fight that that kind of commentary seems meaningful and important. Anyone who really believes it is necessary to address the character or personality of another editor has user talk pages, Wikiquette, RfC/U, AN and ANI, and other venues in which to do that. There is no need for it in article talk, where it merely muddies the waters so that no effective content discussions can occur.

I am asking to legitimize a practice by which we can moderate each other's behavior. If we are not permitted to moderate each other, then many pages will be (as many pages currently are) dominated by immoderate behavior. As Truman (I think) once reputedly said, the easiest way to win at politics is to call your opponent a pig-fucker and force him to deny it; He didn't say that approvingly, though, and we should not accept it as the wikipedia norm. --Ludwigs2 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazily out of step with the community, but it seems to me that if you're involved in the conversation, and especially if what you want to refactor is directed at you, then no way should you be editing that person's comments. If they're terrible, horrible attacks, raise the issue with an admin or a neutral third party, and see if they decide to carry out a redaction, but I can imagine no universe in which editing one's opponent's negative comments about oneself can end in any way but drama. Don't do it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make one last (long) comment, and then I'll leave it to you all to discuss or ignore this as you see fit (unless there are particular questions aimed at me).

Fluffernutter: by making that statement, you condemn certain pages to endless, vicious warfare. I know that's not your intention, but that is the inevitable (if unexpected) result of that particular belief. It is a matter of the nature of human social interaction. In normal social interactions, people have any number of mutual-moderation tactics, ones that are either biological or deeply rooted in pre-verbal socialization. You know this and you do this, regularly; there's not a question about it. if you are in a conversation with someone who begins to become emotionally stressed, you are quickly aware of it and you instinctively react - changing your body posture, your facial expressions, your vocal tone; making certain sounds (e.g. the ubiquitous 'small cough') or certain gestures (e.g. that palm-down 'chill-dude' hand gesture) - all in order to check the other's emotional outburst before it gets out of hand. I'm not even going to bother claiming that this is good or necessary: it's evolutionary. Infants are proficient at it by the time they are six months old, and it only gets more deeply rooted in us over time.

On the internet, none of that works. None of it! All of the non-verbal cues that we implicitly rely on to moderate other people's emotions (and instinctively respond to so that others can moderate our own) are entirely absent. It's almost exactly like tearing the rudder off a ship. You may not see that the rudder is gone because it's below your level of perception, but it becomes significantly harder to steer a proper course in a conversation. Now, the majority of the time we manage, mostly because people don't get emotionally involved with topics all that often and most people are generally considerate of others as a matter of intellectual principle. But as soon as someone becomes emotionally attached to a position on Wikipedia, it is a line straight to hell, because all of our evolutionary mechanism for moderating others' emotions rely on the other person being able to see us, or hear us or be touched by us. Without those, we go back to more primal mechanisms for moderating others' emotions: the screeching, head-butting, feces-throwing tactics common among chimpanzees and other primates.

What you're advocating, as reasonable as it sounds, is effectively (to coin a term) Wikicidal. It only works were people are capable of maintaining a strict division between their intellectual and emotional lives, and on certain topics and concepts (nudity being one, but I can also point to religious issues, political issues, social issues, even silly stuff like fringe science) there are going to be people who cannot separate their intellect from their emotions, and there is going to be conflict because talk pages lack all of the socio-biological cues that would normally tell such people they are stepping over the line. What you are left with in those situations is conflicts that escalate endlessly because no one (in the moment) can see that their behavior is out of line, because there is nothing to see except the righteousness of their own anger.

This is the advantage of obscuration templates. It gives people something to see: a visible token that their actions are out of line. It's a surrogate for all the missing socio-biological cues. If it's legitimized as a practice, then people will quickly come to respond to it the same way they respond to a raised eyebrow or a hand gesture, and we will save endless amounts of trouble across the project. It's not a panacea, obviously, but it would certainly keep the sillier arguments (those that are based mostly in misperceptions and hurt feelings) from ever getting off the ground.

I can't really explain it any better than that, and if you all still don't think it's a good idea… well, Wikipedia has had monkey-shit-throwing contests since day one, and we can continue to have them as long as you like. it frankly irritates the hell out of me - partly because I tend to work on pages where people tend to have strong emotional attachments (which gets me in a lot of trouble) and partly because I can't help but think that it's unbearably dumb to allow this to happen to otherwise reasonable discussions. I hear admins complain frequently about these kinds of kerfluffles, and I see these kinds of kerfluffles end up at ANI on a daily basis with no end in sight. I don't understand why you resist what might be a simple and straightforward way of snipping off many of these conflicts in the bud. But at the end of the day, as admins, it's always going to fall back on you: if you don't start encouraging something that stops these conflicts early, it's going to be one of you descending on a drama-ridden page to corral out-of-control disputes, and there will always be pages where that is necessary. It's your bed: you should make it the way you want it to be, because you're the ones who have to lie in it. --Ludwigs2 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding using {{nono}} or hatting or similar on comments directed at you: per Tnzkai and Fluffernutter, this is almost guaranteed to make things worse. Don't do it. If it's a one-off then ignore it, if it's chronic then ask for help. Regarding using {{nono}} as a third party: I've done it a few times, with mixed results. The biggest problem is that it muddies the waters about what the dispute is about. If you use it as an uninvolved party, I'd really recommend not reinstating it if you're reverted by the original author, but going another route (warning/blocking) instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam (p.s. from edit conflict with my last post): I'm sorry, but I can't take that advice as written; it will put me in a position where I am likely to lose my temper, and I am trying to set up conditions where I can avoid that. I will compromise as follows, though: if I use this tactic I will redact once and revert once (if the redaction is reverted), and if it's reverted after that I will open an ANI case. The single revert is necessary, both to give the other person a chance to reflect on whether the removed material is really worth fighting over and to demonstrate at ANI that there is a determined effort to keep the defamatory material visible in talk. Is that acceptable? --Ludwigs2 16:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If your goal is to de-escalate the situation, as it sounds like you're explaining it to be, then no, that's probably not acceptable. Revert warring (planning to revert their reversion rather than discuss sounds a whole lot like "Hey, I'm going to edit war, but it's ok because I'll only do it once each time") over something that you have now been told (and seen for yourself) multiple times is likely to anger your opponents is never going to be helpful in making them less angry. More acceptable, though no more likely to calm down the situation, would be to say that you will redact once and then not again if someone objects to your action. Your opponent then would still be angry and inflamed by your redaction, but not more angered by your redacting and then fighting over it.

Even better than what you're suggesting is is a simple solution: do not get into conflicts where you or your opponents are losing your tempers. If tempers flare, back away rather than throwing more fuel on the fire by editing your opponent's words. Ask for help from a neutral party, post on a noticeboard, go have a cup of tea...do anything but continue to engage in a situation where you can't hold your temper and want to take an action that you know will cause someone to lose theirs. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fluff, I said the compromise I'm wiling to make, and I'm going to stand by it. You can support me on it or not, as you choose. I'm not going to be chased away from pages because I run across editors who are losing their tempers, and I'm going to do what I need to do to keep myself from losing my own temper, and those are the constraints I am trying to work within on-project. You can make that easier for me, or harder, but my mind is made up on this point. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Fluff here. People REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY don't like having their comments redacted, and I haven't ever seen one case where someone "redacting" comments, in the name of civility, actually led to an increase of civility. What happens is whoever redacts is piled on, dismissed as an agent of the thought police by whoever's side you censored, heralded as a hero by the opposing side, and now you end up with a meta-debate on whether such actions are appropriate, you end up at ANI, then warning, blocks and desysops are issued. It never stops drama, and if the goal was to bring the heat down, then you've just shot yourself in the foot because you ensured that the heat would rise up to white-hot levels. Yes people should try to be civil and focus on the actual problem, rather than saying "that's just retarded" or similar. However sometimes, there are behaviours and viewpoints that are "just retarded", and it's perfectly appropriate to call a spade a spade. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. But WP:CIVIL isn't one either. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, one cane engage in eloquent theorizing all you want; the fact is that you have actual case studies of attempting to use this refactoring, and of the results. Did it manage to reduce tensions? Did it redirect the conversation to being on topic? Did it smooth over the bile that was building? The answers are no, no, and no. This should really carry much more weight than any supposed or possible outcome. The very fact that you have had to come here to obtain some sort of legitimization for this behavior is in and of itself evidence that it has not been successful, and is heavily resisted and resented by the users you have been using it on. If it were a good idea, it would have been self-evident from the effect it had. siafu (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Siafu: In fact, experience - 'case studies', as you put it - show that this does work. it worked on talk:pregnancy the minute an admin stepped in and started redacting material; that chilled-out the discussion on the talk page immediately. It works almost every time an admin steps into a fray because admins have a community-legitimized power, and the mere presence of an active admin will often get people to start behaving correctly. All I'm suggesting is that we extend that power to normal editors by legitimizing the behavior publicly. once that's done, people will respect editor redactions of inappropriate material the same way that they respect admin redactions, and it will save admins from having to intervene except in the most extreme cases.

I have used this to good effect as well even though I'm not an admin (not on this page: as I said, I started too late), but that is more a function of my personality than anything else - I know how to present myself with a degree of intellectual and moral authority that sometimes substitutes for my otherwise complete lack of power. But the effort here is to remove it from personality and establish it as a community norm; once that is done, it will be respected to everyone's benefit. Yes, people will balk at it at first - the way that young children often balk at toilet training and young adults often balk at committing themselves to a career - but people they will get over it and adapt, and it will benefit them and the community. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about admins stepping in to hat conversations, this is about individual editors doing so with comments by people who are currently in the process of vigorously disagreeing with them. Seriously, step back and look this over: not one commenter has supported this idea as a good one, the admins who have commented have noted that even 3rd party admins have had limited success with this method, and when you yourself have recently attempted it you have sparked revert wars, inflamed tensions, and created hostility and antagonism. Even when not abused, this sort of refactoring will serve primarily to make people angry, as the message that is given is that their comments and input are being discarded simply out of hand. Even worse, it can be (and has been) so easily abused by regular editors, in the form of selectively removing some comments while leaving others intact-- this complaint should sound very familiar, as it was brought up repeatedly on Talk:Pregnancy. Why would you expect this refactoring to receive a different response in the future? siafu (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what I said, and a misrepresentation of the situation, and a misrepresentation of the concept. You are not open-minded on this issue at all. That's fine, but let's just boil it down to brass tacks:

1. This literally cannot make the project worse. People can already do it if they want to, and people who are inclined to squabble already have plenty of tools to squabble with. One more tool to misuse will make no meaningful difference to the level of nastiness on the project.
2. This might make the project better. If my 'eloquent theorizing' (as you put it) has any merits, it will make the project better.

I'm not sure why you're opposed to this, and I'm not going to speculate. What I will suggest is that you are neatly screwing yourself (and the project as a whole) out of a tool that cannot do any harm and may do a lot of good. As I said, the project can go on with the same old monkey-shit disputes it's always had, or it can try to do something different and better. This practice is not going to cause those disputes, and it might help to solve them, and I can not make any sense at all out of your resistance to it.

I mean seriously: If this is about me (on the assumption you're one of that number of people who have a deep dislike for me personally), then steal the idea and make it your own. I don't care about getting the credit for it, I just want make the project a better place, and if the perception that I'm an ass is getting in the way of making the project a better place then I will happily step aside and let you run with it. But don't deprive the project of a more stable and mature working environment just because you're pissed at me. Ok? --Ludwigs2 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not about you personally; if I had serious concerns about that you are as aware as I am that there are more appropriate venues, and more punitive complaints I could raise. I have no interest in that. This is about a bad tactic that had already failed in practice that you are insisting could somehow make things better. I am pointing out the specific case of your own use of it with the purpose not of trying to punish or castigate you, but because you should be most familiar with your own experience. This, for example, was an instance where you attempted to hat a conversation to "keep it on topic". Note that you chose to retain your own comment while removing the disagreements; this may have seemed to you like a perfectly reasonable thing to do at the time, but I hope at this point you can see how bad an idea this really was, and where the results have gotten all of us. If you wanted that to go away, all you needed to do was not reply-- or, in this case, take your edit summary and make it your actual edit.

However, if we put the actual case aside and I provide my personal opinion, editing, hiding, or removing someone else's comments is inherently disrespectful of them and should, as such, be regarded as a punitive measure, or a measure of enforcement. My own desire is that it not be done at all, but I recognize that there are cases when there may be legal issues involved for wikipedia, and other cases, like enforcing WP:NOTAFORUM when hiding comments is the only real solution. More importantly, it is not to be taken up by someone who is involved in the discussion directly at all, and probably shouldn't be seen as something that those who have not sought and obtained additional priveleges from the community should take it upon themselves to do.

You've not been modest in advertising your intelligence, and I bring that up not to start a fight but to suggest that I'm taking the radical step of being willing to believe you. I wouldn't continue to argue if there was no point. siafu (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to hear it's not personal (sorry for that suggestion, but it is something I have to be aware of: there are editors and admins who - for various reasons; some good, some bad - do take an extremely dim view of me. But as I said already, the case on talk:pregnancy is a bad example, because I attempted it after the dispute had been going on for close to a month rather than early on in the discussion. that's not a mistake I'm likely to make again. You can keep raising that as a counter-example and I can keep telling you it's a bad example. I believe we've looped through that three times already; I'm good for another four or five cycles, if you think that would be helpful.

As to the rest, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I will take it as read that you believe what you're saying, but I still cannot make sense of it. You seem to have drawn the conclusion that editing out someone else's rude comment is somehow a far greater offense than them making the rude comment in the first place, which strikes me as perverse and perplexing. It's like those cases I occasionally hear about where some burglar breaks into a home and gets jumped by the homeowner, and then later sues the homeowner for attacking him. I am myself often self-righteous, so I understand the emotion, but I am rarely self-righteous about my bad behavior (that only happens when I'm in the heat of it, and I feel bad about it after). Asserting in a cool and reasonable tone that one of the project's higher concerns is to preserve the individual's right to be a complete biatch at his/her own discretion is incomprehensible to me. Perhaps you don't realize that that is what you are arguing? --Ludwigs2 05:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My objection to this particular refactoring should not at all be construed as a desire to protect bad behavior. On the contrary, I'm trying to point out that this particular "solution" (hatting) to the "problem" (off-topic or offensive commentary) does not work, and in fact makes things worse. This is for 2 reasons: 1) the hatted users will, understandably, be quite angry about their comments being disregarded for reasons that are not likely to be obvious to them, and is likely to result in responses in situ (i.e., on the talk page where the hatting occurred) and escalate the dispute. 2) It is not reasonable to expect that involved editors will be able to dispassionately and reasonable use this tool. In the cited example, you chose to remove two responses to your off-topic comment while leaving yours intact; as I said at the time in my edit summary, it looked an awful lot like an attempt to hold on to the last word. Such abuses of this tool are not a personal flaw of yours, but a generally likely outcome when people invovled in a dispute believe that they have the right and responsibility to arbitrate what comments should and should not be visible in that dispute. This, btw, is also the weak point of your burglary analogy: in a burglary, there is no question which of the two parties is at fault since there isn't a POV that would make breaking into someone else's house not against the law. In an argument on wikipedia, there is usually no personally owned property or some other obvious flag that makes this unambiguous, especially for someone already wrapped up in one side of an argument (I did keep the caveat before of extreme cases; obviously if someone is hurling actual insults, racial slurs, &c. the distinction becomes clear; I still don't personally like removing such comments because I value the open and absolute record of an unredacted talk page, but I'm willing to accept it in service of following WP policy). I also strongly disagree that doing it earlier on Talk:Pregnancy would have benefitted anything (would likely have been even worse, actually), but that's not entirely relevant to the question posed here on this page, so I'll leave it. siafu (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

and again, I can only say that you are misunderstanding the concept. with respect to your first two points:

1. IF this is established as a legitimate action, THEN few people will choose to escalate. The only reason people escalate it now is out of a self-righteous belief that they have a right to use article talk to say whatever crappy thing comes into their head. If this procedure were legitimized, they would not be able to maintain that self-righteous belief. They would then have to explain the value of particular comments on a case by case basis in order to have them restored. Only useful comments would be restored that way
2. I'm not counting on people using the tool perfectly; I'm counting on people using the tool collectively. In that case you pointed out (where I refactored an off-topic comment of yours), the problem was not with the hatting, it was with your subsequent action, here: [24]. What you did was move your comment out of the hat so it was visible again. What you should have done was recognize that the action was correct but the implementation was wrong, and moved my comment into the hat. Had you expanded the hat to include what I said, I really would have had no grounds to object, it would have forestalled BC from subsequently removing the hat entirely, and it would have closed an irrelevant discussion completely. Between the 2 or 3 we could have muddled through to a proper balance where sore points for all of us were removed from visibility; instead we went the other route and drew all the sore points back out into the light so we could bitch about them some more.

'civil society' is not two words pushed together (a collection of independent individuals who are all supposed to be nice to each other - like that would ever work!). Civil society is a collective structure that people exist within, something that establishes certain sacrifices everyone must make for their own (and everyone's) good. Even in the real world, property is a collective structure rather than an individual one: you 'own' a house because the rules of the culture you live in give certain exclusive rights to you in exchange for certain behaviors on your part (stop paying your mortgage and see what 'ownership' really means). On wikipedia the 'property' being broken into is the collective 'house' of civil discourse. If I ask you to sacrifice the right to say something irrelevant and insensitive to me then I sacrifice that right myself, and there is no other way civil society works. We simply need to establish the precedent that people should push the discussion towards civil respect rather than dragging it back towards interpersonal conflict, and then it will rapidly become self-regulating, like a good civil society should be. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since it's obvious both that the community is not supporting your request to legitimize this behavior, and that no amount of explaining from any number of users is going to lead you to any insight, it's clear that there is no point in continuing this discussion. siafu (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what I find so deeply offensive about 'debates' on wikipedia. You made a reasoned argument using a particular example (in fact, you insisted on making that argument and on using that example). But when I demonstrated that it was actually your mistake in that examople, not mine - you chose to extend the conflict by unhatting rather than close that aspect of the conflict by extending the hat - you ignore the point as though you never made it. Treating reason as though it has no value unless it supports your position is a violation of the basic principles of rationality, and by doing so you preclude any possibility that the debate will find a resolution.

Arguments are interminable on wikipedia because few people here truly respects reason. Your own example turned against you; it happens, man up and accept it. If you can't, then you're absolutely right that there's no point in continuing this discussion: not because I'm refusing to face some putative consensus that (so far as I can see) only seems to exist in your head, but because you're apparently going to cling to your position against any and all reasoning. That's no way to behave in a discussion. --Ludwigs2 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie, which has been open since 20 August 2011? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), for reading and preparing a close for this RfC. Please note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie, which I don't see mentioned at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is that I just decided on my own to close that because I noticed it had been in the box at the top of ANI for a long time. I didn't see these postings till just now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#Lead image RfC

Would an admin close Talk:Pregnancy#Lead image RfC per the request at Talk:Pregnancy#Uninvolved admin to close RfC? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this one although I'll set aside half a day. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a detailed closing rationale for your decision. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tandem Editors pushing POV

I wasn't sure if I should have started a new thread. Seeing how this is a somewhat different issue I decided to do so. If I'm wrong and/or doing it in the wrong place, please forgive me. Before I begin I want to make sure you understand that I used to be three editors in total. I have also listed who I was previously on all my user/talk pages. First I was user 68.226.118.248, then Googlesalot and now me. Googlesalot2 (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm having issues with three editors Johnfos, Epipelagic, and LK. They have reverted my edits in tandem and have accused me of being a sock puppet in tandem. Here's the evidence [Epipelagic reverting me and name calling] [Johnfos reverting me and name calling] [Lawrencekhoo reverting me and name calling] This is in obvious conflict with Wikipedia's assume good faith guidelines and seems to be "tandem editing"(if that's an investigation I could bring up). I'm not sure about the rules on tandem editing as I have not found any articles on that yet.

'Johnphos'

This editor has shown considerable signs of pushing his POV. For example, I've raised issues of this on the Technocracy Incorporated talk page starting here I brought up a legitimate issue from the standpoint that a particular piece of information was confusing and not really appropriate for the article. It contained references to authoritarianism and fascism when the group specifically denies such claims as I proved on the talk page. [Here's a link] of the original material user Johnfos put into the article. There's no explanation as to why or what 'implications' it was referring to. The material was also explaining an aspect of the Technocracy Movement and not the organization specifically which made the material pointless in the article. He gave a small reply with no reasonable argument to defend his edit and ended up reverting me anyway. He then puts a POV tag on the article and explains it here. Apparently he views any criticism of his edits as "POV" pushing and doesn't support his edits in any meaningful way. He also criticized other material I put here as unreliable when it comes from a University Archive Newsletter and a New Scientist article. He then responds here and starts off the response with I think if you want to be taken seriously.... He then deletes huge sections of the article, including reliably sourced material from me and another one introduced by another editor that comes from the Social Security government website [25]

Epipelagic

This editor comes from nowhere and reverts the same material user Johnfos contended [here] and within 24 hours labeled me as a sock puppet along with user Johnfos [here] Now that I'm back he is continually claiming I'm a sock puppet of a possible sock puppet along with user Johnfos(yet again) and this time another editor name Lawrencekhoo.

Lawrencekhoo

This editor was already editing briefly on the technocracy articles. Then out of nowhere again he claims me as a sock puppet of a possible sock puppet [[26]] He also reverts to the same material Johnfos and Epipelagic contest. LK is currently trying to merge the Technocracy Incorporated article with the Technocracy Movement article. Which has been tried and failed by user Johnfos when he tried to delete the Technocracy Incorporated article here

These editors are obviously working together to, IMO, censor or negatively present material related to Technocracy that is not inline with their views. I'm wondering what actions I could possibly take to stop this behavior and in the process protect future users from this type of horrendous behavior. Googlesalot2 (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the 3 listed users. If I missed anyone feel free to notify them for me. →Σ ⚑  ☭  08:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Being accused of sock/meat puppet with no solid evidence.-gadfium 08:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. Except I wasn't accusing them of tandem editing until I realized how coordinated they were. After reading up on some Wikipedia information I think I should try to call for a topic ban for those three editors. They have not tried to discuss any of the issues on the talk page except for Johnfos. And overall have been disruptive in the editing of those articles such as deleting reliably sourced material and name calling. Googlesalot2 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:DUCK case. The pattern of disruptive editing and accusing of opponents by FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot is very similar to that what skipsievert and AdenR have done. Beagel (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Something I did not think at the beginning but now I understand why it seemed so familiar: the only other editor who have spelled user:Johnfos' name as 'Johnphos' has been skipsievert. [27] and [28] are proves of it. Beagel (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Case concluded here --Epipelagic (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AIV helper bot is down.

Resolved

All admins when you make blocks manually remove the person you've blocked from AIV for the time. Thank you. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot is back, closing. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requesting review of RM closure

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

---

Hi. Please see Talk:Iodised salt#Requested move 2, and the discussion following it. My decision has been challenged, described on my talk page as "another horrible close, that flies in the face of consensus". I request that other members of the community have a look, and let me know whether I erred in this case.

I invite reversal of my decision, if it seems to have been a bad, ill-supported one. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since "another horrible close, that flies in the face of consensus" are my words, I'll clarify. There was an RM discussion in May. The consensus then was unanimous to move it. The issue of ENGVAR was not directly raised, but the implication was clear that all those involved did not think it applied since the proposed spelling was commonly used in the established variant (British) of the article, which is all that ENGVAR requires.

In this particular discussion, there was no consensus to move, and there was certainly no consensus about the previous discussion being a violation of ENGVAR. In fact, LtPowers (talk · contribs) made a strong argument explaining why ENGVAR did not apply, and this was not addressed, much less refuted. GTB ignored all of this, not even making a mention of it. His closing comment simply presumed that ENGVAR applied, without explanation. These are the reasons why I said it was a horrible close and contrary to consensus.

Frankly, I was hoping that GTB would recognize his error and reverse his decision, but apparently that's not going to happen. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's only makes sense to say "recognize his error," if it's clear that I made an error. Whether I made one is a good-faith question which I'm asking the community to address. Obviously, your vote is that yes, I did. Let's hear from others before assuming you're right, okay? Otherwise I might be making an error to reverse my decision. Maybe you've erred in judgment. Maybe I have; maybe we both have. If the community agrees I've erred, I'll absolutely reverse my decision; what else would I do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is a related proposal at WT:Manual of Style#Proposal to bring WP:RETAIN in compliance with WP:COMMONALITY.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

GTB, I suggest the encyclopedia would be much better off if you personally recognized the error. There would be far more benefit to WP from that, in the long run, than whether this one particular article is moved or stays. It's also quite possible that consensus at this time will not recognize the error either. That doesn't mean it's not there.

It's also possible I've made an error and there is something going on here that we've both overlooked. But, again, given the lack of acknowledgment to Power's point, much less a refutation of his argument, it seems to me the ball is in your court, and has been there from the moment you chose to close it contrary to what he pointed out. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If I truly believed there were an error, I would jump to fix it. I'm not going to accept that your judgment is so likely to be right that I should abandon my own and that of the community to bark at your command. You haven't shown that you're so right and we're all so wrong, so don't expect me to just start following your version of what to do if you haven't convinced me or anyone else that your version is any good.

Let's hear what others say, okay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not asking you to accept my judgment. I'm hoping you will actually personally recognize the error, whether it has anything to do with anything I say or do doesn't matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is an error, then I hope I learn about it. That's an "if". Your belief that there is one is not conclusive proof that there is one. Let's talk less, and listen more, okay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the close was a reasonable exercise of judgment by the closing admin. There was a slight numerical advantage in support of reverting; if even slightly greater weight is given to the ENGVAR argument as opposed to the others made, which I think is a reasonable judgment to make, it is then a reasonable judgment to find consensus to revert. Certainly another closer may have determined there was a lack of consensus, but the judgment by GTBacchus was reasonable, and should not be overturned. (Though I would prefer it be spelled Iodized) Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since both spellings in question are British English (no one has questioned this), how is ENGVAR even relevant here? ENGVAR is about retaining the language variant of the article, which in this case remains British English regardless of which title is used. GTB's entire basis for deciding in favor of moving was that the previous move in May (which was unanimous consensus, by the way), violated ENGVAR. How is this a reasonable judgment? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia uses ise, it was moved to an alternative, non Australian variety. I don't see how WP:ENGVAR is inapplicable. Monty₈₄₅ 06:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting the article was written in Australian English, I don't understand the relevance of Australian usage to the ENGVAR compliance question. WP:RETAIN, the applicable section of ENGVAR here, states: "When a variety of English has become established in an article, it should be maintained... ". Well, so far as I know, the "variety of English" that has been established in this article is British English, not Australian English, and that doesn't change whether the -ised or -ized spelling is used, since both are accepted and widely used in British English. That is, either way, the established English variety (British English) is retained. Therefore, GTB's basis for reverting the May unanimous consensus move -- based entirely on the assumption that that move violated ENGVAR -- is completely unfounded. How again is that reasonable? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove the article was not written in Australian English? Looks like it's written in Australian English to me. Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there no end to the extent that people are willing to go to rationalize basis for their positions? Your argument is that the variety of English of this article is Australian, not British? Really?

LOL, well, there actually is some basis for that position, as the original version was created by an IP registered in... Melbourne, Australia[29]! Gotta give ya that one!

As I wrote somewhere else, if there is basis for GTB's closing, it's not in any of the arguments presented in the discussion he closed; it's an ex post facto justification. It's pretty weak, but it is something. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, four people agreeing to something over the course of four days is not a "unanimous consensus" anything. It's four people. That's a small local consensus at best, and it does basically nothing towards overriding a strong, long-standing, global consensus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Four people unanimously agreeing is probably an above average consensus for a typical RM discussion. It's not to be overridden lightly. Of course it does not override a strong long-standing global consensus, except it did not do that, unless you're hanging your hat on the new Australian variant argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm suggesting that you stop thinking of arguments as things to hang hats on.

You know what's not to be overridden lightly? The consensus of thousands, who have established a consistent practice around our community understanding of ENGVAR, as it may or may not be documented on a stupid page somewhere. People should stop reading those pages.

Four people cannot override one thousand people, you seem to be requesting that we fly in the face of the consensus of a thousand. Where was it agreed to do that? Inertia of a guideline page is NOT an argument. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I would suggest that you're giving ENGVAR a very technical reading, as if it's that kind of "rule". It's not, and it's a damn shame if the page is written in a way that makes it seem to be. ENGVAR is not a technical rule, but a principle. Namely, ENGVAR = "Don't mess around with this kind of spelling issue without a real, real, real good reason." There isn't such a reason here, so ENGVAR recommends we not change the title. Getting into technical details as to exactly what counts as a national variety edit and what doesn't entails already having missed the point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If "Don't mess around with this kind of spelling issue without a real, real, real good reason." is what it's supposed to mean, then what ENGVAR is called and what it says needs to change. Because as it exists what it means in name and wording is, "In a given article use language that is consistent with the English variety established in that article." --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. ENGVAR says noting directly about titles, and even says nothing about avoiding spelling changes merely because they are only spelling changes. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge of ENGVAR is based on how Wikipedians use it, not based on what a lawyer wrote on a page, possibly under the misapprehension that she was creating a rule. I suggest you base yours on experience as well, and not on what's written on those often-misleading, often-inaccurate pages.

If the stupid guideline page needs fixing, then I suggest you fix it, and I suggest you fix it based on observations of consensus discussions on a variety of topics, and not based on what you figure it must be, or on what it happens to currently say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So, your personal opinion about what you believe 1000s of Wikipedians think ENGVAR means trumps what Wikipedians have agreed to put in clear writing for all to see in what you see as a "stupid guideline". Is there no limit to your arrogance? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec with section close - all done now)It's not my "personal opinion of what I believe they think". It's what I watched them do, over and over and over again! How many Wikipedians contributed to writing that guideline, and how many contributed to the discussions that it purports to describe? You want to claim that the few and the lawyerly are obviously a more reliable source than the many and and the productive? Is there no limit to your arrogance? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

strange error prevents me from creating a new article

I'm trying to create a new article for Karin Kloosterma​n. Whenever I click on that, and choose the "Create this page" tab, I get the message:

Unauthorized

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The page title that you have attempted to create contains a non-breaking space or other unusual space character. Such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace them with ordinary spaces and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

So, what's going on? I never had this problem before when creating articles. There is nothing unusual about the title. Dream Focus 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the letter "a" in "man", which is not a regular "a" (click on your redlink then look at the url) - try Karin Kloosterman instead. Bencherlite^Talk 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I copy and pasted the name from somewhere. It loads up exactly the same in Firefox. I don't see any difference at all. Dream Focus 11:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the computer does — you've got a zero-width space between the final two characters of the last name, and Wikipedia articles can't include them, except of course for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%80%8B&redirect=no. The "a" is the same as normal. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's what it is! I saw the code junk before the final letter and assumed the problem was the penultimate letter - hadn't seen a zero-width space before. Mind you, they're probably hard to spot, not having any width... Bencherlite^Talk 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, problem solved, thank you. I successfully created the article at Karin Kloosterman‎. Dream Focus 11:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request uninvolved admin to close

Admin GTBacchus has requested here that the page move ban against me be lifted.[30] The request to lift the ban has generated little discussion and has not been opposed, but after a week it still remains unresolved. I am asking that an uninvolved admin please take a look to close this matter before it again slips into the archives. Dolovis (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The request to lift the page move ban[now archived here] has, for the second time, now been moved into the archives. All I am asking for is for the community to take a sober second look at the reasons for the page move ban, and then the action of an uninvolved administrator to lift it. The only reason for a page move ban is to prevent disruptive editing, and I believe that that concern has been fully addressed. Dolovis (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of opposition, I propose that the restriction be amended only to cover titles with diacritics in them, as previously discussed. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that was what was agreed to in the previous thread. All that really needs to be done is for an uninvolved admin to rubber stamp this. Jenks24 (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user userpage User:Teach4Morocco

Blocked user userpage User:Teach4Morocco, out of scope.--Musamies (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You can just tag stuff like that G11, you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone, please close this RFC

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence - discussion on this issue has been going on for months and it would be nice to have an uninvolved admin close the RFC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with semi-protected article edit request

Hi. I posted a template for assistance some time ago and my request has yet to be properly addressed. Could somebody please glance over here? Thank you. SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Reopening Of Snow Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics

Colonel Warden has snow closed 19 hours early Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. At least 2 editors before he last logged in queried him of his decision. He had not replied.

I ask the reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics and let the afd run it's course and let an admin close the discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Point of information: Spartaz has reclosed the discussion as keep (not snow/speedy keep). It was still a little early. LadyofShalott 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Overdue AfD

Resolved

 – Closed by Joe Decker.

Would it be possible for this AfD to be either closed or relisted? Thanks. SuperMarioMan 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Economy of Iran

Hi,

I am asking 2 things:

1. Please warn and block the anon user here who keeps vandalizing Wikipedia. This anon user has been warned and reported to admins already but he/she keeps doing it.

2. Please protect economy of Iran indefinitely so that only established users can edit it.

Thanks. SSZ (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Two edits in as many months isn't generally enough to earn a block. You're free to warn him yourself. If there's something else going on, please point it out.
2. I'm seeing far too much editing by IPs to be comfortable putting a semi on that article. Of the last 50 edits, the vast majority are by IPs, and I don't see the massive levels of vandalism that would be required to justify removing their ability to edit the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)