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

ITN

Would somebody please update Template:In the News with this item (blurb provided) which has consensus and has been updated at WP:ITN/C. I'm willing to notify editors etc, but editing the template requires admin rights. HJMitchell You rang? (archiving timestamp added) Fram (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo requests block of User:7107delicious

Resolved

 – user retired/remains blocked. Jack Merridew 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See here. GTD 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:LessHeard vanU here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about this. An indefinite block for what appears to have been a rather dumb prank? Would a stern warning and maybe a block of a few days not have sufficed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing slash fiction about Jimbo sleeping with underage girls is hardly a minor offence! GTD 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I'd be tempted to endorse the block until 7107 explains him/herself. Ale_Jrb^2010! 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Was this sub-page recently created or had it been sitting around for awhile? Seems like a fairly normal editing pattern so far. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisO on this one. Also, Jimbo seems to call for a block, not specifying indef or any other term. By all means demand an explanation etc, but perhaps do that /before/ jumping to the block? Where was the prevention? Looks punitive. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good Lord, nobody but my priest would consider that story "pornographic" and the user never would have been blocked had the story not been about Dear Jimbo. The story (which has been hosted on the Wikia website Uncyclopedia for years) is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan. Absurd overreaction and most certainly not an attack page. --auburnpilot talk 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of 'Dear Jimbo', I'd say it's definitely an attack page, so I disagree with you there. An indef is probably overracting through and unlikely to stand, so I agree with you on that one, I've decided. Ale_Jrb^2010! 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of Jimbo is irrelevant, and I doubt you'll be successful in finding a single diff of me making my opinion of him known. But thanks for attempting to make this something it isn't. --auburnpilot talk 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"...is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan" Yes, about Jimbo going on a date with a sexualised child cartoon figure. Creepy GTD 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation both host images and stories of sexualized cartoon figures as "unofficial mascots"? That would seem to be a much more pressing issue. I'm not advocating that we restore the page, only that we act with a little more thought. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And given some of the other drawings created by the person who made the "unofficial mascot", this is a PR disaster waiting to happen GTD 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late about the PR thing. I saw a thread on this while viewing Wikipedia Review (along with some of the "artwork" by the cartoon character's creator - 1st time I've ever seen his drawings either, and I wish I hadn't). Makes me a little nervous that he's and admin (and potentially has access to IPs and addresses of underage editors) on the Japanese Wikipedia.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have become quite agressive quite quickly - I'm not the one making it into something it isn't. O_o I certainly never stated that you had an opinion of Jimbo, so I have no idea why I would be searching for diffs in that regard. Ale_Jrb^2010! 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not an attack, then why was it done? It looks to be designed to at least irritate. Hell, it even irritates me. It's incredibly dumb. I'd find it pretty offensive if it were written about me, moreover it seems to suggest a little more than a date - with a dubious sex-kitten cartoon-child. However you look at it, it's weird. That said, an indefinite block seems excessive. A stern warning would do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unauthorized slashfic about an editor/BLP subject and a childlike character with explicit sexual references – while I am no prude, this is beyond the pale for userspace content. That said, I'm not sure upholding the block of 7107delicious on the sole grounds of hosting the material is fair. The blocked editor is unlikely to be the author given that the material was posted almost two years ago by another (yet unblocked) account. Furthermore, 7107delicious appears to come from a cultural background very different from that of most editors, and is among our younger contributors. They may not have understood how such material might be viewed by the rest of us. For a fuller picture, see this discussion of their alternate accounts, this autoblock, and this ANI thread.  Skomorokh  15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized how sadly askew my point of view was regarding Wikipe-tan as "normal" before the reminders above that she is a Manga-style cartoon character of ambiguous sexual promotion. "Controversial morality" would appear to be suggested by a date with "her", and the BLP/NPA/many issues would apply to absolutely any Wikipedia community member if put up in this light. To a certain Wikipedia demographic that might not seem 100% strange, but considering the niche reader group it appears to be either emulating and/or mocking? Either direction, I'd consider it attack-based without an explanation given. Even if it were me, knowing full well what the attempt at humor might be perhaps in ever high faith, I'd entirely object. I think I'll watchlist a handful of articles at the Anime and Manga portal apt to see related edits. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

e/c(outdent) As 7107's former mentor (I volunteered to help him) I am not surprised in the slightest that he has been blocked, although the manner of the block is a complete and utter surprise! He has irritated a lot of users, and blundered his way through CHU, ANI and users talk pages, so I expected that he would sooner or later recieve a ban preventing him from taking part in such areas. This fiction page is a completely new turn of events for him, compared with his previous edits.

In case anyone is interested, have a look at the version on the 5th December 2009 of the mentor page before it was deleted, to get a feel of what he was doing, and what I was trying to stop him from doing. I ended the mentorship because it ended up being too much work trying to pick up the pieces from his edits (both on and off the Wiki). Had he stuck to the restrictions, I would gladly have spent all my time trying to help him, but he wouldn't.

A couple of things though - I think it would be fairer to give him a temp block, and give him a chance to explain himself. Also, I seem to recall that he created a second account to use at school, but the name of that account escapes me at the moment. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's only indef because that allows it to be lifted as soon as the matter is cleared up. The content was scurrilous fantasy, of course, but it invoked a real person without their permission and made implications that, even if obviously presented in an unbelievable context, is potentially extremely damaging to Jimbo and everyone associated with him - and that would be me and you, folks. My action after blocking D7107 was to suggest that they contact Jimbo and explain themselves - via me if wanted - to get this matter sorted out. I am not Jimbo's greatest fan, but I am fairly certain that after a little discussion this matter will likely be resolved amicably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from there LHvU, but why does he/she/it need to talk to Jimbo? When there is, for example, a legal threat block that person only has to convince the blocking admin they retracted/never made the threat; they do not have to convince the person who felt threatened. If it is a personal attack, then they don't need to apologise, just convince a reviewing admin. Why must we go 'It is Jimbo!' and suddenly run away from established procedure? It does neither him nor the rest of us any good. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (EC)

If I inferred a real-named person had a sexual attraction for children, I would expect to get blocked. At the very least. What is the debate here? GTD 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly active on the blocking of editors following personal attacks, and I usually consider the sensibilities of the target when making a decision on block length. In this instance I thought it appropriate that the person dealt with Jimbo himself. I would point out also that I have reviewed the subsequent discussion at Jimbo's talkpage, where it is apparent that the content (which I also reviewed) is not D7107's own original work. The question is why they decided to hold it in WP space. If they have a good explanation, why not present it to Jimbo? If he is satisfied, as the effected editor, then there is no need for D7107 to remain blocked. Under the circumstances as I read them, I felt this the most appropriate way in dealing with the issue.

Finally, as an admin I am answerable to the community. If the community feels that I acted too severely in protecting another member then by all means alter or reverse my action - I will not oppose even if I do not approve. I would say that, outside of the "talk to the man" bit, this would be how I would deal with unusual personal attacks; get the views of the attackee before taking further actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the community decides to do with 7107, it should also be applied to his alternative account he created for use at school (User:Das Sicherheit) and his original account that he has retired, but is still available for use (User:RuleOfThe9th). Stephen! ^Coming... 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So, is it the editor who is blocked, or the account? If the former, then shouldn't the alternative accound also be blocked? Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Account only. I was not aware at the time of alternate accounts, and am not now - given this discussion - minded to pursue blocking of other accounts without community consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the users User:StephenBuxton is referring to as having been irritated by 7107; mostly it's covered on 7107's talk page. I didn't see the 'story' but am unsurprised that we're here. Before anyone gets too far down the good-faith unblock road, please review his total history. You'll find an immature and disruptive user and little else. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, thanks for clarifying that. IMO, the block was reasonable. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. 7107 may be able to convince an admin to unblock him if he demonstrates he has learnt from the block and the actions that led to it. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Jack Merridew - as the most found editor on the talk page - some weeks back - I am rather concerned that all this has the sense of feeding the troll - regardless of the outcome - he wants the attention - this specific conversation in most parts is conducted in AGF and unfortunately and unwillingly I suspect we are giving the needed attention (give him an opportunity to explain himself? - read the talk page and edit history surely is enough)- if you read the user page history and the talk page history carefully he actually talks about being blocked for his editing - I personally see no point in giving him any further chances - having endured his talk page antics.

I am suggesting an unblocking of this editor is simply providing wikipedia with further excitement in what can i do next to disrupt wikipedia? - it is well beyond AGF now folks - 3 different user names and the edit history is enough surely?

However for those who are concerned I might be biased - please look at the editors specific edit history, and the comments at the talk page - my pedantic ramblings notwithstanding - and actually look at the editors work - rather than get lost in the actual detail here at this noticeboard - it is far too easy to get lost in the arguments here - than the actual edit and talk page history - in question.

I would suggest that if there is a reviewing admin of the block and the circumstances - there are Wikipedia Indonesia issues that might surface as well - and possibly at the German project as well. Also for some strange and a not easy to prove reason - there are possible signs that the account is used by more than one person - but it is also possible that the differences in comprehension and writing during the lifetime of the accounts are the work of one individual. SatuSuro 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

7107 has now responded on his talk page about the block, and I have informed him of this thread. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just spent some time ploughing through this thread, the user's talk page and the childish (in both senses) story on jimbo's page, I see no reason at this time to unblock. I would suggest that the user is invited to apply for unblock in, say, a year's time, when he might possibly have developed a degree of the maturity which he clearly at present lacks. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a matter of procedure only I have blocked the alt accounts. If the main account is unblocked the declared alt should be unblocked. The other is labelled as retired so either way on that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As 7107D has indicated that he is emailing Jimbo, I have dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page about this discussion - depending on what we hear should help us determine the length of the block. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

His own attitude about this on his talk page is surprisingly uncaring. But by all means, just as long as he apologies, he should be un-blocked. It doesn’t matter what you all think about the Block, but what Jimbo himself said about the now deleted attack page.--Misortie (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• What we should consider is what we would do if anybody other than Jimbo Wales was the subject of that page (assuming it's an attack page, on which I can't comment since I don't know of the story and I'm not an admin so can't access the page). Would 7107D be indefd if the subject had been me or you? If the consensus is "yes", then the block should remain and 7107D can appeal it in a reasonable period of time (at least a month). If the answer is "no", the block should be lifted. I've no opinion on the outcome, but I would hate to think that undue consideration is given to the subject of the page and not the behaviour of the editor. HJMitchell You rang? 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Had it been an editor with no constructive edits, then regardless of subject, indef would be appropriate. For editors with constructive edits, then a temp ban would be in order. This user has been high maintenance, and does not seem to have learned from his past mistakes, even though he does contribute to the project. It is when he tries to do things like warning people, or conversing on talk pages that he usually ends up annoying someone. I think Anthony Bradbury made a good suggestion - block for a year, to give him a chance to develop the degree of maturity needed. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• 7107 has {{retired}} — see here. Jack Merridew 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  That's the third or fourth time I've seen him put that sign up (lost count), but given that he is indefinitely blocked, I think the retirement might be staying up this time. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I recall seeing some prior retired statement. Anyway, the indef came first so I added {{indef}} to his user page. After he posted the retired template, he popped over to commons and made a dubious upload, which I queried him about (no reply, yet). All of his uploads there look improper. I suppose his stuff here should be review, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail Category

Placed here in lieu of finding any other noticeboard for this type of issue.

One editor has repeatedly placed Category:Nazi propaganda on the Daily Mail article. The apparent purpose of the category was to group German language clear propaganda subjects together, and I rather think placing the Daily Mail in that group fails to recognize the reason for the category, and is intended primarily in the same vein as the redirects "Daily Heil" and the like were used on WP in the past. As POV-pushing of that ilk was deleted from the redirects in the past, I would suggest the category ought not be used on the article about a British newspaper. Collect (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest this is best discussed on the article's talk page. Garibaldi Baconfat 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's best discussed on the user's talk page after he's blocked for it. Discussion on article talk pages is for things which might improve the encyclopaedia; we will be adding that category right after Satan finishes his snowball fight. The Daily Mail is an arsewipe but that is not an excuse. This is RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a long record of disruption, his talk page is dominated by warnings for disruption and other inappropriate behaviour. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are getting soft Guy. If I had read this ten minutes earlier he would already be blocked on the basis that there is no plausible explanation for his edits other than intentional disruption in article-space - it's within a hairs breadth of what we would usually classify as vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is vandalism, and disruption, and I'm in no doubt that it's deliberate given the user's history. Feel free to block him, it's certainly deserved. Choosing something which is close enough to the borderline to spark a really long debate is the mark of a good troll. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to jump in to defend RHMED, but jumping in to defend RHMED - its brief period in the 1930s as a Nazi propaganda sheet is one of the best known pieces of the Daily Mail's history, so it's hardly out-of-the-blue trolling. The leading academic work on Nazism in Britain takes its name from a Daily Mail headline. – iridescent 10:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but the addition is still deliberately disruptive for reasons which are, I think, obvious. It is not currently a Nazi propaganda sheet (although it comes close on occasion). Guy (Help!) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what are the current Nazi propaganda sheets? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The category tag is almost certainly not appropriate. But not by a great distance, and I think it is at least plausible that I could be made to stand corrected if a good RS were produced. There is nothing, as far as I can see, to indicate that this is trolling, and it is something that can be adequtely dealt with on the talk page IMO. The issue of whether the DM needs to be currently a Nazi propaganda sheet for the cat to be applicable, for example, should be determined there rather than here.--FormerIP (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) The above comments made me look up that editor -- with not just a checkered career on WP but a slew of them which were found. Including "Garibaldi Baconfat" overtly above. Will an admin put an end to this farce? Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, your case has support on the talkpage and it looks very unlikely that the edit in question will be allowed to stand. In the event that RHMED perists in repeatedly adding a category that everyone else objects to, then you'll have my backing. But at the moment, I can't see why you think admin intervention is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It5's needed because he keeps doing shit like this. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with his past history. You obviously don't like the cut of his jib, and I think I can see why. However, in the current case he has made an edit that, whilst it is undue and POV-pushing, is vaguely defendable (ie it looks to have been made in good faith). He looks to have only performed one revert and he is now participating in talk. It does not look like a situation which requires any immediate admin involvement. --FormerIP (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually two reverts. In short order. Do a search on him and pseudonyms. The two admins above appear to be well familiar with him (IIRC, he stood for ArbCom this last time out - getting a net negative 394 votes). Collect (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I dislike his tendency to disruption, choosing something which is borderline defensible is exactly what you do if you want to maximise drama. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, part of the problem is that the category doesn't state exactly what it covers. I'm not up on my between-wars history, but if the DM was a known Nazi supporter at the time, then I can understand the inclusion of the article in the category, even though the DM doesn't take that stance today. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think one point has been missed: there was a historical period where the newspaper could have been fairly described by that category. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's a perfect way of trolling. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one reason why I'm dissatisfied sometimes with the concept & practice of the category aspect of Wikipedia. Even when someone is acting in good faith, it's too easy for categories to end up being a problem. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Categories are good for top-level grouping - Category:Newspapers published in the United Kingdom, for example, or Category:Taoisigh of Ireland or some such. For minor or historical facets you can't beat prose, and I'm sure this is covered well in Nazi propaganda. Anything that requires explanation or generates a "wtf?" is likely a bad fit for a category. This is not new. Obviously if this were adding Category:Thieving bastards to any past or present Chancellor of the Exchecquer then we'd have no argument, since that is uncontentious. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Guy, that's not a real category. Shame on you! ;-) llywrch (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I need to propose that rename, don't I? Guy (Help!) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

May Grundle2600 suggest changes to articles covered by his topic ban at his talk page?

Unresolved

 – While the proximal situation is resolved per the editors' commitment not to create further such threads, I remain curious about the question in general, though perhaps this is best reserved for WT:BAN. –xeno^talk 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC), User agrees not to. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! There's a template for everything! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to a thread at User:Grundle2600's talk page (User talk:Grundle2600#Would someone who isn't topic banned please add these things to the Holocaust article? / permlink), I would like to solicit opinions as to whether such threads are appropriate (see also a previous thread, "I found a mistake about a living political person. Would someone who isn't topic banned please fix it?").

While they don't appear to violate the letter of the topic ban (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600: continued problems and User:Grundle2600/Community sanction) they surely seem to violate the spirit. However, I am not a regular in terms of handing down or enforcing community sanctions, so additional input would be appreciated. –xeno^talk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Therefore, I am allowed to make suggestions, and other editors are allowed to adopt those suggestions, as long as they have their own reasons for doing so. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, in that the wording of WP:PROXYING there appears to provide a clear exception to the assume good faith guideline. So the banned user suggests an edit, someone does so and is challenged on it, the burden of proof will be on that 2nd editor to prove that they acted in good faith; there would be no assumption first. IMO Grundle, you're going to put other editors into jeopardy by acting on your suggestions, esp if they are not exactly in good standing (cough) to begin with. Advice? Stick to the areas outside of your topic ban, 100%. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I agree with you, because I do not want to put other editors in jeopardy. Thanks for commenting. I will stop making such suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be "unresolved". Grundle should be able to propose things on his talk page. That's an ideal place for discussion. It doesn't interfere with article work in any way and no one is compelled to read or respond to his suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging unresolved per your request to gather more opinions. –xeno^talk 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose we create a separate talk page to discuss whether or not this issue has been resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who "proxied" an edit for Grundle, I think it depends is an important answer to the initial question. For example, Grundle posted a source which he claimed refuted something in an article, and wanted the article changed. Actually, the source he provided supported what was in the article, so I was able to use his source to provide additional support for the statement he wanted taken out. If Grundle is providing sources which other editors can read and judge critically and decide one way or another, independent of Grundle's wishes, how to incorporate that information that should be fine. If Grundle simply posts his desired changes to his talk pages, and other editors are simply enacting his wishes uncritically, that is a very different thing. Its all about the notion that Grundle's proposed changes should be filtered through more trusted editors. As long as that filtering goes on, I see no reason to disallow changes based on Grundle's suggestions. If there is evidence that edits are being made without such filtering, and are happening automatically without any critical analysis of Grundle's proposals, then that would be a problem. --Jayron32 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, I think that's an excellent example of why this shouldn't be that much of a concern. He's just tossing those things out and it's up to other editors to take it or leave it, and do whatever they want with it. Pardon the crude metaphor, but if people are able to use manure to grow a garden then what's the harm? -- Atama頭 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He can post ideas all day long and no one is compelled to act on them. And he might come up with something useful and neutral, i.e. worthy of inclusion. "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a topic ban is to separate a user from an area where they are causing problems. This has two main purposes as far as I can tell: to bring calm to the articles, and to help the user to drop an obsessive interest on a given topic. Allowing the user to make suggestions on their talk page violates both parts of this. It obviously doesn't help the user to move on, and it also brings the user and their (usually) problematic content agenda right back to the articles from which they were topic banned, with a fair likelihood that the locus of disputwe will simply be moved to the user's talk page instead. Allowing people to walk round topic bans by making comments on their talk page seems to me to break the spirit of the topic ban pretty comprehensively. Inability to let go and move on is also not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone does want to start a discussion at WT:BAN, this recent WP:VPP discussion (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_70#Banned_users) might be of interest. Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as the suggestions remain constructive, I fail to see how the project is damaged. Anyone choosing to act on a suggestion bears the burden of those edits. Grundle is being transparent and, it seems to me, acting within his topic ban. It seems to me if anyone is unhappy with the particular POV that Grundle posts on his user page, then perhaps they should just ignore it. Ronnotel (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. This is an open invitation to people to evade a topic ban, solicit editors to proxy on their behalf, solicit only those editors who are sympathetic to their POV, and in sundry other ways is antithetical to the idea of banning. If someone is topic banned it's because we don't want them getting involved in that topic. It only happens when there have been significant problems. Do we really want to actively encourage people to grandstand on their talk pages in the hope that someone will come along and take up the cudgels on their behalf? I think it's a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The archived VPP proposal was designed exactly to avoid solicitation, and instead to get neutral editors to review suggestions. The motivation for bothering is partly that topic/banned editors can easily email sympathetic editors - and if there's no onwiki outlet for their thoughts, that's more likely to happen. Which is bad for transparency, amongst other things. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the "give clean needles to addicts cause they're just gonna shoot up anyways" approach, which I do not particularly agree with. As noted above, topic bans are handed down because a editor has demonstrated to the community a complete inability to function within that area. Being involved in a topic means a great deal more than simply hitting "submit" on an article, so topic bans should remove someone from the arena completely; no grandstands, no sidelines...not even the nosebleed seats. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how appropriate that metaphor is, but funnily enough, I do agree with Harm reduction. Rd232 ^talk 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, this is why there is a distinction between 'page' and 'topic' bans, and why both have been used to deal with disruptive editing. As the names imply, the former applies to specific pages (or groups of pages), while the latter applies to specific topics. If the community finds that an individual's editing at a particular page is harmful, the damage may be contained by a page ban. (Perhaps an editor frequently files frivolous or vexatious 3RR reports; a page ban from WP:AN/3RR may be in order.) On the other hand, if the community feels that the approach of an editor to a particular topic area is problematic then it may issue a suitable topic ban. We have both tools in our toolbox, to be applied to different situations as deemed necessary.

Encouraging an editor to evade his topic ban through userspace posts and the like often doesn't solve the problem. (It may defuse the 'lone wacko' problem by moving ranting away from useful talk pages, but that isn't generally the trouble where a topic ban placed.) Typically, the topic banned editor is surrounded by a constellation of (typically fringe or minority) supporters, plus a coterie of self-appointed Defenders of the Downtrodden (who are usually much worse wikilawyers than they realize, and who often very effectively entrench the community's support for a ban). Instead of the directly disruptive editing taking place on the article or it's talk page, the disruption becomes a travelling circus that spreads across an assortment of user talk pages and administrative noticeboards. The topic-banned editor figures he has little more to lose, and his entourage is filled with stubborn, self-righteous indignance. It's not a good thing.

A topic ban is a topic ban. If we meant page ban, we would have said page ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping my promise to no longer make such recommendations on my talk page.

That being said, simply because I am curious, I would like to point out that there has not been any official answer to my request of a clarification of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users, which says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."

That bolded part means that topic banned editors are indeed allowed to make suggested changes on their own talk page. I am sticking to my promise to avoid making such suggestions. But I am still curious to hear a clarification of the bolded part from an administrator.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the purpose of that language isn't to specifically allow for what you want to do (make suggested changes) but to inhibit Wikilawyering. I can imagine a situation where an editor wants to make a change to an article, on his own initiative and for a good reason, but isn't allowed to because a banned user just happens to support that same change. Also note that the language only applies to what a non-banned editor does, not what a banned editor does. In other words, it allows someone to add material to an article that falls under your topic ban, but it doesn't allow you to make the request in the first place. -- Atama頭 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this marked resolved again? There appears to be an active discussion with several editors noting that allowing Grundle to make proposals on his talk page is appropriate.

Secondly, the numerous personal attacks and smears in this thread are unfortunate and ironic. It does show that there are many problems here that have nothing at all to do with Grundle, and this kind of abusive and uncivil behavior towards a fellow editor working in good faith is not acceptable.

I haven't seen any policy argument for disallowing an editor from making suggestions on their talk page. And in fact it's a very good way for an editor who has had difficulty to get feedback without interfering with article editing (the purpose of the ban) and it is completely transparent unlike the e-mail campaigns and cabalism that go on here.

Many of those speaking out in opposition to Grundle being allowed to make suggestions on his talk page are editors who disagree strongly with his perspectives. Going after editors because we disagree with them is abhorrent, and no one has provided a good argument for how the project will be disrupted by allowing someone to discuss content and sourcing issues on their talk page. That is exactly what talk pages are for and it is a great way for an editor to get input and feedback on their content building ideas. It should be noted that Grundle has been a good sport about enduring stalking and harassment by a large number of POV pushing stalkers hanging about on his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is precisely why this user is the subject of an active RfC; butting in to toss around accusations of bad faith, insinuations of cabal activity and the like. No one here is "going after editors because we disagree with them", and this boilerplate ChildofMidnight attack like is getting rather pathetic, quite frankly.

As for the matter at hand, IMO I don't think WP:PROXYING had topic bans in mind when it was written, as it seems to be more focused on editors who have completely lost access to the Wikipedia, and not just a narrow portion of it. A user who is barred from a topic should be barred completely, with no wiki-lawyering around the edges. If the section on proxy editing needs to be adjusted to reflect topic bans, than that is the direction to go here. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A choice comment from the RfC, made by Grundle: "I agree with ChildofMidnight's claim that there are editors who are trying to censor the encyclopedia by removing relevant, well sourced information. Every edit war that I have ever been involved in was of the type where I added relevant, well sourced material, and other people kept erasing it." An absolute classic. Of course there is no conceivable good faith reason why the terrible people should not be censoring Wikipedia to remove relevant and well-sourced material, because having decided that the material is relevant and well-sourced any removal is naturally motivated solely by a desire to censor the content. Oh, sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record as it were, and as some well know, this "other people kept erasing it" complaint has been going on for 7 or 8 months now and is at the core of the problems with Grundle's editing, but in a slightly different way than JzG suggests above (though the cry of "censors!" is also obviously incredibly problematic). It entails one of the more stunningly inaccurate (and stubborn) readings of NPOV I've ever seen, and despite repeated efforts (as in dozens of times) by multiple editors to explain the problem to Grundle he persists in arguing along these lines. This goes back to at least May ("An article gets balanced by adding to it, not by erasing from it. If you think my addition is unbalanced, then please add to it what you think needs to be added. But please don't erase what I wrote"...!!!!!....those are my exclamation points, I needed them!) and has come up repeatedly since then (e.g., "Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff"). As the comment in the RfC suggests, I do not think this attitude of Grundle's has changed at all, and it obviously is pretty much the exact opposite of what writing in an NPOV fashion is about (and forget about the brevity problems if "everyone gets to add what they want").

Given that Grundle has been misreading our most fundamental policy for well over half a year and that any attempts at explaining it seem to bounce right off, it's rather amazing that Grundle is still around. I think we're beyond last chances at this point, but unfortunately most people don't know the sheer amount of time and effort that folks (including me, but a lot of others too) have put in trying to get Grundle on the straight and narrow, all to no avail. Nothing is going to come of this particular incident, but we'll be back here again, and I for one am quite sick of trying to deal with this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a compelling point, and this is precisely why the topic ban should not be wikilawyered. I suspect that Grundle has become adept at manipulating people's good faith, and this thread is just another example of how easy that can be. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Dramaout starts in two weeks

Just a quick reminder, the 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout begins in exactly two weeks from now. Any admins who want to participate just sign up at the page and keep an eye on the date. Hopefully we can make this event even more successful than the first one. :) -- œ^™ 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bah, humbug. I vote we block Giano on day 1 just because. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You do the block, then I'll contact Viridae via IRC to do the unblock, and then crosspost requests for review to WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't Bishzilla do the unblocks for Giano? I know Viridae handles unblock requests via WR, I didn't know he was working for Giano as well now. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• What? Have I have been usurped at both? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I know, we should have a rouge admin strike over demarcation. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we need a dramaout? Am I the only Wikipedian who has a life? (Although I'd like a job too. I can contribute more content when I'm employed.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I for one have my popcorn ready. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I hate popcorn. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Let's MFD the stupid thing the moment it goes live. Nobody who supports it would dare to speak up. ;) Durova³⁹⁴ 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Except the drama lovers who will rush to protect it and create huge ANI debates over it... unless, of course, I block them all with talkpage privileges disallowed! Sorted!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The irritating thing about about this program is its presumption that everything outside of article space is wasted time. People can focus on content without preening about it and without putting down their peers who resolve vandalism, etc. It's more than a little hypocritical. Durova³⁹⁴ 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I only do it to be trendy, cause all my t-shirts went out of style, and I haven't got much left... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Heehee. :) Durova³⁹⁴ 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is voluntary, for those that need it, and as an alternative there is also Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaonly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

McCready topic ban

• Moved from WP:ANI and restoring archived material. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Archive search for McCready
• Arbcom punts issue back to community

---

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [1]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [2] and here [3]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [4] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [5] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [6]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [7]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [8] and Virtual Steve [9] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [10]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [11] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [12]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[13], including with an IP[14][15] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[16]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[17] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [18] [19]
• MastCell [20]
• David Ruben [21]
• FeloniousMonk [22]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [23])
• Jim62sch [24]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [25])
• Friday [26]
• Jefffire [27]
• Arthur Rubin [28]

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[29], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

The bot for this page archived [30] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [31]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [32] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [33]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Brilliant,_fabulous). It seems to me that McCready is still obsessive about pseudoscience topics and I am not comfortable with lifting the topic ban as it's close to impossible to keep a lid on those topics already. I've modified my opinion from above because in looking through the archives I find a fair bit of evidence of previous ban evasion and other nonsense (including recently editing in this area without the ban being lifted); that is not a good sign. This may be a case of "give a dog a bad name" but I really do think that these articles are better off without McCready's input. I don't think it's a problem necessarily of whether he can make properly neutral edits to this content, it's what happens when anyone disputes his edits that causes the problem. I think the WP:TIGERS are best kept in their cages on this one.

The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)

Richard Dawkins (8)

Ubiquitin (8)

Osteochondritis dissecans (7)

Talk:Water fluoridation (7)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)

Missy Higgins (6)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)

Fiat money (5)

PubMed (5)

Lee Myung-bak (5)

Karl Kruszelnicki (5)

User talk:Collectonian (5)

Silicosis (4)

Antireligion 4)

Meningitis (4)

New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

There are also plenty of examples of my collegiate editing on my talkpage. Will you please do me the courtesy of reading them. I have tried assiduously from the time of the ban to avoid wikidrama and now it is old enemies who want to create it. My recent record shows I just want to get on editing.

Now will you try to address the question. Even supposing the ban was validly placed (and that is disputed) it is false to argue that normal sanctions cannot be applied if I step out of line. You will also notice, will you not, that the POV pusher who has come out of retirement again and who is behind this from the start, has failed once again to come up with the goods on acupressure. He objects to scientific material being placed in areas where he edits (I can give a list of these off wiki because we wouldn't want to identify him would we?) Finally, will you investigate canvassing by him? A simple yes or no will suffice. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan ^T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)

Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read WP:COI. Members of X profession may edit articles on X topic as long as they're not POV-pushing, and no admin ever found that I was. However, if you're right about there being a "matter of record", I'm sure you can email me the diff(s) off-wiki, right? And if you can't, I'll take your silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

11 users have now commented. Only Middle8 appears to have read the full history and users can make their own judgment on his views and motive for doing so. One user has declined because links weren't provided. Since the links were on my talkpage and I requested people to look at them, and indeed they have been provided above by other users, users can again make their own judgment. Others have alluded to the possibility that the ban doesn't exist. Others have commented on their past views but have not reviewed my edits since the ban. One user has commented at greater length on my edits since the ban but has not responded to my further questions. In summary there is no consensus to support Middle8's views. So, unless others want to support Middle8's vendetta (and please address the original question with a more purposeful focus if you do), I intend to resume normal editing. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is false - I also read the full history and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The ban exists, this is not in doubt. I have said that I would not support lifting of the ban. Others agree, and this does not seem to be restricted to those who are on the opposite side from you in respect of fringe and pseudoscience content. ArbCom has said it will leave the ban status to the community, so you need to persuade people. The best way of doing that would be a sustained period of unproblematic editing on other topics. Your edit history shows that when you are not editing the articles in question you are largely inactive, so it is natural that some of us will be sceptical about lifting the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously I disagree Guy on many points. Your opinion that my edits since the "ban" do not amount to much is not shared by all the people who have commented on my talkpage. And please spare me the bullying and threats. I'm at one with Middle8 on this score.

Here are the numbers:

1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing

2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy

3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue

4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,

6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy

7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

Am I missing something Guy or is the "community" represented here by 12 people and myself versus you and Middle8 not as concerned as you are with this vendetta? I will now resume normal editing. You have had a chance to be constructive but you are even more stubborn than Middle8 and on opinion which is not shared by others, you have not responded to my questions. You do not represent the community on this issue.Kevin McCready (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kevin, that's a pretty deceptive summary. The point is that we are all against you editing in the area of your topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Now blocked for 100 hours for ignoring the topic ban by editing at chiropractic education. Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban

First off, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I did an in-depth evaluation of the topic ban approximately a year ago (Jan. 2009). Mccready wanted a review of the "indefinite topic ban (banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed) with a general probation on pseudoscience of one full year" that I enacted, following ANI discussions, 01:00, May 7, 2008. (This requested review was preceded by a December 2008 ANI discussion and December 2008 AN topic ban review, both which were only semi-productive but certainly provided indication of any support to reduce or eliminate any of Mccready's editing restrictions.) My Jan. 2009 review concluded:

The recent community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand.

This was evidently unsatisfactory, and further discussion turned south as Mccready became more argumentative.

A month later (Feb.-Mar. 2009), admin User:VirtualSteve came to effectively the same conclusions in a further review initiated by Mccready. Then, Mccready initiated a review in March 2009 on ANI, that supported all the previous reviews. After editing sparsely over the next several months, Mccready returned to editing on indefinitely topic banned pages in October 2009. This set off a subsequent round of review that resulted in reiteration fo the status quo by admin Kevin/Rdm2376, followed by dubious & combative WP:AN posts, burned bridges and block drama.

All of these ban reviews have had common responses from Mccready indicating he has not yet and likely never will consider the opinions upholding any topic ban to be of merit (indeed, he apparently believes this "wasn't a 'community ban'"). Comments by Mccready directed at admins that have upheld editing restrictions often fall along the lines of "[a particular admin has shown a] refusal to engage in a logical discussion" presumably because s/he hasn't come to the conclusions desired by Mccready [34]. This has been a pattern of repeated forum shopping and tedious wikilawyering, with multiple instances of aggressive and uncooperative behavior spanning a couple years.

Moreschi's block is perfectly appropriate given that recent edits clearly violated the still-in-effect topic ban; a warning, seen or missed as the case may be, was a courtesy not a requirement in this case. At this point, I would recommend a full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed, at least; perhaps up to a full siteban based on a pattern of behavior that indicates an unwillingness to work within community standards.

Note: I believe Mccready should maintain the ability to respond to any comments in this discussion on his talk page while blocked (assuming that privelage is not reasonably revoked for disruption). Furthermore, I ask that Middle 8 voluntarily disengage from any further participation in this topic due to the long, contentious relationship between these two accounts. — Scientizzle 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will do. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know, I do think that what he needs is to gain some experience in articles where he feels less strongly, just getting along with folks with everyday causal disagreements. I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong, too. From what I've seen, I think it's doubtful that Mccready will accept anything less than a full elimination of all editing restrictions. To be honest, I was leaning towards 'a clean slate' approach until Mccready started with the deceptive "evaluations" of various opinions (that list of 14 above), consistent with prior patterns of behavior, and then the brash topic-banned editing and the resulting unblock request BS...the patterns of behavior that contributed to the topic ban have not demonstrably changed it seems. — Scientizzle 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed". It's sad to see when certain hot-headed people's emotions get the best of them, and they do things which they might regret later. (Can happen to the best of us, if we hold to some positions very stronlgy.) Unfortunate, yes, and not very helpful. But I am not convinced that an indefinite topic ban is called-for in this case. Could be actually counterproductive. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for Template:Unblock reviewed

As per what was said here, I used the {{edit protected}} template on the unblock request talk page, but it was declined. Can we please keep this section from archiving so we can actually get consensus on the matter?— Dædαlus ^Contribs

As I commented intimated at the archived thread, this is a solution in search of a problem (or a solution to a problem that occurs very rarely). The template gives admins an idiot-proof code segment to copy and paste, so they won't get the parameter wrong. Those that do should be trouted =) –xeno^talk 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say that in the archived thread. What you said was that it shouldn't such a big deal to bring to this noticeboard, and that I should just request it through {{editprotected}}. You also asked for an instance when it happened, which I provided. What precisely you said can be seen below:

It seems just to be adding some alternate names for the parameter? No big deal - should've just been proposed thru the {{edit protected}} imo. Has this ever actually been a problem, though? The unblock template even gives us a idiot-proof copy and pastable code segment... –xenotalk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to read between the lines =) –xeno^talk 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to alter the coding to allow for errors, rather than alter the coding to make the user aware of their errors. Further, it is beneficial to the blockee to know why they are blocked, and there won't always be someone around to spot a misuse of the template.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish this to be archived until others comment on the issue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for this, but I do thank you for the suggestion Daedalus. It's never really bothered me. I'd say post another section on the talk page just suggesting the code change. Maybe you'll get more comments from people who actually pay particular attention to templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The work you do

While this would most likely target administrators in general, this is a message to all Wikipedia editors in general.

I do not edit Wikipedia but I felt that it was about time that somebody reinforced the appreciation literally millions of people around the world owe all of you for your hard work here. I know that many are drawn away from Wikipedia because of those who add false information onto Wikipedia, vandalize pages, or otherwise do things to this website against morals and the media has come down hard on Wikipedia more than once for many reasons over the years such example as the recent claim of someone dying in Hawaii and there are several reasons why Wikipedia is often subject to critism and sometimes even controversy.

I just wanted to let you all know that no matter what the media wishes to say about Wikipedia, there is a reason the website is one of the top six most visited places on the world wide web - it is essentially a free encyclopedia for people, made by people. You all work for a good cause and many of us who use Wikipedia regularly for research and other things, never really take the time to extend our appreciation for the hard work you all put in. I am aware that plenty of you dedicate several hours of your time each day to help this well-intended project that many of us have so long taken for granted.

Basically, I just wanted to personally express me appreciation for Wikipedia, and remind you all that work so hard that there are people out there who will support Wikipedia until the very end and are always grateful for all that you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharp Light (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --Jayron32 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact thank you for making me smile, not often a post on here does that--Jac16888^Talk 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What "...very end"? What do you know? WHY WERE WE NOT TOLD!!! - Heh, heh! Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It's not often something friendly and nice is posted here. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for one year from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The topic ban has now expired and he is back advocating precisely the same mix of WP:FRINGE and WP:OR as caused the original arbitration case. The idea of topic bans, as I understand it, is to help people move on from a dispute and become more adept at Wikipedia collaboration in areas that are less of a hot button for them. Pcarbonn's editing during the topic ban has been restricted to continuing to argue his case at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. He made not one mainspace edit durting the one year topic ban, and not one edit to any article talk page.

From the RFAR:

Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy. [35] [36], [37] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [38], and edit warring. [39] [40]. For more complete evidence see [41], [42], [43].

During the arbitration case it became clear that he had formed off-wiki ties with Jed Rothwell, another cold fusion advocate who is topic banned. He also collaborated with Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who it appears proxied for him and Jed Rothwell as noted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. He has also been active in promoting the fringe theory of cold fusion off-wiki, in collboartion with Rothwell. This led to Abd, in turn, being topic-banned from cold fusion.

As far as I am concerned, this makes him a single purpose or agenda account. His contributions to talk since the ban expired exhibit precisely the same stonewalling, precisely the same advocacy of fringe POV based on novel interpretation of sources. I think uninvolved admins should watch the talk page of cold fusion, and Pcarbonn's contributions, with a view to enacting a further topic ban should this become necessary in order to protect Wikipedia from this long-term campaign by fringe advocates. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and tend to support a community topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support siteban or topic ban. Either/or, it seems six of one, yadayada. Auntie E. 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As per Aunt Entropy, with perhaps a slight preference for a siteban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think this should be relatively uncontroversial; this editor's record over a prolonged period of time suggests to me an interest in using Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda in a way that contravenes this site's content and behavioral policies. There isn't any evidence of interest in contributing to or building the encyclopedia outside of this narrow agenda. This site doesn't seem to be a good fit for what this editor wants to accomplish, and I think it's time everyone moves on. I don't see any functional difference between a topic-ban and site-ban, given that the editor appears to have no interest in contributing to topics beyond cold fusion. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Since no one has put it into words, lets say that the ban should read:
  • Pcarbonn's former topic ban is returned under the same terms as before, and extended indefinately, with no automatic expiration set.
• That ought to solve the problem. Comments? Supports? Opposes? --Jayron32 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Has it been a year already? Nothing has changed at all. Therefore, extend the restriction to indefinite. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Since this will indicate whether the editor is interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, or is a single purpose account for advocating a pov I would prefer to add in a "broadly construed" terminology to avoid the problem noted by Guy in his editing while previously restricted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Someone might want to mention this discussion to Pcarbonn, as that hasn't been done yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support extention to indefinite - relatively uncontrovertial imo, for exactly the reasons that it was imposed in the first place. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef. Pcap ping 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also support indef topic ban. We don't need advocacy SPAs on whatever topic.  Sandstein  18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support long-overdue site or topic ban. Skinwalker (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, per Jehochman, Ale_jrb & Sandstein. Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age (or because I am spending a lot of my waking hours looking after a 2 year-old), but when someone gets a one-year topic ban & fails to change for the better afterwards then nothing will convince her/him to play nice with the rest of Wikipedia. Let the user find another outlet for her/his energies or advocacy. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support outright indefinite topic ban, effective immediately. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - the editor refuses to drop the stick, apparently, so we have to take the stick away somehow. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

School blocks

With regards to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Over 50 warnings and still no block..., why are we so soft on shared IP addresses such as schools, universities and companies that repeatedly and frequently contribute vandalism? We get an awful lot of vandalism from these IPs. The guidance at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses is vague on the issue. Are there any rules of thumb of when to impose {{anonblock}} or {{schoolblock}}, and if so do they need tightening up? Fences&Windows 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually use a scale when blocking IPs regardless of their ownership: 31 hours, 1 or 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year. Some steps may be skipped on my discretion. As to why we don't just out-and-out block them: perhaps we are hoping that a constructive contributor may be born during the times they are unblocked. –xeno^talk 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, escalate with each step and use a finer trigger for each block. If an IP with a long block log has just come off a 6 month block and all the new edits are vandalism, I'd have no hesitation in blocking for one year. The guidance is vague to allow admins to use their common sense. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any more guidance, and "overblocking" is universally more destructive than "underblocking". If a disruptive user or probematic IP goes unblocked after a vandalism or two, then someone will get them eventually. However, if an IP which could be the source of good edits is blocked unneccessarily, we lose potentially good editors. In every case, if there is any doubt, admins should always err on the side of "not blocking". --Jayron32 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a student, I feel that having school blocks (for vandal IP) would more helpful than not. Most kids either A)Play computer games, B)Use social networking, C)Research, or D)Vandalize wikipedia in school (pre-college that is) rather than contributing. As wikipedia is frowned upon by many academic teachers, I feel the potential benefits are insignificant, especially when a IP is known for persistent vandalism. Heck, in my AP class yesterday while we were supposed to be looking up the Belgian massacre in the Library I know for a fact that 3 classmates vandalized wikipedia and none in my AP class added/fixed anything. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf block review

Can we get a block review for user:Damiens.rf please? Jehochman appears to have pulled the classic controversial block and run maneuver. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. CoM, you are up at RFC for assumptions of bad faith on a massive scale. And yet here you are telling us that Jehochman has "pulled the classic block and run maneuver". Has it not occurred to you that blocking someone and then going offline so as not to be around to discuss the block only works with blocks of between 12-24 hours duration? This is an indef block. Even if this were not the case, Jehochman has every right to block someone and then go get some sleep, or food, or whatever. This does not need to be hashed out right now.

That said, I'll leave the actual block review to someone else. Moreschi (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It has occured to me that we have many abusive admins who make inappropriate blocks and then disappear. And as I recall your beef with me started when I pointed out to you that your personal attacks on an editor you then blocked were wholly inappropriate. Your comments don't have anything to do with the requested block review and your argument that admins should block and then go do other things because there's no hurry to address the concerns of the blocked editor are ridiculous and outrageous. If an admin isn't going to be around to answer concerns then they shouldn't be making the block in the first place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At present, I see substantial discussion of the block between Jehochman and Damiens.rf at User talk:Damiens.rf. It also appears they've been in contact via email, and Jehochman has offered to review the block himself within 24 hours with a eye toward setting a definite length. I'm having trouble seeing how that adds up to "block and run". MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

COM, your claims that am somehow a party to this indef block are preposterous. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Jehochman stuck around for two hours after the block, and responded several times on the user's talk page.   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, link to the "running" part, please? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he was around for a short time after Damiens came online and found himself blocked. He hasn't been around since to answer concerns on his talk page or Damien's page. He also made an unsupported allegation of racism. And it appears he refused to post his block for review when a request by the block editor to do so was made. I would rather not have gotten involved because I'm well aware that I'm a target for criticism by editors and admins whose abusive behavior I've noted previously. That comes with the territory.

Damiens requested review of the block at 16:10 and Jehochman took off shortly afterwards. If an editor is contesting a block then the blocking admin should certainly oblige a review request. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I stepped out for a tennis lesson and a quick bite. Nobody is expected to be online 24/7. I've posted a selection of diffs at User talk:Damiens.rf, at User:Frank's request. ChildofMidnight, instead of posting this premature thread, why don't you post something at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight#Response. An uninvolved admin is needed to review the unblock request at User talk:Damiens.rf. Please don't unblock without a consensus to do so. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking over Damiens.rf's recent contribs, and Jehochman's block, it seems there is a history of lots of tendentious sort of stuff, including wikilawyering, gameing the system and other general disruption. The block seems fine until Damiens.rf agrees to avoid conflict and edit only in non-controversial areas... --Jayron32 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs Jayron? I looked through the edit history just now and I see that Damiens initiated discussion at the Village Pump on the the issue of extensive quotes regarding medal of honor winners. He's also been responsive to communications from other editors and quite open about trying to clean up an area of articles that he thinks are overly adulatory and unencyclopedic, as well as tagging improperly licensed photos for deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at his contribs and promptly found this which points at Wikipedia:Files for deletion#File:SamGiancana.jpg. I don't see this as helpful and suspect it supports the 'disruptive editor' allegation. Jack Merridew 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Checked that case: Damiens was right about it. The website the image was taken from does not document the provenance and status of its images, and this one most likely doesn't belong to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wooo! Rouge admin abuse! It's just like the old days. Quick, on with the Spider-Man suit. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a long discussion about Damiens' behavior here on ANI a little while ago, which determined that while he rubs people the wrong way, he's not so disruptive that he should be blocked for it? What changed?--Atlan (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Link? He was blocked, and came back, and resumed exactly the sort of behavior that got him blocked. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is another discussion where similar issues where raised 1 and Damiens response was classic. --Jmundo (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment (copied here from Jehochman's talk). Sorry for being lengthy. I'm tending towards overturning this block. The main reason is that at least two of the rationales Jehochman cited for the block are quite problematic, in my view: first, the charge of "racism" is a very hefty one and, without evidence, indeed constitutes a severe personal attack. It should never have been made without citing clear evidence right from the start. Personally, I believe the charge is quite absurdly mistaken. Secondly, I object in the strongest possible terms against Jehochman's use of the charge of "vandalism" to describe D's attempt at removing those quotes. It is an unfortunate myth, hard to eradicate but a myth nevertheless, that "removal of cited information" ipso facto constitutes vandalism. It is bad enough that many of our inexperienced users keep making such claims in all sorts of situations; seeing a senior administrator of J's standing echo that myth [44] is, with all due respect, very disappointing. There can be any number of valid editorial reasons for removing correctly cited information, and in this case D. evidently felt he had such reasons – and he did explain them properly and followed reasonable dispute resolution methods when challenged about them. This was a legitimate content dispute, nothing else. As for the charge of "hounding" through repeated IfD nominations, this problem has been discussed repeatedly and the result is always the same: it is a fact that some users – including good-faith highly productive users, unfortunately – tend to upload very large numbers of borderline or problematic non-free images, and often succeed in establishing local consensus over a limited topic area leaving them and their immediate fellow editors with the (mistaken) assumption that such liberal usage is legitimate. When an image patroller chances across that topic area, he will then have no choice but to tackle the whole bunch. It is easy to agree that this will cause stress and possibly some aggravation to the parties involved, but it is unavoidable. It would simply not be efficient to tackle only a few and let the remaining 95% of problematic images stand untouched, in the hope that some other patroller will come across them some other time. The demand that image patrollers should divide their attention in some "random" fashion across many uploaders and topic areas in order to save individuals the stress of having large batches of their work scrutinised at once is simply not a reasonable demand to make. This has repeatedly been discussed with respect to D.'s work (last time in mid-December, if I remember correctly), and it always boils down to the recognition that we have the contributions log for a good reason, and using them to clean up problematic editing patterns is not "hounding".

As for the civility concerns, yes, it may be that D. can sometimes sound abrasive, but the treatment he is getting here in cases like this is hardly going to improve his mood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd quite like to see the allegation of racism evidenced or redacted very quickly and the response to Fut perfs reasonable questions on the blocking admins talk page was just pathetic. I'm far from persuaded of the merits of this block as it stands and would like to see proper documentation put up here by the blocking admin to justify their actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Damiens should not be unbloqued until he is willing to address the issues that has been raised several times by the community and he seems to ignore it by playing Wikilawyering. I have left the following questions on his talk page: Do you plan to address issues raised here? Do you think this response is sort of personal 1? Do you plan to continue using policy to target Marines work and Puerto Rican related articles and editors if you get unbloqued? Do you plan to move to Commons and continue your deletions nominations of Puerto Rican related topics like you did when you where blocked here? --Jmundo (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Looking briefly at Damiens.rf's recent contributions and IfD's, it did look like they were being distinctly WP:POINTy about Puerto Rican marines. Just a first impression. Perhaps that is what Jehochman meant by "racism". Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Damiens goes by topic areas. He always does. He doesn't care any more or less about Puerto Ricans than he cares about Australians or Greeks or whatever (other topic areas he used to work on, as he said somewhere). He finds what he considers a problematic pattern of editing, sometimes connected to a single editor or small group of editors working on a common topic, and then tries to do what he considers necessary cleanup work until that area is fixed. Calling that a sign of "racism" is a very far stretch of ABF indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Disagree. He appears to be baiting various ethnic editors or groups by attacking the body of their work with dubious rules-lawyering. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Y'all ought to read what I said, instead of making snap judgments on hearsay: "Avoid further actions that appear to be racist, or that bait editors of a particular race. (Questionable image deletion nominations of famous Puertorriquenos [45][46][47])" The problem is appearances, and baiting, and frankly, grave dancing. Marine 69-71 appears to have quit due to the hounding of Damiens.rf. A week later Damiens comes off a block and nominates a slew of Marine's Puerto Rican subject matter uploads for deletion. We have no idea what the motivation is, but this action[48] was needless, uncivil, a form of baiting, and obviously not going to elicit any sort of collegial response. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • FPAS, I have great respect for you as an editor and admin, but you are way too involved in the image issue to be doing an unblock here. That'd be like me unblocking and indef'd Scouting user. — Rlevse • Talk •
      • • • Nope. I have never been involved in any content dispute here. My image work is admin work; as such it can never disqualify me from more admin action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Have to disagree with you there. You unblocking here is a COI and at this point consensus is clearly against an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I was not angry in the least up to now, but now I'm getting angry. What the heck do you mean by COI here? Take that back. And the suggestion there is currently a "consensus" for anything at all here is preposterous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure of a prior ANI, but there was a WQ alert which Damiens.rf was notified of but declined to respond to. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, the block on new year's eve was probably justifiable, if only for the "Diva" posting on Marine's talk page, which was indeed a "dancing-on-the-grave" move of some WP:DICKishness. But I see nothing of that sort here now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Marine 69-71 quit because he didn't like Damiens.rf cleaning up his problematic image uploads. Well, yes, Damiens also made some less than friendly moves during that process, but that doesn't change the fact that Marine's upload log was indeed badly in need of cleanup, and the large majority of nominations have in the meantime led to valid deletions. Should the necessary cleanup work be stopped now, just because Marine has left? It's still as necessary as it was before. The three nominations you cited are not in the least bit problematic; I consider them all as prima facie valid and very likely to lead to valid deletions like most of the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • • And Damiens.rf coming off that block and then immediately nominating a bunch of Marine 69-71's uploads for minor, technical violations (most of which could easily be fixed) isn't dickish in the extreme??? Jehochman ^Brrr 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Since when is a purely "decorative" use of a TIME magazine cover a "minor, technical violation ... which could easily be fixed"? It simply isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Over-aggressive application of the rules can be uncivil. It would be far better for somebody without any personal conflict to explain the issues and work with Marine 69-71 to fix any technical rules violations, step by step, rather than ruining all Marine 69-71's hard work by doing a rapid sequence of deletions, thus creating so many issues at once that Marine 69-71 cannot respond, and cannot repair, things before decisions are made. It takes much longer to respond to a deletion nomination than to make one. That process was nuts, uncivil, and bad for Wikipedia. It's trying to get one's way in a dispute by overwhelming the other side. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • FPAS, TTM left, at least temporarily because of the way Damiens treated him. And Damiens being right on most of the IFDs is NO EXCUSE for his behavior. You should know that. His repeated refusal to address valid community concerns simply not acceptable. What about these issues:

Personal attacks because he lost an IFD, Fact tag bombing on a BLP, Cuba bashing, POV, POV, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angel_Moya_Acosta&diff=prev&oldid=323297561], Nominates articles even though he knew it wasn’t policy, Adds weasel wording while purportedly removing weasel wording, and there's the deletion he overturned because he didn't like the decision after it was validly closed by an admin, but I'll have to go dig more to find it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss D's political stance here (I see signs of that for the first time now, and it has apparently nothing to do with the rest of the issue). Most of the diffs you quote are entirely unproblematic. Rlevse, you seem to be affected by your own biases here a lot more than I could ever be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here’s where he undid a legit close and insulted the admin who closed: [49], [50], [51], [52] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching Damiens.rf for the past year, mostly due to nominations and interration at files-for-deletion. Yes he can be hostile, relentless, and sometimes fights stupidly to get his position across; and the block on the 31st was justified. I have certainly been watching as much as Jehochman, but have different conclusions. This Puerto-Rico image run is, as Fut Perf states, how he (an others in fact) work. Once it was Australian politicians, now the topic has changed. Since coming back from the block (I've gone through all the edits) he has been fairly good and, I think, a net positive to the site. I see an editor who is going through a work list, nominating images that are problematic, and editing the same articles. There are some things I would like changed but I cannot see the justification to say enough—what ever happened to mature, thick-skinned, mentoring or discussion here before a fly-in indef block ? I can certainly understand the frustration that lead to the block, but think it a bridge to far - Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor relentlessly attacked the work of another contributor, and drove them off. What's good about that? Wikipedia does not exist so that cops can hold contests to see who can write more tickets. The goal is to add content, not to destroy the work of others. If something is not quite right, it should be fixed. If you want to nominate things for deletion, go ahead, but don't hit so many files by a single editor with challenges all at once that they have no possible way of responding. That's just uncool in the extreme. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am stating that his work since returning from the 1wk block appears ok. Not that his actions in the past that lead to the 1wk block were. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not go into those "building" vs "destroying" lyrics. When it's bad content, such as bad non-free image use, then removing content is in fact the goal here. It's not "cops writing tickets", it's "improving the encyclopedia". If there's a lot of bad content, then a lot of content needs to be removed. It's hard, but there's no way around it. And I don't see how it would be "nicer" to the editors concerned if it was done more slowly – it just draws out the pain more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have stumbled into a wikiphilosophical dispute about how image deletions should be handled. Perhaps the larger issue needs to be discussed. There are problems with (1) mass nominations related to a single uploading editor; how can the editor respond to so many nominations at once, and (2) working by topic area can really upset some people (e.g. Puertorriquenos) by creating the appearance of racism/nationalism. Working alphabetically might be a much better way to go as this would avoid inflamming conflicts with individual editors or groups of editors. Also, prior to nominating, wouldn't it be better to contact the editor and tell them what's wrong with the image and see if the problem could be fixed? Then if not fixed within a reasonable time, nominate for deletion. These are the issues I was hoping to clarify with Damiens.rf. If he'd agree to work in a less inflammatory, more friendly manner, I was willing to unblock. Instead this has turned into just another useless battle. Perhaps cooler heads can prevail. I see an editor working at great speed with an utter lack of concern for other editors. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not convinced this block is appropriate. User:Jehochman has kindly provided diffs to support the list of five reasons for the block (at User talk:Damiens.rf) and I have reviewed each of them and I don't find any of them compelling. These are largely content disputes, and I think the reality here is similar to just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people really aren't out to get me. I want to stress strongly that I am not endorsing the behavior of User:Damiens.rf because I simply don't have the time necessary to evaluate the user and his contributions. There may well be cause for concern, and there may well be reasons for Damiens.rf to behave differently, because even if my interpretation is correct, content disputes must still be resolved properly. What I'm saying very specifically is that the diffs don't support an indefinite block, and the request for Damiens.rf to do something/anything to cause the block to be reduced is not in keeping with any policy I know of. I believe that User:Jehochman is acting in good faith, but I disagree that the diffs provided are sufficient for an indef block. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far I don't see that an indef is the right course of action. This is an edit-conflicted message and in the meantime I see additional entries by the blocking admin which I have sympathy for, so I want to stress that I'm not saying the block is necessarily bad...I'm just not convinced it's correct. I do agree this may be a dispute about how deletions should be handled, but that's a policy and/or content dispute that probably shouldn't result in an indef block. Again - I'm not endorsing Damiens.rf's action; I'm not familiar enough to do say anything one way or the other.  Frank  |  talk  22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if my opinion here is warranted or wanted but I am going to give it anyway. I personally don't have a "problem" with Damiens deleting problematic articles or making edits that he feels are inappropriate. My problem was that the volume of images he was submitting were such that it was impossible to review them in a timely manner, they appeared to be targetting a specific user and culture and after being asked to stop deleting certain things he not only refused but in no uncertain terms made it clear that he would do as he wanted and there was nothing anyone could do or say that would make him stop. So for those reasons I support an extended block and think it entirely appropriate given that he was just returning from a one week block he received for the same reasons. Although I would be inclined to say indefinate might be a bit extreme. With that said I think that some good can still come out of this from the edits he made. In my opinion some of the images he identified ARE problematic and in the process of making some of the article edits he brought to light (at least to me anyway) other issues that could/should/will be addressed. For example in regards to the List of Puerto rican Medal of Honor recipients were he was deleting the citations as nonencyclopedic. I believe that the citations are valid, but perhaps the complete versions of the very large citations should not be on lists (just the article for the recipient) and just have an abbreviated version of the action for the list. Also in regards to this list in particular I have a problem with its length, it is not long enough in my opinion to warrant being its own list and the members are already on the Hispanic recipients list. In this case I intend to merge the two articles and add a sections explaining the role that puerto ricans served. Also, in regards to the images, and I am by no means an image expert. Perhaps someone could review the comments used by Marine 69-71 for the images. To me the inconcise wording used in the comment is such that it would be confusing to the average user and we probably should review if that particular one (and perhaps others as well) are too vague and troublesome to be useful.--Kumioko (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible unblock conditions

• Indefinite does not mean infinite Damiens.rf's actions are problematic. His people skills suck, and that's putting it mildly. I don't think laying out a set of behavioral guidelines for him to agree to abide by is a bad thing. Should he agree to moderate or change the way he interacts with other users, the block will be lifted. AniMate 23:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• What AniMate said. He can be unblocked as soon as he accepts that he needs to change and shows how he will. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• The "he needs to change" claim would be perfectly reasonable if anyone had pointed out the things that he needs to moderate or change; I am not seeing that (yet). I do see differences of opinion regarding nominations for image deletion, but that is not the same thing. The charges of racism are not supported. The notion that negative past interactions precludes (or should preclude) nomination of images for deletion is also not supported. If a file is against policy, that's what we do.  Frank  |  talk  00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh, I gave diffs showing he rv'd a closed review, insulted admins, and there are diffs about Tony the Marine quitting and other rudeness. You call that things he shouldn't change? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  It's late and I do recall fleetingly seeing that you had done so, but I can't find that now. Would you be kind enough to point me at that link or links? As for Tony, I am really not sure what to say. I know even less of Tony's work than of Damiens.rf's, and I am dismayed if I see an editor leave because of the actions of another. I did see where Tony is far more conciliatory and collegial than Damiens.rf, and that has to count for something. I hope nobody is construing my discussion here to mean I think Damiens.rf should be left alone to run amok with no regard for policy. On the other hand, after coming off a 1-week block and going back to what most seem to agree is his area of expertise and keeping to the task at hand, I wonder if an indef block a day or so later is really in the spirit of AGF.  Frank  |  talk  03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• (re to JzG/AniMate, ec with Frank): That may be reasonable, but it is hardly possible as long as the catalogue of demands posed to him contains items filled with such absurdly unfair assumptions of bad faith as the list presented to him by the blocking admin in the beginning. What is he supposed to say? "Yes, I will stop vandalising; yes, I will stop being racist; yes, I will stop beating my wife"? Make up your minds first about what in fairness you actually want him to do. Hint: asking him to stop cleaning images by topic area is not going to be part of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree completely with AniMate. Let's work out the terms of an unblock. Massive image deletions initiated against individual editors' work is generally a bad idea, and for Damiens.rf, it's extremely problematic due to the non-stellar people skills. How about limiting him to working on articles alphabetically, or randomly, instead of by topic, and that he's not to do multiple nominations against any particular editor. If he finds an editor who seems to be causing serious problems with images, he can report the situation to any administrator for follow up. In addition, before nominating images for deletion he will check whether the image might be source-able or if it looks like a fair use rationale could be provided. As for quotation removal, I think Damiens.rf should avoid the Medal of Honor, Navy Cross and similar pages entirely as his view is not in agreement with standard practice and he's been edit warring with multiple editors. I think the above changes would address a lot of my concerns. How do others feel, in particular User:Rlevse? Jehochman ^Brrr 00:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I think these are unreasonable, given that the image deletion nominations have not been shown to be pointy, and the large amount of sourcing text for the medal winners isn't shown to be outside standard practice. Edit warring is of course problematic...but are there diffs to show 3RR?

  Are we seriously blocking an editor indefinitely because "his people skills suck"? And unless he agrees to "stop sucking" he can't be unblocked? Isn't that the very definition of a punitive block? I realize I'm answering my own questions in the affirmative here so I invite other opinion, but...that's what it's starting to look like here. If that's what is going on here, I think we need WP:CONSENSUS to block in the first place...not to unblock for policy violations which are open to wide interpretation. If that's what we need, let's open an WP:RfC.  Frank  |  talk  00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  There's some judgement. You and FPaS wouldn't block. I and apparently Rlevse, MastCell, JzG, Jayron32 and Animate think some sort of block until conditions are established is acceptable. If we weigh these opinions of clueful editors, the block has a consensus. Let's discuss reasonable conditions for unblocking, rather than apologizing for the disruptive, uncivil editor. Let him apologize for himself if he wishes. Jehochman ^Brrr 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  I can see which way consensus is leaning here, but I've seen far less civil and far more disruptive editors remain part of this project for longer than I thought (think!) appropriate, and I'm having a hard time seeing that this block is the right way to go. If there is community consensus in an RfC to block for long-term incivility and disruption, that's a different story. What I see here is a 1-week block and then, after a one-day look at the end of the block, an indef. I can't stress enough that I'm not saying Damiens.rf is perfect, but I also don't see any indef-worthy behavior. The one specific, tangible thing that really sticks to the wall is the stalking of one user's image uploads. Here's the problem with that: how many of the images actually meet our licensing requirements today? I looked at several that have been here for 4 and 5 years...when image policy wasn't well known and/or followed. I don't think that's a reason to leave them. We may agree - here, or as a community - that it's in poor taste to mine one user's 5-year-old uploads in an attempt to find deletable content. But...is it really within policy to block someone for having poor taste? If you think the answer is yes, I say OK...via an RfC or ArbComm. Not "indef first, and convince me to unblock later if you can."  Frank  |  talk  04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen Damiens.rf nominate dozens of images uploaded by a single user at one time. Perhaps, in terms of image deletions, we can but a number cap up rather than trying to keep him away from one topic at a time. Let's say no more than 5 images uploaded by one user at any given time. After the deletion discussions are finished he can nominate 5 more if necessary. AniMate 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Again: would that really help? It would only draw out the conflict with that hypothetical user over a much longer time – and slow down the progress of the encyclopedia. Would it reduce the bitterness in any way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Having someone nominate for deletion 40+ images you've uploaded tends to be disheartening. We've lost one contributor because of this approach, and I'm sure Damiens.rf has driven off others. I know I had to talk down at least one user who he did this to. So what is impeding the progress of the encyclopedia more: the loss of prolific content contributors or the reduction of nominations by a user who focuses almost solely on deleting content? AniMate 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Woah, FP. If a user is problematic in uploading images, then use the reporting mechanisms for that user - get other people involved. Bad images can be reviewed on different criteria other than by editor, and the net result is the same in the number being removed every day but with the bonus of editors not thinking they are being picked on. If this means that there are dozens of contributors rather than one asking why their work is being removed then that is part of the workload; if the nominator cannot handle it then they need to work in areas where it won't happen - we shouldn't protect the sensitivities of one established editor by allowing to hurt those of newbies. This is a variant of WP:BITE; do not target an editor because they uploaded in good faith dozens of images with wrong/bad/no rationales, etc. If an editor is going to say that it is their way or the highway, then they can go truck themselves. Really. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who know policy and procedure by heart. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, LessHeard, I think your comment misses the point in a number of ways. This is not about "protecting the sensitivities" of the nominators; it's also not about newbs vs established users; it's about allowing efficiency to happen. In the interest of everybody involved. The batches that get nominated are not only by the same editor or from the same set of articles; most crucially, they tend to represent similar issues. Similar cases need to be treated together; that makes it easier for all parties (commenters, closing admins, etc) and ensures greater transparency and consistency of results. The remark about "reporting mechanisms" seems quite off the mark – these are typically not cases where the uploaders would need to be reported – to where? ANI? Would that be any less offending to them? You also failed to respond to my main argument: is it any less disheartening to have your 40 images nominated in the course of three months, than in the course of a week? "Do not target an editor because they uploaded in good faith dozens of images"? No, no, no, no. This is utterly unavoidable; I do this myself, all the time; everybody who has ever done image patrolling does it. If you find one bad apple, the only efficient way of finding the remaining bad apples is to poke around in the neighbourhood of the first. This whole idea of working by random schemes or alphabetically is utterly unrealistic and inefficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • If someone uploads a dozen images and gets messages from a few editors all saying that there are problems, then the uploader is aware of a problem. Yes, that can be discouraging. If the uploader finds one person going through all their uploads, and are sufficiently savvy to look at contrib histories, then they can start to feel harassed. The first may mean they do not contribute to WP. The second means they will not contribute to WP, and they may comment adversely about the environment to other potential contributors. WP is in the business of encouraging contributions, and directing new editors to the correct methods, and not discouraging - hence the WP:BITE guideline. You appear, although I am sure that it is not your intention, to be saying that it should be disregarded since the editor does a lot of work clearing up image issues - others are saying the same results can be achieved by the editor changing their focus from reviewing accounts uploads to another criteria. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm honestly not quite sure what argument you are trying to convey here, but the point seems to hinge on a misunderstanding anyway: very few of the editors who have been complaining about Damiens are actually newbies. These cases arise far more often with established long-term contributors who have built up their local use-a-lot-of-nonfree-images regime on their favourite topic area over a long time (as in the case of Marine and his Puerto Rico articles, Dr.K. and his Greek history articles, or the various wikiprojects involved). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • FP, you're measuring progress only in terms of images. You're forgetting about stopping his problematic behavior and disruption, which is also progress. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Difficult to do otherwise, as long as the concerns about other behaviour still come mixed inextricably with spurious complaints about "he made some content edit once that I didn't like", as in the case of the removals of those medal of honour quotations, or the Cuba diffs you dug up. Legitimate as some of the other concerns may be, these need first to be filtered out properly before any reasonable remedies can be discussed here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Damiens is good at nominating image for deletion, which seems to be his expertise. Of course the editor (Marine) wasn't an expert image uploaded. This is not about Damiens nominating images, which seems the main factor that those who oppose his blocking are primarily focused on. We need people with Damiens expertise, what we do not need is people like Damiens who are rude, uncivil and disrespectful towards others. Not only are his actions deplorable, they should be condemned. Do you need prove of his reproachable actions towards other? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=335140360#User:Damiens.rf_should_be_told_to_stop_his_rudeness_and_Wikihounding. He is stalking. He has followed Marine throughout and has without any justification deleted content from many articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Damiens.rf Had he only dedicated himself only to his field of expertise, then I wouldn't even be here, however when he goes out of his way to target one person contributions and hounds that person, then I agree with those who say that he deserves to be blocked. Antonio Martin (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship proposal

To get this onto more productive tracks, here's one way forward that I think might possibly work: mentorship coupled with a partial cap on rate of nominations. If Damiens comes across what he considers a problematic group of cases, he should be directed to do a first "test" batch of only a limited number of image nominations representative of the issue (let's say 5). While those IfDs run, he should be ready to engage in a constructive discussion with affected editors about ways of improving the situation with regard to any remaining cases, preparing them politely to the prospect of having more of their work scrutinised. If the outcome of the first batch has led to deletions, this should serve as proof to the affected uploaders that Damiens' moves are not just some personal rampage but represent a legitimate concern; therefore there should then be no further limit on the rate of subsequent nominations from the same area. However, before proceeding, Damiens will consult with the mentor. To give him the go-ahead for further nominations, the mentor will take into consideration Damiens' conduct during the preceding discussions; if that is found to be reasonably constructive, Damiens will be given the go-ahead to proceed without quantitative limits. The mentor will also endeavor to protect Damiens from unfair accusations of "vandalism", "racism" or "hounding" and the like, which occasionally come his way as we've seen.

I am not proposing any restrictions on his non-image-related content editing, as I haven't seen anything of systematic concern here.

I'd be available as a mentor if needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've recognized the severity of the problem; therefore, you would not be the ideal mentor. Jehochman ^Brrr 10:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposing Unblock in an Hour

I slept on this but I'm still not convinced that we have consensus to block Damiens indefinitely for the reasons given by Jehochman. The blocking rationale is deeply flawed and using weasel words to falsely accuse a user of racism with the the most flimsy of possible evidence is completely unacceptable. This completely undermines the credibility of the block and I am not seeing a clear consensus that this user has exhausted his stay here although I do see plenty pf concerns that they would do well to listen to and learn from. I am going to leave this up here for comments for an hour before unblocking. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since there have been no objections I'm going to take silence as consent and unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with Spartaz's unblock here. Speaking as a major softie when it comes to the block button, I think any "indef" block needs a strong consensus, and I don't see that in the discussion above (others could take the view that there's not a consensus to unblock which is a perfectly valid view, but just not my own). I don't question Jehochman's good intentions in deciding to impose an indefinite block, but there are enough doubts here to not let it stick.

I don't know all the background to this situation and am only here tangentially, but clearly there are some major issues with User:Damiens.rf, and that's the main reason I'm commenting here. I came across one diff that made me outright angry. Maybe the following was already cited somewhere, or maybe it was not really noticed, but where I live Nuyoricans and their friends would definitely consider this casual and gratuitous "type-o" ("trying to clean up the mess on Porto Rico related articles"--emphasis added) to be blatantly offensive. If you don't know the background, check out the first couple sentences of this section of History of Puerto Rico (a featured article) to learn why talking snidely about "Porto Rico" might be a highly racially inflammatory term to use with respect to folks of Puerto Rican heritage. en.wikipedia has serious problems when it comes to racial diversity (and a whole lot of other diversities), so in the absence of further evidence I feel the need to call major bullshit on that comment by Damiens.rf. I'm all ears for a legit explanation now that the editor in question is unblocked. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Classic! Silence is not consensus, especially in the middle of the night when people are sleeping. You broke WP:WHEEL where it says "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.". There's an ongoing discussion here, and you just substituted your peculiar opinion for the consensus of administrators above, which was to arrange some unblock conditions, but not to unblock yet. You've done Damiens.rf no favors either, because instead of solving the problem, you've enabled further disruption, which will only result in further blocks. Jehochman ^Brrr 10:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't be a dick. Wikipedia doesn't revolve around US timezones - we have a whole world to contribute and I posted the comment at 08.00 my time and waited an hour and there was activity on this board through this time. Your problem is that this was a crass and poorly thought through block and it was never going to stick. You made some wild accusations to justify your actions that you then failed to properly evidence them when challenged. The aggressive and bullying way you went around responding to questions and challenges is far more offensive than anything that Damiens had done. After all, you are an admin and should think long and hard about what kind of wikipedia your actions promote. So don't blame me because you make a bad block that was never going to stick. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Look in the mirror. You're not helping this situation by throwing around personal attacks. Jehochman ^Brrr 10:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No doubt but if the cap fits.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I don't understand that comment. You're mixing metaphors, caps and dicks. Which is it? Jehochman ^Brrr 10:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I sincerely hope that I'm not mixing caps with dicks but thank you very much for your comment Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Indeed. As the father of four, I occasionally receive unsolicited advice about such matters. Jehochman ^Brrr 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
              • And on that note I'm going to take my kids down the park. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
                • I have to agree that posting such 'If no-one says anything in an hour' at 5am on a saturday GMT (so between 10pm and 6am for most of our editors, west coast USA to Western Europe) was always going to be a daft thing to do. It is said that Jehochman should stop focusing on your actions and instead look at his bad block. Perhaps what is good for the goose is good for the gander? Using summary and poor methods to overturn a summary and poor block is just building a larger house on some pretty shoddy foundations. I'd hate to see this mehod become part of the tool kit of admining. Imagine if a user said that if no-one posted anything in an hour, they would make a highly contentious edit. Do you believe we would accept that? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Using Twinkle as a Machine Gun

User:Dr.K. said, "As one of Damiens' victims, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the software-assisted mass deletion assault initiated by Damiens.rf, I can honestly say that Rlevse and Jehochman have finally stood up and given notice that robotic-aided assaults on individual editors cannot continue."[53] And furthermore, "Twinkle should not be used as a rapid-fire machine gun to obliterate the morale of editors here."[54] I agree. Therefore, I have warned Damiens.rf next time he carpet bombs another editor with deletion nominations, he will be blocked. If he discovers somebody with a pattern of bad uploads, he is invited to file a report at WP:ANI instead. Jehochman ^Brrr 10:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You must specify more precisely what you mean by "mass tag" [55]; it's quite unclear how many is too many. Some users will cry harassment if two of their uploads are nominated for deletion, others will be apparently unfazed by twenty. Without a concrete (or at least much clearer) limit this warning will be used as a smokescreen by people whose unsuitable non-free image uploads are discovered in their contribution history. CIreland (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read over the whole debate, but haven't really investigated the user. However, validly tagging lots of images for deletion - whoever they've been uploaded by - is definitely not against policy. It rather suggests to me, in fact, that the uploader should be more careful about the images they are uploading. Therefore, I strongly oppose any sanction of this kind being applied, unless you can convince me which policy it is violating. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair point. What do you think is a reasonable number? If three or fewer tag them, and if more, go to WP:ANI instead? Jehochman ^Brrr 10:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely you thought about this before issuing the warning? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I was thinking max five open discussions at a time per user. Jehochman ^Brrr 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say something like two per user per day. So if a deletion process takes 5 days, that would be 10 images in single batch. Damiens.rf has normally noted many, though not all, serious image issues at WT:NFC and that seems a good venue to me and that he ought to continue that practice. CIreland (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with that, and also to add WT:NFC as a possible reporting venue for serious issues. Let's wait a bit for any other comments, then I or somebody else can leave a clarification for Damiens as to what "mass tagging" means. Jehochman ^Brrr 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stated my own proposal above: first test batch of 5, then open limit if the test batch has established there is a legitimate issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to limit to two per user per day. If there are more that need looking into, start a discussion at WT:NFC or WP:ANI, and then do whatever the consensus establishes. If the consensus is to nuke the images from orbit, that would be fine, but only after discussion. Jehochman ^Brrr 11:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A general discussion may help in some cases (where there are clearly defined groups of very similar cases) but won't do the trick in most: in the end, somebody will still have to do the dirty work and argue the individual case-by-case nominations. Most items are still so individual that a wholesale discussion on a noticeboard won't settle the case. And people other than Damiens are unlikely to do this final work, because it's just so ugly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf was recently stripping Medal of Honor citations from articles. He thought this was an appropriate application of WP:NFCC. It wasn't. After being informed, he edit warred. I want to avoid situations like that. Before going on a mass deletion or removal campaign, Damiens.rf and others should explain what they intend to do and why, and make sure their mass edits comply with policy. They also need to be careful not to bite other contributors by mass tagging those contributors contributions in a way that creates a fait accompli situation (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli), or worse, drives off good faith contributors, as happened with User:Marine 69-71. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How many articles were affected here, and how often did he revert? Half a dozen articles, a dozen? And I cannot see more than one revert on each page. This is still well inside acceptable behavioural norms. The people who reverted him the first time with abusive "vandalism" charges or with the impoliteness of a lacking edit summary are more at fault here than he was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About the initial proposal

About the initial proposal and the Dr.K quote: let's cut the facile polemics, shall we. I know Dr.K. has been very eloquent in raising (and reiterating) this complaint, but as subjectively understandable as it may be (and I have a lot of respect for Dr.K. as a contributor), this complaint about "Twinkle carpet bombing" remains factually incorrect, plain and simple. It is simply not true that the batch deletions "overwhelm" users. It's simply not true that responding to a deletion nomination takes more work than making the nomination, with or without Twinkle. In Dr.K.'s case in December, it can easily be seen that he wasn't "overwhelmed" at all: not only did he and several others find the time to respond to each nomination, he also found more than enough time to raise protests on noticeboards and elsewhere. In the end, each image got its fair share of scrutiny and discussion and a fair, well-argued decision was made. Several were rescued through the efforts of third parties (some by myself), with fair collaboration by Damiens.rf. Please don't reiterate unconstructive hyperbole here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are disregarding legitimate concerns and saying that everybody must agree with you or else they are engaging in hyperbole. Jehochman ^Brrr 11:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I am advancing concrete arguments here, while you are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are pouring concrete to solidify a rotten status quo. A recent ArbCom proposed decision says (emphasis added):

• Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, or performing large numbers of similar tasks, and are apprised that those edits or tasks are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli
• While the reasons for which an editor may validly nominate an article for deletion are not exhaustive, Wikipedia's deletion policy and practices generally prefer that nominations express at least one generally accepted reason for deletion, and that alternative courses of action (such as merging, redirection, or curing problems through editing) are generally preferable to deletion.- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Deletion best practices

Do we need to take this case to arbitration also to curtail the uncivil use of high volume deletion tagging? If we cannot work out a suitable agreement, that may be the eventual result. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the quotes you cited are inapplicable here: the first because, as I just proved, these nominations never approached the point where they "exhausted" somebody's capacity to respond (everybody did respond, and got a fair hearing), and because "attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion" is exactly what the IFD page is for (seriously, where else would you do it?). The second because every single deletion nomination I have seen from Damiens has in fact expressed at least "one generally accepted reason for deletion", and he tends not actually to bother with those cases where a simple fix to a FUR or some other such "alternative course of action" easily offers itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you playing ostrich with me? User:Marine 69-71 quit because he was so disheartened. User:Dr.K. testified about how terrible it is to be the target of Damiens.rf's tagging attack. In the cases I looked at, Damiens.rf did not make any attempts to correct simple problems. I saw nominations of files that had apparently good fair use rationales attached. If you are going to keep posting misdirections on this thread, I am going to have to request arbitration to get to the bottom of this. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jehochman, above I suggested a limit of 2 nominations per user per day, (and hence 2 x length of deletion process per batch) and you appeared to agree that this was a roughly acceptable rate. This is approximately the rate of Damiens.rf's recent deletion nominations of Jan 7 (16 files from Marine 69-71, 7 day discussion length). Yet now you would characterize this as "high volume deletion tagging" so I am unclear what your opinion on an appropriate volume (for any user, not only Damiens.rf) is. CIreland (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Before going to Arbcom, we should obviously try to work out an acceptable behaviour guideline here, as we have been doing. My proposal above still stands, and so far nobody has commented on the merits of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

@CIreland: Marine 69-71 quit on about December 31 after about 40 of his images had been nominated for deletion. Those recent nominations you mention were after Damiens.rf had been blocked for prior activities. I agree with the two per day per editor limit. That is a volume that most editors could handle. Additionally, I'd expect Damiens.rf to back off if an editor took the view that they were being hounded. Damiens.rf does not have the best communications skills. We don't need somebody with bad people skills driving off good faith contributors. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Future: I beg to differ. Defending these images was an ordeal. From my edit summaries you can plainly see my frustration and my remarks about following "robotic protocol" by copying and pasting identical defence rationales to multiple image deletion sections because I did not have the time to defend each individually. If you think copying and pasting is calm and reasoned debate then I have nothing else to add. The mass deletion notices made the history of my talpage look like a robot-ravaged wasteland. My morale fell to a level below ground. We treat vandals better using the formidable tool of Twinkle. At least our response is proportional to their vandal acts. Each act gets a Twinkle warning as it happens. Using Twinkle as a mass assault weapon to lay waste to a legitimate contributor's images in mere secods is disproportionate, exceeds human response levels and it is thus injurious to the human spirit. Because what contributor now will upload anything if they know that a robot is lurking in the shadows piecing together a chain of images, waiting for the right moment to chain-assault them with their contributions at a time of its choice? Is this your vision of Wikipedia Future? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr.K., please, stop it at last. It is simply not true that Twinkle enables him to do some mysterious "machine-like" mass editing. He still investigates each case individually, checks the description pages and articles and writes out the deletion rationale individually in each case. It is one manual edit, just as it is one manual edit for you or me to respond. Twinkle only automates the mechanical paperwork. I know you've been offended by this, and your complaints are eloquent and finely worded and read beautifully, but repeating them twenty times doesn't actually make them more correct. Sorry for being blunt now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That was his first post on this thread, compared to how many of yours? Why are you trying to muzzle him? Jehochman ^Brrr 12:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because he has raised this complaint (specifically about the Twinkle use, a red herring) about a two dozen times, was counseled about it repeatedly, and besides beautiful rhetorical fluff it contains very little of substance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please, Future, spare me the patronising comments. I never claimed that he uses Twinkle to chain-assemble the deletion requests. I only claimed that he uses Twinkle to mass assault editors with deletion notices. I do not care how he constructs his chain of image deletion notices. I only care about the Twinkle assisted chain-whipping that ensues. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that issue about the mass notifications (not the mass nominations) was settled back in December. He was advised to consolidate his notifications into a single one where possible. Since this was settled, why are you bringing it up again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was settled. See Jehochman's proposal below. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman never addressed the issue of notification protocols. In fact, his proposal (the way I read it) would make notifications heavier: if the nominator is forced to distribute nominations over a longer period of time, with maximally two per day, then of course he will also have to re-notify again and again over many days, so you get more of those ugly notices (though slowly). Allow him to nominate many at one go and the notifications can be reduced to one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Any mass nominations, robot-assisted or not, targetting a single editor should be avoided. We must develop a better protocol for dealing with this phenomenon. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record however, even belatedly, I would like to make clear that I consider you, Future, a very fair and capable admin. We can have our disagreements but your tact and respectful tone are noted and appreciated. We have met many times over the years so I don't think that I will have to reiterate this every time I see you. But rest assured my respect for you has always been, and will remain, great. It was a pleasure debating with you :) Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Two per day per editor

CIreland suggested limiting Damiens.rf to limit of two file deletion nominations per uploading editor per day. I added that any situation requiring more or faster nominations should be brought up at WP:ANI or WT:NFC for a discussion about how to proceed. If this is agreeable, I will notify Damiens of these specifics, and we can finish up here. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Purely practically speaking, five to ten nominations on a single day's IFD page are far more convenient to handle for all parties concerned than ten spread out over five different pages. Just a thought. I'd still prefer: allow one somewhat larger batch on a single day, wait till those have run out, then see how to proceed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that has a reasonable basis. How about maximum five per day per uploading editors, and wait for them to close before moving to the next batch with that same editor. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable as long as I haven't heard a response to my question: is it really less stressful to the editors concerned to have the scrutiny proceed at such a slow pace and over a long period, than to have it over within a shorter time? In a case like the present one, where there'd be, say, 40 images in question, your proposal would mean a process spanning two to three months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For me, yes it is. I would prefer a longer process, more within human capabilities and allowing more opportunities for calm and reasoned action. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

40/2=20 days, surely? --Narson ~ Talk • 13:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the second proposal: 5 every 7 days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd missed the 'requirement for them to close' secton of that. It does seem a little excessive for it to take 8 weeks. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Five every seven days per editor

An alternative proposal is to limit Damiens.rf to a maximum of five nominations per uploading editor per seven days. This would presumably give the uploading editors a chance to learn, and to correct, what mistakes they may have made, and to respond thoughtfully to each nomination. FPaS suggested that five at a time is more efficient than two at a time, as the discussions would not be spread out on different pages. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. I support the idea. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Reasonable, but I would still want to consider a flexibility clause that could allow a higher rate during subsequent nominations, on a case-by-case basis, if it turns out that there are large and relatively uniform groups and the first batch(es) have set relevant precedents. As I said, deciding about such flexibility would be a point where a mentor might come in handy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• This flexibility can be achieved by starting a thread at WT:NFC or WP:ANI. If a few other editors agree, then he can proceed on that basis. The key idea is to check to make sure there is a good basis for any mass tagging, and also to make sure to explain to the uploading editor understands what's going on so they don't feel bitten or demoralized. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent points. Both by Jehochman and Future's mentor idea. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• To J.: that's a reasonable view about how it ought to work; it's just that if this whole rule set ends up as some kind of formal community restriction (presumably enforcable through blocks), then the actual decision to allow exceptions will also need to be formalised in some way to make it practicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was just going to leave it as a warning from me, and clarify what "mass nominations" meant. To really solve the problem we ought to have a community discussion about how to handle mass deletion nominations, and write some sort of guideline. Damiens.rf is just one editor. There have been other complaints regarding other editors. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh. Then I'm afraid any such attempt would find me in the strongest possible opposition, as a matter of principle. A quantitative throttle on deletion nominations as a general guideline? Never. Let's sort this out with regard to Damiens here now, given the personality concerns, but I will never accept a rule that would curtail my own flexibility and that of other people working in that area in such a way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

At Loggerheads

Unless we can get more uninvolved parties to wade through the above and help generate a consensus, I'm afraid this matter will have to go to arbitration. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it is long overdue. There is an issue among some admin that being correct excuses any level of incivility. There needs to be recognition that image work is important, removing copyright breaches is important, but doing so by causing unnecessary harm (through various methods, but I' thinking mostly of incivility here) is not desired. However, that being said, to take it to arbitration over something like this is probably an over reaction. Also unfair on the users who are caught between ideological debates --Narson ~ Talk • 12:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best, since we seem to be coming to an agreement on this case, to have further discussions at WP:PUMP about how to handle things better? Jehochman ^Brrr 13:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. By the way thank you for your efforts. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About limits

The thought that images (or, indeed, most contributions) should be limited to "X per editor per unit time" flies in the face of how Wikipedia works. As I have through this entire conversation, I am explicitly avoiding the suggestion of approval of Damiens.rf's actions on the basis of civility; there are definitely issues there. However, when you look at the substance of it, how is tagging images with invalid licensing attached to them against policy? And where is this accusation of "carpet bombing" an uploader coming from? Are we saying that when someone uploads an image, they own it? I surely hope not; that is the antithesis of what we are about here! When an editor in this situation feels overwhelmed, they should not feel the need to respond to each individually, unless the reasons are unique. (How about grouping them together, even if the nominator didn't see fit to do so?) But when problematic contributions are found, maybe we as a community should examine why that's occurring to our project rather than focusing on how one editor is being treated. And let's keep in mind that we're not talking about WP:3RR here. Image deletion discussions are not closed immediately, just as AfDs and copyright violations aren't. In the latter case, an article retains a notice about copyrighted content for 7 days before it is deleted (unless it was a G12, of course). 7 days is plenty of time for someone to raise a flag and say "what do I do?" or to fix the problem. In the case of images, it should be even easier than in copyvio cases; either a proper license is forthcoming or it's not. There's no re-write required (or available).

Yes, we need civility; it doesn't work without a large measure of that - perhaps quite a bit larger than we have seen. But to comment that a mass deletion nomination (choose your own definition; there are several above) is somehow an attack on an individual contributor? Unless we are changing policy such that WP:OWN no longer applies and contributions are henceforth going to be owned by the contributor, that just doesn't fly. Look at the paragraph right below your edit box: it covers copyright, verifiability, irrevocable release of contributions, and attribution. Then look at the smaller text below the "save page" button. If we limit image nominations, we're telling contributors "you can get away with X-1 per unit time". I've been involved in copyright cases where the users were long-time contributors; the first reaction was "this has never been a problem before". That doesn't mean it isn't a problem...and it still has to be taken care of.  Frank  |  talk  15:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We ought to retire to the appropriate policy and process pages to discuss how to best handle mass nominations. Clearly there is a problem with mass nominations being carried out badly or uncivilly. A user may feel hounded or harassed when they get dozens of messages on their talk pages about their work being erased. It is inhuman to think that somebody wouldn't be seriously offended by that. In the case of Damiens.rf, we've a consensus that the user has acted uncivilly, and that a limit is needed to help keep them out of trouble. Such a limit might not be needed for other, more clueful users. See Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion#Mass nominations which I've started, but don't own. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is consensus regarding invicility; I disagree that there is consensus regarding limits. Also agree that appropriate policy and process pages are the next step...that is where consensus regarding limits would be achieved.  Frank  |  talk  15:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your reference to WP:OWN was unnecessary and does not use WP:AGF. Do you understand the point that an editor feels compelled to defend an image not out of ownership instincts but motivated by a genuine belief that these images may be essential to the understanding of an article topic? Did you read Damiens.rf's flippant comments dismissing historic leaders of Greece as "some guys talking" and other such unhistoric garbage? We are all volunteer contributors here. I may be idealistic but looking at a picture-barren article fills me with sadness. I know Wikipedia can be more than that and I try to improve the project by contributing pictures. Trying to defend these pictures has nothing to do with ownership, thank you very much, but everything to do with making an article as relevant and informative as can be. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure I understand that motivation, but the complaint against Damiens.rf is that mass deletion demoralizes a contributor. There are calls for limits on deletion nominations...where are the corresponding suggestions that it may be appropriate to have limits on uploading content? I think both are ill-advised, but only one is even being suggested. And the reasoning for it is that an individual contributor would be demoralized. If a contributor is truly interested in the project itself, said contributor isn't worried only about his or her own contributions and having them nominated would be no different (or at least, little different) than any other contribution being nominated for deletion. Images may very well help an individual article; images without suitable licensing hurt the project as a whole. The difference is the latter is against policy; there is no policy against an article without images. As I've repeated more than once: I'm not suggesting Damiens.rf's approach with respect to civility is correct, and I know nothing of your own contributions or Damiens.rf's reaction thereto. This is an overall discussion, not a contributor-specific comment. If an RfC is required, let's open it up.  Frank  |  talk  17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to delete images (or better yet, fix fair use rationales) without upsetting other contributors. This takes some skill, which Damiens.rf seems to lack. ArbCom has made a number of statements, linked above, regarding ways that legitimate processes, such as deletion nominations, can be misused. Actions that comply with letter of one rule may still be grossly uncivil when viewed in context. After Damiens.rf ran off Marine 69-71, it was exceedingly poor judgement for Damiens.rf to continue hounding and harassing the departed editor, thereby ensuring that Marine 69-71 would not return. Even if hounding and harassment were not the intent, that was the effect. We have to judge things based on the overt actions and effects; we can never know what motivates somebody else. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the claim that it is "possible to delete images without upsetting other contributors" is simply wrong, and speaks of the perspective of somebody with little or no experience of the realities in the field. No, it is most definitely not possible. You can do everything right, you can be as friendly and polite as you like, people will still howl abuse at you once you become systematically active in that area. People are that way. Ask anybody who has ever tried. I know it, because I have. – And please stop the red herrings about "better yet fix the the FUR". If an image is objectively unjustifiable, no tinkering with the FURs will help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No Future. I don't agree. I know your comment is not directed at me but, as an example, I will not feel upset if an image gets deleted after a proper and fair debate. Having said that I still do not understand how Metapolitefsi was stripped of all the images. Is there no image important enough to keep in that article? I am not convinced of that. I think the deletionists stretched FUR to "achieve" that. As far as Jehochman's idea to attempt to improve the FUR of some eligible images, I don't see where you see a problem. Maybe some FURs are unsalvageable. But I am sure some can use some repair which could posibly save the image. I don't see the harm in trying. But as you said, if the image cannot be saved then this will come out from the relevant discussion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that while there may be no way to "delete images without upsetting other contributors", there is most definitely a way to do so without being egregiously snide, needlessly personal, openly insulting, or blindingly insensitive? Because if we are in fact discussing only this specific case, I'm going to have to say that what I saw of Damiens' actions (I hesitate to say "interactions" because there really weren't anything I'd want to dignify with such a name) on Marine's talkpage were all of the above. This is like Betacommand redux: Yes, image work is hard and thankless. Yes, people get mad. We understand that. No, that does NOT excuse blatant asshattery. No, REALLY it doesn't. Okay, we'll say it once more and then we're gonna...we're gonna...say it in capital letters, probably, or something.... I'm just not sure why we're having that same episode again, with just a different name and fewer bots. GJC 04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. When the nominator uses snide remarks and other sarcastic comments about the nominated images they antagonise the other editors and this obviously does not help an already antagonistic and traumatic process such as the image deletion nomination process. I hope that, as Jehochman, CoM and others have suggested, a more collegial approach is tried during deletion nomination where some help may be given when possible so that the FUR may be improved and the image saved. This can go a long way toward defusing the existing tensions and the project will benefit as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• In cases where there is a pattern of problematic edits or uploads I think it's best to bring it to the attention of the community. When this has been done in the past it seems to work quite well and allows consideration, input, and involvement from more than just a couple parties.

I agree that getting a mass deletion notification is demoralizing, but I think specific limits are arbitrary and unhelpful. In cases where there are multiple problems, requiring a consensus discussion on how to proceed before taking unilateral action might make sense though. Sorting out the issues openly with broad input and involvent in collegial discussion is the way to go.

The core issue seems to be getting collegial discussion and input on how to resolve problem areas so they don't become dust ups between the nominator and the receiving editor (referred to above as the "victim"). In cases where numerous problems are identified, a neutrally worded notice on ANI or the content noticeboard saying, hey I'm finding some problems with the images uploaded by X, can I get some help checking them out seems a good way to go. Collegiality is important for both good faith editors trying to add content and for those trying to keep it clean and orderly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CoM and with many points in Frank's reply above. Communication should be established in some way so that mass notifications and mass nominations may be avoided. The reason I would like to avoid mass noms is because I would like to have time to participate in discussions with time for response and intrelligent debate on a human scale. Twinkle makes it really easy, through menu choices to automatically create deletion nomination pages and automatic editor notifications. This in turn opens the door to creating mass nominations, where in the past it would have been very difficult, time-consuming and tedious for a single editor to create all this deletion nomination infrastructure without robotic help. As Frank pointed above maybe we should consider upload limits for editors as well, if for nothing more than to avoid a massive system response in the future against an editor who in good faith, and over time, uploaded what they thought were properly justified images under the FUR process. I am sure from the respectful tone of this debate we can find some middle ground so that we can avoid the excessive trauma and follow-up drama. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of pretty much nothing: Anyone remember being "the new guy" at work, and you make a suggestion about something and all the non-new guys sit there and pick the suggestion to shreds, and then later--sometimes in the same meeting, sometimes much later--one of THEM comes up with this new, novel, "outside-the-box" suggestion, and everybody sits and smiles and nods sagely about what a totally AWESOME idea it is, and all the while you, "the new guy", are sitting there with clouds of steam coming out your ears because this awesome idea is EXACTLY the same one YOU had, the one that nobody would vouch for? I'm feeling a little Costanza-ish around the edges at the moment. Really, though--wouldn't it mitigate the perceived incivility if the nominator--as a step BEFORE an official nomination--could run a script that would say to the uploader "I've noticed there are problems with the following images you've uploaded:" followed by a list of images, preferably with a note that tells what the major problem is for each one..."Please address these by (date at least 5 days in the future); if the issues are not addressed by then, these images will be submitted for deletion based on the stated rationale." Then, on that date, another script could IfD any of the images on the list which hadn't been fixed?? We've avoided the "carpet-bombing" problem, we've given the uploader time to process the info and get his ducks in a row rationale-wise; and we've taken at least SOME of the weight off the guy who's reviewing the images, as well. (And damn, I really wish I could program right now, because I just totally clicked on a possible solution to the whole "but it would be impossible to compile a list and then generate a notice" problem....anyone with programming/database clue who's interested, hit my talkpage...) Anyhow, just a thought. Going to sleep now, for real. GJC 07:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FFD is already a "warn about possible future deletion"-process. All you suggest is giving 5 days more for discussion. --Damiens.rf 07:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wotta you talking about? If you mean Files for deletion, the problem is that not every editor edits every day. Somebody might be gone for a few days, come back and find 40 of their images nominated for deletion (or already deleted), and get really pissed off at the person who denigrated many hours of their work. Chain whipping another editor with Twinkle is a really rude thing to do, and I reserve the right to block you or anybody else who does this. There is some reasonable number of discussions that an editor can be expected to participate in over a time, and then there is a number that is clearly too many all at once for somebody to be able to process. You may not overwhelm other editors with a volume of edits or actions that essentially turns your proposal into fait accompli. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Leavitt

Resolved

 – Indeed, the article's talkpage is the proper place to proceed.--Tone 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article about Jim Leavitt is currently edit protected. However, when the protection went into place, a poorly worded sentence regarding a very recent incident was locked into the article. Since it is sure to be a high traffic article, I hope we can edit the sentence to make sense and reflect the current situation. I have a proposed wording change on the Talk page. Angryapathy (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT / WP:DOLT

A discussion on my talk page has led me to make this change to WP:NLT as a reminder and in the hope of avoiding a recurrent problem; also this change to {{uw-legal}}. I think having NLT and DOLT separate is obscuring a problem and maybe we should consider merging them. Or maybe we can just fix it in text, whatever. Anyway, I encourage discussion but probably only in one place, wherever folks think that should be. I'm in an especially mellow mood having just watched again the Christmas special of Father Ted, which is a work of comic genius. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording of {{uw-legal}} is off. It goes

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.

This actually says, amazingly, and I've read it three times now, that considering legal or other "off-wiki" action against other editors or against Wikipedia itself is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility.

Seen in the light of Wikipedia editors' recurring BLP violations, and the specific scenario described in WP:DOLT, we are essentially telling people, "our editors can write defamatory nonsense about you, ruining your life, but you are not allowed to consider any action whatsoever against us".

We need to make clear what we mean: We don't allow people to use our talk pages to make threats against other editors or Wikipedia, and we don't allow them to edit Wikipedia while contemplating or being engaged in legal action. But we should not be so presumptuous as to prohibit people from thinking about legal action against ourselves, and in those cases where complainants are genuinely wronged, we should extend a hand to them rather than telling them, in essence, that "complaining is forbidden". --JN466 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edited: [56] --JN466 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

More checkusers needed?

Is it just my impression or does it a bit long for checkusering to be performed? The queues aren't that long (a dozen requests or so). Is it just a vacation thing? Pcap ping 01:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably part of it. I haven't done any checks since before Christmas due to vacation, myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing through a protection template

Resolved

 – Self-revert, headed to talk page --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do Administrators have any right to edit through a protection template as User:Blueboy96 has done here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was all right ... in fact, I was just getting ready to go back to add a source I missed. Besides, if the information is reliably sourced, what's the problem? Blueboy96 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no right to do that and as an administrator you should realize that. What special right do you think you can ignore the discussion that other people have contributed and wasted their time typing when you come along and don't bother even commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You should revert your addition and go to the talkpage like everybody else and outline your desired addition and add the edit request template and see what other involved editors have to say about it, your rising above process like that takes away all reason for anyone to bother. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

During this discussion User Blue Boy went back to the article ignoring my comments and made another edit through the protection template. Is this correct or is it a joke? Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboy96, admins aren't supereditors; the sysop bit doesn't give you any more editorial rights than mere mortals. If you're making uncontroversial changes, it should be easy to gain consensus on the talk page. If you're making controversial changes, you have no business doing that on a protected article. I'm pretty confident this is written on a policy page somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it: WP:PREFER. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As far as I was aware, if an article is fully protected, admins shouldn't be making content edits through protection. Edits should be limited to obvious and trivial fixes and fulfilling talk page requests that appear to have consensus. --Onorem♠Dil 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought that it was noncontroversial to merely expand that he was fired ... just rolled back and heading to the talk page. Blueboy96 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Already resolved...and I'm fine if this is the last comment since drama sucks...but I think another question worth asking is why was editing through full protection even an option? I asked the protecting admin, who appears to be offline now...but don't see in the history what brought the protection on. Am I missing something in oversighted or deleted revisions or something? --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more the case that the software only has three settings: everyone edit, autoconfirmed edit, or admins edit. That's how it was designed. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Block not expiring when it should - urgent

Resolved

I recently blocked BilCat (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. While I initially set the block to 12 hours, I reduced it to 3 hours shortly afterwards on the grounds that Bill is an editor in good standing. While the block should now have expired, Bill is finding that he is still blocked and receives a message stating that he's been autoblocked. When I try to manually lift the block I get a message saying that the block has expired. Does anyone know what's going wrong here, and if so can they please (urgently) rectify it. Please note that Ajh1492 (talk · contribs), who I also blocked for 12 hours but reduced to 3 for the same edit war may also be affected. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, you need to look through the list of active blocks to find the autoblock. What I do is list the last 500 blocks and then do Ctl-F to search the list for the name of the blocked user. You can then lift the autoblock as all should be well..... Which si exactly what I did. The block log is at Special:BlockList but I always follow the link from the header in the users block log. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocks for the underlying ip are for a maximum of 24 hours, so any sanction reduction to less than that period needs to effect the autoblock. The easiest way would be to perform an unblock of the account, which brings up the "remove autoblock" option, unblock the ip also, and then reblock the account for the new tariff which creates a fresh autoblock. As long as there are explanations given in the summary then the block log makes clear all the reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change arbitration probation?

Hi. I'm not an admin, but a few days ago I was aware of an ArbCom case regarding climate change and article probation. I was going to comment on it, but I can no longer find the two cases in the requests. Have the cases closed? Could anybody provide me with a background on how this conflict started, or some links to Wikipedia pages that would help? Either here or on my talkpage would be fine, but I would like as concise a summary as possible. The issue is that I think global warming is currently accelerating, but I would need to work on this more before the information could be included into more articles, as I am trying to provide the "bigger picture" to the current state of this issue. Please direct me to the appropriate discussions. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See here and here where MBIsanz closed both applications as rejected at around 2300 on January 5th. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change where a discussion was recently held resulting in community sanctions being levelled on articles related to climate change. --TS 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

International vandal

Hi. I'm a single IP user, but I need to report this: A brazilian user IP 201.0.202.118, who is vandalizing Lula, o filho do Brasil was banned 3 months in Portuguese Wikipedia by multiple registrations/accounts and vandalism (his accounts are banned forever). He uses sock puppets here and there, and he is vandalizing lots of pages there. He is like "radical communist", only edits political pages. He must be banned here too. Please, punish him and his multiple accounts and IPs. 189.4.240.56 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps and Admin "Talk Page"

Resolved

 – No admin tools required. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the maps on Wikipedia are useless, because the location they are showing, shows no other reference points, so they are meaningless for determining where the location is, it might as well just be an isolated point or dot with nothing else around it, which is what these maps are. They may look nice, but most people want a map to find out where something is, in relation to something else, like where they might be located, and where the map location is in relation to where they are located. For example the map of Coto De Caza, has no reference points at all. To find out where it is, you'd have to cross reference it with a second map, and if you have to do that, why would you even waste time with the wikipedia map?
Then the author says, if you want to make a comment, go to his "talk page". Except the words "talk page" aren't a link, and you can't find the "talk page" unless you want to spend an hour looking for the needle in the haystack. I know this because I looked for it and couldn't find it and didn't have 15 minutes to spend, trying to find the link to "make a comment" on this useless "map". Its not a map, its just a picture.

Thank you, Barbara Mau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.65.219 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The creator of the map is User:Shereth; once you are at his user page (where it says, "You may pester him with questions or requests for assistance on his talk page", which I assume is what you refer to), just click on the 'talk' tab at the top of the page to access his talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Except it says 'discussion', not talk, and I guess people sometimes can't make the connection. --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The tab of Shereth's talk page? It is labelled 'talk' when I look at it (all talk page tabs are labelled 'talk' for me). Perhaps it is a quirk in the software somewhere? But thanks for pointing that out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For me as an anon all talk page tabs (whether articles' or users') are all labelled clearly "discussion", not "talk". Maybe you're using a particular skin or a particular localization? 80.135.18.144 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a side-effect of Friendly. It changes discussion to talk.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating userpages for other editors

What are the guidelines for editors creating user pages for other editors, eg User:Scienceofficer which was just created. Sure, we create talk pages to welcome new users, but I always though of user pages as pages to be created only by the user. I'm probably wrong but couldn't find any guidance. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is the WP:UP#OWN section of WP:UP: "In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your user page, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." Personally I think that WP:UP#OWN makes it clear that creating user pages for other users is not advisable, unless done so with their permission or to add a sock tag or similar. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion also. I'll ask the editor, who I am sure is acting in good faith, to stop. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

How do I turn my userpage on? Where are the selections so that I can choose one? MoodFreak (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to User:MoodFreak and add whatever you want to be displayed on your user-page into the edit box. Any subsequent questions of this nature are better directed to our help desk, please open a section there if you need any further help. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)

Resolved

 – Resolved...ish. I could do with an extra pair of eyes to make sure I did it right...thanks! GJC 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin take action on this please? This MFD has been open since December 21st, 2009. It appears to be a no consensus keep to me, but I would feel more comfortable if an admin had a look. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I got it, but with a different result than you came up with. The article has now been deleted. However....would one of you "big kid" admins please un-screw my formatting and make sure I've done all the necessaries? This is my first admin closure of an XfD (yeah, I know) and I'm apparently crap with hatnotes and the like. I'm going over the instructions on closing one, but....Look, I'm just a little insecure about these things, hm?  :) (Seriously, though--someone double-check me, please. This really is my first closure.) GJC 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's why I asked for an admin to have a look as I am not good yet with determining consensus.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I approached the situation with a little MORE caution simply because I started from your conclusion--the "delete" votes seemed to have a bit more policy behind them, and one of the main "KEEP"s was the user himself. But it was good to consider that someone else had read consensus differently--I think you did fine, actually. GJC 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, good close. Just for future reference, my only advice would be not to bother saying "always open for deletion review"--every deletion is technically open to DRV, but the system works best when it's rare, so the default assumption should be that an XFD close is final. Just some friendly advice, though--carry on closing. Chick Bowen 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, another editor came along and fixed it.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Can one or several administrators please deal with this? There is a ridiculously large backlog that has been there for about the past week. Thank you! Insorak ♫ talk 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

Does anyone know if 128.174.251.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is really a bot and if so whose? It's been blocked twice today. I've asked Cobi as it may well be his. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, that has to be Cobi's, or some terrible co-incidence. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

user:Linguisticgeek

Resolved

 – nothing to see here, legitimate image taggings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin should check the latest edits of this user, who is on tagging spree on all the articles, I edit, and all the artices he think belong to my caste! Amusing for me, but surely not for wikipedia. Kindly have a look. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean his image taggings, those that I've checked seem all soundly argued and legitimate. Sorry, nothing we can do to avoid this kind of legitimate scrutiny; those images need cleanup. (However, I have advised him to avoid multiple automated notifications to uploaders, as per a recent discussion we had elsewhere showing that this may have a somewhat aggravating effect.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Unchecking RfC

Per the discussion at WT:RFA#Unchecking the box, an RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Your collective input is desired. -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)