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

Ban proposal (User: NatDemUK)

NatDemUK (talk · contribs)

User: NatDemUK has expressed some very disturbing views on Wikipedia, both on his own userpage and in other namespaces. Other users, including Fourdee and Jerry Jones, have been banned in the past for expressing similar sentiments, due to the fact that most Wikipedians find such views offensive and disruptive, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Examples of NatDemUK's unacceptable behavior include: [1], [2] (in which he claims that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic), [3], [4] (saying Stormfront has "no official ideology", which is obviously false), [5], [6] (spamming Pantheism with an unrelated article by a neo-Nazi author), [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. In addition, he has been blocked twice already and his behavior has not stopped. Therefore, I am proposing a ban for User: NatDemUK. Feel free to post any supports/opposes below. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This should be a no-brainer. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - Neutral but willing to support conditioned on evidence that this edit history is disruptive. I will switch to support if there are violations of policy here, but to be clear, I do not support blocking editors on the basis of their personal views, however personally repulsive. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of evidence that he's been disruptive and has been violating policy; see AmnaFinotera's post below, which presents evidence that NatDem has been making death threats and using socks to edit-war. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

*Neutral - as per Shadowjams. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't support users voting to get rid of people with polital views they are oposed to. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — this ban proposal appears to be motivated by the user's opinions. There's no good reason to ban based on opinions alone, and I don't see enough reason here to ban for the edits. For three examples:
  • I don't see why you cite this edit as evidence — yes, it's not sourced, but you're not trying to get him banned for simple unsourced additions.
    • Well, "mass immigration" is a buzzword usually used by far-right extremists. I can't think of any mainstream political figures using the term. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit that you cite is good except for the summary: the article doesn't say anything about neo-Naziism, so he shouldn't have been in the category or had that see also link.
    • The uncivil edit summary is the reason I cited this edit as evidence. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit that you cite is likewise not a content problem; sexual orientation and ethnicity are totally different issues. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, read the edit summary; using the term "abnormal" to refer to LGBT people is not the kind of behavior we want to see. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral Weak Support - while I personally find his views appalling that is not a reason to ban. However, he has shown some civility issues, I'm not entire sure that he has "exhausted the community patience" at this point. He only has two blocks, both for edit warring and the latter for a threat that was apparently never redacted.[13] I also don't see any evidence of previous ANI threads about him. Inclined to support a topic ban and, if violated, increasing blocks. If he does any more threats like the one above, or gross incivility, also increasing blocks. However, I am also curious/concerned that this editor is also operating as an IP to edit war, from his seemingly random "first comment" in May 09 telling someone to "Will you fuck off????? How many more times??? Andrew Brons DOES NOT believe in Nazism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"[14] He had never edited that article before, however in the days proceeding it, 194.80.178.253 (talk · contribs) had been edit warring over the same issue[15][16][17][18] then again after NatDemUK made a second revert.[19] This IP is currently on a 3 month block, and has three more blocks to his name[20]. If NatDemUK is still using that IP, it would seem to be a far larger case of disruption. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed to weak support after seeing evidence of a second death-type threat. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed to full support after his response to this discussion[21] which seems to show he does know he is in the wrong and doesn't care...instead he went on the attack spewing out more unnecessary diatribes and hateful speech. At this point, it seems clear he is far too poisonous a person who work within a community environment.-- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Neutral toward ban, Support indefinite block: We usually don't ban based on personal beliefs alone. We might be able to speedy his userpage as an attack page though. As for an actual ban, we would have to base it on violation of policy, and though I see edit warring I don't see enough to justify a ban. N419BH 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Moving to support indef. block: His beliefs are his and we usually don't ban for those. His approach however violates several Wikipedia policies: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and it is time to prevent further disruption. N419BH 01:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would be delighted never to encounter such views, but we should not be banning people merely for their opinions, if they are able express them in a non-disruptive way, and to edit broadly in accordance with policy. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, he's been expressing his views in a very disruptive way (as the diffs show), and has violated editing policies quite a few times. Generally, most people with strong ethnic or racial biases tend to have little to no respect for policy; while it's theoretically possible with someone with views like Fourdee's or NatDemUK's could edit non-disruptively and in accordance with policy, in practice it almost never happens. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose at this time (based on wiki norms and not his beliefs) I dealt with a chunk of this user's writings and gave him a clear talk page explanation of the problem and site/community editing expectations on 12 July link. He hasn't edited in the 12 days since. I'm not seeing any current activity requiring a ban, nor any evidence of edits to show he has continued to ignore editing norms. The diffs above are indeed a concern but they are old and predate the warning. If he returns and restarts these issues then deal with it then, and I would probably endorse. Either way he now has the expectations set out for him and has his chance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- No editor should ever be restricted, blocked, or banned from Wiki based on their personal belief system. In this case there are some clear examples of civility issues, edit warring and arguably, disruption. In this example here [22], the user appears to be advocating murder, and here [23], the user apparently threatens an editor with assault/attempted murder over a revision disagreement. These behaviors need to be addressed immediately, but not via a community ban based on the user's political beliefs, IMHO. --GabeMc (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, if he has been making death threats, isn't that in and of itself grounds for issuing a ban? Also, as AmnaFinotera pointed out, NatDemUK has been using socks to edit-war, as well. Both of these are clear policy violations which seem to justify banning, even if the user's views don't (although I stand by my original view that there is a precendent for banning people with particularly extreme views, as was established during the Fourdee case). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Weak Support - I agree with GabeMc that we shouldn't be punishing a user based on their personal beliefs or opinions (regardless of how prejudicial they may be). While I personally find his views appalling, I don't think it's anyone's place to ban a person simply based on their views. However, given that the user has been using socks to edit-war and has made death threats, I support a ban of this user. Furthermore, it should be made clear that this user is not being banned for his personal opinions but for his repeated violation/disregard of WP policy. Vedant (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: the user is, quite simply, a braindead idiot (and I'm sorry to offend three major newspapers and one and a half million people, but anyone who supports the BNP or UKIP is), but we don't block people for being braindead idiots. However, giving that he's advocating mass murder, and threatening violence on another user, can someone explain why he hasn't been blocked? Sceptre ^(talk) 04:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have. But to sum up, because Wikipedia gets written by people of all views, and even someone with extreme views should be told how we work before assuming they can't or won't. Since having that clear explanation about 2 weeks ago (politely, courteously, supportively, and without threats or incivility) NatDemUK actually hasn't edited. If he returned showing he has learned nothing that's one thing. But banning him for actions several weeks ago, with a warning 2 weeks ago and no misconduct since is assuming too much negatively (AGF doesn't mean giving endless chances, it means until you see otherwise, assume they may have good intentions as an editor or not know better). It may of course be that he does need a ban, but at this time it's premature and against community norms. Normal criteria and ways of thinking for warnings, blocks, and bans still apply exactly as normal. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between an "extreme view" and believing that homosexuals, liberals, socialists, communists (including the Tories, I bet), Jews, atheists should be, and I quote, "be annihilated for their beliefs" and saying "their heads will be cut off". This kind of shit brings the project into disrepute, and, fuck, we've blocked paedophiles for less. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're unanimous here on the emotional feeling about these kinds of statements. But by the same token the question I'm asking myself is, did he have much likelihood of knowing there was a policy of "leave it outside please"; did he know he could be blocked if he didn't; did he have it explained that he needs to work here even with people in real life he loathes - as they need to with him? I don't see it being categorically clear that he was told this. That's one issue.

The other is our own community norms, we don't block and ban people for old stuff - and this is old here. He had a warning a fortnight ago and hasn't tried to repeat since or fight it. We have no way to tell if he may come back angry, come back accepting our norms, or not come back, because it's the 1st proper explanation and warning we can be sure he has had, setting out what he needs to know.

That - the prematurity by our own norms and not any acceptance of his view - is the reason for opposing a ban at this time. I view him no different in wiki terms to a POV pusher on any other topic, making edits some of which are biased and speaking inappropriately of other editors. If he learns, good, if not, bye bye is likely. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per the concerns raised above. -Oescp (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Per FT2, extremely reluctant Oppose, with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Any repeat of their prior "bad behaviour" (fuck it: racist, fascist crap) should be met with an immediate and permanent ban. TFOWR 09:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  Moving to neutral, considering support: editor has resumed editing and shows no sign of having taken on board the very real concerns raised here. TFOWR 07:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Per these statements on his user page. People that threaten to kill other people because they politically disagree with them has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of their ideologies. Seems pretty straightforward to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ugh, oddly opposed Perhaps the most unfortunate belief system ever to have evolved out of Africa 50000 years ago, in that they have clearly forgotten where they came from. As they have not made specific threats, it's a challenge for us to ban them for merely being wrong-headed. However, any entry/edit to Wikipedia that is directly racist, violation of WP:NPA, WP:EW, etc must be met swiftly, and with escalating blocks as needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't edit war. Don't make threats. I will vote to kick you out of that continues. Anthony (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry, what?? I don't see why the other diffs have been raised, but surely this one (not the precise diff, of course, but the material removed, which the history shows the user to have previously added) should warrant an automatic goodbye? Are we saying that "advocating inappropriate adult-child relationships" gets anyone banned without any further debate, but advocating the murder of half the people in the community is worth no more than a ticking off? Somehow WP's got to sort its policy out over these issues.--Kotniski (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that disgusting rant that advocates pedophilia at all (may be the only thing he didn't harp on but still). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Kotniski was claiming that NatDemUK supported pedophilia. Rather, he was pointing out that from his perspective, it seems hypocritical for Wikipedia to automatically ban other users who do advocate pedophilia (which the Child Protection policy mandates), while not doing likewise for users, like NatDemUK, who advocate mass murder. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that is indeed exactly what I was trying to say.--Kotniski (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, you're right, I read that too fast, and while the community did not actually pass WP:CP, that rant (which was removed) does appear to be his second death threat. Though not specific, it does certainly adds a new light to thinks, and death threats in general are not acceptable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose(also very reluctantly). Per Bwilkins (and others). Indefinite block before a site ban: two prior blocks (however horrific some edits may be) don't justify an outright ban. Yet? If socks come out: maybe a ban. Clean up your act, dude... Doc9871 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ban Threatening to kill someone because of politics should be enough to get rid of them. Also, he's vandalized pages before --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This user has not threatened to kill anyone. A threat is a specific statement of intention to take a specific course of action. What this user has done is spew a particular ideology. Offensive as I find it, I don't think the user should be banned for it. Blocks for specific behavior are appropriate. Trolls like this typically lose their energy for confrontation pretty quickly. If there comes a point in time that multiple or repeated blocks become necessary, the issue can be revisited.BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "This user has not threatened to kill anyone. A threat is a specific statement of intention to take a specific course of action." Here [24], the user says, "Their heads will be cut off", and here [25], "get rid of those categories NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR ELSE I'LL SLICE YA!!". Sounds pretty specific to me. --GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Whose heads? There is no specific target person mentioned in the first link, nor does User:NatDemUK state his intentions to do anything. The second link refers to getting rid of categories, not people. Offensive, yes. Threat, no. Any similar comments in the last two weeks? No. Does this require an urgent ban? No. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree: I can't see how the first diff is a death threat to anyone specific: looks like misguided "hate speech" against a very wide variety of "groups" instead. The second diff is way more troubling, but he was blocked for it for a week. I don't think anyone is really defending his behavior, and I agree with Exxolon's comment below concerning his future. Even this creep (whom I'm sure the good admin who appropriately blocked both him and NatDemUK remembers) is only blocked indefinitely and not banned. Those are serious threats... Doc9871 (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@ BartlebytheScrivener, "Whose heads?", the diff includes a list of "whose heads", [26]. @ Doc9871, making threats toward an individual is no more serious then making threats towards groups of people, a threat of de-capitation is a threat, whether about one, or many victims. --GabeMc (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • I've been around the internet for long enough to know an empty threat when I see it, despite the above guy being physically less than 100 miles away; however, I am still relatively comfortable where I am, and since February, since those threats were issued, nothing has happened. It's all too easy to be a bully or a coward on the net, since responsibility is at best deferred, if not avoided. If he had been other than shouting, I might have been worried, but as it happens, I'm not, and am just getting on with things. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, Rod: I find it pretty disturbing and won't soon forget seeing that post on your page. @GabeMc - NatDemUK doesn't say he will cut their heads off, just that they "will" be cut off. By who? He doesn't seem to specify. I would think he means he feels that (for whatever reason) these people deserve to have their heads cut off. It seems like an extremely vague threat to me... Doc9871 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Based on nothing but assumption, I would guess 99% of threats made on Wikipedia, which resulted in bans, was probably empty, but it still does not make it acceptable behaviour.

--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and such threats are so poisonous to collaborative editing that they they should result in immediate blocks, and implied bans, without any argument whatsoever. In the current case, much as as NatDemUK is a WP:SPA with an axe to grind, he has failed, in my view, to regard our editing policies as non-negotiable. My experience of him tells me that he has been told on numerous occasions of those, and has significantly failed to understand neutrality policy, and that is without the abuse of other editors. He should go, and with extreme prejudice. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - as someone this user thinks is a "Sub-degenerate freak", "vermin", "shite-head" who "must be annihilated" and my "head(s) will be cut off" I'm finding it hard to assume good faith here. However I do believe that all political viewpoints are welcome. NatDemUK should be under no illusions - if he can edit within policy and interact civilly with other editors even if he does not personally approve of them then there's a place for him here. If he can't then the door is that way. Personally I'm not optimistic based on his previous user page at [27]. Exxolon (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This user seems to be quite disruptive and not especially interested in collaboration. I have a hard time assuming good faith in someone who threatens violence against other editors. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." WP:CIVILITY --GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note - Whether or not NatDemUK would reciprocate the, "As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." is certainly debatable. I've notified him of this report nonetheless. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know; sorry I didn't do it myself, but I was unaware at the time that the user-notification policy applied to ban discussions. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No problem! I don't believe it's policy, but it is a courtesy at the very least (as it says at the top of the page). This could have been very different if the user knew about it from the beginning. His response has already swayed opinions in just a few short minutes (and will continue to, I'm sure). Cheers, Stonemason89! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• DEEPLY Oppose Hi everyone, given that you thought that you could waste your time stalking me, let us get some things right. Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic because it is not incitement of hatred to Jews, it is just denial of a historical event. Stormfront has no official ideology, it is a forum for European people where you can discuss anything you want and disagree with whichever you want and Cosmotheism, the beliefs of William Pierce, are based on pantheism. You are all very repulsive in what you have done, I have cause no problems at all, you are a horrible bunch of ignorant liberals who ought to be a damn shamed of yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I agree with Doc9871 above, "Indefinite block before a site ban: two prior blocks don't justify an outright ban." After appropriate blocks, user must commit to not breaking WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, WP:WAR, WP:SOCK, or WP:SOAPBOX. --GabeMc (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget WP:NPA, of course. ;> If it's shown he has been socking (as is alleged), I'm for an immediate longer-term block... Doc9871 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support - This user has had serious disruptive editing and has exhausted all of the community's patience with his incivil comments and his soapboxing. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are far more disruptive and arrogant that you cannot bear free speech or thought at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia:Free speech - we do not have the right to unlimited free speech here. Exxolon (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, NatDemUK, please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as well as Wikipedia:No personal attacks - we also do not tolerate such things like that on Wikipedia. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. No soapboxing, kthx. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Not for his views which, while reprehensible, shouldn't get him blocked alone. I suport based on the flagrant Personal Attacks repeatedly made by the user; their combatative stance that goes against out core policies; his blatant lack of WP:NPOV; and things like WP:SOAPBOX to boot. 05:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs)

You do mean "shouldn't get him banned alone", right? This is about banning him, not blocking him[28]. "Spellcheck" helps, too, my brother... Doc9871 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Signing. Signing helps, too, Skinny87. ;-) TFOWR 07:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha, oops. My bad, apologies. I do indeed mean 'banned' and not 'blocked' as per Doc9871. I'll be more careful with my spelling next time as well :) Skinny87 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support Stuff like this alone goes greatly beyond the limits of what's acceptable (these aren't 'political views'; they're hate crimes in many parts of the world). The other diffs provided above and the current content of their user page make it plain that this editor is here primarily to push their political views and hasn't responded to warnings against this behavior. This would justify a ban on NPOV grounds alone even if the views weren't politically extreme and included threats of violence. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy hadn't made an edit (I see no SPI attachment) since July 17. He was not notified of this report (filed on the 23rd), and made exactly one edit two days later: then he was notified and clearly responded. This goes beyond him or his opinions (as I see it). Everyone's supposed to get a fair trial, right? It's about proper procedure: that's more important than individual editors. We're going to hang him... and then kill him? His second block was for one week. How is a longer block not preferable to a ban? I'm not thinking that the "bigger picture" is being seen by many on this one... Doc9871 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it hilarious though that the phrasing of his own !vote in this thread probably did more harm to his "case" than anything else. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably? At least our heads are still firmly attached to our necks. Definitely don't want to see a "railroading" here, though. BTW, I am an "ignorant liberal": don't want to know much about liberalism. But that's just me... Doc9871 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ban for now but support longer block like indefinite. Let him work on some of the other projects to show he can follow policies and guidelines then it can be rethought to see if he should be unblocked. So far the editor doesn't seem to be 'getting' what editors are saying to him yet, as can be seen with his last comments. I am also having a difficult time with not saying ban after reading the difs and his user page. Another thing, if it hasn't been done yet, someone needs to rev delete the history of his user page with the stuff that was removed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the user under discussion is not blocked in any way and is as such presently free to contribute to the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I worded my comment too clumsy. I mean I support a longer block than the user has already received in the past including an indefinte block. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Ban or Indef block - There are two things the Wikipedia community has shown they will not tolerate. One is pedophilia, the other is racism. Denying Stormfront is a racist organization is absurd on its very face, and comments about killing people (even general groups) are disruptive & poisonous to a collaborative atmosphere. Until NatDemUK retracts his violent comments, I support a ban or indef bock of the account. He can have his opinion on Stormfront, but calling for beheadings is over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a block but not an indefinite one nor a ban. The user's activity is disruptive, but I'm concerned too many of the ban supports are reacting to personal views rather than substantive edits. Again, to be clear, I have no sympathy for this user's political views, but I would abandon my own to let that fact alone govern his/her ability to edit. Disruption is a valid reason, but personal politics are not. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a single support that states it is based on a reaction to his personal views. Quite the opposite in fact, as most editors who support quite clearly states that their vote is not based on his political views. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Nobody would make that statement. Nor am I saying that a specific person is making that judgment, but the overall approach to me appears to be premised on that point, hence my opinion above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Shadowjams. While no support states it is based on his beliefs, the original intent of the ban proposal does seem to be an attempt to ban him based on his politics and views, and as such, I cannot support a community ban based on this proposal. User must agree to apologize for his threats and remarks, refrain from such activites in the future, and to remove the offensive material from his user page, if it remains. As far as a user block is concerned, I believe that should be a separate decision not based on the comments made here. — GabeMc (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support unless there are clear signs that s/he will moderate the language and clean up their use page to remove the offensive material. The oppose statement from the editor above gives little hope that this will happen --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ban for now. I've looked through his recent edits, and although many of them are unhelpful, I don't see much that's actually ban-worthy. Yes, his views are offensive to many, but for the most part he kept them to his userpage (from where the most offensive parts have been removed) rather than putting them into articles - looking at his article edits, I get the impression he's been trying to comply with WP:NPOV, albeit not entirely successfully. The threats of violence and personal attacks on other users (this sort of thing:[29]) are more problematic, but he has been warned and blocked for them already. If he hasn't got the message yet, this discussion should make it clear. I say let him continue editing, but keep a closer eye on him - now he knows that personal attacks and soapboxing are wrong, he's got no excuses. If he returns to such behaviour, then he can be blocked or banned as appropriate (under WP:Competence is required), but if he avoids it and makes helpful edits - as a few of his were - then let him be. Robofish (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: his worst (i.e. potentially ban-worthy) contributions are not his most recent, and he does appear to be trying to work within Wikipedia's policies. As Robofish alludes to, if and when he returns to saying he's going to kill people, then talk about a long block or ban. Buddy431 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Just found this discussion - blocks or bans based on personal opinions or positions are generally a "bad idea." Collect (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose close

If there is any consensus to emerge from the above, it is that a user's views should not be a primary basis for a ban, and that this user's recent actions (after warnings) do not justify a ban (yet). It is probably time to close this nearly week-long discussion (where views and actions have got unhelpfully mixed together), and start a new one if and when necessary (i.e. if the user becomes sufficiently disruptive). Any new discussion, if it proves necessary, should focus on actions. Rd232 ^talk 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Support closure, someone should write a summary of the general feeling here and clearly convey the concerns raised here and the consequences for his wiki career if he steps over the line. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first part (to an extent), but not the second part. Most people who oppose the ban, I don't think, are aware of the "kill 95% of the population" spiel that was on his user page. Even so, there are more people in favour of a ban than not. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did oppose the ban, and I was aware of the spiel. At the time I opposed (I've since moved to neutral) I took the view that the editor was a new editor, probably unaware of the community's norms. (I've since moved to neutral because the editor resumed editing, posted here, and is now clearly aware of the standards required by the community). I'd support a ban only if the editor repeated a threat. I do not believe a ban decision should be made on beliefs or views; rather, it should be made on threats - threats made after the editor was made aware of the community's requirements for collegial editing. TFOWR 10:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise is possible (i. e. an indef block, or a topic ban, but not a full ban)? Stonemason89 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote for a topic ban for sure. A month block to start the next time he screws up with escalating blocks as necessary. If the very next edit (still waiting...) is offensive enough: instant indef. A community ban? Note that he hasn't even edited since this, and his comments on this very board didn't get him blocked for a millisecond. Remarkable restraint for an editor whose past alone is "catching up to him" and is to be banned for it. Whatever... Doc9871 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have thirteen opposed...and eighteen support and a few neutrals, it is a bit split imo. and absolutely not a reason to block him ban him or anything imo either. The guys not even editing and will be quite free to simply create himself another account and edit away.Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of users about posts on this board

Some time ago I spearheaded a change in policy at WP:ANI requiring notifying editors you post about. Currently ANI has a big header when you edit saying "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." - NatDemUK above was not notified about the ban discussion until considerable discussion had occurred. I move that we apply the same rule here as ANI - "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." and create the appropiate template - as I said at the original discussion, talking behind someone's back really isn't cricket - if someone's conduct is serious enough to warrant a post here they deserve to be informed so they can defend themselves. Exxolon (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• 100% Support. Same is true at Wikiquette alerts: "Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page."; and the 3RR board, "When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the {{uw-3RR}} warning template." This is not asked with a "please": it's instructed. Why this is a "courtesy" here (and not the other "serious" boards) is a bit odd. Good call, Exxolon... Doc9871 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unless there's some exceptionally good reason I'm not aware of - support. Kind of surprised this isn't the case already: shows how much attention I pay to edit notices ;-) TFOWR 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems sensible (though there already is a note at the top of this page stating that "As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." - which I guess makes this a pretty minor change) Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support in principle, though one might argue that ban discussions should take place on ANI and therefore the notification requirements there would cover making sure people were notified. AN in principle, as I understand it, is more for announcements or things that you wish to inform the other administrators about that require no action. ANI should be for things that require action by an administrator. Syrthiss (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that for sure. But, these things are very often not moved appropriately to AN/I. That's another problem... Doc9871 (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My worry is that such a notice will encourage people to think this is an appropriate board to discuss problems with other editors. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the board is sometimes used for that purpose, regardless of it's intent. We can certainly tweak the notification warning to encourage posting elsewhere, but if someone chooses to post here anyway, the other party(ies) should be informed. Exxolon (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is useless red tape. This is the board for addressing administrators. Only use it if you think your problem has any bearing on Wikipedia administration. We can note that it is considered a courtesy to notify users, but I don't see how this is really relevant. I was mentioned here many times without anyone telling me, and if it was anything I needed to know about, I was invariably notified by somebody else. As long as it isn't something I need to know about, I don't see why I should be notified. --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal experiences notwithstanding, this board is sometimes used for things that fall outside it's strict remit. Since threads on this board can and do lead to serious consequences sometimes it's important for fairness and transparency to notify subjects of threads. All other major boards have this requirement so it's not red tape, it's bringing this board's policy into line with the others. The NatDemUK thread above is a case in point. This could lead to a sitewide ban for him but he was not informed until extensive discussion had already taken place. A notification requirement would prevent this kind of problem. Exxolon (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of making this a "rule" or "requirement"? Other than because admins tend to like rules so they can enforce them? Of course you shouldn't ban anyone before they are even aware they are being discussed, that's the ancient "warn them first" rule that I have found on Wikipedia when I joined in 2004. What is the difference of saying it would be a courtesy and making it a "requirement"? So there can be a bureaucratic process of penalizing people who failed to notify people they mentioned? Perhaps even a noticeboard where people can be reported who failed to notify people they reported on a board? Please, take a step back. I know administrators tend to forget this, but we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to build a government. Administrators have a few buttons to deal with problems, preferably intelligently and unbureaucratically. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

For fairness and to bring this board in line with all other similar boards. There won't be a "bureaucratic process of penalizing people who failed to notify people" as you put it (unless someone repeatedly fails to do so after being asked) - typically the first person who sees/comments on a thread notifies the subject and reminds the poster (this seems to be current practice at ANI) - I can see no reason for this board to be exempt when notification is required at all other similar boards and has not led to any significant problems as far as I'm aware. Exxolon (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support - Really all upside. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In case you all missed it, up top on right under using this page you will see that it is the second comment there to notify users. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's currently only a "courtesy" and there is no corresponding message when you post to the page. Needs beefing up. Exxolon (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it needs more so I'll iVote on it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Agree with what is said above. To me it's just common courtesy to inform someone when they are being discussed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support same should be true of mentions in arbcom cases and any other "official" forum. Verbal chat 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • what is an "official forum"? This is just a wiki page somebody created along the line and which became popular. The only arguably "official" institution here is the arbcom. Admins are just editors who have also been trusted to deal with disruption in good faith. Idealistic, I know, but sometimes the fulltime admins need to be reminded they aren't a government or a police force. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • ArbCom and any administrator action noticeboards. Also notification about pup discussions might be nice, but I can't think they're very common. Verbal chat 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • yes, notification would be nice. We agree on that. The question here is, however, would it be 'nice' to introduce yet another mandatory rule to widen the gap between the people writing articles and the people absorbed in "administration". --dab (𒁳) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • People "absorbed" in writing articles have to follow the rules, too. Some like writing articles better than enforcing the rules - and vice versa. It's collaborative, and we need both concerns addressed here; or else it's a free-for-all. There shouldn't be much of any gap... Doc9871 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is probably already happening in practice, I hope. This'll just make it official. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose yet another formal rule, which won't change anything in practice: considerate people have always informed others; less considerate people will always forget it. Plus, any bit of additional text added to the header will make it even less likely that people will take in anything from the header at all. It is already ridiculously big. I swear I never read the current header, and I doubt many other people do. I can support adding another tag only on condition that people propose at least two or three existing tags to be removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Imagine any editor logging in after several days of not editing, and being informed they were banned (without notice). Blocks (even indefinite ones) can be appealed far more easily than a ban. These "ban" threads do routinely get opened and closed at this board without being moved to AN/I (where you must inform the editor). This page should have the same standard as the others. Courts in "RL" inform you when they are going to put you on trial: it's only fair. Why shouldn't this board; esp. if you can get banned forever here without even knowing it? Doc9871 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Duh. Obviously I am not saying people shouldn't be informed. That's common sense, and has always been. Any ban discussion held without notifying the affected user would always have been considered void when challenged. What I'm saying is, don't waste space in a header that nobody is going to read anyway. This is pointless instruction creep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Instruction creep is a valid argument (and, having discovered this barnstar recently I considered - partly in jest, partly seriously - the need for a Black Barnstar for editors who successfully push back instruction creep). However, this is simply bringing consistency across boards, which IMHO would reduce confusion. In practice editors unfamiliar with ANI do not get "punished" for failing to inform editors they mention: it's all part of the learning curve, and we all understand that. Your point about the header is well made, and I for one am constantly surprised by what's been in headers for some time, and which I've never seen. The AN edit notice, however, is relatively short as edit notices go, and would seem to be an ideal location to advise editors about the need to inform other editors. TFOWR 08:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) @Future Perfect - It couldn't be that hard to simply go into the header and change the current "plea" as it is to, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." It's not about drastically reorganizing the header and thereby wasting space; but simply strengthening the wording and creating a simple template. Whether nobody reads it or not is debatable... Doc9871 (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well, take this as an example. I never saw that existing notice in the header. And right now, I looked at the header to see if it was there, didn't see it, and recoiled in horror from the task of scanning the whole thing to find it. But I'll take your word for it. :-) – BTW, another thing, while notification is of course a matter of common sense, I am also concerned a "must" rule will lead to silly formalistic complications, if people will insist on its letter against common sense. Take the following hypothetical situation: User X was blocked, let's say indef, but has been permanently socking since, through IPs and throwaway accounts. After half a year of socking, somebody wants to solidify the block (and de-facto ban) into a full formal community ban. Who do you notify? The original X account (probably not read any longer anyway). The latest sock? (probably discarded and unread too.) All known socks? The latest IP talkpages? It's particularly useless because in such a situation the blocked account wouldn't be welcome to participate in the discussion anyway, being already de-facto banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in that scenario, things could get a little "dicey". It'd be best to have some killer SPI evidence to accompany User X's community ban proposal (and wouldn't worry much about notifying it or its socks if it is already indef blocked and proven socking). Anyhoo, as TFOWR pointed out, you don't get into any trouble for not reporting someone at AN/I - and you wouldn't here, either. It's really a basic formality that makes it in line with the other boards. Cheers, Fut.Perf! :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - It should go without saying that this warning will be added to the edit-warning template, prominently. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• I think the rule may be read inflexibly. There's sometimes good reasons for not directly notifying an user, and sometimes it's not best to demand those reasons be revealed on-wiki. I think as long as an user specifically notes in their complaint that they haven't notified the subject and requests someone (anyone) to notify them on their behalf, this should be permissible (because it's an option that would not be exercised without good reason). But if such a note doesn't accompany the AN post, or the user has forgotten or deliberately chose not to notify an user even where they should be, that's when the rule has some value. So I'd conditionally support (if that proviso exists, otherwise annoying people will insist that someone wasn't notified and that it was improper - even though the AN post specifically said that they weren't notified and requested someone else to)...but even then, whether the rule is going to change anything in practice is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Even I have sometimes not notified people (boneheaded oversight on occasion and once when the user appeared to be ignoring my posts on their talk already - I noted that on the thread and someone else notified them for me) - as long as there's a note "I have not notified them because of X" that seems fine. Exxolon (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as redundant and instruction creep. The talk about about how nice it would be to add another edit message no one will read just compounds my frustration. We can point to AN/I as an example of how this "works", but it really doesn't. In practice most conscientious editors notified parties upon initiating a discussion, most other editors prompted a notification from AN/I regulars and the balance weren't really impacted by the stringent requirement. The only real positive effect the policy had was to nip in the bud repeated discussions as to the necessity and timing of notification--of couse this is almost outweighed by the noisome habit of needling petitioners to notify all editors in bold text or template form. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No notification requirement stipulations are "on the table" as of yet. This is neither bold text nor templated: I just just added a diff. No one will read the edit message? You're responding on a thread that was created because some editors are seeking to change the edit message here. Some editors read 'em, it seems... Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the habit of needling reporting individuals to notify all involved. So say I start a thread on AN/I, my first response is likely to be some question "did you notify Bob?" (really unobjectionably) or more likely "It is WP:MANDATORY to WP:NOTIFY Bob, blarg blarg blarg" (less unobjectionable). The actual notification templates for user talk pages (which predate the requirement on AN/I) are fine. As for the edit notice, you aren't disproving my point. There is no shortage of folks willing to write things no one will read. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Notification is an essential element of any Due Process policy. — GabeMc (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, since notification is essentially mandated by existing etiquette guidelines throughout wiki, the propose guideline would be a policy for process's sake, since people who forget to notify others about discussions here will continue to do so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • They might well do, but a notification requirement means that the first editor who notices the lack of notification (on ANI for example) tends to do it themselves - I think that regardless of whether it's the poster or first editor who notices, prompt notification is a net positive. Exxolon (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • "Instruction creep" itself is not even a guideline, let alone policy. "It is an insidious disease, originating from ignorance...". Really? Sounds a wee bit "NPOV" - not! I feel it would be better to refer to policy on matters like this, rather than unreferenced "essayed" theories... Doc9871 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It isn't a guideline or a policy because it isn't a mandate. There is no meaningful way for it to direct action like a policy. That doesn't mean that avoiding instruction creep is not a laudable goal. As for your invocation of NPOV and "unreferenced", I think you have the namespace confused. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Should be common sense, and writing it down somewhere makes a lot of sense to me. If only so we have something to point to when someone does not notify users he's talking about. --Conti|✉ 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this as another rule to replace common sense. I hate it when an ANI thread is derailed immediately with the first reply, because someone feels the need to lecture the reporter for not notifying the other party within 2 minutes. Where ANI threads are usually about issues with another editor, and AN is a board for more general matters, when will it be required to notify someone and when won't it? With common sense taken out of the equation, you better give some pretty specific instructions.--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • And there it is, Exxolon himself provides an example of the annoying overzealousness that is frequently applied to enforce this rule. The guy waits 5 minutes to notify the other party and already he gets lectured on both ANI and his talk page (unwarranted I might add). I find this really annoying and I feel such energy is better spent in actually resolving the issue.--Atlan (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I certainly appreciate the concerns of editors regarding the informing of "any editor discussed" issue. Both Wikiquette and 3RR instruct to inform the reported user. This distinction is certainly a point of note. I'd have little problem compromising with "tweaking" the proposed change to specifying the reported user alone. Wot? Doc9871 (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Brings area in line with current policies in other area. "Common sense" clearly has not always been used - thus makit if formally the same in all areas would make a great deal of sense. "Any editor discussed" could clearly be edited to "any editor being specifically discussed" to avoid people saying that mentioning another editor in passing requires notification of that editor as well. Collect (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The "rule" has also clearly not always been followed, hence the aforementioned lectures, so that's a moot point.--Atlan (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would prefer that this be hardcoded. When you open up a proposal, there could be a parameter for users which the proposal is about. Entering the user there would generate a notice to them. This would also make searching for topics which centered around a user easier, since a search could be tailored to screen out the comments on a proposal. II | (t - c) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Effect in reality

From my experiences and what I've observed at WP:ANI the actual effect of the "must notify" rule seems to be :-

• Most editors notify the other party(ies) directly.
• When this has failed to occur, other editors quickly notice the lack of notification and do it themselves and post to that effect.

So the net effect seems to be that the subjects of posts are quickly made aware either way, which is a net positive. Exxolon (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Current levels of support/opposition

With the caveat that we're not a democracy and polls are evil currently:-

• Supporters - 12 (including myself as the proposer, including 1 "100%", 1 "Strong")
• Opposers - 5 (4 explicit, 1 "red tape")

This may assist in determining whether the proposal has consensus and should be implemented. Exxolon (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a self-designated member of the minority, let me take this time to rail against the principle of majority rule! :P Protonk (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a citizen of the United States, where even the smallest state (Rhode Island) has exactly the same number of Senators as the largest state (California), and subsequently disproportianate representation in the Electoral College (which elects the President, not the popular vote), please allow me to rail against the tyranny of the minority. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I read the comment a bit differently to user Excolon, I didn't count the proposer which may account for the different head count, I also do not count strong or weak comments, imo they have no weight in the count, but that just me. Lets ask a Crat to close this awful thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Awful" thread? Seems fairly innocuous to me. I'm not sure we need a crat, just someone uninvolved to gauge consensus and edit the necessary headers if they feel consensus is to make the charge - (this may need to be an admin as the headers are protected?) and modify the subst-ANI template to creat a new AN one. Exxolon (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Which tool?

Sorry, but I cannot recall the tool used to track visits to a page for a month/year. As well, where can one see a list of these tools? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is http://stats.grok.se/ what you are looking for? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It surely was. Thanks. Is there a single site where these tools are arrayed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TOOLS is a good place to start.--SPhilbrickT 19:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Close a TFD or two?

We have a bit of backlog at WP:TFD. If any admin would like to help out by closing one or two of the discussions from July 11, July 12, July 15, July 16, or July 17. To close one, you just follow these instructions. If they need to be carefully orphaned, converted, or otherwise processed, just drop a link to the template in WP:TFD/H, and someone will help finish it off. If they need to be relisted, just move the discussion to the current days page and place a {{subst:relist}} at the bottom of the discussion. Let me know if you need any help or have any questions. Thanks in advance! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

769 dead links to the US State Department

Sometime before January 21, 2010, the US State Department changed its website address from usinfo.state.gov to america.gov without providing any sort of redirection for existing links. That change broke all citations to usinfo.state.gov. They are still broken.

The situation was reported at EAR here. An EAR editor confirmed the problem and reported it to WikiProject United States Government here. Trying to follow a citation today, I discovered it still exists.

A Linksummary shows ~769 links to usinfo.state.gov, all of them broken. Clicking on any returns server not found.

usinfo.state.gov: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I don't have any bright ideas, but I think this should be addressed. I'll volunteer to fix a couple of dozen (it's not a one-for-one fix, things have moved around) if a project is set up. Interestingly, we have more of these now than we did in January. --CliffC (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate you raising this issue, there isn't anything administrators particularly can do about this. You might have more luck raising the issue at the technical village pump or filing a bot request to fix the deadlinks in batches. Regards, Skomorokh 22:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If things have moved around in a predictable way, it could be a job for Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Rd232 ^talk 08:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the new addresses are unpredictable – in the sample I checked, plugging 'america.gov' into the url gets you to the State Department (motto: Engaging the world"), where a catch-all message says "The Page You Are Looking for Has Moved. This Web site has been redesigned and restructured, and the page you are looking for may no longer be available." If a bot did anything, I suppose it could substitute the 'america.gov' and flag the citation 'failed verification' to get the attention of regular editors of the affected articles. I'll ask the folks at the village pump to take a look. --CliffC (talk)

As a general approach, find the broken url, identify when it was cited (this may require digging back through version history), search archive.org for the old url. Find the archived version just before the date cited. Open that archived url. Search for that first sentence on the new domain, e.g. this, and compare what it finds to the archived version. Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, cite the archived version and tag the cite with {{update}} and a comment to help editors link to the new one once they can verify that it still supports the statements for which it is cited. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personnel changes - Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee accepts, with regret, the resignation of Tznkai (talk · contribs) as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, effective immediately. Tznkai has been a community representative on the AUSC since its creation in 2009, first as an interim appointee and subsequently as a community-elected representative. As well, he has been a long-time Arbitration Clerk, and has been active in arbitration enforcement. We thank Tznkai for his services, and wish him well in his future endeavours, with the hope that he may return to be an active Wikipedian at some point in the future.

Further to the AUSC appointment announcements of November 2009, MBisanz (talk · contribs) is appointed to fill the remainder of Tznkai's term on the Audit Subcommittee.

In addition, arbitrator KnightLago will be filling the slot now vacant as Kirill Lokshin has come to the end of his term on the AUSC, and SirFozzie has agreed to extend his term to December 31, 2010.

The Arbitration Committee, in consultation with the community and with past and present members of the Audit Subcommittee, will be reviewing the activities and processes of the AUSC through its first year, to identify what improvements can be made. This review will be completed by October 10, prior to the next scheduled round of elections for community representatives to the subcommittee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Armoboy323

Can someone please have a look at the results of this SPI request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armoboy323. An administrative action is required with regard to the block evasion by the banned user. Grandmaster 05:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DrV

DrV has a very old discussion which needs to be closed. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – J04n(talk page) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, actually you closed something that did need closing but I was referring to [30]. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed and salted for a week due to some post close foolishness from a sock. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When is vanity autobiography allowed (example given)? (moved from WP:RDM)

The discussion below was moved from WP:RDM to this, a more appropriate venue. --Jayron32 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

May I write a "User:" page for myself like these two?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ideabender/Chris_McGrath_(computer_engineer)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:74.94.155.101/Chris_McGrath_(computer_engineer)

Wikipedia claims to discourage autobiographical articles. But these are user pages, not articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isopyknic (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. Content unrelated to the encyclopedia is not encouraged. That said, if it's in user space, you might get away with it. But why would you want to? There are lots of free homepage providers out there that are specifically for this sort of thing. Friday (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think these cross the line - even for User: pages. They should probably be removed. The relevant guideline is WP:USER and it says: "Note: Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion. For example a 5 page résumé and advertising for your band will probably be too much, a brief 3 sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine." - and also in the list of "Excessive unrelated content", we find: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links). Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.".

So, no - I don't think you should do this. SteveBaker (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, those are a bit excessive. Your user page is supposed to provide information that will help people work with you on Wikipedia, nothing more. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the latter (in user space of the IP) should be deleted outright. Mr. McGrath does not own the IP address, so can't post content under that userspace. --Ragib (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Specific to this, note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_McGrath_(computer_engineer). Protonk (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also favor deletion or blanking of the user page version. The user in question has made no edits apart from this unsuitable-for-mainspace article, and none in the past 8 months. There's no evidence of an effort to make this a suitable article. — Lomn 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Both are deleted now. One page by me, one by another admin. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Generally, though, vanity (auto)bio's and articles are permitted, providing they otherwise satisfy WP's criteria for inclusion (claim of notability, and reliable third party sources). Once they are within the system, superfluous and non policy compliant material may be removed and other compliant content, whether or not it casts the subject in a good light, may be added. Those are the risks one accepts when presenting a new article in which one has a COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• If you do decide to write an autobiography article, make sure you include an appropriate image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

173.58.164.11 (talk · contribs)

block 173.58.164.11 (talk · contribs) --Olli (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, although WP:AIV is the best place to post such a request.  Frank  |  talk  07:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Toilet paper orientation

Resolved

 – Not speedyable. The correct orientation is over, for what it's worth. –xeno^talk 14:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just put a speedy delete tag on this. It's obiously a fake-sourced nonsense article and a looks like promo for a product called Tilt-a-Roll, which allows customers to orient their toilet paper in a number of different ways (link at the bottom of the page). Feel a bit guilty, because editors have done quite a good job and gone to a lot of trouble to fake things, including a talk page history, "Did you know?" Main Page appearance and article assessment.

It's difficult to know what is real and what is not, but it looks to have actually survived a deletion vote with unanimity Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet paper orientation. For what its worth I'm impressed, but the article should be deleted. Look at it please. --FormerIP (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am having a hard time figuring out which is more plausible, that you cannot click on any one of the links in Toilet paper orientation#References and that you think a sysop went through all that effort just to get a hoax on the main page, or that you are just trolling. NW (Talk) 14:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, this thing is almost better than European toilet paper holder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You should also note that "if a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations". Deor (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Block review: JRHammond

JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was until recently blocked for 55 hours for edit warring; I declined one of his unblock requests. After the block expired, JRHammond made three edits to the talk page of the article he had been warring about: [31], [32], [33]. In reaction to these edits, administrator Wgfinley (talk · contribs) blocked JRHammond for one week, logging the following reason:

"Personal attacks or harassment: promptly launching into personal attacks right after your ban expires is not a good idea, take another 7 days to contemplete it."

On JRHammond's talk page, Wgfinley expanded on this, noting:

"(...) [I]mmediately after being unblocked you make a personal attack on me when I just asked you to take it down a notch: (...) Finally, launching into an attack on an admin that's just trying to keep the peace, was not even involved in any of the prior discussions and had nothing to do with you being blocked is a far cry from civil. You have 7 days to cool down now (...)"

After reading JRHammond's unblock request while patrolling CAT:RFU, I believe that Wgfinley erred in making this block. The three edits made by JRHammond after their block expired contain nothing blockable; disagreeing with an administrator is not forbidden and is not a personal attack. Furthermore, Wgfinley as the target of the perceived personal attack should not have blocked JRHammond himself, and "cool-down blocks" are in any case frowned upon. Because Wgfinley disagrees with this assessment (see User talk:JRHammond#One Week Block), I request a wider discussion of this block as recommended by the blocking policy in cases of administrator disagreement.  Sandstein  17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sandstein. Apparently one of the reason for the block was response by JRHammond to the comment I made. Although my opinion about my comment has not changed, I see nothing blockabale in the user's response to my comment. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)