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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 141 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 91 days ago on 12 February 2024)

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 59 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 45 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	24	45	69
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 33 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 20 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 129 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 129 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

 Done Soni (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 111 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 105 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 98 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 91 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 12 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

The Dissociative identity disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (henceforth DID) talk page has been a horrible, slogging mess for a good two weeks now, so there's a lot of text if anyone wants to read it and external input is both needed and requested, but this is a much more focussed issue. Tomcloyd (talk · contribs) recently posted a lengthy section on the talk page aimed at individuals with DID (some minor copyedits as well). I removed it as soapboxing that was irrelevant to improving the page itself. Tom then replaced it, and it was removed again by Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs). Well, it has since been replaced as part of a new section - Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#If you have DID, this may not be a safe place for you, but it should be. I see this as a pretty clear and inappropriate misuse of the talk page based on a very specific personal (and professional) point of view of a couple editors. Within the scientific literature there is a pretty clear and bitter dispute between those who think DID is caused by significant trauma in childhood, and those who think that it is produced by bad therapy in adults (henceforth traumagenic and sociocognitive hypotheses respectively). I've been consistently pointing out that there are many reliable sources for both positions and therefore both sides should be included in the article, to editors who fall strongly on both sides of the debate. This lengthy talk page posting includes a section ("Signatories") where editors offer to be contact points for the article, which could be an invitation to meatpuppet (or not). Either way, it seems a fairly clear inappropriate use of the talk page.

Though I would welcome outside input and involvement on the page, my specific question for admins and community at large would be the appropriateness of this section of the talk page. As far as actual edits to the main page, they're surprisingly minimal and the main page has only been locked down once for 3 days (and for a stupid reason utterly unrelated to the traumagenic/sociocognitive hypotheses). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Highly inappropriate for a talkpage or elsewhere. Equating disagreement with holocaust denial and calling opponents sociopaths is textbook battleground behavior. I propose a topic ban from DID articles, broadly construed. Skinwalker (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is the point of view of some editors. The point of views of every editor involved in the recent content disputes and discussion is clearly available for all to see on the talk page. The section was created as a response to the perceived bullying (by, among others, WLU); it may not be the perfect solution, but I feel its current existence as part of the talk page is warranted. After some of the content disputes are resolved, and (more importantly) after discussion becomes more civil and accessible as a whole, the section may outlive its usefulness. My point here is not to accuse or condemn WLU, but simply to point out that there are several different sides to this issue which warrant a much closer examination and no hasty decisions. —danhash (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please come and help. However WLU's behavior is already being looked at. Please contact Salvio Giuliano and see this page for more information~ty (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, a rudimentary google search shows recent off-site canvassing for the pro-DID faction.[1] Skinwalker (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting the most recent timestamp in that discussion - Jan 23rd, then 21st, then 15th - and given Tylas' newness, I don't think this is a deliberate violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. The only new account on the DID talk page is Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs) and he has an opinion diametrically opposite that of Tylas and Tomcloyd. In my opinion, meatpuppeting isn't an issue, and I will leave a note on Tylas' talk page indicating this sort of thing isn't a good idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to extend good faith to new editors who may not understand this tactic is not acceptable. I'm more concerned that TomCloyd - who is not only a seasoned editor but a Wikipedia Regional Ambassador - thinks that activism, namecalling, and flagrant violations of Godwin's Law are appropriate ways to resolve a content dispute. Juice L's behavior seems to have been quite unhelpful as well. Skinwalker (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, during the last few weeks, Tom's been using a lot of words like sociopath, holocaust denial, bullies, abuse, and victimizing. I don't expect this kind of persistent personal attack from any editor, much less from one who says he's a mental health professional. I've never seen such inflammatory comments about contributors resolve a content dispute; have any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been posting to the talk page occasionally after a notice at WT:MED a few days ago. I've not edited the article and have no interest in doing so.

The dispute is your average, basic appalling mess. Basically, we have a "true believer" of a mental health professional(?), who wants Wikipedia to reflect what he tells his clients, versus WLU, who wants the article reflect the non-trivial skepticism present in the academic literature. And we have just enough additional inexperienced folks (including one or two people who have been labeled with this condition) involved that the talk page is long and chaotic. We've already had multiple explanations of basic things, like the important difference between a psychiatry textbook and an advocacy website and the fact that Wikipedia articles follow the MOS rather than our old English teacher's idea of a proper outline, but the bigger, and probably unsolvable, problem seems to be that the DID proponents really, really, really need this article to minimize any skepticism about this condition (which, whatever its cause or its proper classification, does produce significant suffering for the affected people). I begin to see the appeal of a "block 'em all" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So I tried to delete the section by Tom Cloyd in the talk page that deals with the hardships of DID-persons who tries to edit the article. It is totally inappropriate for it to be on the talk page. If he want to have it on his own userpage then I have no issues with that at all. It also likens anyone who doesn't believe his world view to holocaust deniers. My removal was immediately reverted, so rather than edit-warr over it, I come here hoping that I am not the only one who thinks that it should be removed. This is the section I'm talking about: [2] Juice Leskinen 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As is apparent to anyone who looks through the page history (which I assume any administrator taking action would do), Juice was very intent on keeping his name attached to this section (and apparently wanted his name at the top of the list of "Signatories" as well). —danhash (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Danhash, does that mean the section is appropriate for the talk page, per the talk page guidelines? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My statement was not that the section is appropriate for the talk page per the guidelines; my statement made no indication one way or the other as to the validity of the section. I was simply pointing out some facts for context's sake about Juice's apparently duplicitous actions. When involving previously uninvolved parties in an already-heated, lengthy discussion, it is often easy, at least at first, to see the first arguments you are presented with as reasonable and the opposite arguments as unreasonable. It is extremely obvious that Juice's actions were not in good faith to absolutely anyone who chooses to examine the editor (or even just the page history), but the page history is so long and is growing at such a rapid pace that I thought it would be helpful to make a comment bringing to light the fact that Juice was arguing against a section he fought very hard to (deceptively) include himself in. —danhash (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please would an uninvolved editor immediately remove section If you have DID and are editing this article or this Talk page - please read this as an obvious and unhelpful violation of WP:TPG, for example, as was done in this edit (which was immediately reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done it. Given the obnoxious comparison to holocaust denial, and the blatant soapboxing, it looks a slam-dunk violation of not only WP:TPG but WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and basic common sense. REgardless of the righs and wrongs of the issue (of which I know relatively little), that isn't the way to achieve 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we just need to hose down the talk page for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Andy, who are you, and why should I not revert? I can see you have opinions, although I see no support for them. We've had a lot of that at the DID article. Not exactly impressive, and hardly defensible, either. If you're an admin., make that clear, so we (I) know what's going on. I came to the DID article some days ago, hoping to improve the article. I have found that to be utterly impossible. The ruling clique there have no interest in this, and they are getting away with it. Wikipedia's reputation is not exactly burnished by this fact.

As for achieving consensus, the DID deniers and POV pushers at the article, who are quite willing for the article NOT to present the actual view of my profession, have NO interest in any consensus but the one that results after they run off the vulnerable and those who actually work professionally with DID. I am such a person, and I do not have all day to disagree about single words, to type responses to endless digressions, and to generally wear every one out. Consensus is not about to occur at the DID article, not on anything important, I assure you. WLU alone will see to that.

Let me tell you a story. One of my DID clients was raped repeatedly by her father from ages 6 through about 11 (her memory strangely isn't very good for the exact ages of these rapes). She would fight back, but her father held her down and raped her, again and again - sometimes several times a week. If necessary, he beat her first. When she finally told her mother, she was beaten for lying. When she told people at the school she went to, the family left town - this happened several times. While you may not appreciate this, here is what I know: during the period of time her sense of self SHOULD have been developing, she was in effect carpet bombed by sustained periods of intense fear, as well as intense physical pain. Do you know what happens when a grown man rapes a young girl? Would you like me to paint a more graphic picture? No? Well, she had no such choice. Neither do I when I'm with her. This is about reality, not damned policy statements. No one came to her rescue. No one believed her, when she asked for help.

Her developing sense of self was blown into over a hundred pieces, and has stayed that way for a number of decades. She has parts of self today which show up in my consulting room and function more or less normally, and parts which simply cower and whimper as if they were being beaten, and parts that scream and cry about how it hurts "down there". Would you like to join me in my consulting room to watch this? If you did, you'd understand why I call this a "holocaust of the self". Are you beginning to get the picture? Maybe you also see why my description of some of the editors at the DID article as "personal holocaust deniers" is dead center correct. In point of fact, NO words I can come up will adequately convey the horror of this woman's story, much lise my disgust at encountering editors who glibly want to tell her (as one editor plainly has one editor with DID) that a therapist "manufactured" (my word) her DID. That's just obscene. This is what is happening while people here are fussing about my use of the word holocaust. That just defies credulity.

Ignorant people who argue that there DID such as hers can be faked, or created by someone (that's never been done, in truth), are exceptionally hurtful to people like this woman, who come to the DID article hoping for useful information, and hoping that their family might learn something useful about them which they are unable to impart - and finding a number of people quite willing to suggest to them that their daily pain is a fiction, an artifact of evil or unskilled therapists.

If you do not care about the two individuals with DID who managed to figure out how to contact me this past week, and who were gravely distressed because of the hostility and dishonesty on full display on the Talk page, concerning the reality of DID, be clear about it. Say "We have no place for such people at Wikipedia. We don't care for your pain. Take it somewhere else. We're serious Wikipedia editors. We don't have time for whiny women and their improbable stories."

I am sick to death of people who should know better, who at least should approach this subject with some humility, and maybe go through 1/10 of the effort I've gone through just to understand what in hell is happening with a person with DID, not to mention what to do with it. There should be no place at Wikipedia for them. None. This is freedom run amok.

There is a group of people editing the DID article who are quite obviously preventing constructive development of the article, and who are also manifestly hurting emotionally vulnerable individuals who SHOULD have access to the editorial process (THAT is the accessibility issue I have raised). Exactly what part of this do you not understand? If the damned rules say we cannot address this problem, and that there is no place at Wikipedia where we get conspicuously to care about these people, and to try to find a way to include them, then the damned rules are wrong. I shouldn't have to tell you this: the "rules" at Wikipedia are not that important; it's in the P&G, and you know that. Care to ask Sue Gardner which matters more - rules or people? She's female. She very likely gets it what it means to be a minority female in a male dominated world (that's the editorial world at Wikipedia I'm referring to). Go ahead - ask her. I never have, but I'm quite comfortable betting on her answer.

So what's it going to be? Exactly how big a man are you? You can support the people whose behavior is socipathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them), or you can work for a Wikipedia that is humane, and makes a place for all. What's it going to be? Rules or people? In my world, real men defend the weak, and make a place for all, knowing that diversity breeds strength. Ignorant people defend people whose behavior is quite correctly characterized as sociopathic.

If we don't take this issue up on the Talk page, where everyone actually IS, where do we take it up? Having removed my statement, we now have nothing to discuss. People won't see it. Now THAT's a sure fire consensus building method.

OK...you have the floor. Let's see what you can do.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. And neither have I defended 'sociopaths' (though as individuals with severe psychological disorders they surely deserve defending, in the same way that others do). What I have 'defended' is a basic principle from the distant past of Wikipedia - that it is possible to disagree fundamentally with another editor without implying that he or she is an agent of Beelzebub. If you are incapable of accepting this, you are probably best advised to pursue your cause elsewhere. I have nothing more to say on the matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I just got home and read the DID page - and as usual, nothing is getting done. So many editors seem to be focused on deleting things on the talk page or correcting English or whatever, but those are minor issues. We have a major roadblock to overcome first - simply being allowed to edit the DID page without WLU reverting and stopping us. I am considered a new editor, even though I joined WP and edited a few things a few years ago ( think it was. I have not looked at the actual dates). My introduction to Wikipedia on the DID page has been a nightmare. I have been sworn at, bullied, looked up off Wikipedia and more. I don't know how anyone could stay and work in that environment - in fact not many have. One must agree with WLU, or nothing will get done. (Sorry, WLU, but it's true. I don't want to say these things, but I want to work on the article.) I want to thank Tom Cloyd for standing up for those of us that have DID. We really don't need to feel attacked just for trying to improve a WP article. It should not be so difficult to work on a page. ~ty (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Grump - I can see how this can be confusing, but this is how I read the problem addressed above: Mr. Cloyd said" "behavior is sociopathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them)" We all have some sociopathic tendencies, it's just how far we go on a scale measuring those tendencies. It is not antisocial personality disorder which is what I think you are calling a sociopath. We are getting off track again. This is far from our main issue on the DID page. ~ty (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer the "why should I not revert?" question: because the section removed from the talk page is wholly inappropriate for a talk page at Wikipedia. The guideline is at WP:TPG but the stronger fact is that talk pages just do not do that. The removed section is visible in this permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To close a sort of a circle, I've raised the accessibility issue (i.e. if WP:ACCESSIBILITY covers emotionally hostile talk pages) at the project and pointed the discussion here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Tom Cloyd

It is abundantly clear to me, in reading this section and the article's talk page, that Tom Cloyd is powerfully emotionally involved in the issue of DID, and that for exactly that reason, he is not equipped to edit collegially on the article or its talk page. It is not, and will never be, appropriate to use articles to POV push, to use talk pages to post partisan screeds, or to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to shout about how you feel one group is victimising another. That's simply not ok. Wikipedia is neither medical advice nor therapy, and we provide information about medical conditions, not encouragement to patients, or judgment about those who question/support the condition. It's apparent to me that Tom Cloyd is unable to accept these facts, and that he feels very strongly that our article and its talk should be a source of therapy or advocacy. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban for tomcloyd (talk · contribs) from Dissociative identity disorder and its talk page. Said ban may be lifted by the community upon Tom's convincingly explaining how he intends to edit according to our neutrality and battleground policies, and his accepting that Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You miss the Point Ms. Nutter - The whole problem is that no progress can be made on the DID page. WLU keeps us on the talk page, busy - not allowing progress and arguing every point. He would like the page to remain as it was before this group of new editors arrived and he is outstanding at this. Most humans would be frustrated and give up. Many, in fact, have ran from the page in frustration - stating this is the reason. Tom is simply, out of frustration with WLU, trying to find ways to allow those who would like to contribute to the page to do so. WLU is as strongly passionate about keeping the page as it was before this group came as Tom Cloyd is about helping those with DID to be able to edit the page without being so bullied. I think you are totally off base with this proposal. You have not dug in and watched the problem from the start like I have. You are ranting about something you have not looked into at all. You are just taking one thing from this page and making a blind judgement about the whole problem. I am sorry to argue with you, but please do not judge before looking into the entire matter.~ty (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be best, Tylas, if you did not accuse other editors of "ranting" or making "blind judgments" without acquainting themselves with the case. These can be construed as personal attacks, and do not help convince anyone that the article is not being subjected to emotionally-charged, rather than neutral, editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Ms. Nutter. That was not my intent. :( ~ty (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather agree with Tylas' interpretation of your ban proposal. More below. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Tom Cloyd - After considerable thought, I'm at peace with my thinking about all this. I'm leaving Wikipedia. for those who have interest in my thoughts, you'll find them here. Tom Cloyd (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful piece Tom. Your enormous talents are lost here. There are so many better uses for them than spinning your wheels trying to make progress against those like WLU. Best of luck Sir! You have my utmost respect and admiration.~ty (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support This behavior is completely unacceptable. Skinwalker (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support When this was brought up at WP:FTN I came to the article to take a look, but the massive walls of text on the talk page as well as the intense emotional climate makes it difficult to even figure out what is going on. Some time away from the article to cool off would be ideal. eldamorie (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • An indef topic ban isn't necessary for a simple "cooling off period". —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See WhatamIdoing's comment below for a good explanation of why, in this case, an indef is actually the best way to create a "cooling off period." Blocking's not really necessary but there are behavioural issues. eldamorie (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - but emphasis support for the ban being repealed if Tom demonstrates an appreciation for how NPOV actually plays out. Despite numerous uninvolved editors providing comments, they are never good enough. Unlike everyone else on the talk page, whose behaviour appears to be improving, Tom's appears to be degrading. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As part of "everyone else" you forgot Juice, who should be one of the first to be blocked or banned if anyone at all is. You have seen[3] just like everyone else his inappropriate behavior. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that given the gravity of this discussion, I've alerted Tom via talk page and e-mail about this new sub-section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. I should have done that as soon as I started this section, but it slipped my mind. Apologies all around :S A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I give. You win WLU. I am gone. ~ty (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope you will give Tom ample time to formulate a response before indef topic banning him. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctant support per 1) the obviously inappropriate and emotionally involved SOAPBOX post from Tom Cloyd at 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) above, 2) including his appeal to Sue Gardner (who isn't an experienced editor anyway, and he should have appealed to WP:MEDRS and WP:COI instead of the irrelevant authority of an inexperienced medical editor), and 3) the analysis by WhatamIdoing above at 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC). This appears to be a most unfortunate case of a "true believer" with a COI, unable to separate individual clients' experiences from the necessarily objective approach to encyclopedic editing based on reliable medical sources. WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here, and for the article to advance, the talk page needs to focus on sources, not people. I should disclose that I have previous experience working with WLU on medical articles, and I know he does that. The reason I'm "reluctant" is that it's unfortunate that very few psych articles on Wikipedia can advance, precisely for these reasons (psych professionals engage them, disregarding our policies, and using Wikipedia to further their own interests). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Tom seems to be the only current editor of the article who really has adequate experience and knowledge of the whole subject at hand. It would not be correct to just pop by the DID talk page, read up on the last few days, and then make a judgement that he is not fit for editing the article or talk page. He is knowledgeable about DID and has personal experience in dealing with it, of course he will have his own point of view—everyone else has their own point of view too. It seems as though most of the times he has made a substantive, thought out, well rounded post (which of course would be somewhat long; the length of his replies is entirely appropriate), others are quick to respond to one or two simple points that he has made, ignoring oftentimes the main point of his arguments. Tom has tried for quite a while now to combat the attitude held by some (seemingly at least 3) of the editors on the DID page of being oppositional for oppositional's sake, or else just plain biased. Tom has his point of view as does every editor, but he explains himself and is willing to engage in discussion—to the contrary of some of the editors with opposing viewpoints. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – I am walking away from WP and of course the DID page, but I wanted announce my strong, strong, strong, strong opposition to this motion. My reasons are listed in the above text.~ty (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It is not Tom who is keeping the page at a standstill - it is the lack of actually substantive edits and fighting about everything all at once instead of one thing at a time. I believe Tom, tylas, myself, WLU and most of the other editors just coming in or playing a more minor role can work together but this is not a battleground for sure and the fate of the world does not hinge on the DID article page. I agree that Tom needs to stop the soapboxing. But he knows a ton about the field and has good information and sources - it is a communication problem that can be worked out without blocking (and definitely not indefinite blocking) and Tom is not the only one who has been causing it. Takes two (or in this case many) to tango. This might stop the problem temporarily but at the same time will stop improvements to the article - and there have been a few things that have gotten done in the past few weeks even though no one can tell because of the insane talk page. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  But something to consider FF, is whether Tom is willing to abide by the policies and guidelines that underscore a successful editor on wikipedia and the project as a whole. That includes things like WP:CIVIL (which [4] [5] [6]), overall compliance with the P&G ([7], [8], [9], idiosyncratic understanding of issues such as the use of the accessbility tag [10], the role of WP:MEDRS [11], WP:MOS#ATTRIBUTION [12], WP:CONSENSUS [13] [14], claims that specific policies don't apply such as WP:NOR [15], WP:NPOV [16] [17] [18] [19], wikilawyering over the meaning of policies [20] and of course the obvious misuse of the talk page that was my initial post here. Then there's generally irksom comments that others lacking postgraduate training are essentially too stupid to understand why his way is better [21] [22] [23] [24], [25], or that because he treats DID he is correct on wikipedia [26]. Keep in mind, I stopped looking January 24th, and these issues have gotten worse, not better, over the past two weeks. Everybody is bound by the P&G, you don't get to ignore them or pick your preferred version because you think you are right. Everybody thinks they are right, but they need to demonstrate it using reliable sources - and you don't get to discount a source because you disagree with it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think things are beyond salvageable. A lot of people have thrown insults around in the past week or two related to the article, accusations of bad faith and POV pushing and threats etc. Almost everyone involved has done some or all of these things in fact - including you, WLU, though I agree everyone's behavior is improving (but I'd include Tom in that). But I'm not arguing about any of that or trying to blame anyone - we are obviously all passionate about this topic - and I do think things need to change but I see hopes of it happening since the article was locked down earlier this week. Sticking with oppose. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support the ban at least for the article. I'm on the fence about the talk page, because to the extent that he has sources to support his POV, Wikipedia needs to know what those sources are. (Tom's promised to provide a list of sources he recommends, but hadn't done so last I checked.) The talk page behavior has been appalling (and, sadly, has been getting worse), but perhaps being limited to the talk page would help Tom remember how to win friends and influence people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  You can all just quit. You have already run him off. Not everyone is into manipulation by collecting friends. WhatamIdoing. ~ty (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Tylas, let me suggest that you read meatball:GoodBye. It might help you understand why experienced editors don't normally believe people who make noisy claims about leaving. Threatening to leave is a well-known manipulative ruse regularly used by people who feel they are losing a dispute like this. Wikipedia probably sees a dozen such claims every day of the week. In the vast majority of cases, such people never actually leave. At most, they might stop editing for a couple of days, but in the end, their claims to be permanently departing are almost always just as factual as the fairytales parents read to little children at bedtime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  I can't speak for another and he has not said one word, yet you accuse him of that too. I for one would never come back to this place. It's very dysfunctional.~ty (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  So you keep telling us. However, I don't see any evidence that you are following through on your threat. My recommendation to you is that you either (1) stop publicly threatening to leave or (2) that you actually leave. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Also, read WP:DIVA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Apart from the issues correctly raised in the topic ban proposal, there is this comment (visible at the bottom of this section which includes "telling the truth IS what I do). If Tom works on some other articles he may come to understand why Wikipedia is organized the way it is, and why some people are not helpful as editors for some articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support The editor just isn't getting it and this subject is clearly too personal to him. Colin°^Talk 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. TomCloyd has left wikipedia, and from what I have read, I think it is unlikely that he is going to return, so I don't see any point in topic banning someone who is not active on the encyclopedia. While I agree that TomCloyd has broken WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I believe that an 'indefinite' topic ban is a gross over-reaction and will serve only to drive an expert away. The reason(s) that I think that an indefinite topic ban is an over-reaction, is that other less harsh measures have not been tried first, such as mentoring or even a transient 'cool-down' topic ban of 1 month. I do agree with TomCloyd, in his POV and concerns about wording and WP:WEIGHT given to 'dubious' minority viewpoints, that dissociative identity disorder is well established as a mental disorder arising out of prolonged/repeated severe (usually early age) childhood abuse; conversely I agree with people who are concerned, upset and angry with Tom's poor control of his emotions and his inability to separate strong feelings, from 'disinterested' policy and guideline based encylopedia editing. I would be happy to mentor TomCloyd and try to get him to see why some of his outbursts have been inappropriate even if the other person/side is 'wrong', i.e. two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe a voluntary topic ban of say a month or two and myself mentoring. If serious and repeated problems arise again, then I would support a more 'draconian' approach but only as a last resort. Lets be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've worked with LG before and would have no issue with Tom being mentored by him/her. The originally proposed ban was only to last until evidence that NPOV and BATTLE were understood in accordance with the community at large. If a month from now Tom indicates he sees what he did wrong, he's welcome back on the page as far as I'm concerned. The traumagenic position does need to be represented and I'm certainly not interested in reading up on it - but it can't be represented as the only, only important, or dominant opinion unless there is good evidence for it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate is because it might end up being much shorter than a stated-length ban. "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Indefinite bans can be reversed as soon as the underlying problem appears to have been addressed, in this case by Tom "convincingly explaining how he intends to edit according to our neutrality and battleground policies, and his accepting that Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi WLU, thanks for the words of support for my mentorship idea. I firmly agree that the iatrogenic cause and any other minority causes should be included in the article, wasn't saying it shouldn't be. I think there is good evidence for the traumagenic position, given that the World Health Organisation (ICD 10) and the American Psychiatric Association (via DSM) accept it as a legitamate psychiatric disorder; we don't need to find evidence to support the expert psychiatric/psychology viewpoint to justify which view should be dominant, the mainstream viewpoint should dominate. We as wikipedians, should not be looking for evidence to support the ICD and DSM, mainstream position, we should give most weight to the expert consensus. ADHD has a fair amount of controversy surrounding it, but we don't give most weight to the ADHD is just a personality variation type position and try to undermine the DSM and ICD10, we give most weight to the viewpoint that ADHD is a real disorder; however, both sides are still presented with the mainstream viewpoint being fairly described. In the meantime we need to resolve behavioural issues and the editing environment on that article talk page. WAID, I see your point; however, given that Tom says he is leaving Wikipedia a ban of any description is now probably unnecessary.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I should note that I am not concerned with WLU's editing on the article, as I know WLU, edits within guidelines and policies, but there is another editor who regards the consensus viewpoint of the DSM and ICD as pseudoscience and fringe and would worry that that could lead to a badly written article. It kind of reminds me of an editor who tried to push the view that Bell's Palsy was a 'conversion disorder'. Again, though I do not in any way deny the concerns problematic behavioural reactions Tom has displayed in a stressful editing environment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Literaturegeek, I worry about that as well. I am very new to wikipedia, only three weeks or so, but I learn pretty fast and am going to be reviewing the literature which I am only slightly familiar with right now. I think we can make the article really great and I 100% agree on your ADHD comparison. Additionally, if you are referring to user Juice Leskinen as a huge POV pusher still contributing, he/she has been banned for socking. Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was the editor of whom I was concerned about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef ban until TomCloyd indicates willingness to abide by community standards, which includes persuing changes to the MOS through proposals there. TC seems to have the same issue we've had with other expert contributors: believing that his expertise in the field trumps Wikipedia's established processes and style conventions. We encourage experts to contribute their knowledge, but no one reacts well when an expert decides they're going to "fix" Wikipedia to conform to their standards. There's a bit of a disconnect where some experts believe it's insulting for non-experts to school them on a subject (such as Wikipedia's MOS, which differs from academic styles); I can appreciate that, but expertise does not trump working within the community's standards. An expert contributing to Encyclopedia Brittanica would not be allowed to dictate page layout in the encyclopedia entry for their subject of study. I'd say mentorship by User:Literaturegeek would be ideal. It would give TC the opportunity to contribute while learning a bit more about the whys of our P&G. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as from his actions and statements, this editor does not care about Wikipedia policies, or the opinions of experts in the field who have opinions contrary to his, all he cares about if putting his own personal views into the article and censoring all others out of some misplaced sense of activism. Furthermore, statements above that he falls under the trap of other "expert contributors" seem to give him more credit than he has demonstrated that he actually deserves. For an alleged mental health professional he sure tosses around accusations of sociopathy against his perceived enemies rather freely, and he seems also to be completely unaware of extremely important historical cases of the diagnosis in question and major papers on the topic by world renown experts. If he shows a willingness to be mentored and conform to our policies he could be unblocked later, but I rather think he would be unwilling to do so based upon his actions and call to action. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Update regarding DID dispute

It may be of value to note that one of the editors who Tom was in conflict in with, was POV pushing that sexual abuse of prepubescent children did not cause mental health problems and was using sockpuppeteering to do this; the editor, Juice Leskinen, has now been blocked. I am not comfortable with TomCloyd being seen as the only problem editor here and some leeway should be given as the vast majority of people are opposed to pedophilia due to the harm that it causes. Juice Leskinen was of the viewpoint that DID was not caused by early childhood abuse and that DID was pseudoscience/FRINGE etc and was using a sockpuppet on other articles as well, to disguise his agenda perhaps. Many people would find editing alongside/against a disruptive editor such as Juice Leskinen, to be a stressful situation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE of the update. :) I have been informed below that this problem editor showed up late on in the dispute and that TomCloyd's problem behaviour pre-dates this editor's arrival on the talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to see there is someone with sense that is watching this issue. Thank you Mr. Literature. You seem wise and caring. The problem still remains that many of us see WLU the same way you have come to see Juice. I know WLU is an ingrained part of the WP community and knows how to follow the WP rules and has gained friendship in doing so, but this does not dismiss the fact that he too appears to do what Juice does. He is just much smarter about it. That does not excuse pedophilla POV pushing. Also (so I am not lectured again by the ladies here) note that I left the DID page, not that I was leaving Mr. Cloyd alone in this battle.~ty (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The greatest problem Tom presented to the page was the unwillingness to adhere to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and when presented with explicit proof that his actions were completely against said guidelines, his response was to proclaim the guidelines flawed and didn't apply - based solely on his judgement. Juice's postings on the page were not helpful (and he's been banned as a sockpuppet anyhow) but I would argue Tom's were both worse and escalating. In addition, the original statement opening this section indicated a greater problem - Tom's belief that his mission of saving all those diagnosed with DID and ensuring they never saw any evidence of a debate over the creation and existence of DID overrode the purpose of wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree WLU that Tom was a problem editor and was causing disruption; I do not support Tom's behaviour, I just thought this was his first WP:BATTLEFIELD and that he was capable of reform with mentorship or a cool down topic ban (preferably voluntary). This opinion could be wrong or naive. I agree that DSM and ICD viewpoints are not the sole viewpoint and significant minority opinions should be included and why each side thinks the other side is wrong. Tylas, I did read over WLU's talk page comments, not all of them but from what I read, WLU seemed to be fine and didn't see any problems.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to LG's comment above that "Many people would find editing alongside/against a disruptive editor such as Juice Leskinen, to be a stressful situation.": I'm sorry, but that excuse just does not cut it here. I do not know what JL was up to, or what sockpuppeting was going on, but TomCloyd's problems on the article were severely uncivil and major violations of NPOV and etc. before JL ever showed up.

The very first thing Tom did when he showed up was to agree with Tylas on a talk page comment without noting that he was already friends with Tylas on his own personal web page. In fact, they are from the same state, and from Tylas' statements about her/his multiple personalities, may even be his patient. There was a meatpuppet case opened on them, and it was ruled that, for the purposes of 3RR conflict resolution, TomCloyd and Tylas should be considered the same editor. (As I had pointed this out to both of them, WLU's interpretation above that Tylas should be excused for off-site attempts to meatpuppet the article because it was done out of ignorance does not make any sense, as both editors had been linked to the appropriate policy and knew that such activities were not allowed here, yet they did it anyway.)

When Tom couldn't force his own POV onto the article he immediately started canvassing editors he saw had conflicts with WLU on other articles to bring them into the fight. Most of the supporting commentary above opposing the ban are these editors (danhash, particularly). I was personally attacked as a supposed sociopath and someone working for the forces of darkness, etc., long before Juice showed up. Juice was a latecomer to the article, and in fact was such a caricature of the kind of person Tom was accusing everyone of being I half wondered if it wasn't a fake account created to try to paint everyone who disagreed with him as being just as bad.

The bottom line here is that both TomCloyd and Tylas simply do not understand or will not accept that Wikipedia cannot be used to push their own personal views onto the article. As a coordinated tag team group of editors, in my opinion both should be blocked. Certainly Tylas has not contributed anything to the page other than blind acceptance of whatever Tom did or suggested doing. DreamGuy (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DreamGuy, your post does not make sense, presumably because you misinterpreted my post. Reread my post please; I described TomCloyd as a 'problem editor'. The other problem editor in my view was Juice Leskinen.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reply does not make sense, as you missed the entire point. Regardless of whether you also called Tom a problem editor, above you try to claim his bad behavior was possibly due to another problem editor's actions, which is clearly not the case, as it predates that editor's involvement. Frankly, why should anyone be concerned with how stressed Tom got dealing with a one off editor who showed up very late to the party and made comparatively few edits and comments when everyone else was stressed with dealing with Tom *and* that other editor? You're trying to make excuses that do not fit the facts. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of the exact timings of when Tom exhibited problem behaviours and the arrival of the other editor. I accept that I was wrong and made a mistake; I am an outsider looking in, trying to make sense of a heated content dispute. I am still of the view topic banning him is not justified, not least of all because he has left wikipedia. I don't see the point in topic banning someone who has left wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the post above based on what you told me; my intention was not to mislead anyone and I am happy to say I was wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole section is pretty moot - the offending talk page section has been removed. TomCloyd has voluntarily withdrawn from the project. If he comes back, then we've got a reason to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, time to move on. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well... as a point of fact, when disputes heat up like this, there are a lot of editors who say that they are leaving Wikipedia but don't actually do it. Sometimes these are sincere resignations followed by equally sincere changes of heart, and sometimes they're deliberate efforts to stave off formal sanctions. (Consider the number of RFC/Us put on hold because the editor wrongly thought that if he laid low for 30 days, a magic timer would go off and he would be free of accusations.) The advantage to proceeding is that, if Tom were to voluntarily decide to reappear, the community would not have to re-discuss this whole mess later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom is no longer here to defend himself. I personally think that most (if not all) of his statements were justified, and anyone not involved in the discussions would need to spend a considerable amount of time reading and examining a whole array of edits and talk pages before having any sort of idea of the context of the situation. There is simply no point to continued discussion of any kind of ban. So much time and talk has been focused on individual words used by Tom, while the meaning of what he was actually saying in the "offending" statement has been largely ignored. This is exactly one of the main reasons we do not have a blanket "no profanity" policy. It is not individual words regardless of context that are offensive (to reasonable people); it is the message conveyed by words that are formed into statements. Tom usually explained himself in his statements, and he always explained himself further upon request. See Tom's response to Fluffernutter's "Please consider redacting some of your commentary" request on Tom's talk page. You may not like his direct style, but that doesn't matter; you may not like Tom, but that doesn't matter either. Additionally, please do not forget that there was an excessively rude and inflammatory POV-pushing editor (now banned for sockpuppeteering and who should have already been banned for his bad faith edits), who was part of this whole thing too, yet almost all the focus on the previous controversy on the DID talk page is directed at Tom, simply because he upset the status quo. There is no further point to this discussion—move on! —danhash (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hash summed up the problem beautifully and the link he provided to Mr.Cloyd's statement is essential to understanding the problem. Mr.Cloyd was attacked, but he was not the real problem on the DID page. The real problem is probably here to stay.~ty (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan, let me say this again: There is a point to continuing the ban discussion. The point to continuing the ban discussion is that if we don't, and Tom comes back, then we'll have to deal with this all over again upon his return. The possible futures are three:

1. We can finish this discussion now and be done (either way).
2. We can suspend this discussion now and revive it when Tom returns.
3. We can suspend this discussion now and be done if and only if Tom never returns to Wikipedia.

Given the fact that Tom's made more than 2,000 edits over the last few years, the likelihood that he will never return to Wikipedia is IMO quite low. In fact, his last edit to his talk page indicates an interest in returning someday: "I am closing the door on Wikipedia, for reasons that are very clear to me, but I'm not nailing it shut." So IMO it's now or later, and it's far more efficient for the community to deal with it now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the conversation WhatamIdoing is referring to - Mr. Cloyd was talking about not "nailing the door shut on the PTSD article" that he was the main contributor to. He was in no way talking about the DID article or ever working with WLU or Dreamguy again. He resigned from working as a WP Regional Ambassador, which took up so much of his time that he had taken the last year (maybe even 2 years?) or so off from his work as a therapist to do it. This is how the WP community repaid him. It's sad that a group of Administrators and editors are working together to try and get rid of an excellent contributor who was trying to do the right thing - and if anyone actually read the entire process, as Mr. Hash said, they would know this. Now, Mr. Cloyd has moved on and started another community, off the WP site and it's going beautifully. I can't imagine he would have interest in coming back here. Luckily some of us can still enjoy his enormous talents and knowledge.~ty (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 3 pedophilia POV pushers on the DID page

(Redacted) ~ty (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this clear: Continuing to accuse editors of being pedos on Wikipedia will get you an indefinite block. If you have serious concerns, you should probably email the arbitration committee. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Child protection for the proper way to voice such concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl. I thought this was the place. I am sorry. ~ty (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232

Moved from ANI. Nobody Ent 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, hit the wrong button and sent a bad edit summary-- I have reverted the premature close since new information just came to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of ongoing disruption from the user formerly known as User:Rlevse, including returning to the project apparently multiple times since exercising RTV under a cloud, continuing old grudges, abusing if not the letter then the spirit of the sockpuppetry policy, and apparently engaging in many other disruptions that have been kept secret from the community, I'm proposing a community ban for User:Vanished 6551232, formerly User:Rlevse. The other thread which details this abuse is here [27] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is moot as to Rlevse/Vanished 6551232/PumpkinSky/etc, which have been blocked, and is not ripe for discussion as to any future incarnation of Rlevse. Should he seek at some future time to return, that would be the time and place for such a discussion. This is supposed to be a forum for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" (Emphasis added). There is no plausible basis for concluding that intervention is required at this time. Fladrif (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, he initiated RTV. He was not indefinitely blocked. There was nothing preventing him from ever coming back to Wikipedia. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rlevse/Vanished account is blocked. The PumpkinSky account is blocked. Your are confusing blocks and bans. I never said he was banned. But it is a simple fact that those accounts are currently blocked (in the first instance because Rlevse requested courtesy RTV and then continued to edit from the Vanished account) and no-one has asked that they be unblocked.Fladrif (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Strong oppose No. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Absolutely not. There is no behavior warranting a community ban. I am so sick of this. Every time an issue like this comes up on AN/I, the very first "solution" is a community ban. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Really? Every time? Seems like the previous solution was to allow him RTV, which he then abused multiple times. How else do you propose we prevent his continued returning and disrupting the project? Oh, let him vanish again, but this time he really will! Right. Just more typical Wikipedia bias, otherwise known as special rules for special people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? Nothing was done that deserves a community ban. One sockpuppet is not cause for a community ban—if that were the case, we'd better go ban several of our best editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL @ one sockpuppet. If that were all then I would never have proposed a ban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why does Category:Suspected wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse turn up empty, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rlevse is a redlink, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse only contains User:PumpkinSky? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody tagged the socks? Because admins want to hide his abuses? And did you miss the entire episode regarding his other abuses? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged what socks? You normally seem like a sensible editor, but claiming an admin conspiracy is a very poor substitute for providing diffs and actual evidence when you make a ban proposal. List these socks, or link to them, or something. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments copied from the previous thread:

Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I saw. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The only other sockpuppet that Rlevse supposedly had (that I know of) was BarkingMoon (talk · contribs). However, no evidence was ever presented that BarkingMoon == Rlevse, so the sole accomplishment was that BarkingMoon left the project in disgust. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd be more inclined by a large margin to facilitate Rlevse's return to active editing under a failed RTV. My76Strat (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know the negative history of Rlevse, just had good experiences with the user. But I saw nothing troubling enough for anything more than a warning wrt the Pking account. None of the diffs I looked at in the above discussion were overly troubling. If you're going to propose a ban, you need a lot more than waving at a discussion. Can someone provide diffs that they think justify this ban? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per My76Strat (ec), same inclination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Used to be an excellent user, not only doing good work but also encouraging others by handing out well designed awards. No justification for a perma ban. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A serial plagiarist who keeps returning to perpetuate grudges against other editors? Very useful. This project is hopeless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I went into details about his plagiarism today, s. Paraphrase but how, there is danger for the project, he copied the line "and was designated a State Natural Area in 1986", copied word-for-word from the source!!! (sarcasm intended), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)

• And a former ArbCom member! You have to have a sense of humor or this place will drive you crazy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, and the snow close is imminent. That's fine, close this then and I'll go back to my coffee and NPP. Beating one's head against walls give one headaches. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• My76Strat has the right idea: Rlevse clearly wants to still be here, he's failed at RTV several times, and he'd be better off to return to the Rlevse account, subject to some guidance, and staying away from DYK and FAC. He can learn to paraphrase, and if he checks his old grudges at the door, and stays away from his weak spot (which is DYK and its inherent copyvio problems) he should be able to return successfully-- there would be many eyes on him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, we don't need this. Enough. Keep him indeff'd at least. (That is now revdel'd-- it was an extensive post of private email. Anyone wonder who leaked the arb-list now?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per sandy --Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was still trying to finish when the thread was moved :) I'd be more inclined to say that should Rlevse return, he should be under some guidance, and should be required to stay away from DYK and FAC until the community feels that he is able to understand correct paraphrasing and check his grudges at the door. Although requiring them never works, an apology from Rlevse to Raul654 would be a good start, too-- giving an indication that he understands where he went wrong and how much damaged that caused. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Struck per this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is a much better proposal. However, Rlevse should pick which account he wants to use and stick with that one, so that people can watch for any introduction of close paraphrasing. He does a lot of good work referencing and contributing to articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, whichever account he picks isn't an issue. But ... ummmm, well ... he also has problems recognizing and understanding reliable sources, which is one of the other reasons I'd prefer he not go back to DYK until he's gained a better understanding in that area as well. He wants to contribute and can make worthy contributions, but unfortunately, his personal weaknesses coincide with the general weaknesses at DYK, and he tends to become very forceful there, which helps preserve the status quo. On the other hand, if Montanabw and others can work with him on articles, he could improve in those areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Struck per this. Keep him indeff'd at least. Last chance too many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rlevese has been a good, and long-time positive contributor. I support dealing with the concerning issues so he can return to productive editing.(olive (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose He's been a productive editor, we have too few, end of story. I agree with what Sandy said in her comment of 17:17--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. My76Strat has it about right, but the grudge matches do need to be left at the door. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose : Please check out the copyright investigation, which is proceeding quickly, and is finding practically nothing. My opinion: if the user wishes to return, he has to resume using his original account (the Rlevse account). --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Let him keep his new name, if he likes it better. Wasn't someone going to reach out to him last night?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  You are right; the name does not matter as long as everyone is aware. I will put a message on user talk:PumpkinSky right now. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps an admin could snow close this? Nobody Ent 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can give everyone involved a chance to weigh in, and be sure that consensus has formed? For example, do ya think Raul might have an opinion here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• oppose per My76Strat and SandyGeorgia. and others. — Ched :  ?  17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC) revised — Ched :  ?  20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As long as the Rlevse history is attached to whatever account he intends using, I don't see a problem here. He chose to vanish and should be allowed to unvanish, if that's what he wants. --regentspark (comment) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support - BarkingMoon is PumkinSky, PSky was created two days after his BMoon account was exposed, and they are both sockpuppets of the serial copyright violator User:Rlevse. He had and has no intention of assisting in resolving those issues and his latest sockpuppet has now created a load more work - he returns and attacks users from previous disputes - There are additional issues with this user as Will Beback mentioned - I have an additional complaint that I will leave as historic. Arbcom know more than they are saying - any support for the user is misguided to say the least. I realise there are users against this but later I will be happy I said it. Youreallycan 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, since there are other issues (including one that is important to me, a failure to fully understand WP:V, a core policy), I haven't entered my comments here as either a Support or Oppose-- just a way forward if there is consensus for such. And if he were to return without some sort of guidance, restrictions, and oversight, I would certainly not be in favor. I-- finally-- have completely lost trust in the ability of some of our illustrious arbs to be impartial. Again, while apologies can't be required and are rarely helpful, in this case, one might give an indication that he understands all that he caused and won't do it again. Without that understanding, troubled editors rarely turn into productive ones, and just move into more and more problematic socking-- something we should seek to avoid here if we can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Struck, having seen an extensive private email posted by Rlevse/PumpkinSky before it was revdel'd and oversighted-- no. Just no. Keep him indeff'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree and in choosing to support "facilitation" I do mean to imply incorporating everything else that is prudent. My76Strat (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• oppose Looking at the CCI, the problems there are a few close paraphrases (and not egregious ones either - he is trying to properly paraphrase. He mostly seems to miss the point about copying structure, which isn't always easy to grasp). A lot of quality gnomish edits are apparent in that report. I'm not sure that any of his recent stuff would meet the legal definition of "copyright violation". I'm mostly ignorant about the earlier account, I wasn't really around then. Re: YouReallyCan above: if there's something about past behaviour that isn't being mentioned, it probably should. There seems to be a consensus from the Featured people that his contribs to discussions there weren't helpful, he should probably stay away from that area. If he needs help properly paraphrasing things, he needs to ask for help. Lots of good writers at DYK/GA/FA who would be willing to rework drafts for him. The account-hopping wasn't right, and he needs to acknowledge that. The Interior (Talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Make return conditional on helping with the CCIs. Per the recent measures against two other editors, the former Arb needs to pitch in to help solve the problems he created. There are now two CCIs: one for the original account and one for PumpkinSky. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grossly excessive. Prioryman (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Rlevse/PumpkinSky is a positive contributor, a good, solid editor, and once the CCI on the Pumpkin Sky account is done, he will be one of the most closely scrutinized editors ever. I'd challenge ANY other editor to not have the occasional close paraphrase in their collected contributions and have the nearly 800 articles analyzed that is happening at the CCI. (And to help when you have a hard time seeing close paraphrasing is a bit awk, don't you think?) Frankly, though this individual has some spats with other editors, it's just the usual wiki-drama and snark -- his tone is really small potatoes compared to some of the really nasty vicious bullying attacks I've seen from trolls that no one ever seems to block. I think that he gets dogpiled on because once things get to a certain point, he chooses to not engage any longer. Some people are that way, but it's not an admission of guilt, it's just a throwing up of hands. I say allow a quasi clean start with a new user name so the red flags don't immediately spring up -- though maybe with doppleganger notes on the other pages for those who care. The sockpuppeting was, IMHO, consistent with his personality, which clearly is to avoid certain types of engagement and given that the initial reason Rlevse left was over a tempest in a teapot, I'd say that the sockpuppet concerns should be viewed as a RTV gone awry, and tossed as Fruit of the poisonous tree provided that he henceforth edits openly. Raul, I don't know you and I am sure you are probably a nice person who just disagrees with Rlevse, and the disagreements are not comfortable, but what little I looked at was just the usual wiki-drama, I've personally endured much more vicious attacks on wiki from people no one ever blocked (wish they would have, but oh well...). Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with you in spirit, but I do need to point out that you don't seem to have followed his entry into the FAC situation, which does not fit this description at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sandy said it well. I do not, however, subscribe to the storm-in-a-teapot metaphor, Montana. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; support indefinite block until editor has agreed to conditions and addressed past issues. --Rschen7754 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per Montanabw and further , WP:RTV issue is not yet resolved.Actually it is being discussed in Village Pump .There is no clear policy yet that a user who returns after WP:RTV under a new name will be blocked indef for socking.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If Rlevse is going to edit here he needs to do so transparently. My impression is that some editors here are unaware of the extent of deceitfulness and subterfuge in which Rlevse engaged under his original account. So long as Rlevse is retired/vanished/inactive there's no harm in allowing his positive contributions to be remembered foremost. But if he is active then the full history of his editing and bureaucratic activity needs to be discussed. I am very concerned that he may intend to regain positions of trust.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Will Beback here. There are appropriate second chances, and there are wise decisions that acknowledge second chances have been spent. I do not know the extent of Rlevse's copyvio problems, but the fact that he refused to address them, then lashed out at Wikipedians, leaving with a dramatic and immediate exit, instead of acknowledging there was some kind of issue to be dealt with is problematic. What's worse is that he created PumpkinSky to antagonize some editors and engage others, like Giano, for unknown reasons. This is an ex-ArbCom member who ruled on the impropriety of just this kind of behavior, ending in the blocks of others, so arguing that he didn't know what he was doing is ridiculous. If Rlevse wanted to return so he could edit articles of interest, he would have done so without calling so much attention to his abrasiveness and inability to communicate in a meaningful way. RTV is too often abused by editors with significant problems who return without addressing those problems. I keep seeing this Wikipedia-is-a-workplace argument for civility, but there is no real-life situation in which someone leaves a place of employment and can return without anyone else noticing, just to irritate the folks with whom he disagreed in the past. Surely the manager who allowed that would himself be fired. I don't have a problem with an editor returning if s/he intends to work not only on articles but his own issues that forced the RTV in the first place, but what's left to respect of Rlevse? How long until he regains his admin status and runs for ArbCom again with half of Wikipedia reminding all not to be so judgmental, and the other half righteously indignant or so far beyond caring about such a negligent system that creates this circumstance that they just are editing drunk all the time? --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the reasons for this are clear, and have been well-stated by others. Collect (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment as one of the people now working both CCIs, All I can say is that I want EVERY ONE OF YOU on this thread to please to go over there and help, seeing as how you started this in the first place. There are something like 1,800 articles now on the two lists and will be more if you add Barking Moon. If everyone agrees to review even one each of the major ones and 5-10 of the little ones, it would be a huge help. But please, also ask if your edits from five years ago were all perfect too, OK? We probably have 10 wiki-gnoming and cleanup edits to every substantive one. The stuff on Rlevse going back to 2005 or 2006 is simply a huge pain in the butt to review, many articles have changed substantially, other, smaller ones less so, and of the couple I've found that have some question, they are so close to the line that I can't see any way to phrase it all that differently, personally, and asked others to peek and see. Frankly, I'm starting to worry about editing anything myself -- I get jumped on for OR if I write stuff I know, then find sources, but if I read it first, how can my mind not be "contaminated" by the phrasing? At the level we are scrutinizing Rlevse on close paraphrasing (and still, few problems, probably no worse than most of us with a long edit history), we may wind up deleting half the encyclopedia if we applied it rigidly across the board to all articles -- heck 3/4 of the encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Curious, who are you referring to with "seeing as how you started this in the first place"? Amalthea started the CCI, knew about it before even the arbs, and actually, to date, none of us know how Amalthea came to realize that PumpkinSky was Rlevse. If you want to point at some who contributed to this, perhaps the people who should be doing the cleanup are all the DYk regulars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Amalthea has now posted a detailed summary on how he came to that conclusion: [28]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose but Rlevse needs to help clean up those CCI's. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose — what a lynch mob. Alarbus (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per My76Strat. Begoon ^talk 05:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support indefinite block until issues are addressed, and support requiring him to help with CCI cleanups. Perhaps require mentorship for a time to help cut down on future infringement. If he can't learn to write in his own words after that, then this should be revisited. Kcowolf (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I closed this proposal per WP:SNOW after roughly 10 hours of discussion and overwhelming opposition. This was swiftly undone by SandyGeorgia on the basis that new information had come to light—presumably because she suspected that this new information would alter the course of this proposal. In the several hours since, however, opposition has continued to pile up. I respect that one must feel strongly about something to reverse a closing admin's decision while involved, but at this point, a SNOW closure looks virtually inevitable. Sandy, do you still feel this proposal needs to remain open? Swarm ^X 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• You "closed this proposal per WP:SNOW" immediately after new evidence came to light, and immediately after I struck my previous position. Did you not notice that many subsequent !voters were "per SandyGeorgia" (and My76), hence if I had changed my position, that might be relevant? Does that not give you some clue that closing a discussion overnight, and not allowing for time differences and others to weigh in, might not be wise? I'm always amused at admins wanting to close off discussions at the speed of light, when this is the Internet and not everyone is on 24/7, and always think it curious that admins think their decisions are God-like. Yes, I always feel that discussions shouldn't be closed when half the world is still asleep, and closures like this do nothing to mitigate my suspicion that they sometimes result from the IRC crowd drumming up a freshly minted admin to close a controversial discussion off post-haste. There is plenty of conflicting information coming out here, with arbs and CUs not even caught up yet and on the same page-- what's the hurry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not this IRC crap again... You know, even not-so-freshly-minted admins close off controversial discussions from time to time without the "IRC crowd" drumming them up to do it. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let me go on record as opposing the ban as well. He needs to stop shooting himself in the foot, though. No more battling old foes or posting private correspondence, for starters. 28bytes (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't suppose I really need to pile on, but the proposed remedy is excessive. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User abused the RTV, sockpuppeted to return to former battlegrounds, and has apparently no intention of reforming. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since other non-admins are speaking up here, I will too. I was distressed when Rlevse left. I still find it hard to believe BarkingMoonPumpkinSky is the same person. But nothing I am aware of that either of them did justifies banning, and the use of e-mails to tell someone not to return strikes me as dirty pool. It would be best for the project if Rlevse returned; whatever people feel he must then answer for or help clean up can best be dealt with then. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I find it hard to believe that a one-time respected and respectable character - one who is an admin and gets elevated to arbcom - plagiarizes articles - gets caught - quits - and sneaks back in - pretending to be an enemy of the featured article project - and attacks other editors - and you want him back?...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban; the copyvio issues are minor in comparison to the disruption visited upon FAC by PumpkinSky. I've just had occasion to revisit an old thread on Cas's page, and the time that PumpkinSky wasted because of revising old grudges is absurd. All things considered, I don't think he can be rehabilitated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block, Oppose ban for now at least. Rlevse was an good administrator, but with some serious flaws. The RTV thing is a clear abuse of the system, especially that his accounts were going back to the reasons why Rlevse did a RTV (which should have been denied because there wasn't any harrassment or ousting involved when he invoked it, just that he didn't want to be involved in the criticism). His behavior with his sock involving FAC is obviously a grudge, and the BarkingMoon behavioral evidence is way too damming. A restriction must be made in order for Rlevse to come back to the project, including limitation to one account, topic ban on DYK and FAC, interaction ban with SandyGeorgia and Raul, plus some mentoring. I think that's the best for Rlevse, remember all this mess would have been avoided if only Rlevse cooperated with the community after the Grace Sherwood incident. Secret ^account 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Rlevse clearly lacks the competence required for source-based writing without plagiarism or even copyvios, and instead of dealing with this problem constructively he has been blaming everybody else for it. In part this is the community's fault for not noticing the problem earlier, but his behaviour since invocation of RTV has been atrocious and must not continue.
  RTV is essentially a voluntary self-ban that comes with some privileges. Rlevse has been trying to profit from these benefits without sticking to his part of the contract, and then he accused Will Beback of blackmail merely for pointing out the obvious consequence.
  When we get socking by a disgraced ex-arbitrator who plagiarised on a large scale and ex-bureaucrat who vote stacked, then there is simply no reasonable alternative to a full site ban. Hans Adler 11:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, when you put it that way... - jc37 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Hans. Raul654 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) Support I've looked at the various threads for awhile now, and was on the fence. The copyvio, while annoying and causing now a lot of work, was something I was willing to WP:AGF about, as rephrasing vs summarising could potentially be a near thing at times. But I think I have to agree with Hans Adler here. I would also support Secret's suggstion of an indef block with restrictions on returning, as an alternative, but since unfortunately Rlevse has apparently been gaming things for awhile now, I don't know if we could trust that he would not continue to do so. - jc37 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the additional information that came to light since my previous suggestion that he be required to help in the CCI, I think some interaction and topic bans may also be necessary if he decides to return in an open fashion. However, my bet is that he will sock again, relying on his wikifriends for concealment and defense even in "obvious sock is obvious" circumstances. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky emails

Pumpkinsky just a few minutes ago posted an email thread between himself and user:Will Beback. Beback wrote to Pumpkinsky asking if he planned to continued returning, in violation of RTV, and stating that if he did continue returning, Beback would post heretofore damaging information concerning Rleve's previous behavior involving user:jojo. The resonse (from Rleve) was both profane and suggested that the arbitration committee was aware of this, and actively suppressed it. Rlevse said he would not be intimidated, and that's why he was posting it. Mbisanz oversighted it shortly thereafter, on the pre-text that they violated Will's copyright. (And if you believe that's the real reason they were deleted, I have a bridge to sell you) I'm reconstructing the conversation entirely from memory, but that's teh gist of it. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the posts before they were oversighted revdeleted, and that's pretty much it. We don't need any more of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PS, Raul, it was User:JoJo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not oversight them nor did I suppress them. I rev-deleted them. Any administrator can still review them. Also, per WP:EMAILABUSE and that famous arbitration case involving GianoDurova, posting of other persons' emails on-wiki is forbidden as a copyright violation. Arbcom and any admins can still see the text there. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence: :Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to a request on my talk page, I can confirm that the two edits corresponding to IDs 474620971 and 474680170 have been revdeleted and not suppressed and should be visible to any admin. -- Avi (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for creating confusion by saying they were oversighted-- since I'm not an admin, I didn't know. I have now struck and corrected to say they were revdeleted. At any rate, I can no longer see them (non-admin), but I did see them before they were revdel'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There are actually three processes, though we often refer to them as "oversight" as that was the first (hacky) technique used:

1. Revdeletion can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia admins (and technically oversighters, stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
2. Suppression can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia Oversighters (and technically stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
3. Oversight was the process used for the old method which did its hiding at the server level prior to the development of the revdelete extension, and all-but-completely removes the revision from history. This is essentially irreversible (it may require custom code from developers, and I'm not certain that would work). This is pretty much deprecated and has not been used since 2010.

Hope that clears some of this up. -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns about copyrights, etc. I think that the privacy of emails should be maintained. That said, I did not say anything to Rlevse/PumpkinSky that I would be embarrassed for others to see. The key points, already expressed here, are that very disturbing behavior by Rlevse came to light after his RTV, which I chose not to make public at the time since it was moot. I did share it with the ArbCom so that it would be known. One of the senior ArbCom members agreed and said that the matter would be revisited if Rlevse returned. When I wrote to PumpkinSky I informed him that this material was being kept private only so long as he was inactive, but that if he might return then it should be made public. I asked for his assurance that he was not planning to return. The responses were very inflammatory.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my memory, that summarizes what I read before it was revdeleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Will. You've been very helpful. Now, given that we are discussing whether or not a community ban is in order, and given that his response suggests he is very likely to return, could you please go into details about that disturbing behavior on Rlevse's part? Raul654 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, some disclosure - I've known Rlevse for several years and I once considered him a friend and respected colleague. I've just read the correspondence in question, and I am utterly appalled at all of this. I simply cannot comprehend what sort of brain-snap has occurred in Rlevse that has led to this behaviour.

On a positive note, I wish to strongly applaud Will Beback for his thoroughly dignified and professional handling of this matter (and invite other editors to do the same). Manning (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't parse the above at face value. A thing that is private might best remain private if disclosure serves no other benefit beyond curiosity at the expense of a living person. To state "if he might return then it should be made public" would constitute a threat of reprisal against what would be otherwise proper. If the matter is of importance and directly pertinent to things the community should be aware, the agreement to keep it private could be a dis-service to the entire constituency. Without asking for details, can you explain the nature of the private information held? My76Strat (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Undeleted

With Will Beback's consent, I have undeleted these e-mails so that non-admins may view them. 28bytes (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps greatly. My76Strat (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rlevse's actions as bureaucrat

Here is what I wrote to the ArbCom in July 2011:

By mutual declaration, User:JoJo is Rlevse's wife. She is from Thailand and her written English is broken. She edited for a couple of years, most recently in June 2010. She has mostly worked on articles related to places in Thailand. Other than some work on Wikiproject Thailand, she has not edited any administrative page with two big exceptions. She has participated in over 60 RFAs and RFBs, including 28 in which Rlevse also voted or handled the closing. Some of those closures were discretionary and JoJo's vote made a noticeable difference in the percentage. I see no cases in which they showed a difference of opinion. [29]

Most of JoJo's comments are brief and uninformative, but a couple of them show greater knowledge, including correcting a candidate on a policy interpretation and commenting on another editor's overall career. Her total lack of involvement with other project pages makes it hard to believe that she would be such an avid and informed voter without some input by Rlevse, at least. The best case is that JoJo heard her husband discussing these editors, and then made up her own mind even if unintentionally repeating what he'd told her. Another possibility is that she was his meatpuppet or proxy in RfAs and RfBs.

I think this may represent a serious violation of community trust. Regardless of other issues surrounding Rlevse and account blocks, I do not think that the user should be granted any special user rights that involve trust until these issues have been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Somehow this doesn't surprise me. One of the two tkses of JoJo was in a RfA vote [30]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. I would be interested to see the close calls Will mentions above, not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome, but with the goal of learning how we can better identify groups of !voters and attempt to find a way to discount groups we can clearly see are meatpuppets of each other. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cavalry and Panyd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Since my name has been brought up... a few comments: 1) Gingko and I often share perspectives/views---not always, but often, which is why we've been together for 15+ years. Thus, similarity in !voting is not uncommon. 2) One way to avoid meat puppets among spouses is having them be open. 3) In my case, my wife's being an admin was one of the reasons why I ran---as mentioned in her nomination statement, she wanted me to gain the tools so that I wouldn't ask her to do something when I saw it needed to be done. 4) Of bigger concern than spouses (as a general rule) are those who associate together on IRC or other mediums. I don't think spouses are a huge risk because they are often known. (Generally my wife and I won't get involved in disputes where the other is invovled. If we do, we generally disclose the fact that we are related in the specific discussion.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

With that in mind, I do think it might be something to include in our WP:COI. If I saw a discussion which my wife was involved, I would not close that discussion as it might be perceived as a COI issue. That being said, as it wasn't part of the policy and it might be hard to notice every editor on an RfA, I wouldn't jump too fast at this. Also, what is the point of dredging this up now? Are we going to go back and ask all admins who were promoted by Rlvese to undergo a new RfA 2-3 years after the fact?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome" I see it as a chance to learn and refine our policies, not re-run old elections. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't think that JoJo made those !votes independently, and it seems likely that she didn't make them at all. IOW, the account was used, at least occasionally, as a sock puppet and on other occasions as a meat puppet.

Second, this is being brought up now because it is necessary to review Rlevse's edit history if we are going to discuss his future editing here.

Third, there's no evidence that anyone was at fault in this matter besides Rlevse himself.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting element is the "fix count" shared edit summary between the JoJo [31] and Rlevese [32] accounts. Note that per analysis below, there aren't many overlaps in idiosyncratic edit summary usage between these two accounts; only a couple of tkses and one plain oops, but four "fix count" by JoJo in RfAs. Quite an interesting temporary focus on counting every vote in some RfAs she must have had. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. Are we looking at the possibility that Rlevse used his wife's account to double vote (because they appear to be his edit summaries), or that he encouraged her to vote in a way that determined the outcome of certain RFAs, which he then closed? Also, can you (Will Beback) specify which close RFAs were affected by her one vote? I see that one was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Franamax-- very close, closed by Rlevse, voted on by his wife with an edit summary that resembles his edit summaries, and entered within two minutes of him editing. Have I got that right? What are the other cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Franamax of this discussion. Also, I don't believe Jojo !voted in that RFA - only asked a question.  7  03:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, 7-- I hadn't gotten that far yet. I supported Franamax, so am relieved :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy notice User:7, ummm, what? I answered the questions I was asked in my RFA, mostly in the order they showed up, but I think a few took longer to think about. I think JoJHutton's question was among the last, or the last one. I got the impression later that there was a relation between that account and the closer of the RFA, but no-one would let me go back and rewrite history to suit my own affairs. ;) 'Tis all in history so far as I know, and I answered the way I would to anyone who asked then or would ask now, my honest response. I did interact with the vanished user previously, in a suspected (and resolved) sock-puppet case several years ago, but other than that have just been eating popcorn on this one. Is anything more needed? Franamax (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a few cash bribes and you'll be in the clear. Cheers Manning (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) It's a joke! We're in dire need of a few laughs, frankly :)

(ask Moni3 to bring the cocaine and hookers... Alarbus (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

Goodness, Franamax, I don't see that anything was ever needed from you-- you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, has nothing to do with you, and as you know, I was a supporter anyway, so I don't see how this new information casts "anything" your direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a very good case has been made that there should be a ^[1] after Rlevse's entry here. I've put in a query at WT:AC asking what the process is for this. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I should note that BarkingMoon was quite keen to get into voting on various things as soon as he registered: RfAs, RfBs, banning votes, ArbCom reform, etc. (I'll add some diffs per request if you can't find them.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ANd might we also mention that the arb descriptions (of contradictory technical evidence) beggars belief, since they knew of evidence of inappropriate editing with his wife's account, and they knew that Rlevse as a former arb knew how CU worked. We've been duped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You have NOT been duped, and this is going entirely too far, SandyGeorgia. What in heaven's name would any arbitrator gain in trying to pull a stunt like that? We of all people know what "the community" does to users who get caught out, particularly those with advanced permissions or higher profiles. So, for that matter, do you: you've had that target on your back too. So please stop this. There was contradictory technical evidence, and it was reviewed and assessed by non-arbitrator checkusers. Risker (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded at WT:ARBCOM. [33] Much of this could have been avoided if we weren't getting conflicting information, and if the community is allowed to do what it is supposed to do in cases of inconclusive tecnical evidence. If we aren't allowed to do that, history will repeat in other similar instances. And yes, of all people, I do know what it feels like-- I'd like the same courtesy to be extended to me as is extended to those who abuse of RTV, Cleanstart, any other policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy - I appreciate that emotions may be running high right now, but Risker is right, there is no reason to accuse the arbs of anything, least of all a conspiracy. Firstly Arbcom have precious little reason to treat Rlevse with any form of favoritism. Secondly, the evidence was reviewed and was inconclusive. If they had acted without conclusive evidence then the outcry from the community would have been savage. (Hell, they get enough grief when there IS conclusive evidence.) Manning (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Risker. There's no one questioning that JoJo exists, and I don't think anyone questions that her edits to Thai articles are her own. There is a concern that some of the edits attributed to her name may not have been made by her, or were unduly influenced, but it is easy to imagine technical evidence for some edits clarifying that it wasn't a pure sockpuppet account. I assume (while understanding the danger of assuming) that identifying technical evidence indicating different people doesn't mean every single edit is by a different person, only that some edits can be so verified, therefore proving that the account is not a pure sockpuppet account.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(That said, I sympathize that SG has gone through a month or more of pure hell, tough enough on its face, and now it appears that a major portion of the hell was by a former trusted editor now abusing that trust. when the dust settles, we should be taking a hard community look at RTV, and CleanStart, and rethinking what we should allow.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the need to look at RTV and CLEANSTART is what this is all about (for me), and your sympathy about what kind of hell FAC has been through is noted and much appreciated. (My response to Risker was over at the ArbCom talk page, where much has now been clarified). I do hope we'll sort these cleanstart and RTV issues, because having reviewed some old threads just in the last few hours, the disruption and time wasted was absurd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I read the emails between Will Beback and Rlevse, and in them Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, he will publicly reveal the information about Rlevse's wife's editing. If not blackmail, this is unilateral, extra-judicial administrative action. I thought WP's administration didn't do things this way anymore. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The issue here is Rlevse. I haven't taken any administrative actions regarding him. Do you have a comment about the allegations here, or are you just taking potshots?   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are you an administrator? Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife? And, did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the evidence is on-Wiki. In previous discussions with the ArbCom, et al, there was agreement that the information was moot so long as Rlevse was not editing on Wikipedia, and that it would be relevant if he returned to editing. If you think that it's OK for a bureaucrat to use his wife's account to affect the same RFAs that he closes then we have a fundamental disagreement over ethical behavior. But again, this isn't about you or me.   Will Beback  talk  04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will, I asked you three yes or no questions, which you have yet to answer. I will repeat them:

• Are you an administrator?
• Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?
• Did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Question number 1 looks like one you can answer on your own. Is this an interrogation of administrator Will Beback? ---Sluzzelin talk 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 - I'll answer them for you as you seem to be having trouble gleaning the obvious answers yourself. 1 - Hold your mouse over Will's name. The 'sysop' tag is quite evident. 2 - No, he didn't, no-one has said he did, not even Rlevse. 3 - "Threaten" is misleading, he behaved as any admin would have behaved in the same circumstances. RTV is a contract, and Will simply pointed out the consequences of breaking that contract. Manning (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you all are affirming that Will Beback was acting as an administrator in this case. Now, can you point me to the administrative guidance or policy which recommends or encourages admins to threaten editors with publicly releasing privately-obtained information about their spouse's editing history unless they agree to stop editing Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does anyone besides you say this information was privately obtained? From what I can tell these are just diffs found on-wiki? AniMate 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "confidential info" is probably the better phrase. Will Beback kept the information to himself for future use. Now, again, is the way WP's administration works? Do we "get the goods" on other editors, keep the information in the bottom drawer, then bring it out and privately threaten the editor to "expose" them if they return to Wikipedia? Was Rlevse returning to wikipedia as a beauracrat, or just as an editor (small "e")? If so, why privately threaten him with it? Why not bring it out if he requests restoration of his admin privileges? Again, can you point me to the administrative guideline or policy which recommends that WP admins do things this way? Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If I was Will, I'd point you to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)... Prioryman (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Rlevse invoked RV. That "right" has consequences attached, specifically, that if one decides to return (in spite of a promise not to) that previously unresolved issues are now back on the table. Reminding Rlevse of the consequences of his actions is a prudent action; if not required, certainly a reasonable step. That doesn't make it a threat.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I informed PumpkinSky of this thread so that he could reply.[34] His response is here: [35]   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Per requests, here is a particular example of the JoJo account participating in a borderline RFA which Rlevse closed. JoJo !voted in the same direction as Rlevse's discretionary close. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath.   Will Beback  talk  17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, yeah, but if the relationship between Rlevse and JoJo was disclosed on their user pages, and no objection was made back then, what difference does it make now? This information was at least available then, no one said anything. Indeed, Rlevse closed it even though his relationship was disclosed, and for all he knew, at the front of everyone's mind. It may have been ill-advised for Rlevse to make the call on the RfA, but the information was available, no one objected, and it's over.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

First, all we know is that Rlevse claimed to have a wife named JoJo. Unless anyone can vouch for her existence, she may be like the cousins and brothers whom we often see blamed for bad behavior.

Second, the level of involvement in RFAs which the JoJo account is totally incompatible with her involvement with other parts of Wikipedia. It is really hard to believe that someone who had almost no involvement with the project would !vote in over 60 RFAs.

Third, the level of expertise about the careers and policy interpretations of individual editors with whom she'd never interacted is also incompatible with someone who elsewhere showed very limited English language abilities.

The almost-inescapable conclusion is that the RFA !votes were made by Rlevse himself, either by dictating to his wife or by using his wife's account, if he even has a wife by that name. If anyone doubts that conclusions they should review JoJo's other edits.

Even if we put the best possible spin on the facts (meaning JoJo is a real person who decided these votes on her own), the conflict of interest created when a wife votes and a husband decides the outcome raises the kind of questions listed above. At best, it is very, very poor judgment.

Finally, who actually reviews RFAs routinely on a vote-by-vote basis? Is there any reason to think that editors or other bureaucrats noticed that Rlevse's wife was participating in the RFAs he was closing and approved of it?   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that what happened is that it was noticed by multiple editors but as Rlevse was in rather a more powerful position than at present, no one particularly cared to make an issue of it. After all, it is only one vote, which can hardly affect things that much. The discussion of the Thai articles makes your suggestion that Rlevse was socking by making up an imaginary wife implausible. At the end of the day, under your theories, Rlevse created a sockpuppet for the rather limited purpose of voting or asking questions in a discussion which he was closing. He then made it much more likely it would be noticed by disclosing that it was his "wife" on the sock's user page and his own. In other words, he went to a lot of effort for very limited return; had he wanted to materially affect the outcome, he could simply have !voted. The vote of an arbcrat is likely to carry weight with it; the vote of an arbcrat's "wife" not so much. In other words, I fail to see that Rlevse had any motivation or return on what was a very risky move if JoJo did not in fact exist. It also doesn't make sense that given Rlevse's abortive attempts to return to Wikipedia, he would not have used the JoJo account at some point, if it was within his control. If JoJo does not exist, that is also somewhat inconsistent with your effort to motivate Rlevse to remain away through your asking him to consider the effect on his wife (I am charitable here) and also in his angry reaction. Much too much in both cases for a souped-up imaginary girlfriend.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is likely that JoJo actually exists and actually made the edits to Thai articles. The main issue here is whether she independently made the edits to the RFAs. You haven't addressed those issues.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That, I think, could only be told though extrinsic factors. Possibly by asking her. Has she been notified, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that a review of her editing history is sufficient to show that it would be extraordinary for someone with so little general involvement in the project to have such extensive, and occasionally insightful, involvement in the RFA process. What sort of "extrinsic" factors do you think we could use to resolve this?   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes ... except for the fact that Rlevse's wife can be expected to try to take an interest in his interests. I suspect that it really didn't interest JoJo judging by the dormancy of the account, but she pottered about the Thai area to please her husband, and probably followed his contributions and took an interest where he was taking an interest. I suspect that that is why Rlevse felt free to close those RfA's: he knew she really didn't care that much.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than speculating extensively on possible psychology of the married couple, i think it's easier to simply look at her edits. It's just implausible that she is the author of all of those !votes.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More of Cla689's questions for Will Beback

Another question for Will. You say that ArbCom was aware of all this and had said they would act on it if Rlevse returned. So, why were you involved now? Can you point to the diff or email in which ArbCom directed you to act on their behalf and authorized you to use a threatening tactic in an attempt to coerce Rlevse into leaving Wikipedia even though he isn't community banned? Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, can you answer a question for a change? Please comment on the issue of a bureaucrat's wife !voting in the same RfA that he closes, always voting the same way, and showing much greater knowledge of Wikipedia norms than she does in her other editing. Does that seem like acceptable behavior to you?   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Separate issue. This is the administrators noticeboard, right? So, let's make sure that we're following correct administrative procedures. In the emails, you said ArbCom (specifically NewYorkBrad) had said they would handle this Jojo stuff if Rlevse returned. Rlevse returned. So, did ArbCom handle it? Were you acting on their behalf? Were you authorized by them to handle it? Did you tell them in advance you were going to threaten Rlevse with proclaiming the information if he didn't banish himself? Could you say here which arbitrator delegated this administrative action to you after they had previously said they would handle it? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to comment here, even you. But I think your questions are getting a bit tendentious, and are increasingly off-topic. If you'd like to know what the ArbCom thinks then you should ask them. As for this thread, I get the feeling your trying to turn this into an attack on me, so I've split this out.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In the time it took you to separate the sections, you could have made a good start on answering the questions. I will continue to wait for your responses. And, I have asked ArbCom for their side. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's questions reveal a misunderstanding so deep that explanations and answers are unlikely to be helpful. In brief, there is no admin misconduct by Will, and no threats in the tone suggested by the misguided questions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. AniMate 07:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Same agreement from me. I provided a thorough answer to the questions earlier. The answers were solely based on examination of the evidence, I have never discussed this issue with Will (or any other admin). This ongoing insistence indicates either incredible ignorance of how WP works, or just harassment for some personal reason. Manning (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 has a long-standing feud with Will, so I'd say both explanations are equally likely. Can we get the personality politics out of the way and get back to discussing useful things, please? Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no feud with Will – and I actually think I've never interacted with either Will or Cla68 before – but I must say that email exchange made my skin crawl. I don't wish to minimise the gravity of Rlevse's actions, which should indeed be discussed, but Will's emails came across as threatening. A very sub-optimal way to handle the situation, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's not appropriate. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

agree as well. — Ched :  ?  15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will's actions were entirely appropriate and above board. Thank you Will, for your yeoman's work. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Assume for a moment that instead of withholding his observations until now, Will Beback had released them while Rlevse was "vanished". I can immediately imagine the outcry over grave dancing and similar concerns in that hypothetical scenario. We routinely suspend RfC/Us when editors say they've departed for the same reasons. It seems a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choice. Again, I find the blame-the-messenger approach unconstructive. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Will did nothing wrong. This community's rush to accuse people of "grave dancing" and dismiss everything they say is significant, especially in cases involving longstanding contributors. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. WP:RTV states: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently." By invoking the right to vanish, and vowing to never return, Rlevse was able to avoid having these things brought to light. In choosing to violate that pledge, Rlevse also chose to risk the consequences. Blackmail is reprehensible because you are coercing a person into meeting your demands by threatening to expose poor behavior. I don't see that Will was trying to get Rlevse to meet any particular demands. He was warning him that he would be effectively giving up immunity, which seems to fall under our guideline on vanishing. -- Atama頭 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding to Atama's point - the allegation that a 'crat had abused his position is one of the most serious I can think of. Will was being very decent by keeping his findings private under RTV. It is an admin's responsibility to disclose evidence of wrongdoing, under the banner of our general duty to protect the project. If Rlevse returned but Will failed to disclose his evidence, Will himself would have been in severe trouble. (I recall an unrelated case a few years back where an Arb was made to step down for failing to disclose similar evidence of editor wrongdoing). Rlevse would have been entitled to due process about these allegations, but Will would still be required to voice his suspicions, and he would have faced consequences if his non-disclosure was discovered. Manning (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with Atama's formulation, but it would seem to me that such an email would have to be written very carefully to not come across as threatening, even if that wasn't intended. I saw Raul's description but I didn't see the email itself. From the differing things that some people who have seen it have said, it sounds like it might not have been written carefully enough, but that there is room for AGF. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The email as leaked by Rlevse himself has now been un-revdeleted again. It looks fine to me. [36] Hans Adler 11:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. It was nearly impossible to read in normal page layout. Even in diff mode it's unclear who says what towards the end. Unless I'm reading that wrong

You are so full of shit and the biggest hypocrit ever. Your threats don't scare me. The good thing this every day more and more people become aware of your shenanigans. You can kiss my ass.

was actually written by Rlevse? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I like this quote from PumpkinSky when opposing a RfA recently "What else is there we don't know about?" [37]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, I thought this way of doing things in WP had long passed. The demand, "Please reply at your earliest convenience. Otherwise I'll assume this is part of an ongoing pattern which is likely to be repeated, and act accordingly." is bullying, especially since Will Beback said in the same email trail that he had been told that ArbCom would handle it. Cla68 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By that logic every warning that asks vandals to cease and desist or else they'd be blocked is also bullying. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not supposed to make threats. That's why I established this. Notice, Will Beback edit warred to remove a threat he had made from that board, even though his name wasn't stated. Thus, he already knew that making threats isn't acceptable behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The repeated use of the word "publicly" convinces me that Will was trying to pressure Rlevse through intimidation involving his wife; certainly it appears Rlevse took it that way. It isn't actually outing as the relationship was disclosed. Still, it's a rather ugly way to behave.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - Decontamination of admins promoted by Rlevse

While this proposal was made in good faith, it was in many ways problematic and was rejected by the community. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With a number of issues coming to light concerning Rlevse's actions as a 'crat (particularly where Jojo's votes may have influenced the outcome), we potentially now have the awful situation where some admins might have the legitimacy of their promotion called into question. I'd like to kill that entire notion as quickly as possible. It does nothing but destabilise the admin body, and does not contribute to repairing the damage caused by Rlevse during his time here. (Furthermore I hope no-one here wants to see respected admins such as Franamax have their legitimacy questioned for something that was entirely not their fault.) So my proposal is presented below. I sincerely hope this is not controversial. I'll also point out that this in no way diminshes the severity of Rlevse's transgressions, it merely seeks to remove any taint from those who were innocently affected. Manning (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC) PROPOSAL: Barring any actions for subsequent admin misconduct, the legitimacy of all admins promoted by Rlevse is hereby reconfirmed by the admin body, regardless of whether there is any (known or as-yet-undiscovered) evidence of bueaucrat misconduct by Rlevse during their RFA. Support as nom. Manning (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. While I appreciate the intention, the "admin body" has no remit for such. We are elected by the community, not invited to a club by other admins. MLauba (Talk) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC) A fair comment. What alternative do you think would be best? Manning (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC) None at all. As others below, I doubt there is actually a problem to solve at present. If there were any of the promotions that turned out to be bad apples, an RFC will address the substantial issues, and the promotion itself will be a sideshow. In the same way, nothing we can do at this stage will ever prevent the mere fact of an Rlevse promotion being brought up as an argument. I fail to see how this could ever be done in good faith, though. Not over a year after his last promotions. However, assuming that the trend below actually reverses, the correct body to decide to validate Rlevse's promotions a posteriori remains the community. I believe a proper RFC at the village pump or WT:RFA would be a better place to do so. MLauba (Talk) 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Manning, why do you contend that Rlevse's promotions may have been invalid when his relationship with Jojo was disclosed on both's user pages? Possibly something should have been done at the time, but whatever Rlevse may have done later does not turn these into offenses. Whether or not Rlevse's fellow crats and the community noticed or cared about the relationship, it was disclosed, and that's an end to it. Also per MLauba.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC) As per the wording of the proposal above, I don't contend it, not do I discount it. My objective is solely to prevent otherwise fine admins dragged into something that is not their concern. Also, if that IS the end of it, then let's say so here and now and not permit the issue to be dragged out. Manning (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Invalid procedure There is no "contamination" to deal with, no reason to doubt their validity in any way, and this "reconfirmation" is, in fact, an insult to them. Collect (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Noble, but one of the reasons I generally stay out of Requests for Adminship is that I think that it should not primarily be the admins that trust the new admin, but the non-admins that do that. If admins now reconfirm admins who may have been promoted inappropriately, that will only give an effect of clique formation. Oppose. If there is need for this (of which I, per Collect, am not sure of), some kind of RfC (which then maybe should be closed by some of the current bureaucrat corps) or other community discussion is a better process. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose If there is any particular problem with a decision then it can be challenged, but there is no suggestion of that here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC) There's no "contamination" for anyone to "decontaminate". T. Canens (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose I just went through the past RFAs and RFBs that Rlevse closed as "promote". Of those, only 3 met the following criteria: The support was below 80%. Jojo voted Support. None of the RFAs Rlevse closed as support were below 70%. None of the RFBs Rlevse closed as support were below 85%. Of those three admins I mentioned, 1 resigned (possibly under a RTV sort of deal), 1 was desysopped for inactivity, and the 1 that remains self-identifies as semi-active. Two of the closures had an extended rationale as it was closed under bureaucrat discretion. I'm not going to post names here to start a witch-hunt, but you get the idea. --Rschen7754 04:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose If there are issues with individual administrators, then those issues can be dealt with on an individual basis. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose, per Collect. Why don't we nullify every arbcom case Rlevse has ever voted in and delete every single page he ever edited, just to be on the safe side? Apologies for the sarcasm, but this proposal is pure overkill. --Conti|✉ 13:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC) here ya go .. ya can have that back too. Just un-freakin-believable — Ched :  ?  14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC) BTW .. "the admin. body"? .. wow .. I didn't even know such a thing existed. Sigh, I wonder why there's such a disconnect between folks here .. oh wait .. I've been reading for the last few days .. No .. I don't actually wonder. — Ched :  ?  14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose; process wonkery for process wonkery's sake. Per Collect, this attaches a presumption of stigma to editors who don't deserve it. Moreover, a blanket declaration like this would muddy the waters in the (decidedly unlikely, but not utterly inconceivable) event that further, more serious shenanigans are uncovered. It's a lose-lose proposal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Comment: I don't understand a word, not the words, not the spirit. The top of this page says "Are you in the right place?" - I doubt it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Comment - A reference to any admin's name as a plausible example of an admin who might "have their legitimacy questioned" should be stricken from this discussion and removed from edit history. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose. A flawed bureaucrat may nonetheless take actions that are not, themselves, flawed. His fall from grace doesn't mean we have to undo all of his works. Wikipedia does not need its own Donatist heresy. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BarkingMoon sock tagging

Related to the above section about Rlevse, Gerda Arendt has pointed out to me that User:Raul654 has just tagged User:BarkingMoon as a sock of Rlevse. Has it been established that this is the case? 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there was some suspicions that he was, but there was no solid evidence. In his departure statement, BarkingMoon vehemently stated that he was not Rlvese. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed it when they changed policy so that we just take a suspected sockpuppet's word that he's not a sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That principle was established in 2010: [38] [39] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone that denies that BarkingMoon is not a quacking gaggle of quackers clearly does not want to accept the obvious for some unexplained reason - Youreallycan 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Barkingmoon left and two days later Pumpkinsky (who admits he is Rlevse) appeared. That's hardly a coincidence. According to an arbitrator, Rlevse admitted that Barkingmoon was "associated" with him. Raul654 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So file an wp:spi. Nobody Ent 18:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The people that know already know - its so obvious as to not need a SPI - Tag him or not - thats also by the bye. Youreallycan 19:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An SPI was already filed. The arbitration committee refused to comment on the Barkingmoon-Rlevse connection at the time. Asked about this today, they said the evidence was inconclusive (there was some supporting it and some against it) and that we should rely upon behavioral evidence, which (in this case) is pretty clear-cut. Raul654 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already been an SPI; per that and the discussion at the arb page,[40] I can't think of any logical reason to deny the tag correctly applied based on both. If Rlevse is ready to move forward and be rehabilitated, disputing the tagging seems counterproductive. In addition to the curious article overlap mentioned by Geometry guy: [41] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? Some conduct is so obviously spawned by bias that credibility becomes victim. I've seen some of this and support it as detrimental. My76Strat (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The stalker tool is fun and all, but comparing the overlaps between PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky and me, and PumpkinSky and you, I'm not sure what it tells us exactly. 28bytes (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparing anybody with me via the stalker tool is useless, since there's pretty much no place I haven't been, and my fingers have been in just about every article to ever be on the mainpage. I overlap with everyone who edits. It's more helpful to use the tool to look at the specific edits within the articles identified (for example, in my case, you discover I almost always did some sort of cleanup when the article was at FAC or DYK or on the mainpage). Then explain that overlap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? - that's only true if the horse is actually dead. Other people here seem ready to welcome him back with open arms, in which case I want every last bit of his misbehavior documented. At least then all the paperwork will be in good order the next time he takes a dump on our porch and then declares he's leaving wikipedia forever. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is are only 30 similar pages. All of them DYK related, or AN/BN related. Many editors overlap on these places. I don't really see an strong evidence here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There are. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

you can lead a horse to water ...

• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=BarkingMoon&page=Noel+F.+Parrish&server=enwiki&max=
• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=PumpkinSky&page=Noel+F.+Parrish&max=100&server=enwiki

Tools. Sample. Perhaps that will help. Now, look at any of my overlap with anyone, and you'll find in almost every case that my edits are explained by FAC, DYK or mainpage presence, and usually amount to cleanup only, not content addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Get the facts straight. BarkingMoon is not Rlevse, but is associated in some way; on the other hand, Rlevse admitted to being PumpkinSky. Therefore...BarkingMoon is probably not Rlevse. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some of us do have our facts straight. Some of us don't believe everything we read, particularly when there are no conclusive facts. There is evidence, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC x 3) What I find sad is that editors are warring to remove the sockpuppet tag from the Pumpkin Sky userpage even though checkuser confirmed it was Rlevse [42]. Now what's that about bias and explanations for why the Rlevse sock categories weren't populated? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That as a good-faithed misunderstanding: the tag that was placed on the page claimed that the user was "blocked indefinitely" which hadn't been the case at the time. Amalthea 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the two accounts being two different persons is as probable as live brain cloning having been invented in Montana. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See also: [43] and [44], both of which concern the BarkingMoon/Rlevse connection.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're basically saying that someone spent a considerable amount of time studying Rlevse's mannerisms, topic interests, and grudges in order to impersonate him. I find that much less plausible than the alternative that he is simply Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in particular with:

The BarkingMoon account came to our attention in late June 2011, when we were asked to look into the open SPI on that account. The technical evidence regarding the account was ambiguous; while the CheckUser data was suggestive of a connection to Rlevse, it was inconsistent with other information available to the Committee. When directly asked about the BarkingMoon account, Rlevse denied that it was operated by him, and provided an alternative explanation that was consistent with both sets of technical data. The Committee was divided as to whether this explanation was sufficient; however, as we were discussing the matter, BarkingMoon left the project. Given that our (almost exclusive) focus at the time was dealing with the arbcom-l leaks—indeed, many arbitrators did not participate in the discussion regarding BarkingMoon due to concerns regarding the security of the mailing list—we did not pursue the matter further.
— User:Kirill 04:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not as adamant that they are "completely unrelated". Perhaps someone should resign their CheckUser bit for lack of professionalism? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at the edit summaries

On talk pages in particular. High similarity between BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky in the terse style, and particularly the use of "start" as edit summary for talk page posts [45] [46]. I've not seen other editors do that insofar. Maybe there are some who do, but on top of all the other correlations, it's highly improbable for it to be just a coincidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's as blatant a duck as if it were Daffy himself dancing around and teasing Porky Pig. The denials and overt bias are just sad. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel my tendency in this regard quacks as loudly? [47] My76Strat (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

False protagonist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Burpelson, the comments about "denial" and "bias" are completely unhelpful. What SandyGeorgia and ASCIIn2Bme are doing – providing evidence and analysis for us to look at – is helpful, and frankly pushing me in the direction of agreeing with the tagging. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a very small point, but they add up: My76Strat would fail as an obvious Rlevse impersonator on account of the frequent capital letters at the start of edit summaries, which none of the other accounts use. One would have to argue that this change was a deliberate deception... Geometry guy 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That and using full sentences like "Add comment to talk page". By the way, if anyone can imitate My76Strat's elaborate phrases on talk pages, I'd "buy" them a wiki-beer or two. I suspect User:Floquenbeam might succeed if they set their mind on the task, but few other have a snowball's change in hell of coming even close, no matter how hard they'd try. Some editors do have very distinctive on-wiki communication style. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It would not be such a stretch for me. :) I tend to write compressed but long sentences, often with moralistic or confessional asides! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another telling edit summary is "tks" used by both accounts. [48] [49] They also both refer to the DYK queues using the same notation e.g "q5", "q6" in the edit summaries [50] [51]. Another commonality is that both accounts use "ps" as edit summary when they append to an existing post [52] [53]. It's highly improbable that two random Wikipedians would exhibit all these commonalities. I'd very curious if anyone can find another account to match all these elements. That would take some database trawling, and I don't have a tool server account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Next, you start on these; it's not the number of articles where there is overlap (I overlap all over the place with everyone), it's the nature of the articles and the nature of the individual edits that you have to look at. There are some pretty obscure articles there that need examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's enough to note that BarkingMoon also had an interest in obscure places from Montana: [54]; more. The interest of PumpkinSky in that is well established. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Keegan: Isn't it correct that CU is not pixie dust? My understanding is that it can prove two accounts are used by the same person, but that it cannot disprove sock puppetry. In light of this recent thread, I came across circumstantial evidence that user:PumpkinSky used a proxy. Rlevse had CU rights and presumably knew how to evade CU detection. If someone uses a proxy server (open or closed) and a different computer then CU can't find them -- right?   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Add BarkingMoon to CCI?

Looking at the list above led me to this:

William Temple Hornaday (a scouting article, Rlevse territory, also edited by Rlevse)

• Source: [55]

• In 1885, President Theodore Roosevelt sensed that the buffalo would become extinct and sent Smithsonian taxidermist William Temple Hornaday to harvest buffalo specimens so that future generations of Americans may remember what the American buffalo looked like.

• Article:[56]

• Hornaday, working for the Smithsonian Institution, harvested specimens from the region in 1886 so that future generations would know what the buffalo looked like.

Also, 1885 became 1886 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sandy, if the source says Theodore Roosevelt was president in 1885, I have certain issues with it. But as the next sentence in the source says "With the help of the U.S. Army, Hornaday got his skins to the rail head at Miles City in the nick of time to avoid the historic blizzards of 1886." I think that's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Per this, the blizzard most likely being spoken of happened in November 1886.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you caught the logical error and found additional info that explains it before I came 'round again. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

""That is a copyvio? Not. [57] uses the same words. "Harvest" is the common term for game in those days so that is not of any special concern. And so I do not see the violation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You might find a thorough read of this Dispatch helpful; copyvio is not just a matter of looking at one or two words. At any rate, since there is strong behavioral evidence that the BarkingMoon and Rlevse accounts are operated by the same persons, the question remains: should someone look at BarkingMoon's edits and should BM be added to the CCI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Similarities etc.

(work in progress)

• Edit summaries:

  "tks" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

  "ps" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

  "q#" –

  Rlevse:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

• BarkingMoon:

1

• PumpkinSky:

1 2 3

• Page editing overlaps:

  Rlevse and BarkingMoon

  Rlevse and PumpkinSky

  BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky

  The three together

More to come. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Without tools: it's not so surprising that PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon overlap on Noel F. Parrish, after the former was asked to help improving the latter's article and then helped bringing it to GA. Abbreviations: I use "tks" and "appr" myself. You use what you see and like, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but look who asked him, user:Ched Davis. BarkingMoon said he confided his real identity to the only admin he trusted, Ched. In that light, the thread about Parrish does more to confirm that they are all the same user.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Which begets the question what Ched knew all along about the three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And you think he would ask male or female then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible he shared the newer account(s) with relatives/friends in order to confuse potential investigations. But clearly a subset of edits by all three accounts were performed by the same person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying that possibility. If a subset, which subset? Aren't the individual accounts at least as coherent within themselves as they are with each other? That suggests at most one editor (or main editor, but exceptional edits need to be identified as such) per account. The question is whether those three (main) editors were three different people: so far, we know that two were the same person, which is a huge clue towards understanding the third. Geometry guy 23:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd best address that question to people who introduce[d] evidence that subsets are strict. I have no such evidence. According to Raul654, John Vandenberg (speaking for the whole Arbitration Committee) said that BarkingMoon might be someone else because he seemed to know German and had a "completely different focus". [58] Furthermore, Arbitrator Risker said that "there was also some contradictory and pretty-well-impossible-to-fake technical evidence against" BarkingMoon being the same as Rlevse [59]. So ask ArbCom what contradictory evidence they have. Although I have presented evidence which indicates that at least some of the edits of BarkingMoon are very similar to those of Rlevse, I make no claim to have exhaustively checked all edits of BarkingMoon against those of Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The thread makes for very interesting reading with the benefit of hindsight (e.g., "Someone put a lot of work into that. Sorry about your friend." and "I'd rather people on the 'net know as little about me as possible."). Note also that Ched spotted PumpkinSky for working on a similar article to his departed friend, BarkingMoon. However this thread does not suggest that Ched thought PumpkinSky was BarkingMoon (unless they were both acting out a script, an assertion impossible to prove), and at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#stopping by, Ched has stated that to the best of his knowledge, BarkingMoon was "a former IP who registered". On the other hand Rlevse told Arbcom that BarkingMoon was related to him in some way. At the very least there is some economy with the truth going on here somewhere, if not outright lies. So far, it seems more likely to me that Ched was among the deceived, not the deceivers. Geometry guy 23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Add to the "coincidences" copious uses of just "oops" as edit summary [60] [61] [62]. And also "ref seq" [63] [64] [65]. BarkingMoon and Rlevese also used "punct bef ref" [66] [67] and "recycle" in conjunction with "ref" [68] [69] The fanbois need to call it quits at this point. I've found a few more rare and interesting ones, but I'm stopping here per WP:BEANS, in case he creates a new account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me add one more smoking gun to the evidence. BarkingMoon's 24th edit (as an obviously experienced editor) was this contribution to an ANI (!) thread about User:Damiens.rf where he commented "If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped."

Of course BarkingMoon couldn't stop Damiens.rf without help, but Rlevse certainly did. Geometry guy 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Which number the ANI edit was is even less impressive than the fact that it was made less than 3 hours after the BarkingMoon account was created. I think the wiki-phrase for that is "obvious sock is obvious". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have looked through the user talk history of Damiens.rf for some "Former IP" who might have been as interested in this as Rlevse was, but have failed to find a convincing match.

My opinion (based on my understanding to date) is that Rlevse created and edited the BarkingMoon account, but somewhere along the way he became trapped in one of his own lies. He could not come clean because it would undermine a lie that would be very damaging/embarrassing to him. So he dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole as BarkingMoon (explaining the very insistent denials towards the end) and had to quit. When he came back as PumpkinSky, he had learned a lesson: to keep the lies under control. Consequently, when challenged, he was able to admit to the lie, and did.

As ASCIIn2Bme notes, he may find these discussions rather informative, should he try to give it another go with a new account. Handling that possibility is the next challenge the community needs to face. Geometry guy 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, isn't it correct that Checkuser is not Pixie dust? My impression is that it can prove someone is a sockpuppet, but it cannot prove they aren't. Rlevse formerly had CU rights so he was aware of how to avoid being caught by it. Just today, in light of this discussion, I came across circumstantial evidence that PumpkinSky used a proxy at one time. Isn't it possible that BarkingMoon may have also been masked through the use of proxies, different computer agents, etc?   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about all of these questions. We're account specific here, so there's only so much I can say about technical details. What I can say is that the technical details returned from CheckUser make it highly unlikely that this was use of a proxy or a false useragent return. I'm very, very comfortable in saying that this is two different users editing from unique computers without even a veil of shade. I'm confident that BarkingMoon is a different individual from Rlevse. They may share an off-line or off-wiki connection and Rlevse may have educated the user on Wikipedia, but several other CheckUsers and myself found no probability that they are the same user based on the information we can gather, and this matter was extensively discussed when it occurred. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Again without tools, and from someone who joined only in 2009, so has no memory of old stories: Rlevse is on my talk 31 times, 30 of those were the signature of a DYK, the only other (and last) was pointing out that there was a question raised on DYK, you don't have to look it up, the question was if I really wanted a Bach cantata DYK among the Halloween ones. BarkingMoon entered my talk with a wordy lengthy greeting which I keep on top because it still keeps me going. It feels different. Rlevse signed "Peace", BarkingMoon didn't. Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As said above, it is not impossible that the account was shared, so that some edits were made by someone else. But other edits surely do have the Rlevse signature: topic interests (Montana places, railroad pics of Rlevese, immediate desire to vote in RfA/RfB/ban discussion on positions matching Rlevse's), tons of edit identical obscure summaries (plase find another editor matching all those discussed here, or just "punct bef ref") these can't all be argued away because he no longer signed with "Peace". That's extremely myopic. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It beggars belief that different people using completely different computers as you say can produce identical obscure abbreviations in such large numbers. Or that they hold the same rapport relative of a number of other users. Different computer does not necessarily imply different person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Mantamoreland use a similar method of having a "completely unrelated" DSL line in another city for his socks after his proxy editing was discovered? I find it very interesting that technical evidence is taken to be an absolute proof of innocence in the Rlevse case. Keegan, you will have to be somewhat more explicit as to what makes the evidence so exculpatory because the behavioral overlaps are similar in nature to those from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Cool Hand Luke. There are in fact more dimensions of correlation here than were presented there. We can even tell apart Rlevse from his wife by just analyzing the edit summaries, never mind topic interests. And I'm sure technical evidence would have the two confounded. I do have the nagging feeling that functionaries are not acting in an unbiased fashion here, and that old friendships are acting as a distorting lens. You can't comment on the behavioral evidence? Seriously? Is that never used in SPIs? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Threatening"? Seriously, what the fuck? I've watched this whole Rlevse issue for a couple of days now, and I consider myself quite apathetic as to who's right and who's wrong here, but both you and Raul have repeatedly misinterpreted comments from various editors disagreeing (or not entirely agreeing) with you to an absurd degree. Please, stop that. There was no threat involved in any comments above. None whatsoever. Saying that there was is just.. weird, quite frankly. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly Conti, since you're an admin, you might not be as acutely aware of how statements like "do not continue down this line of thought" are aimed at non-admins. They generally translate to: if you continue this line of thought, you will be blocked for disruption. Happens all the time, everywhere, particularly at the AN and ANI noticeboards, where non-admins don't have the same right to speak as admins. Yes, it's a threat, because that's how it's often used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you missed the part that says "...without taking that into consideration". I think it's pretty fair to take the results of CU's into consideration, and I think that's all that sentence meant. You are, of course, still free to disregard that (You cannot prove the negative, after all, and with enough effort it is always possible to avoid a checkuser), but I think it's certainly worth noting. Anyhow, I am perfectly sure no threat was intended here, and if you are blocked for saying that you think the above mentioned account is a sockpuppet of Rlevse, I will personally unblock you myself. --Conti|✉ 15:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned response, Conti-- I've been threatened many times, so I probably see it differently than you do, and I remain concerned that Keegan's statements here were strong enough to stifle any remaining investigation and discussion (which is still needed). For the record, I have little doubt that some cowboy freshly minted admin will be drummed up on IRC to block me over this whole matter, I could care less, and I do not EVER want another admin to unblock me when I'm unfairly blocked. If someone unblocks me, that will prevent me from going to the arbs lest they also came under fire. If/when some cowboy IRC admin blocks me for trying to get to the bottom of this, I want to stay blocked, so there's a clean case, no wheel warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I remain quite doubtful that you will be blocked over this in the first place. :) Time will tell, I suppose. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your statement is a detriment to you. It brings concerns of baiting and pointy editing directly to the fore. That is the danger of overzealous motives, which you seem to have identified. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, baloney-- that I get unfairly threatened based on zero evidence or policy or reason all the time-- because I'm a high profile editor-- is fact. Nothing baity or pointy at all in stating the fact for the record, so that someone won't unblock me if it ever happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I apologize if you felt threatened. My message was in no way meant to convey that, and Conti has summed up my position well. I don't do hostility or threats. My intention was to note that based on CU, there is nothing. Behavioral evidence stands as the subject. But as this topic has devolved to notice, the BM/Rlevse issue was six months ago and a red herring. I seemed to have sparked a passionate debate that is moot. That was not my intent. Keegan (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More: "u r": [70] [71], "hey" [72] [73], "rofl" [74] [75], "brit" and "yank" [76] [77] [78], "avoid redir" [79] [80], "after punct" [81] [82]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence is extremely strong, really. If it's not Rlevse then it's someone who has closely studied and is deliberately copying his editing habits, which seems extremely unlikely. There are many ways to produce false technical evidence to throw off checkusers. I could give all kinds of examples here, but WP:BEANS. Checkuser evidence can't establish completely that an account is NOT a sock of someone else and every time it's a judgement call in reading the results and interpreting them. In the face of obvious behavioral evidence, it is illogical to keep saying that checkuser technical evidence cleared him because that's not possible. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests

1. Can someone check if the Rlevse account edited articles of Playboy centerfolds? Because the BarkingMoon account surely was interested in that too. Alas, if you hit me with a list of Playboy model names, I wouldn't be able to recognize one in a hundred off the top of my head, so this sleuthing job is for someone else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Does anyone know anything about the relationships between Rlevse Δ/Betacommand and Damiens.rf? I'm asking because of this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I did randomly spot a nude model edit from 2008[83] but I only see one edit mentioning Playboy by name,[84] and it's not about a centerfold. Checking the actual centerfold names is hard because they're generally not articles. I don't see many likely ones in the edit comments but I didn't look closely. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Found a few more from early on:

• [85] See mention of models Donna Evans in diff and Lynn Thomas in edit summary
• [86] [87] Jayne Mansfield
• [88] Pamela Anderson
• [89] [90] [91] Deanna Brooks

67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't look like a topic of major interest for either account, but from the above and the first 20 or so edits of BarkingMoon, I tentatively conclude that both made minor content additions and gnoming in that area. Perhaps more of a reader than writer role. And both accounts disliked editors who wanted stricter inclusion standards for this stuff, as Geometry guy pointed out above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked for Penthouse Pets too. There's not much:

• 2010-07-10T21:57:45Z [92] Taylor Vixen in edit summary
• 2009-01-24T02:46:59Z [93] Traci Lords
• 2009-01-24T02:46:18Z [94] Traci Lords
• 2008-05-29T21:20:01Z [95] Jenna Jameson
• 2008-05-29T21:19:05Z [96] Jenna Jameson
• 2007-02-12T20:24:28Z [97] Jenna Jameson in edit summary Jenna Jameson
• 2006-11-23T13:01:55Z [98] Briana Banks in edit summary
• 2006-11-23T13:01:53Z [99] Briana Banks

67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way

Since we've been introduced to User:JoJo as the spouse of Rlevse, it's interesting to note that although she tks'd a couple of times [100] and also oopsed twice [101] (although one of those was an oopsy something that Rlevse never used [102] despite using oops more times than I can count), she never ps-ed (same link as before) or "recycled" [103] refs (in the edit summaries). So, even in the family, the edit summary patterns are different between JoJo and the other three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary addressing concerns over specificity

I understand the concerns that "this could be anyone" raised by Gerda Arendt. Granted a single correlation proves little if anything. But have look at the multidimensional one considering Gerda Arendt's edits as the witness:

String/pattern	BarkingMoon	Rlevse	Gerda Arendt	Comments
"tks"	Yes [104]	Yes [105]	Yes [106]
"appr"	Yes [107]	Yes [108]	Yes [109]
"oops" alone	11 of 12 [110]	240 of 296 [111]	1 of 6 [112]	Even that is not really alone in GA's summary.
"hey"	Yes [113]	Yes [114]	No [115]	Used on talk pages.
"rofl"	Yes [116]	Yes [117]	No [118]
"ps"	Yes [119]	Yes [120]	No [121]	Used when extending prior comment.
"ref seq"	Yes [122]	Yes [123]	No [124]
"punct bef ref"	Yes [125]	Yes [126]	No [127]	Also, a single use of "punct" ever by GA.
"recycle"	Yes [128]	Yes [129]	No [130]	Referring to refs. GA never used the word.
"u r"	Yes [131]	Yes [132]	No [133]
"brit"	Yes [134]	Yes [135]	No [136]
"yank"	Yes [137]	Yes [138]	No [139]
"avoid redir"	Yes [140]	Yes [141]	No [142]

Brought to you by ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

German

In the BarkingMoon SPI Arbitrator John Vandenberg said that BarkingMoon speaking German [143] is an argument against him being related to Rlevse "if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start, with a completely different focus and now demonstrating proficiency in German". [144] I think this was an error in judgement because CheckUser Amalthea stated with respect to the PumpkinSky investigation "I only remember talking to few people in German on my talk page, one of them was Rlevse" [145], a reminiscence brought up by this conversation. So, BarkingMoon speaking in German is an argument for rather than against him being Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume this is what Amalthea was referring to. Does that qualify as "proficiency"? I dunno, I don't speak the language. 28bytes (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Amalthea was closer to the truth upon writing "it was probably a native English speaker who also knows German". The aspect that matters to this discussion is that all three accounts – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, and PumpkinSky – used German one-liners to socialize on en.wiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have "used Deutsch" on occasion - and it means absolutely nothing - most literate folks know several languages to that degree. Collect (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, BarkingMoon's and Rlevse's German is about equally crappy. Very, very similar type and level of crappiness, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I never talked to one of them. BarkingMoon's German made me smile a lot, still does. PumpkinSky is proficient in understanding and translating (for example Guido Dessauer). - I can't compare, had no time to ever ask BarkingMoon for help with translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's more of a comparison of the German stuff:

• PumpkinSky:
  • [146] "Oder, man kann ein Admin-Freund zu fragen"
  • [147] "sind deine Ohren brennen? Bitte anschauen"
  • [148] "Ich auch verstehe nicht"
• BarkingMoon:
  • [149] "Guten Tag Gerda. Wie geht's?" [not precisely ungrammatical, but not very idiomatic either]
  • [150] "Sehr geehrte Gerda"
  • [151] "Ihre Arbeit ist grossartig. Weiter schreiben, eien lange Zeit. "
• Rlevse/Vanished 6551232
  • [152] "Danke"
  • [153] "wider noch einmal meine Fruendin"
  • [154] "Amalthea, ganz gut nicht wahr?"
  • [155] "Am besten, Amalthea auch eine "arbitratorin"."

All three accounts have the same pattern of using German for socializing with the same wikifriends. All three show the same poor grammar and the same level of unfamiliarity with German idiom, even in the use of simple stock phrases. I'd say it's as compelling evidence of their identity as you're likely to get.

By the way, if BarkingMoon was Rlevse, then in retrospect I feel rather pissed off about this [156] post, which in that case contained a blatant lie ("knowing nothing about this", said about an old Arbcom case where Rlevse was the drafting arbitrator). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As a German, I can confirm that the examples listed above are all pretty darn similar, and it wouldn't surprise me if they'd all come from the same person. --Conti|✉ 12:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised about "Guten tag" etc. being un-idiomatic (although I can believe it) since it's precisely what I was taught to say in highschool German class in the US. My guess is Rlevse's German is typical of people who studied some German but not enough to be fluent. There are lots of such folks out there. 64.160.39.72 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't look here on the weekend. Adding to your collection So du glaubst. So you think. "Guten Tag" is still the formal greeting of a stranger in Germany. My father used to say: "der Hauch eines Zweifels wäre wohl angebracht". A "whiff of doubt" were beneficial, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Is it really necessary to edit-war on User:BarkingMoon while this discussion is ongoing? 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest someone protects the wrong version. Geometry guy 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 01:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI

This investigation should be moved to SPI, I think. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? So, some Checkuser/Arbitrator can close it again as "disproved" by technical evidence? That was done once before, so no thanks. Let's establish the community consensus on this, after the evidence is presented. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with ASCIIn2Bme. This was already moved here from AN/I per WP:CBAN, moving it again is just going to confuse people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with ASCIIn2Bme. Too much conflicting information from checkusers, arbs, everyone involved-- CUs asserting as *fact* things that can't be conclusively known, arbs saying when CU evidence isn't clear to let the community decide on behavioral evidence, which is what is happening here. No, keep this open, let the folks examine the evidence (and let admins stop trying to close this off within minutes of new evidence coming to light). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Revise. Suggestion. Folks, editors who are so addicted to Wikipedia that they can't stop socking Will Be Back. The evidence is clear, but the more of it you put out here, the easier you make it for Rlevse to evade scrutiny the next time he socks. I've found several more tells, but I'm not going to say what they are, per WP:BEANS. We've got conflicting info from CUs, the arbs tossing it back to the community, a tight case here that the BarkingMoon account was at least partially operated by Rlevse, and a community of strange supporters who don't want to see the effects of his disruption-- that doesn't matter until/unless the next time he socks. So, I suggest putting out no more evidence now, since that will only make it easier for him to evade scrutiny. I suggest that we're done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is enough by now to prove whatever, though I don't even see what the proof accomplishes. Other sock operators besides Rlevse may have also been helped. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to tag BarkingMoon as a sock of Rlevse

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

---

This is another one of those situations where someone just needs to go and start the proposal and get it over with, to have a decision made in one direction or the other. So, here we go. Based on the copious amounts of behavioral evidence above and regardless of the technical evidence, I propose that the page of BarkingMoon is tagged as being a sock of Rlevse. Yay or nay? Silverseren^C 02:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra note: The point of this is really to have a community decision once and for all, rather than letting the above discussions go on forever. If this goes with no, as it seems to be, that's fine, but that also means we can zip up this entire discussion and go work on something else. Silverseren^C 06:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Morto-equine percussion. Seriously, why bother? We don't know if its absolutely true, and the editor is currently inactive anyway. If BM returns we can examine it closely. Until then all this impassioned argument and evidence gathering is largely pointless. Manning (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Manning Bartlett nailed it right off the bat. My76Strat (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Manning. Begoon ^talk 03:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support based on convincing behavioral evidence. This tagging is important for recording Rlevse's conduct. BarkingMoon – whether Rlevse's associate or sockpuppet – is probably not coming back, but Rlevse likely will. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• We vote on such things now? That's pretty messed up. 28bytes (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And !voting on whether to label an account as a sock? Seems past being "odd" from here! Collect (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is silly to vote, either the SPI uncovered it or not. Also Morto-equine percussion. I agree. User was here a short amount of time, minimal impact. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't dig holes in the equine-blood-soaked-ground. Do something useful, people. Alarbus (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • SNOW this one for mercy's sake. When the page gets protected because of tagging, it's time to move on for a bit. Doc talk 06:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was called a witness on this page, I don't have to say more, right? (Adapting from Rlevse:) Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely - although I don't agree with voting on it - User:BarkingMoon was and is an account controlled by and edited by the same person that controlled the Rlevse account - the investigated contribution history is absolute proof. Why the user is receiving such loyalty is beyond me - the account is totally disruptive and has gone native. - The user does not see close paraphrasing as a problem and will continue to repeats such editing in its next sock account. Youreallycan 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse 'loyalty' with a belief that 'a lot of effort is being wasted'. I have no loyalty, but I think the huge amount of nitpicking above does nothing to deal with the risk of future disruption (which I think we all agree IS a genuine issue). Just my opinion though. Manning (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Collect and Alarbus. The user is blocked since July 2011 as per a self requested block and do not think will return .Please let us leave it without a tag and move on. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Next time when someone complains of double standards for behavior on Wikipedia, I'd be less inclined to dismiss them off the bat. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• You got that part :) The work you did was excellent, ASCII, in spite of some misplaced loyalty and other stuff up above: perhaps I can convince you to help on another case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's ridiculous that some people are using the claim that there's no tagged sockpuppets to argue he's not sockpuppeting, and then those same people argue against tagging patently obvious sockpuppets like this one. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And the first shall become last.[157] Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It appears to me to be a sock per the KB of behavioral evidence above. Tag it like any other sock. Why should it matter that the account is inactive? If a sockpuppeteer abandons a sock account it is still tagged, generally. This allows people to keep track of sockuppets for months and years down the line after discussions have ended and people with immediate and cleark knowledge of said puppeteer have moved on. Simple bookkeeping, really. Night Ranger (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• lmFao ... sure .. by all means. If it makes the 'pedia a better presentation to the public, then of course we should do this. This indeed would encourage people to join us in building a vast storage of knowledge. All those "this user was banned" tags most certainly would make any new editor feel like we are such a warm and welcoming group of people. whatever. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding, if I may: I consider the user page of BarkingMoon as exemplary: clear, informative, presentable. Readers of his articles want to know about its author and his work, not see a tag. - Everyone concerned can just keep a watch on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Manning. Everyking (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ched Davis. I could say it again, but that'd be kinda pointless, wouldn't it? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The account is either a sock or it isn't. What the hell does this vote accomplish? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock template - user friendly?

Am I the only one that thinks this isn't user friendly? I know that I occasionally stumble upon someone who hasn't been able to make it work and always have to find an example before I can fix it. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No you're not :) I've often found that especially for new users unfamiliar with wiki-markup as well as site policy (perhaps explaining their block) the unblock request is malformed. I'd be amazed if we haven't missed a significant number of unblock requests simply because the template has been used incorrectly or not at all. What the solution would be I don't know - maybe a preload template and a button to create the appropriate edit section in block notices? EyeSerene^talk 11:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Like what we have to contest speedy deletions? That might work. And I may be the dumbest admin around, but I have a hard time responding to unblock requests. Maybe I don't do it often enough, but I have to reread and relearn the instructions every time. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be the dumbest admin around^Disputed  Chzz  ►  19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• shouldn't blocking admins be keeping an eye on a user's talk page after they've blocked them? — Ched :  ?  21:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it's not required for sure and if I had every user talk page on my watchlist then I'd have... A lot, I guess. Plus it doesn't do much good, it's not like you can decline an unblock for someone you yourself blocked, so you aren't really the best person to review unblock requests in the first place. -- Atama頭 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I only watch a small percentage of user's I've blocked, but a lot of my blocks are username-based so they are pretty cut and dried. I really like the idea of having some soret of automatic thing like they have for appealing speedy noms, we just need a coding guru to sort it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be useful to have a prominent link to {{help me}} or {{admin help}} in the message displayed to blocked editors? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Any experienced user is going to be able to use the unblock template. Any inexperienced user is just going to create another account. And unless they do something egregious and so are picked up by checkuser, no one will ever know, so it doesn't matter. Egg Centric 15:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That is really not the case. Brand new users request unblock every day. You can tell they really are new because of the ridiculous reasons they give for wanting to be unblocked, such as one I just saw today where a blocked user was arguing that he needed to be able to control the article on the company he worked for because his boss told him to. But we do also see a lot of users who badly mess up the unblock request process, failing to state a reason, using he wrong template, that sort of thing. I'm sure this can be fixed, we just need the right nerd to step up and do the necessary coding. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just found out that my post saying the same thing got caught up in an edit conflict. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But it still doesn't matter. If they don't get a response they will just create a new account, they won't sit around for months awaiting one. Promise you. And any exception to that is so irredemably stupid that we don't need them editing. Egg Centric 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The db-templates have a nice big button, which adds a new section to the talkpage with a pre-programmed part. Would that be an option here? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like this? User:Madman/Sandbox (Obviously the editintro and preload would need to be tweaked.) — madman 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks relatively moron proof. I think the biggest problem, though, is the way that you can't put whatever you like in the unblock request reason... some things need to be formatted, such as quote marks. How is your average good faith inexperienced user who has done something foolish enough to end up blocked to cope with that? Egg Centric 21:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? I just previewed an unblock request with quotes in the reason and see no problem. — madman 22:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I had a feeling there was a problem but can't reproduce it, and I forget exactly what the problem was. Could someone block me please, using a template (that is important, possibly) or whatever - i.e. use a template block message and so on, cause I'm sure there was a problem with that but forget what it is. Then please unblock me with a note that the block was experimental. Meanwhile, I will attempt to try to reproduce whatever the problem was, on a user sandbox page. Cheers Egg Centric 22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually don't worry about it - I tried a bunch of things and I couldn't produce a problem. I am sure there was a problem once, but it isn't there any more. Have speedy-tagged the sandbox page I was using... Egg Centric 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So, yes, it's possible, but I predict we'll need a good amount of consensus there's a problem with the current template before we can change it to something like this. AN seems like the right place for this, but maybe the VP also? — madman 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, I really should have provided the example - see [158]. I've seen editors do this before. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Madman's prototype is a huge improvement over what we already have. Even if it's not completely foolproof, it's a large step in the right direction. EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attack

Resolved

 – Vozce is blocked as a CU confirmed sock of Satt 2 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 03:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. Please see this user's contribution. The user was warned for breaking three-revert rule but still keeps vandalizing and edit warring our History of Georgia (country) page. And yesterday he/she made a personal attack in an edit summary. Looks like this user is here only for vandalizing. –BruTe ^Talk 08:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Before I look further ... I'll assume you have actually advised the user that you have reported them here, as per the big orange box when you edit this page? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I have not looked at it. Thanks. –BruTe ^Talk 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

One of brute's apparent friends mentioned my mother in a bad context on my talk page in Georgian so I'm the one under assault of couple of editors. They work like gangs, changing my edit one after another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you give a diff about that "bad context"? I can't really find it.. And you were warned for breaking 3RR rule but was continuing edit warring. That's all. –BruTe ^Talk 08:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

none of the involved users ever warned me of any rules, they just deleted my explained cahnges, including you. You did not even bother to notify me that you were giving me a bad name here until you where asked to. You seem so concerned about preserving the nonsense a blocked user put in the Georgia template that I am thinking that all of your gang is one and the same user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on caste articles and more

Every editor who has ANI oh his watchlist must know this: articles about Indian castes are particularly sensitive. Unhelpful edits and general disruption (POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks etc.) permeate the entire topic area and it is difficult for admins to successfully keep all this in check. For this reason, I'm asking the community to impose the standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages (changed to "pages" from "all articles and templates" on 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)) about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc., explictly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Diffs of assorted disruption can be provided upon request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Edited to specify countries. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Castes are one thing, and political parties are another thing entirely. Can you explain your reasoning for including the latter in your proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio has been chatting with me and others on my talk page. Many of the political parties are caste-based. The classes listed above have been taken from my suggestion. I've no idea how widely the "article" term applies, but I intended it to include related templates also. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just added templates to my proposal. The reason I included political parties is because Sitush suggested they should be, because they're often caste based, as he says here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics is very much linked to caste equations, and I think this sanction is needed there as well. Lynch7 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While I accept your points about the linkage between caste and political parties, I can't help feeling that this is nevertheless over-extending things a little. Effectively, you'll be putting all discussion of party politics within the subcontinent under discretionary sanctions, and I think we'd need to be certain that this is really necessary before proceeding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I've been leaning towards this for some time. I dislike the concept of such sanctions but "needs must". NB: I was involved in pre-proposal discussions, per my link above. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is a much needed sanction, regrettable as it is. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: It would make sense if you link to evidence of some disputes and tenacious editing, so that participants who are unaware of this can analyze the proposal appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the recent need for semi-pp at Template:Caste Groups of India (Kongu_Vellalar); practically everything that has gone on at Ezhava, Nair and Yadav during the last 12 months. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kongu Vellalar has a long history (along with the associated SPIs). Lynch7 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rajput, for a long time but just since Christmas will suffice for an example (includes socks). - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support.This is needed.Pernoctator (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - far too many petty disputes regarding this arise time & time again, and it's time we nipped it in the bud. GiantSnowman 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Can we say "pages" instead "articles and templates", as well as "general sanctions" instead of "discretionary sanctions"? Minor bureaucratic wording for the latter (DS is generally limited to ArbCom sanctions), but the former is important, I think. NW (Talk) 18:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the former, go ahead, I have no objections. Regarding the latter, if they are basically the same thing, again I have no objections. I just had never heard about "general sanctions". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Pages" is no big deal; WP:General sanctions seems to be rather more than WP:Discretionary sanctions, eg: 1RR. Am I misunderstanding? - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• General sanctions does not include 1RR unless an administrator specifically imposes it. The two are identical except for the process by which someone is sanctioned. There is a dedicated noticeboard for discretionary sanctions, but that is "owned" in a sense by the Arbitration Committee and community-based sanctions like the ones being proposed here generally are discussed elsewhere if it is not a unilateral decision. NW (Talk) 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fine by me, then. I was a bit concerned about 1RR because of the number of new users who edit this type of article, coupled with the availability of admins who take an interest. It doesn't matter how manner notices appear at the top of an edit box, newbies in my experience tend to dive right in there. I can see the day when 1RR might become necessary but it would be nice to feel our way forward here. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Actually, I like the concept of "discretionary sanctions", meaning that any admin can unilaterally impose a sanction on someone disrupting Wikipedia after warnings have proven to be useless... And I believe that the community has the power to impose them just as much as the Arbitration Committee... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Woah, I am lost now. One person seems to be saying that the two are for all intents and purposes the same, barring a reporting issue, and another appear to be saying that there is more to it. This is above my (non-admin) pay grade but it seems clear to me that some sort of consensus-based clarification is required. I've read both pages and, as with my comment about 1RR above, there are substantive differences in the wording. Help! - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dumber than the average bear: I have remained blissfully ignorant of the whole area of discretionary sanctions, and having read the page linked above, I'm not reassured that I want to continue to work on restoring featured articles to status at the WP:FAR pages of articles like Kolkata until I understand what exactly the issue is. I've been questioning a lot of the text at Kolkata as part of the FAR and there are currently three Indian articles at FAR: would some kind person please explain on my talk page or here explicitly and directly what I have to be aware of and avoid? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, is what you are talking directly related to castes? :) Lynch7 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  ummm, I don't think so, in the case of Kolkata text, but it could be in other cases, so generally, what is the issue I need to be aware of? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• POV-pushing, usually in an attempt either to glorify or denigrate a social group; edit-warring generally; repeated insertion of unsourced content/OR etc; repeated violations of BLP re: ethnicity/religion; absurd and extreme personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries ... that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's all I needed to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Badly needed. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support; a glance at Talk:Burki should tell you about all you need to know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support but it would be even better if only bastards get the sanctions - I took a look at Burki as suggested by Northern Lights and that is disgusting. Yeah, NPOV and all that... but per my long standing opinion that wikipedia has to stand up for certain values, could admins please do yer best to work within the rules to cut a user who appears to be trying to get rid of the hate more slack than the primitive shits that cause this problem in the first place. Egg Centric 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• That would be me, then. Not the primitive shit, but the other fella.<g> - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you need to refactor this Egg Centric. It's pretty hard to convince users in these articles that we are dealing fairly with them when editors are calling them "primitive shits". Completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A fair treatment for bigots is far more than a block. The misery they create is enormous. I appreciate that a fair number, if not majority, of the peopel they are harming are also bigots, but this is a developing world problem. Of course they are not shits, they are merely primitive peopel acting like shits. The ones who are not primitive are in fact shits, for then they have no excuse. Egg Centric 22:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my levity. I think that AniMate does actually have a fair point. Caste is an extremely difficult concept to grasp if you are outside the system. To those who are then, sure, it has the appearance of bigotry etc but it is a way of life. I do occasionally boil over because (I think, and in the en-Wikipedia sense) I can see the wood for the trees but obviously if you are living in that situation then all you see are trees. My lighthearted comment was inappropriate. I had just had "one of those days" dealing with the fall-out. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that any discretionary sanctions need to be applied carefully, as we have some editors doing great work in that area against the POV pushers and we don't want them chased away. AniMate 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I avoid areas like those in question, yet I still see the fallout from the POV warriors. As mentioned by AniMate, admins should go to some extra trouble when confronted with an established editor who is supporting Wikipedia's principles—rather than a quick block, please tell them clearly on their talk page (without the official warning) that they must stop for a day or two to avoid sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support except that like AndytheGrump, I do not support putting political articles under the sanctions. Yes, some political parties in India are explicitly linked to caste groups, but many are not. To me, that would be like putting US political articles under sanctions because of the existence of the American Third Position Party. As for the general question of why...these articles are just a minefield. The primary problem comes from people in Group X, who want to assert that their Group is descended from high ranking castes, which are themselves descended from high ranking kings, who may very well be descended or related to Gods (this is not an exaggeration--much of the arguments on Yadav (modern group) is whether or not they are directly connected to the Yadava (ancient group) which was mythically founded by Yadu, from whom Krishna is said to be descended). Now, including mythical claims are fine (so long as the mythical connection is covered in reliable secondary sources, and the fact that it's a mythical claim is fine), but the problem is that many editors in these groups refuse to allow anything else in the article, including reliable sources attributing less glorious histories to these groups. Thus, Sitush in particular is often accused of very very heinous things, because he's insisting that our articles actually say what reliable sources say, as opposed to what people may have been taught since they were very young. And there's really nothing we can do in many cases to ease problem editors into Wikipedia's culture; some have, and have become great editors (or at least functional ones), but some are simply unwilling to adjust to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In many ways, the area is very similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in that one's fundamental world view may simply make one unable to interact comfortably with our rule set. Discretionary sanctions will help (if enforced) keep out the worst of the POV warriors, and allow us to more quickly say, "Please adjust, or please find another site to edit on". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as it's used with due diligence and caution. Anything that assists our productive editors in this sensitive and contentious area is a positive move. EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Caste related articles have stirred up almost unbelievable amounts of shit, and I'm honestly kind of amazed that sitush and the other productive content editors we have in the area have stuck on through it. Discretionary sanctions would be a good way to cut down - somewhat - on the amount of drama involved with this article set. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:KimvdLinde: Canvassing, disruptive editing, false polling, etc.

Woops, posted to wrong page; moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:KimvdLinde: Canvassing, disruptive editing, false polling, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please delete copyvio picture

Please delete copyvio picture File:Aryan shiva ravi.jpg, deleted before twice as copyvio--Musamies (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Can you point to the earlier uploads? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In the history of page Pan parag ravi aryan.--Musamies (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

Case summary can be seen here

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist has requests dating back to December, which I don't think have been actioned. Could someone please take a look. Cheers.  Chzz  ►  10:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reposting; was archived without response on 31 Jan [159]  Chzz  ►  12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump  Chzz  ►  13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump  Chzz  ►  18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC) (Have I gone invisible?)

Speaking for myself only, it's not that you're invisible, it's that the page seems pretty incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already frequent it. A note on the talk pages of a few admins who you know have worked there before might lead to better results than a note at AN. Although it's possible the problem is just that I'm the dumbest admin around... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Same here... I'm sorry I can't be of help, but can't make heads or tails of that page... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll thumbwrestle you both over the "dumbest admin" title. I think I'd do more harm than good at that page. I consider myself reasonably competent at most admin duties but some things I just don't trust myself with... The spam blacklist, proxy checking, rangeblocks, obscure image copyright questions, etc. -- Atama頭 20:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I just brought this back in the hope that someone competent in this area can take a look. -- Atama頭 17:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the regex behind the spam blacklist (and I've added a couple shock sites to it before), but I'm not certain when "spamming" becomes "too much spamming". Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Reduced block requested for Doncram

Per the discussion on User talk:Doncram and the positive casual support (17 votes: 11 yea vs. 3 nay, and 3 abstains), and that given the circumstances we request that the length of Doncram's block be reduced to time served, or to 6 weeks (unblock on Saturday, 11 February 2012) as the six month block is being used contrary to point #3 of Blocks should not be punitive: that it is a punishment not befitting the events which transpired. There is some concern among the dissenting vote regarding Blocks should be preventative, but is felt by the majority that this is being applied more against the user in question than this particular incident. In short, Doncram is in this case is similar to a parolee whom has served two sentences for grand theft auto, but is then caught stealing a pack of gum and is incarcerated for 20 years. Some say the point of escalating blocks is to change behavior. To which, I would respond: if there is no context in the doling out of "punishment", said punishment does not fulfill any purpose. Here the edit war was between two editors with a long adversarial history on article that was newly created. Both editors should have known better, and both were blocked, which is fine. What is not right is that Doncram's block is being applied without regard as to why the situation happened. Thank you & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, mostly just restating here what I already posted on my talk page when I was asked about the block.

I've noticed that Doncram (talk · contribs) hasn't even posted to their own user talk page since Jan 21st - and their edits at the time seemed more focused on justifying their violation of WP:EW. Before I can support an unblock request (with or without conditions), I need to see evidence that the user is willing to take ownership for their own actions and that they have a plan for how to disengage in the future before their editing might again escalate to the same conclusion in a content dispute. I wouldn't have escalated to the 6 month block myself ... I probably would have placed a 3 month block. However, once the block is in place, any question of unblocking or reduction of a block begins to hinge around the question of if the behavior is likely to recur. If I see evidence that they are taking ownership for their own actions and can demonstrate their respect for site policies by suggesting behavior changes or even unblock conditions that would reduce the likelihood of their disrupting Wikipedia again in the future - then I would support reducing the block, possibly even removing it. The problem is that, as yet, I'm not seeing that on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All of which is fair. Doncram just posted on his talk that he will reply in the next couple of days. Thank you again, Markvs88 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion required

Can someone please undelete File:Fortsaginawscotts.jpg? The file was labeled as "unused" because someone redirected the corresponding article, Fort Saginaw Mall, in bad faith. I'd like the image back because it's a non-free historic image of a building that no longer exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is currently backlogged and needs admin attention. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some help needed on Men's rights

Per this request on my talk, which I keep managing to not get around to and don't foresee getting to in the near future, would any admins be interested in trying to wrangle the situation going on on Men's rights and its talk? The article is under a custom-crafted article probation, and it seems to need near-constant uninvolved-admin eyes refereeing what goes on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cybermud's problematic behavior has continued - it would be appreciated if an admin could step in and look at it. Referring to another editor as a princess seems to be a pretty damn egregious violation of the terms of probation. Kevin (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As does this soapbox rant which has reached Godwin's law standards, as well as unsourced claims that certain BLPs are "misandrists". This editor has already been topic banned once for battleground behaviour by User:Killerchihuahua

[160], but it seems to be continuing. --Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC) 

I just placed him under a one-month topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For starters, I'm not aware of BLP issues regarding talk page comments or there being a need to source personal comments in talk pages when they are directly tied to the article (and its sources.) In any case, with regard to Michael Kimmel there was aWP:RS that he is misandric in his own article.. or at least there was.. you removed it , and its source, right about the same time you posted this comment. Neither of which, of course, has anything to do with the article Men's Rights even though Sarek has, apparently, taken you at your word and used it as justification for topic-banning me from a separate article (citing something about BLP.) Also, fyi, Godwin's law applies to comparing opponents to Hitler, not making analogies, which directly compare nothing and no one to Hitler or Nazi Germany, to illustrate a point. A not so fine line but you seem very willing to split hairs with me, as can be evidenced by a long edit history between us that you choose not to mention in your assessments of my editing behavior.--Cybermud (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog

There is a backlog to clear at WP:RPP, with one article (Digital divide) in desperate need of an indefinite semi.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

An overall concern about AN and ANI

(relocated from AN/I - Manning (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

I have just returned to editing after a few days of being mostly offline due to real-world commitments. In the course of catching up on my arbitration e-mails, my attention has been drawn to several current and recent AN and ANI threads. As I usually do when I'm on one of those pages, I have skimmed through the various other open threads as well.

I do not want to focus on any one particular thread and certainly not on any one particular user, but my overall impression of what has been going on on these pages is a negative one. To an even greater extent than one would expect on the pages primarily devoted to Wikipedia's backroom arguments and disagreements, I believe there has been a completely excessive amount of name-calling, repetitious rhetoric, trolling, accusations of trolling, harassment, unproductive piling-on, arguments about unimportant things, and generally unpleasant and damaging behavior. All of this is quite unhelpful and even counterproductive to our shared goal of building a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Of course, I am not calling out everyone who participates on AN and ANI frequently or who has participated recently. The comments by many editors to the various threads have been useful and in good faith. But there also seems to be far more than the usual amount of nonsense. I was an "ANI regular" for a couple of years before I became an arbitrator, and I remember lots of unpleasant threads. But I certainly do not remember the atmosphere's being quite as toxic as this.

I would welcome other people's thoughts on this situation. Please note that discussion of this thread may belong on the talkpage, but I'd appreciate this post's remaining here so people will see it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It rather belongs at WP:AN, because it is not an incident - though perhaps with a link from here. Geometry guy 01:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a tad surprised you're just now realizing this, NYB; it's been a very long time since you frequented these pages, and the childish environment on this page has everything to do with the civility arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I was well aware before tonight that the tone on AN and ANI is often bad; my point is that in my experience it has rarely been this bad, and that it seems to be getting worse. As for its having been awhile since I frequented these pages, suffice it to say that I've probably spent wayyy too much of my wiki-life on a set of pages that may be equally God-forsaken as this one.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It varies, from simple swiftly dealt with incidents, to boomerangs, to vicious long term feuds and harassment. It cleaned up a few months back, but it varies... Of note some users only come here to put the boot in. We generally ignore them, we should probably block them too. Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

The fact that we're arguing debating NYB's point being brought up here goes to his argument. As a non admin and avid follower (mostly reader of AN/I, BLPN, Jimbo's page, and other high-profile boards} I will at least say that NYB has a good point, and that more should be done to make this the "encyclodpedia that anyone can edit." That is unfortunately not the case so much these days, and deserves some thoughtful discussion. Though, by the same logic above, I'm not sure this is the board in which to have that discussion. 71.195.156.105 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, that was me above. His point was so close to my own feelings that I jumped the gun a posted without looking at my login status. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wrote this yesterday to a thread above (now hidden, thank goodness), and it seems to fit, however late: Comment: I don't understand a word, not the words, not the spirit. The top of this page says "Are you in the right place?" - I doubt it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"our shared goal of building a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia"

Our what? Isn't that a blocking offence by now? I would support NYB's observation here. Caring about an encyclopedia seems to be the last thing anyone gives a damn about. It's so much more fun to slate a bunch of well-written articles for deletion, because there's a way to construct a policy-based reason to do so, regardless of the relative values of the end results. Even the WMF has given up on the encyclopedia - the farce of WP:IEP instead favours "more new editors, at any cost (including the cost of losing established editors)".

Just what is the point, when the encyclopedia goal has been thrown so far away? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is why a lot of admins and most editors never, or rarely come to these pages. I was so busy on the 'pedia I almost forgot they existed until I was forcefully reminded. One reason I come here is to try and prevent people being maltreated, but with only modest success I fear. Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

My comment here probably pertains to this: [161]. Begoon ^talk 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I try to help out at ANI sometimes. You'll see me above in a couple of places. But many discussions I stay out of because I just don't want to get involved. It's the same reason why I stay out of a lot of nationalist disputes (DIGWUREN sorts of things, etc.). I get a headache reading them, let alone actually trying to get involved in them. -- Atama頭 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I loathe ANI and avoid it all costs, only coming here if I find it necessary, and even then I feel like my time is wasted. I cannot ever remember leaving a thread in which something productive came of it. Most often, if I have a problem and I come here, it's likely I'll be blamed for whatever problem I have by editors who have no idea what they're talking about. Very serious problems get sidetracked by pointless banter, engaged by chronic posters whose time is spent primarily here. It frustrates people who come here looking for help. There is no central focus on what to get done, just a jostling of personalities. There are ways to change this, but I am unsure people actually want that to happen. --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your last point is likely to be a significant factor, yes. A drama board will attract people who like drama, and they will be unhappy if that is taken away. Good things can, and do, happen at ANI, and many frequent posters contribute enormously positively. But the atmosphere is atrocious, and there often seems little sense of purpose, focus, or control. About the only thing I can think of that would "save" the current format is clerks with authority - but honestly, a drama board is just that, so a complete rethink should not be off the table, either. Begoon ^talk 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have full empathy with NYBrad's sentiments though I am at a bit of a loss to what exactly is the proper remedy. I think it's pretty obvious that AN/I has been taken over by some professional drama mongers. The ratio of legitimate complaints to pointless drama has quickly converged to zero. Anyway, the following suggestion is only one-fourth tongue in cheek: put Sandstein in charge of it and give him the powers to police it. It will be cold, impersonal, and detached but it will also be fair, judicious and impartial, with no nonsense tolerated. Like I said, I'm almost serious.VolunteerMarek 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be wildly unpopular, but, you know, if we didn't have articles about living people, or existing companies, at all on this site it would quickly solve a lot of problems. But god forbid we don't have a Barak Obama or Microsoft article, even though they can "write" their own history in the course of things. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about an encyclopedia project that has had to have Arbitration cases filed about the usage of dashes vs. hyphens. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And one about date [de]linking, and now one about capitalization of birds' names (there's parallel ANI thread about that right now). I guess most people outside Wikipedia wouldn't give a flying fuck about these issues. So, I don't know why some are so surprised that the drama boards get owned by petty disputants. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Marek:That's not the first time I heard that idea. Without discussing individuals, what you are suggesting is clerking. I can support that and be totally serious. Begoon ^talk 02:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then let's consider it seriously. How would you suggest clerks get chosen?VolunteerMarek 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't thought it through very much yet. I think they would either need to be admins, or there would need to be a formal mechanism to enforce their clerking decisions, to avoid them being toothless. Other than that, some community selection process would probably need to be created. I haven't thought much further than that. There'd need to be some sort of RFC, so details would get hashed out there, I imagine. Begoon ^talk 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Makes sense. Other problem is: how many people would actually *want* to be AN/I clerks. Would you want to police this sorry mess? I sure as hell wouldn't. The idea that is good in theory might fall on its face in practice.VolunteerMarek 03:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. I think there might be enough volunteers, but I could easily be wrong. Unlike you, I would be prepared to try it, though I'm sure I might come to regret it. I also don't think I'd be particularly suitable, my calm can be dislodged. But since I also prefer it to be admins really, I would also prefer to be ineligible. :-) (that's my excuse) Begoon ^talk 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Solution, in 6 easy steps:

1. Do not try to change AN/ANI. Inertia will prevent it.
2. Create WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Grownups (WP:AN/G).
3. WP/G is moderated by admins who have demonstrated maturity. That's not me, obviously, but I know it when I see it so I can help pick them.
4. Anyone who wants to actually try to solve a problem requiring admin tools can post there.
5. Moderators strictly enforce decorum and productive comments, more strict than CIVIL/NPA/etc. 1 warning, then you're page banned. If you're page banned, you have to go to ANI if you have a problem.
6. Since this operates in parallel with other noticeboards, we aren't forcing the solution on others. If you don't think it's a good idea, don't go there.

Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost perfect, but how do we advertise the distinction to newbies?

• Click here for all the fun of the traditional "ANI" experience, or...
• Click here to talk to mature people who want to get things done.

And here, it's me who's "almost serious", because I recognise the seriousness of the inertia issue. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Or we could always just delete ANI...95% of the time it's more Wikipedia:Place to bitch and moan anyways. Save AN for the real important admin stuff (block reviews, ban proposals), and let the rest of the noticeboards deal with the other issues. Goodness knows we have enough to deal with it, but ANI has become a free-for-all. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI is quite entertaining, so don't change a thing. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could just, as a policy, refuse to comment on any threads (and disallow anyone else from doing the same), unless and until the poster makes a serious attempt to talk about the problem with those involved. That would get rid of, I don't know, half the threads? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a former Arbcom clerk, I think the rules and procedures that have been developed there would easily migrate to this proposed new AN/G. Clerking is very effective when it is (a) completely impartial and (b) ruthlessly intolerant of incivility (employing a system of warnings, page bans and at last resort blocks to enforce page bans). Once people know the ground rules, it is surprising how quickly/easily people adapt. Manning (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, in your opinion, would it migrate as easily to ANI, assuming the inevitable, considerable inertia could be overcome? I know it's a huge assumption, but we're theorising here anyway. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Begoon - in theory it certainly could. We simply post a banner saying "Here are the new rules, and here are the clerks who will enforce them". After that we'll all get in our faster-than-light cars and go visit the unicorns. Manning (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Nice dream for a minute or two, though. Begoon ^talk 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Or how about just all admins avoid the Alphabetsoup? That's one thing that kills feedback from "non-regular" users. Simply provide clear links to what you're taling about. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm....soup. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You've just killed your chances of becoming a Sysop, Steven Zhang. Bidgee (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I like soup or because I dislike drama? People get too wound up at AN and ANI. I don't think a light hearted, jokey comment is bad. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread should be closed or moved to AN (which has since happened) or ANI talkpage. It's sorta becoming bloggish anyways. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem with these noticeboards is precisely that sort of comment—people raise a perfectly legitimate issue, and we end up debating whether or not the concern was raised in the appropriate venue. If somebody raises a good point, we should discuss it regardless of which particular noticeboard they posted it on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HJ - I couldn't agree more. I moved it only because I could see the inevitable argument coming on. That kind of pettiness is part of the entire problem IMO. And Steven, I also like soup. Manning (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've been saying for several years now, ANI should be nominated for deletion. It was created at a time when we didnt have specific noticeboards to deal with specific issues, and now that we do, ANI has outlived its purpose and its usefulness. More importantly, ANI encourages an anti-wiki, anti-community, unfriendly atmosphere, where we are made to believe that we are powerless as individuals to solve our own problems no matter what the status of our user rights may be, and that has always been dangerous. We need to seriously recognize that elevating people based on user rights has always been divisive and goes against the precepts of what this place is supposed to be and how it should function. Anything that separates us from each other, that creates and maintains artificial boundaries, and that suggests that we can't handle our business without a divine authority with admin rights is something that we don't need. We need to encourage personal responsibility and growth, and stop treating people as if they are on trial or need to have a babysitter. The priorities and values espoused by ANI have been FUBAR for some time now. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

After a long, hard day at the office I read ANI and AN in order to get a good laugh. The amount of nickpicking, petty arguing, and otherwise general incivility that exists in astonishing. It's also pretty funny to observe. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

From my quote wall:

“ Another idea I had to reduce the sometimes more heat than light situations that sometimes occur here [on ANI] and pile ons etc is to have on each thread opened here a random article for improvement atatched to the thread and anyone wanting to comment in the thread here would first have to make an improvement edit to the random nominated article. ” — Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

--Guerillero | My Talk 05:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see, is that we seem to have too much trouble blocking or restricting people who are jackasses. I don't care how good someone's "contributions" are, it doesn't give you license to be a jerk. Those who do so are sophisticated trolls, and should be given no more sympathy than any troll. If you really want to make a difference in it, find in the civility case that those who are repeatedly and grossly uncivil can be booted, regardless of what else they've done. The problem isn't restricted here, I've also noticed a general degradation of the tone in talk page discussions, because people seem to know that civility is no longer a basic requirement of participation to this project. People who are generally decent and civil and lose their temper should be warned first, but those who are generally nasty and uncivil should be shown the door, and all of us should help to push them out. Period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the fact that you're still here proves your point. Malleus Fatuorum 06:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I endorse NYB's sentiment. A lower tolerance for snark and off-topic asides, that is, a sharper focus on the matters at hand, would help to cool down hot heads and speed up resolutions. Perhaps a simple general agreement here that the standard of interaction is declining, and a resolution to do better, will prompt improved behaviour. The chan/troll behaviour that too frequently bubbles up here just reflects the poorly conducted debate on talk pages all over the project. If AN and ANI become models of decency and decorum without the imposition of structural change such as clerking, they can act as examples to emulate across those other pages that lack clerks. It just needs you to lower your tolerance and raise your standards.

For instance, I'm inclined to just delete Malleus' above comment as an unhelpful tangent, likely to lower the standard of the discussion, but in the present environment that would be seen as highly controversial. I do wonder, though, how many people would support its removal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

People below support BB because they find him entertaining. I admit a chuckle at what Malleus wrote above. So, what standard shall we apply here? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't stalk either editor but I'd be inclined to delete about 1% of Malleus' talk page and noticeboard comments I've seen, and ninety five percent of BB's. I'm just mooting a culture change, not some new set of rules. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was not making a joke. At ANI, User:Seraphimblade called persons "jackasses and "trolls". WP:NPA mandates rephrasing as comments on behavior rather than on persons, that is, "behaving like jackasses or trolls". Look at insults against Malleus at RfA or at the abuse on BadgerDrink at his RfC, for other examples.

This is late in the ArbCom case on "Civility Enforcement" for these distinctions to escape normally sophisticated editors like Anthonycole.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're overdue for another WP:DRAMAOUT. -- œ^™ 07:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

amen to that .. if you start one, they will come. :) — Ched :  ?  17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Driveby comment: AN is entertaining and horrifying at the same time. As an uninvolved editor who focuses more on content creation and the reader/new user-aimed noticeboards (RD, HD), the impression I get of AN in general is "a place two people go in, where in the best of circumstances, only one leaves unscathed." It seems that even the most minor spats when taken here escalate into something where someone HAS TO get blocked, or else nobody leaves satisfied.

A place where competent editors who made numerous good faith edits on article space get indeffed forever (or bullied into leaving) because of a single high-emotion incident that somehow made its way to AN and got blown out of proportion, with predictable results.

Even as a new editor, I never got the impression of what this place was supposed to be - a place to go when administrator help was needed. It always had the ominous aura of being an execution block, where even the pettiest of mistakes have the harshest punishments. Added to that atmosphere is the Damocles' sword of the user-rights "privilege", where people are never sure when they themselves might be the next to be promoted or the next to be guillotined. All it needs is the sign "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate" at the top.

And no, I believe overall contributions and good faith intent expressed elsewhere is a greater measurement of an editor's worth. I do not understand the almost maniacal obsession AN has with WP:NPA and sockpuppetry, to the point that almost every incident in AN/I always has this as a subtopic as users catch on that these are surefire ways of silencing an opposing party. They have become trump cards in discussions with WP:AGF taking the backseat or ignored altogether.

AN has ceased to be about resolving problems. Rather it has become a place where one goes to find more problems. Where the discussions are more about finding ways to justify who to block, rather than about the problems themselves. Indeed, some of the incidents here are specifically petitions to get someone else blocked, with the ensuing discussions being a gladiatorial arena of which user has more expertise with the art of nitpicking and baiting. Even when everyone gets off scot-free, the parties involved are only more likely to hold long-lasting grudges. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But apart from that, you're happy with it? </evil> I said above that if anyone seriously wants to fix it then nothing should be off the table, including scrapping it and replacing what needs replacing with something else. You could "band aid" it with moderators/clerks, and that might even be enough, but given the enormous amount of inertia you'd need to overcome, why not go the whole way and RFC ANI properly, if we're serious? Yes, I know why not - we're serious. Catch 22. Begoon ^talk 09:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a position. And as a bystander, I don't have the inside knowledge that regulars have of the mechanics anyway. Much of what's going on here is probably the result of cynicism given that the same issues probably crop up again and again. That said, the only thing I wish could be fixed is the loss of editors in artificially protracted spats and the (imo) too gung-ho application of indefs. A bit of perspective perhaps?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

After yesterday's performance I'm attracted to the idea of simply deleting AN/I. As someone suggested, what's the worst that could happen? Most genuine requests for help already have their own boards (requests for page protection, vandalism help etc). However I don't think that's likely to be agreed to. Making it subject to more formal clerking might work, but at the expense of a new layer of bureaucracy and some (possibly legitimate) complaints about concentrating power further in the hands of the cabal. A third possibility is simply for the rubric at the top of the page to be enforced. It says stuff like: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents ...that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. .... Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.... You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.....Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

Numerous AN/I reports are not about incidents, or neglect diffs, or fail to discuss first with (or notify) the person complained of. What if the convention became that those suggestions became rules, rigorously enforced? That diffs should be posted of genuine attempts to resolve before a case were accepted? What if complaints that failed the above test were summarily deleted from AN/I? I'd be willing to be held accountable for anything I did along those lines, provided there was the support of the community for a stricter line. Would other editors be willing to join me? Would this be an interim approach we could try more or less immediately? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're onto something there. For example, all too often lately I've seen where posters at ANI have to be reminded to notify the party they're complaining about. I have often taken issues directly to a trusted admin. The main purpose of ANI is presumably to generate broader discussion about an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to be careful it doesn't get too loaded towards the reporter of an incident, who might be a newbie. You'd remove a lot of malformed complaints, and a few would just give up. If it's a well intentioned report, I see no problem advising and helping to fix it up. Enforcing in general that non-productive comments/trolling/other undesirable stuff will be reverted on sight across the board with warnings/enforcement as appropriate is my take on a meaningful interim (or forever, who knows) fix. Begoon ^talk 11:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point Begoon, and I'm not proposing simply defending the page by erecting impossible bureaucratic hurdles for people to leap. But I see VERY few AN/I reports from genuine newcomers and would agree that in that case a helping hand to produce a well-formed complaint would be the way to go. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm another admin who generally avoids AN/I. I would support any of deleting AN/I, putting it under moderation, or creating a moderated forum for serious issues. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am another admin who is in exactly the same position. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

+1. Happy to start an MfD for this. It often seems like a kindergarden. --JN466 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

+me Not an admin, but anyway, I support, in order: moderation, deletion (with alternative venues clearly marked), separate moderated forum. I think an RFC might be an alternative route, if it could be handled in a constructive way. Begoon ^talk 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tempted to agree with either option, though I'd enjoy that MFD - if it was kept civil. I mean, there's a reason that WP:DRAMA used to redirect to WP:ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Revised - I meant to support Moderation or Deletion, and God be with the poor bastard who tried to moderate this circus. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okayyyy... I'll leave it to others to start the MfD but tonight (about 5 hours away) if there is still support for moderation, I'll draft a proposal for discussion at the AN talk page. I hesitate to do this as I've never been involved in developing policy before (which I think this amounts to) - hence another reason for waiting a while to see how this flies. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've even less experience, but I'd be happy to help, in that event, where I could. I agree that waiting a while to let people who haven't seen any of this yet comment first is wise, though. Begoon ^talk 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Much as I agree with Obsidian Soul's comments on ANI, and tempting though outright deletion would be, it does still have some uses. Inevitably, the problem is with the users. As an alternative, how about applying an equivalent of 3RR to ANI: anyone who makes more than three edits to it in one day is automatically blocked for a week? That might do something to calm down the insanity. Robofish (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I have started an MfD. Nothing brought up at ANI can't be handled at other venues. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm This will end well. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That being the case, I'll delay drafting any proposal for moderation until we see what happens at MfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What if there was just simply were hard and fast with closing any thread that was not an "incident" that demanded immediate attention? There are cases where the action of an admin is needed quickly to prevent disruption, or handle other issues that don't require long debate and simply the admin bit to resolve. If the "incident" clearly becomes personal or the like, any non-involved admin should be able to slam close the thread and direct to the appropriate venue. Yes, that means WP:AN will be where many of these will thrive, and that still creates another issue, but at least we won't have admin action requests get buried under discussion at ANI.

As to what happens at AN, we need to do the same thing when the request is clearly better handled by RFC/U or some other dispute area. If it clearly is not something that needs discussion among administrators, there's no point in bringing it there. Yes, RFC/U and these other processes take time to set up properly if you're filing a complaint, but really, that should be the case: the problem is that AN/ANI has a low barrier of entry to make a complaint known. If you have to actually work out through a form what the problem is, maybe you'll recognize its not really a problem WP worries about, or there's a different approach to take, or the like.

The idea of clerks to keep both AN and ANI clear of discussions that should not be happening there makes sense; the body of clerks just needs to be large and broad enough to avoid having any single closure smack of COI problems.

By quickly stemming any inappropriate, premature attempt of dispute resolution at AN, we create a clearer picture of what AN's purpose is for, and likely will prevent editors from running here first. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

My post is in reply basically to the OP. First, I am very encouraged to see both members of AC, and some very seasoned veterans around these parts again - I hope you folks can pull things back from the brink. Now, this is only my own personal view, and not directed at anyone, or group. Back in the old days, 02-06ish .. before the site was as popular as it is now, it was a smaller group of people working together - hence, you all knew each other, and developed a camaraderie and spirit of working together. As it grew, more people were introduced, very easy for folks to get lost in the shuffle. The "originals" also grew, moved on to other things, either here or in real life. I think some of the unwritten common-sense rules of fair play, decency, mutual respect, and accepted ways of doing things, and the value of "lessons learned" fell by the way side and were forgotten. New admins. moved in, took their place - we did the best we could, but lacked experience. AN and ANI (or drama boards in general) was and is a natural starting place for admins. In a sense, I see Wikipedia as that unruly, know-it-all teenager. We're growing up, but we still need guidance - and have to be willing to accept it. If we don't, then we're going to sneak out of the house for being grounded - jump in a car with our "I haz friends" buddies - and drive off a cliff. It should be made very clear (and I know that AC has tried in the past to address this), that calm rational discussion is needed when problems arise. Sometimes love must take a firm hand. If an admin. "blocks" .. they should be addressed politely. If they don't respond in some period of time - a discussion should be opened for at least 24 hours (given all timezones and schedules a chance to respond). That's how consensus works. Already tl;dr I suppose - so I'll take a break here. — Ched :  ?  18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

addendum Oh, in proof reading that .. the "address admins with respect" .. I most certainly did not mean to imply that the same isn't required of the non-admins. Non-admins deserve every bit as much, if not more respect, fair treatment, and allowed their fair discourse in due process. — Ched :  ?  18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've hung around ANI for years. It's always been a cesspool but (as far as I've noticed) doesn't seem any worse than usual recently. It has ups and downs like anything else. AN has more drama than I'm used to, because of what seems like an increased tendency to move longer-duration discussions from ANI to AN, that in the past might have been handled with ANI sub-pages. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for clerking/moderation

I have started a new section of the WP:AN talk page with a proposal, as it looks likely that the current MfD will not result in any deletion. I think that (rather than this page) is the right venue for discussing the nuts and bolts so may I suggest people who are interested head there to have a look and comment? Any help in publicising that discussion would be welcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's closed as withdrawn now, but there was considerable support for the implementation of some sort of moderation system. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't keep up with this discussion, but I am interested in it. Should editors finally find some value in having a moderated userboard where they can take their problems, it should be run like this:

• An editor posts a problem in whatever form it comes.
• ONE admin uninvolved with the dispute responds to the original poster, thereby taking charge of it: verifying that it is a legitimate problem, or warning the original poster that his/her behavior per WP:BOOMERANG is problematic and may end up in admin action, such as a block or a topic ban. If someone else's opinions should be taken into consideration, they should be invited by the responding admin. No more taking one dogpile crapfest from an article talkpage to make a dogpile crapfest at ANI. The responding admin takes responsibility for offering solutions, then closing the thread when it has been resolved.
• No participant EVER should sidetrack a discussion with witty asides, humorous blah blah, or attempts to defuse a tense situation. Tense situations are best solved by treating the complaint seriously and offering solutions.
• No admin should place the problem back in the original poster's lap by responding "It's a content problem. Go somewhere else." or worse, creating divides between content editors ("All you content editors expect special treatment", for example) and other editors where none (should) exist. Even if it is a content problem, all this sometimes takes is someone uninvolved with the dispute reiterating guidelines and policies. This should be the same for posting at ANI when another board may be more appropriate. When it gets to ANI, it should be answered at ANI.
• ANI needs to NOT be a place to game ArbCom, such as a recurring problem with a single editor warranting three or more threads at ANI before a case goes to ArbCom. Action needs to be taken or the situation needs to be defused.
• Threads should be processed with speed. Problem, solution, archive. Not to say that a problem should be glossed over and not given the attention it deserves, but keeping threads open for days when it's clear no admin action can take place, or no one in particular is even trying to resolve the dispute, is worthless and frustrating.

I hope these ideas can be worked into some format for moderating ANI. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs - Block review and topic ban discussion

• Note to closing admin Several issues have come up recently with discussions being closed after only a few hours or less than a day because a "consensus" was apparent after only a few opinions given. Please do not close this until significant time has been allowed for this discussion to fully develop.--v/r - TP 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I am a neutral party who is reorganising this at Risker's suggestion.

NOTE - I have done my best to present the following timeline in as neutral a manner as possible. Please note - reference to other disputes is not an invitation to re-open those disputes. Manning (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The story so far:

1. - (It all starts with all sorts of conflicts involving multiple parties on a myriad of topics. I'm not even going to attempt to summarize).
2. - Bugs allegedly edit-warred on Mistress Selina Kyle's talk page: start here and see the next 13 diffs that follow.
3. - Bugs allegedly misbehaved on AN/I Permalink, a lot of reading here.
4. - Risker warned Bugs (See above permalink)
5. - Bugs allegedly misbehaved on AN/Iagain (See above permalink)
6. - Risker blocked Bugs Permalink of Bugs talk page discussion
7. - Block review took place - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball_bugs_block_review
8. - Toddst1 declared consensus and unblocked Bugs (see previous link)
9. - Several editors questioned the consensus (see links and discussion below)
10. - Other editors requested a Topic ban discussion commence about Bugs and the AN/ANI pages. (see links and discussion below).

Bugs: Block/Unblock review

Also see earlier discussion.

• Request review: At the time of the close, 41% were in favour of an immediate unblock (the option Toddst1 chose as his closure) and 59% supported blocks ranging from 24 hours to 7 days. This was also closed shortly after Toddst1 voted himself in the thread, and after only a few hours rather than letting it run for its normal length. Toddst1's assessment of consensus has been questioned by editors on both sides of the debate and needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Block was stupid, unblock unwarranted. Although I believe (and argue below in the context of a topic ban proposal) that Bugs should not have been punishedd for this, there was clearly no consensus for an unblock. Bugs is used to the rough and tumble and invited it on himself. If necessary some other editing friends and I can visit him and keep his spirit up in Wikmo. Hasty unblocks have been a huge problem around here, and a general erosion of the quality and respect for administrative actions. Blocks shouldn't be issued lightly, but once issued they should not be undone lightly either. Per common sense and a possible ruling in a pending Arbcom case, admin actions or decisions to not act should be accorded some respect, and all should be patient. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• As I have mentioned to Toddst1 and on the AN/I page, I continued to monitor the discussion of the block that I placed in order to determine if the community consensus was that the block should be modified in some manner; whilst the discussion was starting to trend toward a shortening of the block, there was not yet consensus for that, and there certainly was not consensus for a complete unblock. I will note that Toddst1 did not inform me that he was undoing the block I had placed. Neither of these are appropriate actions. Risker (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, you have a strange way of determining a consensus, I guess a good reason why we need a uninvolved Sysop to make the decision. Bidgee (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In actuality, the consensus to reduce was already there at the time the thread was closed. As I look at the comments, I see only 4 straight-forward endorsements which do not mention favoring the possibility of a reduction. Considering that !voting to overturn the block is equivalent to reducing it to time served, the vast majority of the commenters were OK with a reduction. If would therefore probably have been best if Toddst1 had reduced the block rather than rescinded it, but it cannot be said that there was anything like a consensus to keep the block at a week -- in act, quite the contrary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Where was the consensus, Bidgee? About a quarter supported the block as is, about 40% wanted him unblocked, and the rest were in between. There was no consensus. People who thought a 2-3 day block was appropriate were lumped into those who wanted him unblocked. In fact, the unblock was against consensus. People who wanted him unblocked because they missed his entertainment value should probably be discounted from the equation anyway; this isn't a comedy club. I know it's not popular, but administrators are still supposed to weigh the reasoning behind the opinions voiced. Risker (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Risker, I'm am not seeing where "about a quarter supported the block as is". There were 33 serious !votes: 14 of them opposed the block, 4 of them supported the block as is, 15 !votes were in favor of reduction -- that's 6 "reduce" !votes, 6 "endorse but reduce" votes and 3 "oppose and reduce" votes. There was clearly no consensus for the 1 week block, and a healty consensus for a reduction, since 88% of the commenters wanted either a reduction or to have the block overturned, which is equivalent to a reduction to time served. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • (e/c)Risker, You know were the consenus was but you don't want to admit that your block was wrong. There were calls for the block to be reduced but most editors didn't state for how long it should be reduced by, in total he was block for just over four hours. Branding those whom supported the unblock for entertainment is wrong, totally false and unfounded. Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing is 5 endorsements, one extend to indefinite, five straight overturns, three "overturn because excessive" without any indication of what wouldn't be excessive, and about a dozen "reduce length" with various lengths suggested from time served to 5 days, with an average of about 3 days. I also see five comments that basically boil down to "MSK is awful, therefore Bugs shouldn't be blocked." Those last ones don't count because they're about someone else's behaviour, not Baseball Bugs's; bad behaviour on someone else's part does not excuse bad behaviour on Baseball Bugs' part. I was giving serious consideration to reduction; however, we were only 5 hours into this discussion, and people were all over the map. There's a pretty big gap between 5 hours and 3 days. If Toddst1 had said to me "Hey Risker, what say we knock this down to 3 days" I probably would have gone for it. It's not like I wasn't responding to messages. Risker (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your the one stating three days, no one in the "discussion" stated on how long it should be reduced by. I'm not sure why you have a fixation on Bugs but to me it seems like you have a vendetta against him since it is only you who thinks it should be three days. Bidgee (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've striked my poor choice of wording. TechnoSymbiosis and Franamax were the only ones to state three days while AniMate stated two to three days, Purplebackpack89 and Silverseren both stated one to two days. There are far more Reduce (without amount of time stated) and Oppose then there is Endorse. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest you revisit that comment, Bidgee. Franamax, TechnoSymbiosis and AniMate all stated that they supported a block for 3 days. Insinuating that Risker acted maliciously in her block is not at all helpful to this discussion. —Dark 09:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Bidgee - I'll also *strongly* advise you to refactor that comment. Accusing an admin of having a vendetta against anyone is a serious charge, and not brought casually. Manning (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I concur. Unless Bidgee's post was a poor attempt at providing a humorous illustration of the general issue discussed in the thread above, which doesn't seem a very plausible interpretation, the only other reading of Bigdee's post is that it's a blatant misrepresentation of facts and a personal attack. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Struck as moot after redaction of the initial post. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I never intended for it to sound like that I was accusing Risker of a vendetta, I was just making a view point how some people could see the situation. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bidgee - Thanks for your clarification. I'm sure there is no harm done. Manning (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't consider Risker's block to have been vindictive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I generally respect Toddst1, but I think he was wrong both in acting upon a discussion in which he had !Voted and in what seems like a precipate unblock for which there was no consensus. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• By now, who cares: Even though the consensus was against immediate unblock, there were enough people who said 24 or 48 hour block to make the consensus for unblocking him after 24-48 hours. Baseball Bugs was blocked yesterday afternoon/evening (22-2300 UTC), so by the time we've sorted this mess out, at least 24 hours will have passed, and maybe closer to 48. This thread is a waste of time. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Except he'd be unblocked during this entire time period, so your timeline isn't actually accurate. He really only served a 5 hour block. Silverseren^C 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion - Should Bugs be topic-banned from AN and AN/I?

• Support Toddst1 (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support about time --Guerillero | My Talk 06:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yes. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support He needs some time away from these two drama-filled areas. Maybe flesh out his editing capabilities in content-building or something like that. Silverseren^C 06:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The administrator noticeboards do not need an agent provocateur to stir up drama. Bugs' contributions have shifted over time from useful to disruptive. Some time away from AN/* would be beneficial. With due respect to Bugs, this doesn't seem all that healthy. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with his pattern of edits? Where is a statement of your "ideal" distribution of edits? Edison (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think more than 35% odd combined article and article talk contributions would be less worrisome. The bureaucracy in Wikipedia is here to support the goal of encyclopedia-building, not to support itself. When time spent on bureaucratic matters outweighs time spent on productive matters, I think that's cause for serious reflection. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 06:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Over 9500 posts at AN/I and almost none of them are productive. If he isn't inflaming situations he's saying something silly to derail them. AniMate 06:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Heavens no, short-sighted shenanigans pending further evidence. Bugs is one of the most enthusiastic, good faith, doesn't-condone-nonsense contributors to the project discussions, and a staunch supporter of our encyclopedic purpose. If the problem is unwanted nonadminstrative catcalls from the peanut gallery better just ban nonadmins from ANI or take it all to the private listservs. Bugs' exuberance in support of the encyclopedia can be impolitic but he is usually spot-on and never cynical or malicious. His boisterous and universally good-natured even when biting comments always side with those endeavoring to create knowledge rather than those whom he suspects (often but not always correctly) of alternate agendas. He rushes to trouble like a rescue dog to an avalanche, but thanks to his lack of administrative rights he is not allowed to carry a bourbon cask there. What offense has he committed this time against our trolls, sockpuppets, and hot-heads? This appears to be a matter of contempt-of-cop, as administrators were trying to establish order by telling both parties in a lopsided dispute to shut up. As far as I can tell his offense was to express vindication regarding an editor who accused him of something or other and was bocked in course. Do we really need to silence inconvenient voices, particularly at a time when our system is not working very well? I hope not. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question. Besides this most recent incident, have there been other threads about BB's behavior on AN or AN/I? I'm aware that he was blocked on Commons for disrupting COM:AN/U [162] because he takes pride in that [163]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some things I found from a very quick search without any real digging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Baseball_Bugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Personal_Attacks_By_user_Baseball_bugs

Of course, only one of those discussions resulted in a block, so there must be more out there in regards to his block log. Silverseren^C 07:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• At the very least. A condition of removal of the topic ban is that he actually, you know, contribute some encyclopedic content in some way or another. This ain't facebook, with AN/I as Wikipedia's collective "wall". It IS still supposed to be an encyclopedia writing project.VolunteerMarek 07:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely not! Bugs is the only one that actually makes AN/I entertaining to read! -- œ^™ 07:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not the purpose of ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is written, assuming this is an indefinite topic ban proposal. There's really no conditions or anything. Now, sure, plenty of people don't like Bugs, and think of him as a "meddler". Plenty of others don't mind him at all. I happen to support Bugs' right to exist, and if commenting excessively at AN/I makes him happy (and no reversions of his posts, page protections, etc. are needed)... so what? This proposal is half-baked as it is, too "Supermax". Take some time off form the boards? That's a lot different to reasonably ask than what's here right now. Doc talk 07:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bugs is apparently unblockable, but should stay away from the drama boards. Kilopi (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why? It's not his fault ANI is the way it is, regardless of how often he posts here. Certainly this would be no time for such a decision, in the wake of a controversial block/unblock, without discussion of alternatives, time limits, or conditions. I supported the block, and I supported a reduction, following procedure, but this is too much. Begoon ^talk 07:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Though as someone previously involved in this custard-pie fight, my opinion may not be seen as particularly helpful. Bugs is a pain in the nether regions at times, and frequently more concerned with making his presence felt than in offering any deep and insightful analysis at AN/I. But that is exactly what is needed on occasion. Far too often, people seem to think that Wikipedia in general, and the various noticeboards in particular, are some sort of Court of Law, set up to determine objective facts, rather than what it actually is - a website for those who think it matters to attempt to create an online encyclopaedia, which for all its flaws gets things right occasionally, if only by luck. If you are here to attempt this, carry on - otherwise "go elsewhere" (redacted in advance ;-) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - largely per Wikidemon, though with some reservations, and partly because this issue threw into rather stark relief the lie that is "blocks are not punitive." This was punitive, pure and simple, but we should be careful to separate the blocking admin's rather brainfarty lapse in judgement from the ongoing concern that Bugs may generate more heat than light in the more troublesome bits of projectspace. I am largely in agreement with Wikidemon Bugs simply isn't interested in speaking a bunch of touchy-feely passive-aggressive bullshit and would much rather cut through the nonsense and call a digging implement a digging implement. This is a good thing for Wikipedia, as near as I can tell the overwhelming majority of Bugs' constructive commentary in projectspace is directed solely by an honest belief in the value of the project and its utility to its readership. Anything that gets in the way of that goal, particularly anything cloaked in dishonest bullshit, needs to be called out bluntly for what it is so that it may be dealt with as swiftly and effectively as possible and people can get back to writing the whatsit, you know, thing full of articles. That aside, the link provided above is slightly troubling, though one notes nearly 16K edits to articles, which I think many of us cannot claim. That being said, Bugs should be greatly encouraged to interact at the drama boards less, perhaps mostly by way of tilting the heat:light ratio further to the right, and (presuming this topic ban proposal doesn't pass) understanding very clearly that this is kind of a 'here's the rope, hang yourself if you like' situation aka Last Chance For Bugs. I for one would support a future proposal for such a topic ban if Bugs doesn't choose to moderate himself in terms of sticking to more constructive commentary only.→ ROUX ₪ 07:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose too broad and banning someone from AN and ANI isn't going to solve anything. Bidgee (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per big purple Œ Bulwersator (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baseball Bugs is a redlink, so the suggestion for a topic ban is premature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There have been several threads on AN or AN/I serving the same purpose as a RfC/U. It's clear that BB isn't going to change his behavior because of the lack of community consensus. I guess this should go straight to Arbitration. I for one would rather wait to see first how the very similar Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement ends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Its because of the over reaction from Sysops or poorly worded proposals by the community, which is why we are at this point. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • ArbCom has consistently held that, except in the very most extreme circumstances, threads on ANI or AN can not take the place of an RFC/U. In fact, threads on the noticeboards are expected to lead to an RFC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Where has the ArbCom asserted authority over community dispute resolution policies and procedures? So far as I am aware, the community has a traditional right to impose topic and site bans directly at AN/ANI. Has the ArbCom ever overturned any community bans just because it was not preceded by an RFCU?   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
          • @Will: Sorry, I was not clear in my meaning. I using ArbCom's own standard for accepting or rejecting cases, which is where they've consistently held that an AN or AN/I thread does not take the place of an RFC/U. I don't dispute that the community has the power to impose bans through AN discussions (indeed, I said as much below), I was simply using ArbCom's reasoning, which I agree with, that, generally, discussion threads on noticeboards shouldn't take the place of an RFC/U, which is a much more structured and less emotionally-charged venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support six month ban - Six months away from AN/ANI should give enough time to determine if Baseball Bugs is here for the project, or for posting on these pages. Other editors have suggested he has been a positive contributor at the Help Desk, and he has done some perfectly acceptable content work in the past; he should be encouraged to continue in these areas. I am concerned that some of those opposing a ban are doing so because of Bugs' "entertainment" value on these boards. Sarcasm and wit at the expense of other users is not the way to build the project, regardless of how amusing some find it, and becomes disruptive when it detracts from the focus of the thread. The purpose of these boards is to give users a place to request administrator support or other assistance, not to provide entertainment. I'd suggest that the closers consider the thread above, where others point out the toxic environment on these noticeboards, in weighing the opinions expressed here. Risker (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose BB reflects the ethos. If admins and others behaved in a focused, professional and respectful manner here, he would probably follow. To single him out, for behaviour that so many others engage in, behaviour that has been tolerated for years, smells of scapegoating. First, agree to improve your game here and clearly signal it. Then pick off those that can't conform. I suspect BB is quite capable of conforming, given a clear signal, and a good example from those he respects. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you start? "Others should do it first" is an excuse that can be used across the board to stifle change. Bugs isn't necessarily being singled out, he's just the first in line at the moment. Cracking down on inappropriate behaviour has to start somewhere. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. But the "change of approach" to enforcement should precede the punishment/preventative action. Bugs hasn't done anything many others haven't also done on the drama boards, he's just probably done more of it. As Anthonycole says, take some action signalling a change in what is acceptable (or truly, what will be enforced) first, otherwise it can look like "making an example" of someone, which I don't personally think is the correct response in these circumstances. Begoon ^talk 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd announce a change of long-standing standards before enforcing the change. Maybe it's time for WP:RfC/ANI conduct.. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban for anything that has a WP: or WT: prefix. How a non-administrator would manage to get over 9,000 (no meme intended) edits to an administrator noticeboard is beyond me. Baseball Bugs is by far the largest contributor to AN/I, and his presence has become toxic. Time for a break. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "because ... IMO". My76Strat (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I have personally warned him repeatedly for incivility, and I'm not really very active on this page at all. His behaviour seems to regularly fall significantly below the standard required for such a heated environment. A topic ban seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bugs is witty, amusing, intelligent and I frequently share his point of view when it comes down to a !vote. However ultimately we are not here for our own or others' amusement but to write and maintain an encyclopaedia. Until the Mistress Kyle episode I would have !voted oppose but he very naively allowed his chain to be yanked and fed her exactly the opportunity that I assume she had hoped to manufacture. When the entertainment starts getting in the way of the real task in hand, it's time to call a halt to the sideshow. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on the discussion two sections below, which you have so graciously closed, it seems the facts were exactly the other way around with respect to who did what on purpose and who fell for the ploy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I gave the editor a chance to demonstrate some good faith, and they failed. These things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That is the way it read to me, coming to this cold today. pablo 11:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Probably; although some (not least of all Bugs himself) clearly find Bugs amusing, his comments are rarely constructive or heplful. (Admittedly I have not reviewed all 9,000 of them). A RFC/U might be a better way forward though. pablo 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose >.> -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. No matter how wise or good-hearted Baseball Bugs may be, he seems to have developed a habit of lengthening noticeboard threads without necessarily improving them. I encourage BB to devote a greater percentage of his time to improving articles and less of it to commenting on the actions of others.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  There's a reason the horse pulls the cart. And there's good reason to develop the language of a ban before the yes/no !vote. My76Strat (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I put the word "DISCUSSION" in the header. People seem to have dived straight into a vote however, which was not my intent. Manning (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Don't have a strong opinion as to whether this happens, but if you all decide that BB should be banned from AN/ANI, I'd suggest to time limit it, and to have some simple process to respond if he turns up on other noticeboards. If his behaviour on AN/ANI is at issue (again, I'm agnostic on that matter), topic banning him just means he'll pop up at BLPN or RSN or DRN or FTN or to start poking away at content RfCs or RfC/U's. For instance, if the ban goes through, include a provision to allow admins in good standing to modify the topic ban to cover other noticeboards if and when necessary. Again, this isn't an endorsement of a topic ban, just a suggestion for implementation. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Conditional support'I would unconditionally support a ban to be reviewed at the end of six months. I agree with Will Beback that he needs to cut down his comments about other editors. I've had to warn him about taunting blocked editors on their talk pages - that's simply unacceptable. Although I sympathise with what Anthonyhcole wrote, I don't think that's a good reason to allow Bugs to continue unchecked. Let's do this and make it a step on the way to improving discussions here and at ANI. I've had an edit conflict and now see Tom's comments, which would be covered in part by a review (which should give Bugs an incentive to change his behavior). Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• support this is a long time coming. I've repeatedly seen Bugs jump in to various AN/I or AN discussions with absolutely nothing to add other than insults, or some sarcastic remark designed only to stir the pot. Of course, if any threads were started directly about him as an identified participant in an event he should be allowed to participate in those threads.--Crossmr (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The underlying motivation of nearly everything I do here has to do with keeping wikipedia credible for its readers. Maybe you think it's wrong to defend wikipedia. I think it's right to do so. You may not think wikipedia is worth defending, but I think it is. It's the first place I go to, to find out anything about anything - knowing full well that the content may have been compromised, but also knowing that in some small way I can do something about that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The end justifies the means? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you think wikipedia is worth defending? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Do you endorse goading depressed people to suicide to reinforce the notion that depression can lead to death? Or perhaps you endorse exposing some PTSD-afflicted veteran to war-like sights and sounds in order to trigger a panic attack (or worse) in order to reveal their true character, as in mental vulnerabilities under stress? What exactly is this clear and present danger that you are defending Wikipedia from? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think either you or anyone else here should be offering a medical diagnosis of the editor Kyle. That's really over the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
            • My questions were purely hypothetical, but again you jumped to conclusions. You still have not replied what was this extraordinary threat to Wikipedia that justifies your extreme behavior. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Your question is bogus. It's of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety. But feel free to answer my question of whether you think wikipedia is worth defending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Your extremist, absolutist, crusading attitude in this matter is worrisome. The defense mechanisms are commensurate with the level of threat in most civil societies. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • Try that again, in Simple English this time, as I haven't a clue what you're trying to say, although it does have the tone of a severe overreaction. Also, you still won't say whether you think wikipedia is worth defending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                    • Ok. It's almost like saying "pry Wikipedia from my cold, dead hands". Is that simple enough? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                      • That makes even less sense. I'll let you quit while you're behind. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                        • Ok, I'm willing to admit that in a game of feigning incomprehension, you'd win easily. Happy editing and keep Wikipedia safe for us all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
                          • I'm not very good at feigning incomprehension, but I'm pretty good at actual incomprehension. In any case, as noted below, I will soon have very little time for wikipedia for the short term. That might be because I'm a severely depressed shell-shocked veteran who's about to run off to join a Weekly Reader survivalist commune. OR, it might be that some new work-related projects are likely to consume most of my copious free time.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. Needs a break from ANI. --Surturz (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reading developments just above doesn't hurt your rationale here, I confess. Begoon ^talk 12:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting blocking ASCII for "baiting"? That would be going a little far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting anything, BB, honestly. I think you're a lovely, well meaning chap, and I believe that you do everything with the best intent. My comment was an observation, nothing more. Begoon ^talk 12:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Jolly good. You are a gentleman and a scaler. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I try to be a gentleman. I have no head for heights though. I opposed your topic ban above for the reasons I stated, and I stand by that. Begoon ^talk 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
            • You say you're a "precisionist", and that was the best play on words I could come up with. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but they're always worth at least as much as my salary here. :) And I thank you for your support. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Ah, yes, scales of grey, not height at all, I'm sorry. Stay Cool. Begoon ^talk 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I don't spend time much at ANI, because it is generally an unhelpful venue soaked through with drama. When I do read it though, I often notice Bugs making comments which are not productive. They're not necessarily unproductive, but they do waste time. Bugs has more contributions on ANI than any other editor (including Miszabot) and has nearly 3 times more edits than the next human editor ([164]) - I'm willing to be persuaded that the topic ban is a bad idea, but I don't see it at the moment. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Dougweller's assessment. There are regrettably too many negative features to his comments to outweigh the useful observations he often makes. Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Do what you have to. The amount of time I'll have for wikipedia is soon going to be significantly curtailed anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely. He should be barred from these pages for a while and encouraged to do some article editing. Everyking (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Who will defend Wikipedia if not him? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A draconian solution to cure something which does not need curing. Collect (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bugs finds the boards entertaining, and many of the boards' regulars find him entertaining. The fact remains, however, that AN and ANI aren't here to provide entertainment for anyone, and when someone's use of them for entertainment purposes begins to interfere with the actual function of the boards, it's time for that person to be escorted away from them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not too familiar with Bugs myself, so I just skimmed through his recent contributions to AN and ANI and failed to find a single constructive edit. Besides, anyone with over 9000(!) edits to ANI in the first place is arguably here for the wrong reasons. Robofish (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially oppose for an extended period of time: Bugs makes jokes. So what? I'm not seeing how he harms the AN/ANI process Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Whenever I read AN/I, BB always seem to pop up with sarcastic and generally unhelpful comments. Skinny87 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Long past time this wannabe comedy king got stuffed back inside his box. Jtrainor (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) I'm not convinced his participating at AN and AN/I are disruptive, let alone disruptive enough to ban him from participating in discussions, a core element of Wikipedia. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Honestly, pick any ANI archive # and you will probably find at least one thread where someone has had to tell BB to stop flicking grease onto the fire. If there's other parts of the project where he is seen as a positive force such as the Helpdesk then enacting this can only help. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think an RFC/U would be a better idea to start with. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and I appreciate Roux's commentary. Sure, Bugs has a tendency to lengthen threads. Sure, not all of it is helpful. But, some of it is. Also, I am entertained. Sure, this thing got out of hand. But, it wasn't all his fault. Etc. Bugs, I'm sure you'll take these comments to heart. Like carrots, they'll improve your vision. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose we need more not fewer such editors. Rklawton (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - long overdue. (See also: Wikipedia:Don't be a rubbernecker) –xeno^talk 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikidemon and Drmies among many others. Bugs ability to ferret out sock puppets and trolls and time wasters on various AN/I and AN threads has been an asset to the project time and again. The assertion that he does not contribute to other articles is ridiculous as anyone who has worked with him on stadium, team or film articles can tell you. Start an RFC/U if you need to but banning editors from AN and AN/I is not the way to go. MarnetteD | Talk 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - My view after examination of the user's Drama-to-Useful-Edits ratio. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Marnette. - Youreallycan 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I like Bugs, and I think his heart's in the right place, but this seems to be the only way to convince him that he doesn't need to comment on every single thread at ANI, and that his participation in some actually aggravates the situation. He should find something more productive to do for a little while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment First, I have to plead guilty to often enjoying Bug's wit and humor - but also admit there's times I get this "ohhhh my ... this isn't gonna go well" feeling to. Rather than support or oppose this ban option - I'd rather see Risker and Bugs try to work out an acceptable solution first (with perhaps some input from Todd). I noticed that BB is going to be less active anyway .. just a thought. — Ched :  ?  19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As Marnette observed above, Bugs has long done yeoman's work against socks and trolls. He has over15000 edits in article space, far more than many of his critics in this thread, as well as his larger number of edits at Ref Desk, ANI and other parts of the project. In many AN/ANI discussions he has pointed out pretensions and logical failings, and the fact that he does it in a humorous fashion in not a basis for excluding him. Edison (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • He isn't being banned from the whole project, only this page and ANI. It should enable him to be more helpful elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - HJ Mitchell pretty well sums up my views. I think Bugs would benefit from contributing elsewhere for a while. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I think HJ Mitchell phrases it diplomatically. AN/I is place to resolve issues but one must be sure not to instigate more--a habit Bugs indulges in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• A topic ban is effectively swatting a fly with a bazooka. I'm not convinced that it would be useful. That said: Bugs, please go work on the main namespace for a week or so and forget AN/I exists for the sake of everyone involved... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Some sort of probation - If forced to pick one way, I would probably support...but this shouldn't be step one. BB should be advised not to contribute to a thread in ways that aren't productive all around. Being rude to IPs just because they are IPs isn't acceptable. Being rude to new users just because they are new users isn't acceptable. Poking isn't acceptable. A strictly enforced AGF on noticeboards of all types. --Onorem♠Dil 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't see it as disruptive Edinburgh Wanderer 20:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Lawful Neutral Baseball Bugs is usually Chaotic Good. WMF should create a BB-button that allows only him to post comments in the margins, like the students' comments in Concrete Mathematics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I stand by my original comment: Topic ban from noticeboards until he writes 1 FA, 5 GAs or brings 10 stubs to B class. Personally, I think this should be a standard ban length... take people away from the drama for a while and put them back where the focus should be. Resolute 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. More gleefully sadistic editors like Bugsy are needed to drive home the point that this is not an encyclopedia but the world's biggest online role playing game, with a peanut gallery to match. And change Wikipedia's motto to read "Your pain = my gain". 82.113.99.160 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per SilverSeren and Xeno. Lara 21:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Frankly, if people are so thin-skinned that Bugs' (and Malleus', and, and, and...) comments get under their skin to the point where they say "let's topic-ban them from the noticeboards", they need to be contribuing somewhere other than Wikipedia. We may be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but we're not the encyclopedia everybody should edit - dealing with prickly characters comes with the job description, and while I agree that everybody, Bugs included, could do with a little more good faith at times, topic-banning here quite frankly comes across as punitive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why on earth shouldn't you be able to be thin skinned? In a professional environment people usually manage to behave with enough decorum that everyone is able to sensibly interact. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Vehemently oppose. If certain other people (who it doesn't matter that I name) get to repeatedly comment on ANI without blocking, banning or topic banning for things that are considerably worse than Bugs's mostly flippant comments, then there is no reason whatsoever that Bugs should be blocked, banned or topic banned for any time whatsoever. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "But officer, everyone else speeds worse than I do" has never been a valid excuse. If others are as persistent as Bugs is, feel free to nominate them for topic bans as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • • Repeated attempts at doing so are inevitably rejected. Over and over again. You learn there's no point in banging your head against the wall. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This entire complaint was driven by lies from a Weekly Reader user. Be proud, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Gratuitous gossip-monger. Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per this. I like Bugs and I was going to stay out of this one until I saw that bit of not-getting-it-ness. When a topic ban gets this many supporters, it should be a clue that "it's not them, it's you." (Although it's too bad we can't implement Kiefer.Wolfowitz's proposal for a BB-button, which I think is brilliant. Sort of like a DVD commentary track you could turn off.) 28bytes (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Bugs provides a great deal of noise to a place that badly needs a strong signal. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion: Who controls AN and AN/I?

Is the very idea of an AN or AN/I topic ban a discussion to be had by the admins, or is it a discussion for the wider community?
Do admins have final authority over these pages?
Who controls AN and AN/I?
raised as a result of comments above, by Manning (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban discussions are routinely held here and are considered legitimate, I don't see where a ban from AN or AN/I is any different. It's not admins deciding per se, I see a large number of non-admins participating above, including me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should point out that his technique ("admins don't own ANI!") was used to derail the discussion last time when the issue of restricting Baseball Bug's participation was brought up. I suggest immediate closure of this misguided sub-thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's far from misguided. I've yet to hear the argument as to why admins *don't* own AN/I. The page was certainly created with that viewpoint (And yes, I was actually here back then). Manning (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's a genuine proposal for general reform, move it to the thread above: #An overall concern about AN and ANI. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's fine where it is. Thank you for your concern about the proper maintenance of the admin pages however. Manning (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since you're serious, I'll just say that AN is not the proper venue to rewrite WP:policy, particularly WP:CBAN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your objection is duly noted. Manning (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Manning you have clue. I've seen it. You must know the prevailing wind controls things around here. The problem is that a bag of hot air is well received in a cold room; and this is a cold room. My76Strat (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Strat, but I have my reasons for both raising this discussion, and for locating it precisely where it is located. Manning (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia runs on consensus, which is based on strength of argument, not on formal authority or what positions the person presenting the argument is holding. By policy, topic ban decisions are a community process, not one specifically restricted to administrators. Jafeluv (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jafeluv - in general I agree. However there are areas of Wikipedia where this does not apply, such as the Arbcom pages. There are pages there that can only be edited by Arbitrators, and others that are open to the community but where conduct and commentary is rigidly controlled. Furthermore, this is not a topic ban in the conventional sense, but a ban from pages that were set up by administrators, for the purpose of allowing effective discussion between the admin body and the community. I think there is enough difference here from the general concept of a topic ban to warrant the discussion. Manning (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see your angle now. You are asserting that admins are allowed to exert the same level of control over "their" noticeboards as a user has over their talk page. But while we have WP:OWNTALK and WP:ARBPOL#Procedures and roles, I'm not aware of a similar guideline or policy for the admin noticeboards. And as you don't have prior consensus for this, you should propose it at WP:VPP or WP:VPR. If the community decides to grant admins ownership of these noticeboards, that's fine, but you can't just take it on your own initiative. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a proposal. I've thus far been polite, but your constant allegations and badgering have become tiresome, so I'll not respond to any more of your comments. Manning (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Because I pointed out that your views are incompatible with policy, you declared my points badgering and allegations. I rest my case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Manning. There is nothing wrong with mooting this here. It's certainly not ripe for WP:VPR. If it develops momentum, it can move to WP:VPP, but let's see if it's worth that move. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My view is that we don't make decisions as the admin body. The community makes decisions, and admins are responsible for carrying them out (and, in some cases, closing discussions and determining community consensus). There are some exceptions, like WP:AE which you pointed out, but that's a case where admins have been specifically empowered to take enforcement actions per the committee's decisions. The banning policy covers how a ban can be enacted on Wikipedia -- #1 is the relevant point to this discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jafeluv - Your points are at the very heart of my reason for starting this discussion. But it raises the question - when did the admins decide to stop working together as a body? When we created the concept of an admin back in 2002 that was our objective - to work together, to keep each other in check, and to make decisions as a collective where we felt it was appropriate. For some reason the concept of "admins making a collective decision" is now regarded as fundamentally incompatible with "admins exist to act on community decisions". So my next question is - is this really how things should be? Is the community well-served by a non-coherent, largely disconnected set of admins? Manning (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of things so far back -- my first edit was in 2008 :) I see your point about having a more unified admin body, but it's better to make decisions together as a community and not just as a collective of admins. Someone not being an admin does not make their opinion invalid, so they should be not be excluded from the discussion on that basis. Jafeluv (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• They sort of do, in the same way admins "own" AfD. Given that any potential discussion on AN or ANI will eventually have to be cashed out with some form of admin action (otherwise, why is it on AN or ANI?), admins can veto the community consensus by simply not implementing it. Phrasing this as 'ownership' isn't really the most helpful way to think about this. Think of articles for deletion: non-admins can close deletion debates, but given that they can't actually delete, and are told to only close stuff that is housekeeping and non-contentious keep or speedy keep, the admins do effectively control AfD even if non-admins can still close stuff. It's really the same at AN and ANI: the admins don't own it, but given that you need an admin to push the buttons on a block or unblock, the admins do have some measure of control over AN and ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• non-admin comment In my mind, AN and ANI are owned (in trust) by the Admin Corps with the understanding that this is the place for any editor (admin or not) to solicit a random admin for the purposes of looking at a issue (immediately in the case of AN/I). Have the boards strayed from their purpose of Administrator Intervention and actions that will necessitate administrator action? Absolutely Yes. How can we fix it? We need to start knuckling down on the policies of the board, referring topics that aren't explicitly AN to where they need to be, referring disputants into the dispute resolution system, and having a very low tollerance for threads that fall below the Light/Heat ratio of 1. Drama causing threads and editors should be tolerated with a minimum of civility and encouraged to find something else to do. Yes my own posting severely flouts this own policy, but needs to be said. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  One solution could potentially be to require all threads to have some rough idea what exactly it is the poster wants admins to do. If people were required to be a little bit more explicit about what exactly it is they want out of an admin intervention, we can reduce the frequency where someone comes on, spews a bunch of diffs and then watches as all hell breaks loose. If there is the expectation that someone has to at least make a hint at what they want, admins can resolve it, put a block in or not as appropriate, and move on. A good way to prevent never-ending drama threads is to work out what needs doing quicker, and a good way to do that is to strongly encourage people to put all the cards on the table right away rather than play games, bluff and psych people out. Justice delayed means drama replayed. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  I kinda agree. I think that a good first step would be to require everyone wishing to post a complaint on ANI to follow a layout similar to that used on WP:DRN; a section where the reporter explains what's wrong, another where he's supposed to indicate what admin action he wants, another for diffs/evidence and then one for the discussion. Additionally, I'd also like to encourage uninvolved admins/experienced editor to be more decisive when it comes to closing/hatting threads that have become mere dramafests or that belong elsewhere... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• ’’(another non-admin comment)’’ and on any other talk page, I would have hoped that the poster before last or thereabouts had given us a new header – RE the discussion as to who “owns” this talk page, as far as outcomes go, it ain’t over till someone uses the blocking tool or whatever.

  But as to questions of behaviour on this page goes, here’s a hypothetical: If an admin “misbehaves” ON this page, then it would be incumbent upon the Admin group, as peer group to control that miscreant. And this would surely happen, with fairness and discretion and an absence of rancour.

  Now, in the case of non-admin contributions to the page, it seems only fair that the Admin group, as peer group, be given the same duties, and the community accept that right, in the interest of equal treatment of all contributors to the notice board. And, the community accepts the long-established duty to “weigh in” as and where the great and capricious behemoth is wont to ramble, but not before the locals tidy up.

  As to currently debated questions concerning any particular non-admin, or action by an admin, I make no comment, other than may fairness prevail, and let’s not take too much time. NewbyG ( talk) 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: To answer the question: the Community. But to be specific in this situation, as I understand it this is primarily a conduct board not a content board. Where it makes sense to separate content and conduct discussions (eg. article talk pages) then it makes sense to require a separate forum. Thus, the conduct discussion (about conduct here) should proceed here, there is no reason to change the forum. We should limit the drama to here, where it is happening. However, I would suggest you develop future procedures of notification to invite the whole community to come and participate (in a narrow set of situations, perhaps like the one above), if there is not such a procedure already. Also, endorse NewbyG on last paragraph of the immediate proceeding comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Per Asw's first 5 sentences, the community controls AN and AN/I. Any member of the community is welcome to participate in discussions here (providing they do so constructively) and all opinions are, or should be, assessed when determining a consensus. If that is not clear enough to non-admins, it should be made so. I probably made more AN/I edits before I became an admin than after, so I guess I figured it out for myself. As far as advertising more widely, why this particular topic-ban discussion? All community topic ban proposals are important, and that is why they are held at AN, where they have visibility. Anyone is free to watchlist this page and many many editors do. This is not a secret admin-only confab to ban an inconvenient critiv, it's an open discussion. Franamax (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

All topic bans may be important but not all topic bans involve limiting a member of the community in contributing their "well considered opinion" to topic bans or other conduct remedies. It would also actualize the normal notification requirements to the part(ies) affected (here, the whole community). You know, that whole "openess" thang. And undercut the "we didn't know" and the "no ones watching the watchers, because they don't want us to and are obstructing us" RFC's. But really, in the end, what would it hurt?

Well, as I say, if the current ban under consideration was to limit someone's well-considered opinions, that would be a very serious issue. But the case at hand is considering whether Bugs' signal-to-noise ratio is just too low to tolerate. I'm neither supporting nor opposing the ban, Bugs is a pretty good sock-spotter and does make very perceptive comments at times. I would prefer he just self-limit on the jokes, puns, feuds and insisting on the last word when he no longer has anything to say. I just don't really buy the zOMG Censorship! aspect of this, and it's enough of a one-off that I see no need for a whole 'nother infrastructure to handle it. If we get one of these a week, or even a month, or where the basis is not so clear as in this case, that would be different. Franamax (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Most excellent post - that's 2 or 3 in a row lately. Are we headed for an upswing? (one can hope) .. OK .. just IMHO thoughts.

1. Discussions that have an affect on the community, should be open to all in the community. Everybody needs to be treated equally, especially here.
2. My understand is yes. In the sense that we are charged with providing not only advice, but with implementing the will of consensus. Be it protecting a page, providing a sandbox copy of a deleted article (provided there are no issues with it), or blocking a disruptive editor.
3. I'm not sure I'd use the word "control", but I consider it an "admin area". In the end, the "control" rests with the will of the community. thx and cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who should control AN and AN/I? The community as a whole, IMNSHO. Who does control AN and (especially) AN/I at the moment? No-one much. The rubric at the top of AN/I is routinely ignored, incidents that are not incidents are posted, complaints requiring no admin action, failing first to talk with involved editors or even inform them..... One possibility is that the community just collectively starts to exert control and rein AN/I in. Another possibility that's been raised is to have a clerking/moderation system there. Not to act as controllers, but because maybe it's hard for "the community" to act when that actually means some lonely editor sticking his/her head over the parapet. I have started a discussion here on the topic if anyone wants to express an opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree whole-heartily that improvements could be made - and I'm willing to try again too. The couple things that stick in my mind are: 1.) there is often a disconnect between admin and non-admin. 2.) there's often a disconnect between individual admins - we're not all on the same page. People shout "admin abuse", and at times they are right to do so. Much of this boils down to consistency - if it's the same every time .. for every person - then we regain their respect and trust. Asking honestly here, and not trying to be smart... you have a couple years on me in experience - and even in my early days I could see that you had a clue, and were always fair and consistent. What were these boards like when you started? .. How has it changed? .. can we get back there? (and I ask that of any and all you have many years experience). admin burnout, and "what's the use" is so very prevalent here - but you big guns need to help us out. There's a lot of good admins here .. but we need your support, input, and advice too. If you come in, start us down a good path - that's fine, but you need to stick by us too, and not head back to AC, Crat, FA, or whatever. I read through a LOT of "admin reading lists" when I started, but I still messed up. When I said a block was unfair, and I was going to unblock - rather than someone come to me (either privately so as not to embarrass me, or in public gently) .. I got "you do that and we'll take your tools away" period! .. it tends to put one off a bit. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK - I'm also going to add a thought that may seem like the most absurd things posted on one of these boards. (but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more who felt this way) ... There are actually times that I feel like I have LESS power than those who shun the tools. Not sure how to explain that - but I can try if asked I suppose. — Ched :  ?  23:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interim assessment of topic-ban discussion above

I've just done a non-rigorous, non-binding tally of the above votes. The general picture at present is approximately 34:26 sup/opp. However, there is a significant discrepancy between the voting pattern of admins (15:6 sup/opp) and non-admins (19:20 sup/opp). It was in anticipation of this outcome that I opened the above discussion about "Who owns AN and ANI". Clearly there is a major difference in how admins and non-admins are viewing this particular situation. Why this is so remains a topic for discussion. Manning (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development

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

---

[165] BB is pretty much admitting to baiting on purpose for the "greater good". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Standard. The noble 'taking one for the team' attitude however is ... worrying. pablo 11:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Among mature adults, there is no such thing as "baiting". Only tbe immature and children use the "look what you made me do" argument, to try to blame someone else for what they freely choose to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess some will see that as a violation of WP:BATTLE and/or WP:HARASSMENT. Others might give you the "defender of the wiki" barnstar for your fight against the WP:BADSITES. Business as usual on Wikipedia, I suppose. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The WR editors freely chose to reveal their true character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What if someone serves you that line after harassing the crap out of you, hypothetically speaking, of course? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

They would be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So, you're basically endorsing harassment as a test of character on Wikipedia? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not (intend to) harass the editor. I naively assumed good faith that they were sincere and would understand an explanation. When they continued to falsely claim that I had personally attacked them, my dim bulb finally came on and I realized what they were really up to. And it seems that the admins concurred with my conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrote 'Their bogus "look-what-you-made-me-do" argument reinforces that they are at the grade school level of maturity.' Which can be interpreted that you had already made up your mind about their character, thus you were not assuming good faith. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily

Probably many of you admins have heard of me since I have been around for quite a while and have done a lot of stuff. Although my main responsibilities are a bit out of the way (WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARDS) and, generally, I don't like to spend a lot of time in lengthy discussions, I am pretty experienced at them. My two most recent WP:TFD nominations have ended with closures that were surprising to me based on my experience. In January, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10#Template:OlivierAward_DanceAchievement was closed one opinion to delete (plus the nominator) and three opinions to keep as a consensus to delete. I spent several days seeking an explanation at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_... and the long and the short of it was that after a few days of ignoring my queries, he claimed to be happy to explain his decision and felt the proper way to explain such a decision was to delegate the responsibility of explaining it to the nominator. Eventually, the nominator and I agreed that these should be restored with minor modifications based on discussions now located in three places:

• User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:Frietjes#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_66#Templates

Today, I found another odd closure decision at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24#Template:New_York_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population when a discussion with four deletes and three keeps was closed as consensus to delete. In my experience at various WP:XFD, even if you count the nominator if 3-5 out of 8 people are on one side of and issue and 3-5 out of 8 are on the other, generally, this is regarded as a no consensus. This particular decision may effect a total of 35 similar templates (most of which are listed at Category:United States mayors templates by state) in the near future. My alternatives are to pursue a WP:DRV. However, since the first step in a DRV is to talk to the discussion-closing editor, I would be back on Fastily (talk · contribs)'s page. He has already expressed a belief that the proper way to explain your decision is to ask the nominator to do so, I feel pursuing that would be fruitless.

I am curious about the closure because there is a possibility that no consensus is no longer considered a discussion resolution. I see my options as follows:

1. Accept the decision
2. Pursue a WP:DRV
3. Find a place to discuss
   1. whether no consensus is still used in TFD resolutions
   2. whether Fastily's understanding that the nominator is responsible for explaining a TFD closure for DRV purposes
   3. whether Fastily may be too aggressive in closing TFD discussions I have been involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember that the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter. Number 57 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; the arguments for keeping the NY mayors template amounted to "It's useful" (without actually specifying how) and "You didn't nominate all these other templates at the same time". Fastily was perfectly justified in analyzing the quality of the arguments rather than just counting numbers. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I nominated the NY mayors template for deletion.) Powers ^T 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with what the closer says take it to DRV. I think you are reading way too much into Fastily asking the nominator to comment. To me it looks like he was fed up of you badgering him, so asked someone else who might be able to explain without getting annoyed at you. I could be wrong of course. Also, you don't have to look very hard to find no-consensus closes by fastily (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#Template:Closed_down). Polequant (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to disagree with what a closer says if he won't say anything and hard to take it to DRV when the first step is to talk with the closer when the closer won't say anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well DRV will in fact hear it in cases like this; and it frequently does get the occasion to hear it, because Fastily does not explain his closes at the time he makes them, and often not on his talk p. either. Considering that a reasonable number of his closes have been overturned there, I don't think his continuing this way is constructive behavior for an admin. For everyone who take s the matter to DRv, there are probably ten who are not willing to undergo the further bureaucracy. Since many of these are people who would be making their first contribution here, closing discussions in this way, let alone avoiding discussing them, is has the effect of discouraging new contributors, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage them (Most of his closes are good, of course, but an editor, especially a new editor, deserves an explanation--a good explanation of why something must be deleted will often keep the editor. Some of this should be dealt with by a rule requiring meaningful rational for non-unanimous XfD closings, but changing deletion process in practice seems to require unanimous consent. In the meantime, we can strongly urge Fastily to change his work habits in this respect. Yes, he wouldn't be able to do as many closes, but there are a few hundred other good administrators. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I proposed just that a couple of years ago. It was shot down in flames by other admins circling the wagons to defend their own laziness and highhandedness: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 5#Closing rationales - optional or not?. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie and User:Pluie lite

Resolved

 – Indef block is not the same as a ban. Indefinite is not a time-frame. It is a lack of a time-frame. At some point, User:La goutte de pluie may convince the community to allow her to return to editing. She has not shown abuse of the permissions that are being requested to be removed and so if she were to return, she would be allowed to continue using those permissions. There are no security concerns as would be in the case of a sysop or checkuser. No evident block evasion on alternate account. No admin action is needed here.--v/r - TP 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

{{resolved|This is not a crisis, and will be handled (by someone who finds your request less distasteful than I do) on one of the other 10 pages you've posted this. having a thread open here too is forum shopping, and that should be discouraged. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)}}

I note that all other fora have been closed, so this is the only active one, so I'm unresolving this even though I don't think anything needs to be done. Not sure what the {{hat}} is about, either, but that wasn't me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'll pretend that WP:AN is moderated and de-snarkify my initial response. That probably didn't help anything. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Administrators, need to inform you that the user account User:La goutte de pluie is currently blocked indefinitely and as a general and security precaution, user account's that have been blocked indefinitely should be stripped/removed of all their user permissions to none. Thank You. (Administrators please take action as soon as possible). TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) User:La goutte de pluie currently has autopatroll and rollback rights which need to be stripped/removed. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) User:Pluie lite has declared on their user page that they are the same user as User: La goutte de pluie. It was User:La goutte de pluie which had given 5 user rights, namely reviewer, rollbacker, confirmed user, autopatrolled and file mover without any valid reason. Seeing as the user has been blocked indefinitely, the user can potentially misuse the other account by sock-puppetry and therefore all user permissions from this account also need to be removed. It can be checked from the User rights log page that it was indeed User:La goutte de pluie who had changed user rights of User:Pluie lite just the next day when the account was created. Administrators can also consider if they wish to block User:Pluie lite too. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I have also posted the thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions but it hasn't received any timely response. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC) As I see it there is no cause for action here. I am very confident that La goutte de pluie will not evade the block. Neither rollback nor autopatrol has been abused. And blocked users are not generally removed from all user groups. Amalthea 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC) No, this request has not been resolved. How come indefinitely blocked users will be allowed to keep the user permissions, when they have been blocked for disruption. The main account User:La goutte de pluie has been blocked, and there seems to be no reason why user permissions should be retained by that blocked account. Okay, i get your statement that User:La goutte de pluie has not evaded the block by using account User:Pluie lite and the user rights be retained by that account, but there isn't any valid reason as why should an indefinitely blocked user account User:La goutte de pluie be allowed to have rights when there will be no editing from that account. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a brilliant response that i got from the Administrator's noticeboard for a simple but an important matter. Well done. Really never expected this. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And how would it be a helpful use of admin resources to revoke permissions? It isn't like they can be used while blocked.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not sure what you were expecting then, considering we (1) do not have a policy on removal of permissions from indefblocked editors and (2) were told by Amalthea above that we generally do not do so. What is your interest in this particular editor? Syrthiss (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment that I don't think this was deliberate forum shopping on the part of GeneralUser - I saw he's left the request on my page and that of several other admins, and presumed he wasn't aware of this noticeboard. I therefore suggested he try here instead, as I didn't have time to investigate the request.  An optimist on the run! 16:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they made the request on the talkpage for request for permissions, and then ~20 minutes later started asking on admin talkpages. I assume good faith reasons for that, but I question the IMMEDIATE BURNING NEED. Syrthiss (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If that were so, then there would have been no need to remove administrator rights of a person who has been blocked indefinitely, isn't it. They are removed so that the user does not unblock himself/herself, right. Same applies to all other user rights, when the account is blocked indefinitely and not going to be used the user permissions also don't have a valid reason to stay there, do they ? Furthermore, many people look out for other users for in a particular user group asking for help where they have user rights for. When a person is looking for a checkuser then they will go to the checkuser group, when looking for bureaucrats they will go the to bureaucrats group. If any user having these type of rights would have been blocked indefinitely then surely these rights would have been removed, but not the other rights which is really not fair. And then when another user who is looking for help requests something and later on finds that the user they requested was actually blocked needs to recontact someone else or someplace else which leads to time and energy wastage. Also this means that user's who have been blocked indefinitely will not be using the right and should be stripped/removed from them, as all user permissions say that when right is not needed-It can be removed when requested by the respective user (In blocked cases be removed). All users need to see that this is a genuine request and need to assume good faith. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, this request doesn't apply to just User:La goutte de pluie and User:Pluie lite, but to all user's who have been blocked indefinitely and have user permissions with them. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference being that if an administrator is indefblocked, they could unblock themselves so the userright needs to be taken away. If a checkuser was indefblocked I assume they could still indeed look at private information. However, I don't believe that it is a standing policy that either of those two actions take place on a simple indefblock. You can argue that it should be so, but that is outside the scope of this discussion. Now, I realize that you may intend this for a bigger target than just La goutte de pluie, but I am asking you specifically why is this user the focus of your complaint here, today. Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And in fact, admin rights are never revoked just because an admin is blocked. If said admin would unblock themselves though then they might find that ARBCOM may have it removed. Amalthea 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what i said above in my answer above your post. The indefinitely blocked administrator can unblock itself and an indefinitely blocked checkuser can misuse the tool by looking at private information, and a indefinitely blocked Steward can also misuse the tools. This applies to all other permissions too (whether a indefinitely blocked user is capable of using them or not). I stand in support of my request and there is no valid reason as to why this type of request should not be considered. When a user account is indefinitely blocked it is because so that it does not misuse it's editing and other kind of privileges. The indefinitely blocked user is stopped from editing but some of their user rights (for example - autopatroll, rollback, importer, file mover, IP block exempt, etc. just to name a few - if some of them do not get removed) are not removed makes no sense. If i can get support from numerous users including administrators and anyone else that supports my claim which is fully valid and genuine, then i am pretty sure that this matter can Really become an official Wikipedia policy if it doesn't exist right now. Thank you TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Admins typically fight any community desysop process tooth and nail, which is why all previous proposals have failed or resulted in no consensus. It took MANY years to just come up with a policy to desysop administrators who have been completely inactive for more than a year. I have my own opinions about why that is, but expressing them here will just make me enemies. You may draw your own conclusions. The points you are making are logical and reasonable, which is exactly why they will be shouted down. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Then what solution do you and all other users suggest should be done ? Even after i have given out valid, true and genuine points, if these things are not looked upon, then this is a big drawback which seriously needs to be addressed and corrected soon. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If a blocked user continues to use functions provided by advanced user groups then it can and I'm sure will be dealt with by the community. There is no need to set up policies or guidelines for all eventualities. WP:NOTBUREAU. Amalthea 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible block circumvention
Moved here from User talk:Amalthea
Saw your comment on the admin noticeboard. I have strong reasons to believe that User:La goutte de pluie has been evading their block. The editing patterns of the users below are very similar to his.

• 128.143.1.58 (talk · contribs · email)

This IP resolves to the University of Virginia (which is where La goutte has previously identified to be from) and was found editing the same articles inserting content right after La goutte's edits after the block.

• 207.114.92.78 (talk · contribs · email)

Later this IP was found re-inserting controversial edits into the articles on Lee Hsien Loong and City Harvest Church. The IP, however, resolves to Baltimore, but I there is a high probability that this was La goutte too, given the pattern of editing. I'm sure one can find more evidence if they look deeper. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mingana locked

Resolved

 – Done. No idea why you couldn't create it as there was no history or log and you are autoconfirmed. Fences&Windows 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to link Mingana to Alphonse Mingana since he is the only notable person with this name, but I was surprised to find out that I'm not authorised to do so. Could anyone un-protect it or explain to me why it is locked? Thanks.--Rafy talk 00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)