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. 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 23 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:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 139 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 136 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 119 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 86 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)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 69 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 56 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 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:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

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

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

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 40 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 40 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 32 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 31 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 31 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	40	2	42
TfD	0	0	1	6	7
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	3	1	4
RfD	0	0	52	30	82
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 49 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 48 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 15 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 124 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)

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

(Initiated 124 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)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 118 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 115 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 105 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 99 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:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 99 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 93 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 86 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:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 73 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 65 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 60 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion

(Initiated 35 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 22 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)

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

(Initiated 12 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• DeknMike inserted the following text into the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThatPeskyCommoner, two points:

• First, when you say 'I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".' what exactly is the deviation from truth that you are concerned about? What are the "warning bells," exactly? When you say, "what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it," what are they? Please be specific. It appears that you are questioning the truth of something being presented here, and if so, we need you to identify exactly what it is so we can address it. This is Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, this is as serious as it gets on Wikipedia (short of ARBCOM). John Carter did not list this case without thought or in haste, and I am not participating here without thought or in haste. I hate being here. I don't want to do this. But John Carter and I feel it has to be done for the benefit of the Wikipedia project as a whole.
• Second, when you say:

  I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. ... I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first.

  Sorry, "may be needed"? What else do you think a topic-ban request at Administrators' Noticeboard is asking for? We are asking specifically and exactly for an experienced, uninvolved Admin to review everything in detail. Are you suggesting we're hoping to get our request get rushed through without careful review, or that Admins don't normally review topic-ban requests carefully? John Carter, the editor who brought this request, is indeed a "scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin," is an Admin, has over 150,000 edits (please take a moment to reflect on this!), has religion-related articles an area of his special expertise, and has been only minimally involved in the edits at Messianic Judaism--he has not edited the article at all during the time-frame we are discussing, and has less than two dozen edits to the article Talk page in the time-frame we are discussing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeknMike "summarized" or "paraphrased" this as:

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break (DeknMike discussion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!vote summary (DeknMike discussion)

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

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

Support

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

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

Non-!voting comment

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

Oppose

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

Named party

• User:DeknMike "Oppose"

Request for closure

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

• Huh. I was actually about to close it with a topic ban for DeknMike (talk · contribs) from any content or page related to Messianic Judaism; I think the evidence and discussion clearly support such a remedy. But in looking at DeknMike's contribs, I see he's been active at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, as have I. I'm not exactly prepared to take a chance on this site's ever-shifting definition of "involvement", so I'm going to pass - but I think there's clearly a strong rationale for a topic ban here. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Community Ban Proposal for editor Horizontal Law

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

---

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

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

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

Community ban proposal for editor Echigo mole

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_proposal_for_editor_Echigo_mole

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is nuts, these constant ban votes for editors that have been indef blocked forever are 100% pointless. And no, it isn't that I don't understand the difference, it is that banning Echo-whoever, and all the other trolls and puppeteers and vandals, isn't going to change one single thing for anyone. No admin was ever going to unblock him unilaterally. No one was ever going to get nailed for reverting him because he wasn't banned. No one considered him part of the community. We're not making any "statement" whatsoever. The only conceivable benefit is the warm glow in the belly from a good 2 minute hate, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. Khvalamde, I will pay you $5, a barnstar, and one free pass to say a rude word to someone here without getting blocked (or, if you are blocked by someone else, I'll unblock you immediately) if you just promise to never bring another ban discussion to this board. Please, I am begging. Stop this ridiculousness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you Buick Century Driver, that's an obvious one I forgot to list. There is no chance that the ban is going to convince them to go away. If anything, it might make them want to stick around to prove the ban is toothless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a somewhat odd statement to make, offering to reward a user with a barnstar to stop making frivolous proposals. While I sympathize with your suffering I question the reasoning of giving community rewards to stop a user from making frivolous proposals. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • Personally I have nothing to gain from this. I surmise that Khvalamde was personally involded and this could be a last resort, but I could care less if Echigo mole comes back and makes good edits. Of course if the activity is vandalisim the best way to stop them is to protect the page they're targeting. Once they know they can't edit the page, they'll probably give up on what they were doing. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To make sure I'm being clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ban them because they might become rehabilitated. Semi-protection isn't going to work on serial sockpuppeteers, it would be useless. But so is community banning them. We shouldn't have these votes all the time because they make no difference except to waste time and give a false sense of security. Echo-whatsis (along with the other VFB's here recently) is already defacto banned; there is no benefit to making it a formal ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Though I'm not one to participate in these discussions, I seriously doubt this is going to keep this person away from the site. If efforts were made to steer this person away from his or her disruptive behaviour and they ignored, then there is nothing I can do to avert this person's fate. If not, then I strongly suggest we mitigate the block for 1 year and suggest he or she can return in the future. I also strongly belive that bans should be handled by the arbcom. They're experts in policy and usually wind up giving a fair sanction. Often these bans lead to nothing more than an endless game of cat and mouse with the user and the time it takes to keep them off could have been used to improve articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I see absolutley no harm in converting a de facto ban into a concrete one. If there's even a scintilla of a possible benefit in doing so, then it's a good thing. These are people for whom the collective good faith has totally run out, and I see value in the community affirming that -- or, if the proposed ban fails, in the community's realization that there is still some perceived value in keeping the possibility of the editor returning alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • BMK, what scintilla of a possible benefit would that be? What possible benefit is there? I think it's far more likely that being banned gives them more incentive to mess with us. If anything, there is a scintilla of possible harm. The only benefit this thread will bring is the small joy I get from typing the fun not-used-often-enough word "scintilla" multiple times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam: One benefit is that the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight, which is not true of the edits of block-evading indef-blocked users. As for incentive, given his record, Echigo mole already has sufficient incentive to mess with us, ignoring him isn't going to change that, nor is banning him. -- I think Mathsci can confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, banning isn't a death sentence, things can change, community bans can be removed by the community, should there be a change of heart and a sincere demonstration of having turned over a new leaf. There's no particular reason to avoid an appropriate ban simply because it's a more restrive sanction than an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose – Floquenbeam has a good point. Why have a ban or block when said user can very easily step around that? See User:Grundle2600, User:CentristFiasco, and User:Ryan kirkpatrick for good examples of that. --MuZemike 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF -- user is already banned (defacto) and Floequenbeam's point is spot on. Nobody Ent 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, not the ban, but the process of seeking a formal confirmation for it just for form's sake. We have a perfectly adequate policy on this: per WP:BAN, users who get themselves indef-blocked and then continue with a persistent pattern of block-evading sock disruption, already are considered de facto banned. The recent fashion of bringing up all these cases for formal reconfirmation of the ban has the effect of watering down this good old rule and spreading the myth that the old principle of "a banned user is any user who no admin would ever want to unblock" somehow is no longer valid. There is no difference between a formally enacted ban and a de facto ban of this sort, except that theoretically the threshold for an admin to try to override it and unblock a user would be lower for the latter type. But in most cases this possibility is remote and any unblock would quickly be overturned with a massive troutslap, so it doesn't really matter. For this reason I basically agree with Floquenbeam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I think the opposes are less than convincing as to the merits of whether or not Echigo is considered banned. I am a little more than appalled at the logic that we shouldn't ban or block an user just because they can find a way around it; why bother having useful edits made to the encyclopedia if all the work are inevitably going to be damaged by vandals, tendentious editors, and other users who should not be editing Wikipedia? While I appreciate the frustration regarding why should we necessarily confirm a ban from so long ago just because of some recent socking, that does not really warrant an oppose to this ban because it does nothing more than confuse/complicate matters - an oppose would mean there is some willingness to unblock the user (so a ban is not warranted), while your rationales apparently contradict that as there is no clear support from you regarding the ban itself. If you are getting annoyed with an user unnecessarily bringing up ban discussions on an ongoing basis regarding indef blocked users where official bans are not necessary (in light of the defacto bans), comment on their talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - when too much editor time is unnecessarily being wasted on cleaning up, I am not going to oppose efforts to cut down on that - purely because some admins fail to appreciate the difference this will have on other editors who do not have the luxury of extra buttons. I also don't agree that this is the appropriate discussion for "watering down our normal practices", so I am changing my comment to clarify my support for the ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I tend to think "what's it going to hurt to have a formal confirmation", but FPaS' point about this watering down our normal practices is convincing — this ban won't have a practical benefit and is part of a pattern that's not going in a good direction. Community ban proposals should be for people who aren't already (1) blocked indefinitely, and (2) obviously blocked permanently. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban due to abusive sockpuppetry. And as sick as some people are of seeing ban discussions I'm equally as sick of seeing them endlessly bitching about it. It's been discussed a million times. A community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single administrator. And the entire "de facto" bollocks is an utter debacle as I knew it would be. Every time there is a ban proposal there is this endless bullshit about "de facto this" and "indef is fine, nothing changes with a ban" that. Clearly it is different or there would be no such thing as a "ban", admins would just block people and leave it at that. The fact that ban proposals repeatedly come up indicates that you're not going to get your way and ban proposals will not stop unless you either eliminate the concept of a community ban or you change the way Wikipedia works, namely via discussion and consensus. If you don't want to participate in ban discussions nobody is holding your feet to the fire. But quit derailing every ban discussion with this endless bitching and griping, it is FAR MORE DISRUPTIVE than any ban discussion has ever been. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Floquenbeam. Thanks, Dennis, for the explanation and pointer. Could we make it any more complicated?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What this section fails to address is why the ban was so merited in the first place to result in further measures. To me this seems a case of Double Jeopardy in wanting to provide additional punishments after the fact. And if that is to occur, then in my opinion there should be at least a token analysis of the original discipline so we can assure ourselves that (a) it was warranted, and (b) all possible measures need to be instituted to stop the user. A glance at the diffs provided shows little more than an affinity for Grunsky Matrices (whatever those are). For me to assume more discipline is required I would need to feel assured the original discipline itself was warranted, let alone that more is necessary. To my mind that proof has yet to be presented and without it this would be a hasty, premature, and careless rush to judgment which I will not support. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

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

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

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

• User:Altmathsci/vodafone

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

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

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

• Edits in the range 94.196.1.1/16 : [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
• Edits in the range 94.197.1.1/16 [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]

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

Echigo mole/A.K.Nole has now started to troll here (what a surprise).[67][68] But all his edits repeat themselves ad nauseam, each one claiming to be from a new person. Wikipedia does not work like that. The edits are instantly recognizable because of the standard IP ranges used and their dreary repetitive content. WP:DUCK and WP:DENY apply in this case. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The user's record is appalling. We don't need this kind of disruption. Prioryman (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I looked at the diffs and user's edits[69] briefly and couldn't understand what the issue was. Perhaps you could show more clearly which edits they made originally that were so objectionable? All I saw was a potentially unhealthy interest in discussing esoteric mathematical subjects with you. To convince me the original ban itself was warranted, let alone that more discipline is required, I will need to see specifics as to how they acted rudely. I did not even see where you asked them to stop talking to you, which to me would show this was stalking as you claim. This long list of diffs needs to more concisely pinpoint where abuse occurred for me to acknowledge the original ban was even necessary, let alone a more stringent action. Clearly discipline isn't deterring them anyway so we might as well make sure the original decision was correct rather than making a careless judgment which will only encourage them further to oppose it by suggesting careless injustice. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question. This [70] appears to be by DWaterson (talk · contribs), who registered in 2005. Is Mathsci quite sure that this is another sockpuppet User:Echigo mole? Could we see the SPI please? 94.197.77.227 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) block evading ipsock's edits struck- comment was restored by blocked ipsock 94.197.34.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a zero missing from the end of the link: [71]. Peter E. James (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of de-facto-banned users

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

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

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

• Can someone give me an example of an editor getting in trouble for reverting a de facto banned but not de jure banned vandal, puppeteer, or troll? I have never seen this happen. We remove the edits of block-evading indef-blocked but not-officially-banned users all the time. Who has ever tried to revert Echigo mole, for example, and been stymied or threatened because someone said "Echigo mole isn't banned"?

  If that happens, then de jure banning makes sense; but I don't think it happens. The only time banning makes a difference for reverting all edits is when someone who is indef blocked is making edits that some people want to be able to revert, and others don't. But that is not the case with de facto banned vandals, socks, and trolls that get brought up in votes for banning so frequently.

  If the fear of a 3RR block for reverting a de facto banned editor is driving this, wouldn't it be much simpler to just change the wording of WP:EW to say that reverts of de facto banned editors is exempt too? That would certainly match current practice, anyway. Better than another process, IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viriditas

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

I don't like personal attacks ([72], [73], [74], [75]). I have warned him three times by now (1 text, two Twinkle-tags) ([76], [77], [78]). But rereading his talkpage, he in fact said that he wanted to battle it out if I dared to report him. In fact, I took that as a threat and request to report him and so here is the report.

By now, Viriditas is also warned about his behaviour by two other Wikipedians. It seems that his passion for "Template:American cuisine" is going out of hand. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll gladly take your fishy bait. Those diffs show responses to your personal attacks and your repeated trolling of the template talk page. To date, you made 11 contributions to the discussion over at Template talk:American cuisine.[79] You trolled the talk page in your second edit, when you proposed adding an image of lard to represent all American cuisine.[80] Then, you attacked me personally in your third edit.[81] You demanded I prove a negative (typical trolling behavior) in your sixth edit,[82] made a fallacious appeal to the majority and to non-existent, anecdotal evidence in your eighth edit,[83] avoided answering a simple, direct question (and replied with a trollish accusation) in your tenth edit, and directly contradicted yourself and a previous edit you made (indicating you were trolling) in your eleventh edit.[84] After discovering you weren't getting the "bites" you were after by trying to start an uber-trollish America vs. The World dispute, like the kind we find on external forum sites, you then proceeded to visit my user talk page, where you spent the next hour template bombing and harassing me to bait me even further.[85][86][87] Please use an external website for flame wars about Americans vs. other nations, because this is the wrong site for it. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Interesting, but I can see the Belgian article without any subscription and with a clear picture of a hamburger in it: De Standaard. Besides that. I am not the only requesting you to stop your attacks. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please stop the trolling; that isn't a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. Finally, you need to stop the stalking and blanket reverting of my edits on pages you've never edited before. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Aha, another unsubstantiated attack. May I point on the fact that I reverted only 7 of the 13 templates you altered. And that you reverted all 7 without any comment? Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You're trolling, again. You stalked and hounded me on articles you've never edited before for no reason other than to blanket revert my edits and harass me. Further, you haven't participated in the discussion about these edits, so accusing me of not commenting on your reverts is just more trolling on your end. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
          • So what? I don't see any edits of you at the templates about Canadian Cuisine, Japanese cuisine, Korean cuisine, Serbian cuisine, Turkish cuisine, Pakistani cuisine, Moroccan cuisine, Italian cuisine, Algerian cuisine, Indian cuisine, Chinese cuisine, British cuisine and Argentine cuisine, before you removed the picture. But if you read the history properly (what you clearly didn't do), you can see edits of me on the templates about Turkish cuisine and Serbian cuisine (where I didn't revert you). Why you deny me the right to edit those articles is an absolute mystery to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
            • • The real mystery is why you are hounding me and blanket reverting my edits without any known reason for your reverts. It is a mystery is why you keep avoiding the argument and attacking other editors. The mystery of your continual disruption is the issue. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
                • Do you have any real arguments or do you only have PAs and false accusations available? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Use of the term xenophobe by Viriditas did come off a bit extreme until hearing his side of the story. Night of the Big Wind wanting pictures of lard shown as representative of American cuisine, and suggesting Viriditas is ignorant for not being abroad more, is somewhat inflammatory. Perhaps there is room for agreement by having a section on "Global perceptions of American cuisine" which could provide sourcing for what views outside American are concerning its cuisine. Viriditas is right though that it needs to rely on sources and that this is more a 'culture war' than any attempt to resort to personal attacks. I think there might be a little too much sensitivity here and hopefully there is room for compromise where both sides are presented. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Aha, a now blocked sockpop (see his talkpage) Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Viriditas has not been on his best behavior in the discussion, he openly violated WP:3R by reverting the article to the state he wanted it to be in. He ignored WP:BRD at first, insisting that his was the proper way to have the template configured. The main issue I have with him is that he ignored one of the baser protocols when arguing a point - Argue your points and point out the deficiencies in the arguments other commentators, but do not point out percieved deficiencies of the other commentators themselves. He made several snide comments regarding myself and others in his attempt to argue his point. These actions were a bit over the top for someone with his time and experience he on WP.

I took Night's comment for what it was, a joke made in an attempt to lighten the tone of the conversation. We as Americans have a problem with obesity and he was poking fun at that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Ah... So refreshing to see Viriditas name at WP:AN. I don't think a site ban is sufficient in this case. Do we have a sanction more severe than that? Can we ban him from the Internet? Lacking a total and complete irrevocable biometric Internet ban for life--and any reincarnated personages--perhaps this should be moved to WP:WQA. On the serious side, V was definitely edit warring--and his justification doesn't hold water. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• On a side note, if you wish to participate in the discussion at Template talk:American cuisine, you are welcome (referring to anyone who reads this). The more people, the better. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By now, mr. Viriditas started altering 13 other navboxes relating to foreign cuisine. Out of those 13 cases, I reverted 7, as not being irrelavant, as he claimed. Only effect was a unexplained revert by mr. Viriditas. Arguments he used to remove the images were Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (what says nothing about navigationboxes but is about images in the lead of an article), Wikipedia:LAYIM (about the layout and size of images, no word specifically about navboxes), Wikipedia:Navigation templates (what shoes that images are allowed) and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Wikipedia:NAVBOX (what says nothing about images). And last, he uses Wikipedia:IRELEV to remove the images, what means saying that a picture of spaghetti is irrelevant to Italian Cuisine.

With reporting mr. Viriditas here, I am not trying to get him blocked or banned. I would be good enough for me when he stops editing articles and templates about food. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a troll. I properly notified the discussion of edits to 13 other articles.[88] That discussion, over at Template_talk:American_cuisine#Anna's sense, has support for my edits. If you don't support those edits, you are welcome at any time to use the discussion page and make your case, however, you can't and you won't because you are just trolling for attention. Your entire purpose here is to attack and harass other users, and that's at odds with the goals of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And the next attack. Can you explain to me why editwarring and personal attacks is beneficial to Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to start explaining why you've been following my contributions and reverting my edits for no reason. How did your reverts improve Wikipedia? How did any of your contributions to the discussion improve Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I only looked up the 13 templates you announced to have changed. And instead of blanked reverts, I only reverted half of them, with an explanation. That was rather different with your unexplained reverts only minutes later on all templates I had changed. Secondly, I have a proven track record on articles and templates to food and drink related subjects. You are an experienced editor, with an even longer tour of duty then I have, so you should know better then the way your are acting now. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

V, could you please stop with making these changes based on very little discussion and your own personal opinions. Changes such as these should really be made via discussion and consensus, not capricious, wholes scale removal. Again you are violating WP:3R, WP:BRD and no you are engaging in WP:Pointy behavior. Ongoing personal attacks add to this spate of awful behavior and are not productive. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making things up. The changes I've made have support on the talk page, and there's been a massive amount of discussion on the topic, with primary objections consisting of "I own the template", "I don't like it", "me too", and "Americans are fat". Your stalking, hounding and blanket reversions without reason, and continual stream of false allegations and accusations are noted. Your attempt to engage in the "I lost the discussion so let's play the civility card" tactic is noted. Viriditas (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So if I summerize it correctly, everybody, including Jimbo and the Queen of Engeland, was behaving badly, with the notable exception of mr. Viriditas? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This began with you making personal attacks, followed by you trolling the talk page, harassing me on my user talk page, and finally, hounding me on other articles and blanket reverting me because you lost the argument. You're here, along with Jeremy, because when you can't attack the argument, you're best bet is to attack the contributor, hoping nobody will actually spend the time to look at the diffs. Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange, but that is just exactly what you are doing by calling me a troll and calling some of my remarks xenofobic! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Viriditas, no matter what the situation at the article, it has not been my experience that another editor's behavior is improved by calling him a troll. If you need help at that article, then get help.

(Does he really think lard is typical of American cooking? The average American eats less than 15 grams of lard each week (ISBN 9780824767822 p. 341). A single serving of British Lardy cake or Spanish Manteca colorá will have more than that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't think that. He is trying to start a flame war, and failing. His entire argument consists of "Americans are fat and stupid", which is perfectly fine with me, but that's not what we at discussing on the talk page, and he keeps trying to change the subject from arguments to editors. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I can't remember to have said that anywhere in the discussion. Do you have proof of that? What I did say is that in my experiences in The Netherlands and Ireland (=just my experiences, not universal), most people identify "American Cuisine" with hamburgers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Night of the Big Wind is not a troll. To me it looks like a classic use of WP:BOOMERANG to quell criticism. As long as Viriditas can, in some way, any way, make his accuser look equally culpable, then he gets off scot free. Because the Admins are going to say, well, both sides misbehaved, end of story, next case please. The fact is, without the 3RR violations, ownership, and refusal seek consensus, there wouldn't have ever been any tit for tat. Viriditas caused that. All over a fairly insignificant navbox picture which by its very nature couldn't be expected to please everybody. Why go to war over that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The sound of your axe grinding is so loud, reports are coming in from Alpha Centauri. . How about providing some diffs, starting with this alleged 3rr you speak of? This should be interesting. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I kind of saw that coming. Ad hominem is your M.O. First attack Night of the Big Wind, then attack anybody else who doesn't side with you. Always attack, attack, attack, and that will drag everyone else down into the muck, and muddy the waters so badly that there will be no consequences. Guys who have been editing Wikipedia many years seem to grasp that tactic quite well. And you'll probably get away with it, as usual, so why pay attention to someone like me? You know your business. I see someone else has said Night of the Big Wind is not a troll. Better run and attack them now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Translation, you don't have any diffs because you're just making stuff up. Quick, what's a 12 letter word for someone who does that? Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment- I won't comment on whether pictures of hamburgers and lard are representative of American cuisine, but from the rest of the diffs provided it does not look like NOTBW is trolling or anything like that. It looks more to me as though Viriditas is overreacting and trying to interpret NOTBW's edits in the worst possible way. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is a real discussion? I would say a cup of tea Coke is called for here. There is no single image which would exemplify all of US cuisine, so that cavil is useless. Maine lobster, Gulf shrimp, Colorado beef, Hamburgers and brats, apple pie and pecan pie , sourdough bread, and lots more are all part of American cuisine, and since we can not put everything into a grand stew in a single picture, it makes sense to not even try to cover everything. My own suggestion? an ice cream cone - certified American from about 1904. Chocolate. Collect (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have offered to rework a picture with frybread, a Native American type of bread with a history far older then all other cooking styles in the United States. And secondly, bread is, as far as I know, used in every style of kitchen mentioned in the template and so neutral. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment No strong opinion the the content dispute above, but I think both editors went too far at times with each other. Some clearly unacceptable stuff, and we should all try to avoid it in the future. Agreed? Arkon (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't disrupt the discussion and attack the user for being Dutch and then proceed to make fun of his cuisine. I didn't argue that Wikipedia should promote stereotypes of Dutch people and refer to them as uncouth simpletons. I wasn't the one who then proceeded to template bomb a regular and make accusations on their talk page. What I did do, was call a spade a spade. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You started off with an editwar, my friend. That is clearly disruptive behaviour. And secondly, I never made fun of the American kitchen. I just told you that the view on American Cuisine outside the United States might be totally different then your view. As WP is supposed to be neutral, that is an opinion that must be taken into account. And clearly not brushed away as being an xenofobic, as you did. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I started nothing of the sort; I've now withdrawn from the discussion and I have no intent on ever returning. Please continue your "fishing" expedition...without me, as I have no patience for it. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Then read you own edits again, my friend. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this is on AN. WP:WQA is thataway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. While an interesting content dispute, the meat of this is q content dispute, which some harsh language thrown in for seasoning. Please take it elsewhere.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• To me the most American of cuisine is sweet pomegranite salad with also chopped walnuts, apples, raisins, mixed w whipped cream (must use home-grown, sweet, soft-seeded Eversweet strain of "pommers," not the standard, tart, Spanish Ruby).

  W rgd user Veriditas: Everybody knows that no-one is ever sanctioned for personal attacks on Wikipedia. So, ignore that and simply address eg the charge of 3R, which should have been accompanied w diffs.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion, Hrafn

Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users being notified of this discussion: User_talk:Goo2you, User_talk:Maiorem, User_talk:Mthoodhood, User_talk:John_lilburne, User_talk:Kenatipo, User_talk:John_J._Bulten, User:Hrafn. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom decision

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Etiquette states,

  2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

  Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence

• Evidence of lack of respect for another editor, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive133#William Lane Craig,

  Most notable is user User:Hrafn who began his involvement in this article since 26 May 2011, and has repeatedly deleted important information from the article with such reasons given as "Rm: WP:OR that is NOT IN THE CITED SOURCES!" despite not being familiar with the source in question; "UTTERLY worthless sources on UTTERLY unimportant website"...00:25, 16 September 2011

• Evidence of disrupting Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive38#Marcus R. Ross: Selected Bibliography,

  ...Hrafn's tendentious and disruptive edit warring...05:45, 17 January 2008

• Shouting at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive108#David Berlinski,

  What are you shouting for?...19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks!..."Turns out that you actually do know that..." John lilburne is misrepresenting me again....Hrafn...12:06, 5 February 2011

• Personal attack on another editor, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive140#James O'Keefe,

  Regurgitation of these tired, reality-divorced talking points amounts to no more than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la...This is not even pretending you're "contributing to an encyclopedia"...Hrafn...02:56, 22 December 2011

• Commenting on the contributor, not the contribution, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive108#David Berlinski,

  Therefore the FACT is that you haven't got a leg to stand on. Hrafn...15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attack at Talk:John F. Ashton, "...sections out of chronological order -- it is [[WP:DE|disruptive]]...Hrafn...05:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)".

• Diff showing that there is a well-known and long-standing problem.

Personal attacks or evidence of personal attacks on Unscintillating:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MHG Systems,

  I find User:Hrafn's behaviour towards User:Unscintillating counterproductive (calling names and declaring the discussion "too long to read")...12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Talk:John Hartnett (physicist), diff,

  Unscintillating pig-headedly...Hrafn...08:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Accusations and uncivil behavior at Talk:John F. Ashton:
  • ...'''BLATANTLY OBVIOUS''' that Ashton is a YEC, and [[WP:DE|disrupt]] the article...Hrafn...06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ...claim that we do not know that Ashton is a YEC is decidedly [[WP:POINT]]...Hrafn...09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • And here's a quote of where I MET THE FRACKING BURDEN! ...Hrafn...04:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

    Diff:

• Talk:Mark Dalbey, diff,

  This comment tells me nothing whatsoever of any validity about the facts, but everything about the character and general trustworthiness of its author. Relevant pages to describe your comment would appear to be WP:TE & WP:CB. I didn't have a high opinion of you previously, and rather thought that your nick was somewhat of an understatement. I now see that you are a perfect antonym of wikt:scintillating. Such extreme, blatant and fallacious WP:Synthesis of what the sources actually state would fail to 'scintillate' even the village idiot...Hrafn...12:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to strike

• To use the language of the courtroom (though cognizant that Wikipedia is not a court of law), the 'accused' moves that this purported 'evidence' be stricken, as being based repeatedly on (i) hearsay (what other users accuse me of having done), including one wild accusation from a long-banned sockpuppet (User:Goo2you), or (ii) quotation out of context -- including the egregious example where I am accused of "Commenting on the contributor, not the contribution" where the quotation conveniently omits my comments on the 'contribution' and only includes my "haven't got a leg to stand on" conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strike-through has been added to evidence not written by Hrafn.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But not of rampant quotation out of context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Analysis

• User Hrafn's contributions show a pattern that he/she is either challenged by or chooses to bounds-test our civility policy and talk page guidelines.  This is not a new problem.
• Hrafn's personal attacks on Talk:John F. Ashton cannot be dealt with on that page without drawing attention to the editor rather than the contributions.  Therefore, I am effectively barred from further contributions on that page because Hrafn has accused me of disruption.
• Violations of the Arbcom ruling are listed as:
  • Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute.
  • personal attacks,
  • lack of respect for other editors,
  • failure to work towards consensus,
  • disrupting Wikipedia to make a point
  • offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms)
  • gaming the system

Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

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

---

I propose that going forward, Hrafn is to be topic banned from any article for four months in which he/she engages in incivility; including not acting calmly, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language, and gaming the system.  This is to be interpreted strictly.  Hrafn will comment on contributions, not contributors.  Hrafn will not use the word "you" to refer to another editor.  Hrafn will not make edits without edit comments.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hrafn has a real nasty bedside manner and often demonstrates WP:IDHT in content disputes. That said I would need to see evidence of sustained disruption (e.g. WP:EW) to support a topic ban. I recommend that you go to WQA for the next few incidents, and if there is still a problem WP:RFCU. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment This is a very poorly presented and ill thought out proposal, which was accompanied by canvassing.[89][90][91][92][93][94] No topic ban of this nature is likely to pass. The content seems to involve Young Earth Creationism. Apart from that, it appears this is a question of wikiquette, so shouldn't this have been reported at WP:WQA? Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As per the directions for filing a request here, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The users listed, e.g. John lilburne and Kenatipo, do not appear to be the subject of the discussion, i.e. Hrafn. Mathsci (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what more you want, they are all listed at the beginning of the post, they are all being quoted, and now they have all been notified as per the requirements of posting here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible to determine whether these people are being quoted giving your presentation above, without any diffs. Even if it were the case, what you have done is nevertheless canvassing. But, leaving that aside, topic bans are always for a specific set of articles and their talk pages. What you seem to be suggesting is "civility probation". Mathsci (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

All quotes either have diffs or direct links to archives.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Correction, I added a diff here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

From which set of articles and their talk pages are you proposing that Hrafn should be banned? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be those going forward in which Hrafn either chooses to disregard or is unable to observe the civility policies and talk page guidelines as further defined in the recent ArbCom decision.  The point is to put feedback in the system so that there is behavior change.  This problem has been going on for at least four years with an apparently unending series of editors being the target of Hrafn's incivility.  I don't see your point about "civility probation", because if the requirements of a topic ban are violated, admins respond with warnings or sanctions.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that is not a topic ban. It is your own version of "civility probation". Please try WP:WQA. Mathsci (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As if this is my problem and not one shared by many editors over the last four years.  Is that your only suggestion?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrafn is a perfectly good editor. He understands very well how to use secondary sources and how to deal with fringey, nonencyclopedic content. I could imagine that faced with a string of WP:IDHT responses (on articles presumably WP:CPUSH) his action might be one of frustration and fatigue; but that would be true of almost every regular editor who found themselves in the same circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That is open to discussion. As I recall in the encounter I had with him over Berlinski he was taking polemical taunts as factual evidence, and WP:IDHT was, despite the protests, something that he'd engaged in for some two years. However, that is all in the past and hopefully things have changed. Although I haven't checked - Should I? John lilburne (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Re: Hrafn. Some of us seem to cause him to lose his manners. However, if his advice is given careful consideration, his is invariably good counsel. I have wished for kinder treatment from him. But I have never regretted his being part of an article's development. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Hrafn has been an excellent contributor to the John F. Ashton article and I feel as if the quotes taken from the Talk:John F. Ashton talk page are unrepresentative and inadvertently misleading. For example, the part where he mentions "met the FRACKING burden" was in direct response to the (undoubtedly unintentional) insinuation by fellow editor that Hrafn failed to substantiate his reasons / evidence for adding/restoring a claim to a biography of a living person. Perhaps his word choice is not the same as what I would have used but he was responding to the substance of another user's issue with him on a content dispute and I feel that banning from his editing of that article will have a serious and deleterious effect on the quality of the Ashton article, which is a very difficult area of research due to the general lack of availability of sources on this issue. I have not observed any sign that User:Hrafn has any problems that will impair the success of his contribution to this article and I urge you to please reconsider any topic ban that will prevent him from continuing his hard work volunteering here on John F. Ashton and other projects. DrPhen (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misguided proposal Hrafn is one of a small number of editors who defend the encyclopedia against WP:UNDUE nonsense being added to promote WP:FRINGE views, and I have admired Hrafn's editing for a couple of years. Occasionally somewhat strong comments are made, but I do not recall seeing anything inappropriate from Hrafn. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment My one encounter with Hrafn was in the Berlinsky discussion on the BLPN. I don't recall him being unduly rude, offensive, derogatory, or insulting (at least nothing that one couldn't simply ignore as bluster). What I did find is that in his efforts to keep nonsense out, he along with others were quite prepared to add, keep, and defend nonsense of their own. But that was well over a year ago and he doesn't seem to be any worse than most in that respect. John lilburne (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

editor blocked as sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At the same time I've seen material called undue or fringe that is very well-sourced. These can prove excuses to not follow the sources, likewise with 'consensus'. Still, Hrafn from what I saw was willing to follow the sources, he just had a different interpretation of what sources were suitable, and focused on 3rd-party news sources rather than an individual's authored books. So long as he is willing to discuss the issue on the talk page and acknowledge credible sources when they are presented I am not sure I see what the problem is. However, I realize Hrafn has been editing the page for almost a year, and I saw only recent edits, so there could be more about his edits I'm just not aware of. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) In a thread above editors have pointed out that the IP above might have had previous accounts, also advocating YEC. The account has been blocked twice since he started editing 9 days ago. Hot off their second three day block they seem to be spamming this page with unhelpful and disruptive comments. Mathsci (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I notice from my talk page said editors began a sockpuppet investigation and their request was declined.[95] If you think my comments are unhelpful and disruptive, perhaps you could explain why they are such. This is pretty ironic you say this since here I am opposing discipline for Hrafn despite his disruptive edits on a Creationist page. My blocks had nothing to do with an IP issue and everything to do with edit warring by tendentious censorship after I provided dozens of sources on the talk page showing a major issue involving Obama wasn't addressed, and 3 editors then engaged in edit warring and thread closings to prevent the issue from being discussed even for a few hours. Their edit warring was ignored, but my reversions resulted in short-term bans. My original edits stand on their own as well-sourced, reasonable, and constructive.[96] --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Suggesting "a one-week topic ban from the page itself" cannot be described as "opposing discipline". Just as a matter of interest, have you had any registered accounts in the past? Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) My exact words were "If any action needs to be pursued, I think it should be at most a one-week topic ban from editing the page itself so he can talk this through on the talk page discussion." I specifically said that was the maximum discipline which should be enacted and only "If any action needs to be pursued". I also specifically said I thought it would be premature to pursue discipline right now: "I am going to recommend this be given more time on the Talk page discussion before discipline is attempted." I have had accounts on MySpace, Facebook, and all sorts of places. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. Have you had any registered accounts on wikipedia in the past? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I'll begin discussing these spurious questions about who I am once the accusing parties making the accusations, Frank, Wikidemon, and DD2K, begin explaining why they reverted reasonable, well-sourced edits backed by dozens of sources, and admit they were practicing prejudicial censorship to WP:Own the page. It makes no sense for me to answer their questions when they will not answer mine. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I'll take that as a "yes". Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC) You have the right to interpret however you feel like, I leave my comments open-ended in this case. How you choose to misconstrue my words is your business, not mine. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I think we are done here. This is getting off-topic and should be in another section. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support appropriate topic ban for Hrafn. This editor seems to be unable to follow WP:CIVIL, and is continuously abusive. This edit is just one example. -- 202.124.74.76 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment From what I have seen of Hrafn's edits, they should be allowed to continue unfettered. I do not see unwillingness or inability to suffer fools gladly as any great crime against civility. I do see it as consistent with the character of an exopedian defending articles from undue influences and outright nonsensical content. I have not seen it rise to abusive levels, either out in the wild or in the examples given here in this discussion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support a GIANT TROUT for not only filing this, but filing it using such quasi-legal formatting. Please don't waste the community's time like this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I assume everyone noted that this is an Oppose to the proposal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban for Hrafn. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

IPs tagged as (suspected) sockpuppets

There are hundreds (thousands?) of IP addresses tagged as sockpuppets, suspected sockpuppets, or sockmasters. However, according to the policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (and specifically the linked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Blocking and tagging, registerd accounts should be tagged, but IP addresses shouldn't be tagged.

This is done for a number of reason, including the protection of privacy and the fact that an IP which has been tagged as a sockpuppet may now be used by someone completely unrelated to the problem.

Therefor, I propose to remove all sock and suspected sock tags from IP addresses; in the case were different registered accounts are tagged as socks of an IP address, to tag one of the registered accounts as the master instead; and to nominate for speedy deletion all categories which become empty due to the removal of said tags.

This is a rather drastic action which may raise some eyebrows if started without prior discussion, so please raise all objections and discuss any improvements. Fram (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with tagging IP talk pages, which is what the Blocking and tagging instructions used to say before someone changed it. Doc talk 08:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagging IPs is actually rather important to tracking IP-hopping block evaders (who tend to operate from a limited range of addresses), and blanket removal of these tags would be really unhelpful for admins and editors who are trying to stop active block evaders. Instead of doing so, I'd suggest removing all the tags which are more than (say) six months old, or whatever the Checkuser criterion for the IP being "stale" is if it's a shorter duration. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For prolific ones, it's necessary to listify if we're going to remove the tags. e.g. Nangaparbat has been inactive for a year but came back again after that. Most of the people who've been tackling NP are currently inactive, so this will prevent any action. Same with Dewan357, if just a couple of editors aren't around and the IPs used list isn't available, then preventing further disruption is almost impossible. —SpacemanSpiff 08:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When was that changed? I have to agree with Doc through Spiff when they say that Fram's proposal would substantially hamper SPIs. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not disagreeing Nyttend, just saying that if this proposal is accepted, then we need an alternative to manage the resulting troubles.—SpacemanSpiff 12:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Doc & Nyttend - I've tagged IPs recently with 'suspected' and a CU has been unable to confirm due to not enough edits. Should the editor of an IP change from Mr X to Mrs Y, then we can remove the tag at that point - but I've oly seen it happen once in my 6+ years here. GiantSnowman 11:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Here was the change. It didn't seem to cause much of stir at the time, but I don't understand why IP talk pages shouldn't be tagged if need be. Doc talk 11:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of connecting User talk:58.69.10.203 with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 112.205.231.17? They have made one common edit, i.e. the second making a vandal edit, and the first making a (valid) correction in it 7 hours later, which makes it rather dubious that these are actual socks of each other. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC

Tagging errors, or overzealous tagging, by individual editors shouldn't necessarily mean that the entire concept of tagging an IP should be abandoned (and I have informed DeltaQuad of this thread, naturally). I have always agreed that IP's pages don't need to be tagged, and haven't tagged any since I learned what the policy said at one time; but tagging their talk pages is far less of a concern, as I see it. Doc talk 12:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The individual instance doesn't really interest me, it's just an example, the fact is that while GiantSnwoman may have seen only one problematic instance in 6 years, it isn't hard to find a lot more in the actual existing categories. Fram (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I did make that internal edit to SPI documentation. It was just what the clerks actively did at the time, which I also personally agree with. I'll make more comment below. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to tell whether User:202.56.7.138 is still in any way connected to User:119.30.39.37 and/or User:Azpayel (who hasn't edited in three years anyway). Never mind that the only IP address in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 203.202.70.202 is User:203.202.70.202 itself. The talk page indicates that probably User:203.171.92.36 was intended, who made one edit in 2006. User talk:195.195.190.4, a school IP, is linked to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Abdi342, who made three edits in 2008. The point of this sock tag and this category at this point in time is? Fram (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Aren't the IP's normally included in the archives of the SPI anyway? E.g. for User:Dewan357, you can find a (partial) list of his IP socks through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, which seems to contain more (and other) IP addresses than Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dewan357 does. The ranges are the important aspect here, not the actual addresses, as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Should my initial proposal be restricted to "after 6 months or older" and/or "only for small-scale sockfarms, i.e. 2 or 3 adresses at most"? Fram (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Even with that change, I would oppose. Not seeing any real benefit from it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Privacy? Plus, just imagine that you start editing (as an IP), and you turn out to be already tagged as a "suspected sockpuppet". Not really the welcoming atmosphere we try to create for new editors. The actual benefit of such IP sock cats is (certainly after a few months or a year) largely negligible, except perhaps for a few persistent IP-hopping socks to establish ranges and so on. But we shouldn't have many (now) useless and potentially harmful cats for the sake of a few useful ones. Fram (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to clarify. I don't see how this is a privacy issue at all. As to "welcoming," it's not welcoming for a person to get rolled into a dynamic IP that has vandalism notices or is blocked, either. Most IPs who've run into this aren't upset when they get an explanation. I don't this as compelling either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor's should not be tagged except as a result of an SPI per good faith. Nobody Ent 12:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In really, ridiculously obvious WP:DUCK cases, there needs to be no SPI before they are tagged. In fact, SPI would come to a complete standstill if they did. Doc talk 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• But take Nangparbat, since someone mentioned him. While I've been watching he's edited from four dozen BT IP addresses. The only information to note is that his ISP is BT - his IP address changes every 48 hours. What on earth is the point of tagging all the IPs - by now the first one probably belongs to Mavis Minnow, who just wants to make a few edits to pages on slugs, and discovers she's being accused as a sock of Nangparbat. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Accusing? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, would it be possible to have sockpuppet tags on IP user(talk)pages to have an expiry date? That would quickly empty the categories and then empty sock-categories could be deleted and/or would not need creation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• So, for IP pages, have a bot change {{sock}} (should be used on named accounts only) to {{ipsock}} (should be used on IP accounts only) (and vice versa) - and have for {{ipsock}} have an expiry date set (1 month or 6 months, or possibly custom, whatever we agree on). After expiry the tag changes appearance, is not categorised anymore, and the page can be blanked (alike Wikipedia:Old IP talk pages). Empty categories can be deleted then (if they were created). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If feasible, such a solution is fine by me as well of course. Fram (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't something like this programmed into {{prod}} (though that is substituted - but if it works there, it should be easy with parameters to the template as well). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Doesn't help anything, creates a lot of unnecessary work. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  To that I agree, Burpelson AFB - but people are saying here that invalid tags (and their resultant categories) are unnecessarily accusing and should be removed. Who needs a problem if you have a solution? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When tagging IPs as socks, a couple things need to be considered:

1. How static is the IP?
2. Privacy concerns: Is the blocked user clearly evading block from said IP?

As far as #1 is concerned, obviously if an IP is static enough and is known to have been used long enough by a blocked user, then by all means tag it. For dynamic IPs, it depends. I have seen users tag groups of IPs that form an entire IP range. I would personally prefer to find the range and then tag the user page of that IP range itself, but the other way is also fine, if it's useful. There are cases in which people evade block by using any means, meaning that IPs will be all over the place; in that case, it may not be useful to tag such IPs.

For #2, a user who openly edits or evades block through IPs are not afforded the same privacy expectations as those users who, for instance, accidentally edit while logged out. To elaborate, that user takes responsibility for whatever happens if he/she intentionally chooses to use an IP to evade a block, scrutiny, etc. Moreover, while CheckUsers do not publicly make connections between registered accounts and IPs via technical evidence, that does not stop anyone from making that connection publicly with behavioral evidence and editing patterns. --MuZemike 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• One point that appears to have been missed in the discussion is that the main benefit of tagging the IP is to be able to see the past contributions to compare with. For many of our prolific sockmasters, CU data is stale, so almost everything is based on behavioral evidence. Removing the IPsock tag is fine if there's another trail maintained to review contribution history for every sock farm. —SpacemanSpiff 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• In a way regarding point 1 of MuZemike, tagging very volatile IPs - at least a good handful of them (which may happen before one realises that the editor has the access to many IPs) does show that the sockmaster is all around the place. To go with SpacemanSpiff, maybe then a 'for the record' SPI should be created, linking all (or at least the ones detected) a user has used, after which the tagging from the individual IP pages can be blanked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Dirk and MuZemike that "for-the-record" SPIs are better than tagging each individual one. In some cases though, where a prolific sock such as Nangparbat, that is not a good idea because he can regenerate a new IP in less than 24 hours. So if it's got enough contributions that would be a good behavoiral comparison, then i'd consider filing an SPI, or if it's not dynamic, maybe tagging it, but I rarely tag IPs usually as the block log speaks for itself enough with the SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad - I meant to use the 'for the record' SPI's for the obvious WP:DUCK cases which normally do not go through SPI/CU. Most sock-farms have an SPI, but for some an SPI is not filed, just the obvious socks are tagged (and blocked). I would suggest that for those, instead of continuing tagging, a 'for the record' SPI is created later tying the master to the socks, and then most (if not all) of the tags on the actual socks can be blanked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review requested for Historiographer

Historiographer (talk · contribs)

WP:ANI#Personal attack by User: Historiographer

The user has been blocked after a complaint at ANI, I ask for clarification regarding consideration of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which has not been referred to by the original complainant or the blocking admin. It appears to have been overlooked, despite it's significance, which changes entirely what appeared as a npa into very wise advice. Penyulap ☏ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is you're doing, you're not helping the user; posting unblock-requests on someone else's talkpage knowing full well they will be declined isn't good. Historiographer now has two declined unblock-request on his page, neither of which were even made by him/her. I suggest someone remove these so it won't give the wrong impression when giving just a quick glance. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like someone with limited English skills (thought their English is far better than my Korean or Japanese) attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice. If I'm reading correctly, the proper response isn't a block, but some wikilove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I highly agree, has the blocking admin been contacted? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot more to this than one comment - heck, just look at his remarks after being mentioned on ANI. Too bad at English to contribute to discussion imo, so even if block removed he should only be doing edits that don't require discussion (whatever they may be). Egg Centric 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, the block is for more than just some NPA-slip; this user has a history of edit-warring, attacks and other stuff. So it's not like it's made to look; there's more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The last edit war block was over a year ago. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

hm. I didn't know you had the right to edit-war once a year. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it is not relevant to the current case, which appears to not be a case at all and just a mistake on the blocking admin's part. Silverseren^C 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make the same point, but Silver Seren beat me to it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a mistake. Why is this split across the two noticeboards? I commented on the thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it's split between two discussions, you might want to merge them. However, i've read your statement over there and I very much disagree with you. This block is significantly out of proportion. The next logical step, if a block was warranted, would be to go to 1 week, after the last block a year ago of 72 hours. But a block is not warranted here, a warning is. Silverseren^C 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is split across two notice boards because a request for a block is viewed as an incident requiring quick action, and belonging on the incident page, while a review of a block is less urgent and belongs on the AN page. That said, the page instruction leave a lot to be desired. I've figured out what goes where mostly by osmosis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving my earlier response here from WP:ANI:

@Penyulap: I am at a loss to understand why you would think the "Please, Don't mind too" part of Historiographer's edit [97] is relevant to the block reasons. That bit is of course harmless. What's not harmless is the fact that he was calling Japanese users Jjokbaries (a racist slur) and was describing them wholesale as disruptive social misfits who enjoyed damaging Wikipedia articles. If that was not the expression of a deeply entrenched battleground attitude, I don't know what is. Moreover, the block was also based on a review of his previous pattern of contributions (although these are mostly some months back; he's been inactive of late except for today's talk page post). Historiographer obviously knows too little English to interact with other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex POV disputes, and that means that his editing has been mostly restricted to blanket reverts of other users accompanied with edit summaries in broken, almost incomprehensible English. Such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is disruptive especially when it happens in a highly charged, contentious topic area such as this. WP:COMPETENCE is required.

This is not to say that other users in the field may not also be deserving of similar blocks, or even more so. Historiographer's outburst against Japanese editors who "feels ecstasy when they bothering Koreans", while unacceptable in the way he expressed it, may partly be a sign of an understandable frustration, because, frankly, we have had a couple of Japanese users in the past to whom this description more or less applied. I don't know how many of them are currently on the loose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And more responses to the comments above:

• @SPhilbrick and others: I also cannot follow you at all in describing this posting as "attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice". I'll give you my own translation of the original post into proper English, staying as close as possible to what Historiographer apparently meant to say:

  Japanese users such as Kusunose, who restrict themselves to Korea-related articles, have always been annoying like this. I used to confront these troublesome jjokbaris [i.e. Japanese bastards] just like you are doing now. However, there is no definite solution to this problem, because anti-Korean Japanese users are otaku [i.e. obsessed] hikikomori [i.e. loners] and get their greatest joy out of annoying Koreans. Please ignore them. Truth will prevail on Wikipedia regardless of Japanese lies.

  There is no reasonable way of reading this posting according to which Historiographer isn't:

  1. calling Japanese editors "bastards/scum" ("jjokbari") – this is not within the scope of what he "used to do" but "is no longer doing"; he is clearly saying now that these people actually are scum;
  2. describing Japanese editors as socially impaired (roughly: "obsessed basement-dwelling nerds");
  3. attributing to Japanese editors a fundamental desire to harm Wikipedia;
  4. describing the disputes between Korean and Japanese editors as a matter of "truth" versus "lies" ("hoaxes");
  5. reenforcing the other editor's (a newbie's) description of Japanese editors as "vandals" (rather than trying to dissuade him of that mistake, as any reasonable experienced editor should).
• @Silverseren: I don't take kindly to baseless insinuations of "involved" admin misuse; please retract that because I regard it as an insult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I read it differently.

I read it, using a very generous translation, as saying" "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off."

Good advice, if accompanied by stronger language than necessary. Worth a trip to WQA? Probably. Worth a three month block? Not IMO.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misreading it. This is definitely not what he was saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the block was much stronger than necessary. There were some racist personal attacks there, but I think anything more than a week is completely unreasonable and I'm not entirely sure a block was absolutely necessary prior to a full ANI discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

After seeing this edit I am fully supportive of the block. I still think 3 months becomes punitive rather than preventative. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but you were the one who blocked him twice before. Don't you think that makes you biased in terms of this user, especially when others are pointing out that it seems too much? Silverseren^C 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not too involved, 3rr blocks are fairly cut and dry and don't generally equate to "involvement" Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, it doesn't. Since when does being acquainted with a user's disruptive pattern from an administrator's perspective make an administrator automatically biased? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When a future block of the user seems overdone. A week would have been defensible, not three months. Silverseren^C 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My only possibly bias in this area is that I am of the opinion we should treat all disruptive editors in the Korea-Japan hotspot areas, on both sides, with extra harshness. Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's interpretation of the above screed, and my only complaint is that this block isn't indef. But I suppose this is a good compromise; if you really, seriously cannot see the problem with referring to Japanese people as jjokbaris (which is sort of like calling them Japs or slant-eyes in English), I can't help you (despite my signature, I can assure you that I'm white and don't have any personal reason to be offended). I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, it is policy itself that the English server is shared amongst all editors with different variants of English. They do not ask any special treatment that you take sufficient care to understand their variant of the english language, it is policy that you must. You describe the editors summaries as "broken, almost incomprehensible English." they may be so to you, however, do you not see that there are people who do have a clear understanding of the editors remarks ? How does this fit in with your mention of WP:COMPETENCE in your ability to cope with judging the editors remarks ? Penyulap ☏ 20:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken English is not a "variant" of English. It's just broken. Yes, one can generally figure out what he means, with some effort. That doesn't change the fact that the presence of English at this poor level is disruptive to the smooth working of the project. As, incidentally, can be seen from the fact that in this particular instance some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

i are agree to sun, the wonderful at dawn. the english which smashed not understanding the english themselves, who are confused. Egg Centric

(edit conflict)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do agree with you about the harshness required for dealing with racial trolling, however there are two separate issues here and as best I can see Future Perfect at Sunrise is unaware of the clear interpretation of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which was overlooked and left out of the original complaint. It reverses the statement. It is significant.

Once that mistake is recognised and dealt with, yes of course you deal with the secondary issue of mentioning such things in conversation masked as good advice as inflammatory in itself, and determine if that was the intention. Overt attack is the reasoning behind the block, and an overt attack it is not. Penyulap ☏ 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? How does "Please, Don't mind too" "reverse the statement"? It does not. The phrase meant "please ignore what those Japanese editors are doing". What on earth did you think it meant? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel I understood it, and that was that. It was wise advice from one editor to another, it DID NOT name any other editor, was sympathetic and intended to ease tensions rather than inflame them. If we are going to sit and search for a fault with any editor there are more likely candidates than this one. The finer interpretation of hidden dynamics, I feel should not be handled by an admin who describes that editors variant as incomprehensible.

SPhilbrick seems to have translated into a more familiar to you ? variant. So if you want to know what "reverse the statement" means, leave the italicised words out of his translation. "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off." although, I think the original editor said it better himself in his own language. "Please, Don't mind too." is not open to ambiguity. Penyulap ☏ 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading this in such an absurd fashion I really have nothing more to say. Except for this: if this guy's English is so poor that he could be misunderstood by a competent speaker of English, like you, in such an utterly absurd way, that's all the more grounds for keeping him blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Righteous block Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

English speakers by percentage within European Union countries, everything in grey is not EU, so percentages there aren't shown. The lightest shade of green (bottom right) means less than 20% can speak English. This is just Europe and just the EU, then there is Asia, including Indian, before you reach across to Japan and Korea and the rest of east Asia

Certainly if I were the only person who 'misunderstood' the editors comments I may doubt myself and review several times more until I could see my misinterpretation, however I see that I am not alone. I find that I am endlessly quoting and linking to this policy page in articles, and once before at ANI I posted up the image I will repost here. Whilst I can understand that you find other variants of English disruptive in themselves, I don't think it proper to interpret policy in a way that places your own sub-demographic above all others.

If language is a reason to block, we need to update policy to decide which variant to use. Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we can block all the British editors? Because British English is confusing, imo. Silverseren^C 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Eenie, meenie, minee, MO! which way shall we GO ? I'm sure you know there are like 250 million people in America, but did you know there are 80 million Nigerians who speak English ? Maybe they can run scams on the 125,000,000 people in India who can speak English, you know using the call centres, and there are 90 million English speakers in the phillipines, sweet, so, who do we ban pre-emptively first ? Personally I think it should be the whistleblower, that would be me, I'll return as a sock and help you ban all these variant speakers shall I? Yep, I'm losing it, time for me to get something to eat I guess, or play a computergame. Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, the easiest method is to ban everyone who isn't American. Silverseren^C 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with Blade on this one: resorting to racist slurs should result in an indef. Full stop, no exceptions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Blades similar use of slurs, he said "I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here." I count two slurs right there, we should indef him, and omg I just repeated them, so indef me as well. And the Americans, Canadians, omg lets go SOPA for a day and block everyone to teach them all a lesson.

But seriously, which interpretation are you going on HandThatFeeds ? the overt one, the covert one, or are you aware there is a difference ? Penyulap ☏ 22:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, quit being so melodramatic. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Your hyperbole and incessant need to go over-the-top is not helping these discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template use prohibition

Seems like other than the blocked editor posting the unblock template is confusing and disruptive... does this happen frequently enough to make discussion of a formal prohibition worthwhile? Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

certainly it is, looking over the unblock pages and guides it says nothing whatsoever about third parties, I would gladly help with some feedback :) Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The documentation for the template says "The following should be placed on your talk page:"Nobody Ent 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think of just how funny it would have been if I did it that way, rats! Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well I placed it on my userpage, I have no idea how it looks there, if it is humorous or not, see for yourself now would someone please move this little section or start a suggestion somewhere that the docs for the template are inadequate or something ? way I see it at the moment, if you want to unblock someone, use an unblock template, if there is some other way to do it, lets not keep it a secret any longer, as for me, I'll go on using the template as is, it's good enough for me. Whatever happens, it's not relevant to this discussion, imho, sorry Nobody Ent. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Penyulap, it's phrased that way because the template is only supposed to be used by the blocked party. Therefore, it is posted on their talkpage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's where I put it. on their talkpage, but it goes on my talkpage doesn't it? Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't use it at all. The blocked editor may use it if they want to be unblocked. It is not appropriate for another user to request unblocking through those templates. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Of note, this is his response: "Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested"[98]

Obviously not interested in help, and does not care about the block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad you can join us halfway through, were now going in the same direction, it's just that little bit faster now. Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're going in the same direction at all. The user was offensive and does not care that he was blocked. There's nothing further to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested" actually means "I deeply care about my being blocked and promise I will never engage in such behavior again. Please unblock me." Remember, the user has limited knowledge of the English language. WP:AGF. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(illistration using some sarcasm, basically asking what do you expect?)Hmm I think they should be more like "Omg I am so sorry that I am upset that you have incorrectly blocked me in a biased manner, I so sorry, I not speak enwish, you aways right because wikipwedia is american, please block me some more because I not happy with your mistake" anything less should go indef. Penyulap ☏ 22:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

On a serious note, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with AGF which is not policy, this has to do with an admin with by his own admission little or no understanding of the editors variant blocking that editor based on his interpretation of that editors English. That IS against policy. (is there a policy along the lines of don't close your eyes and fire a gun randomly?) Penyulap ☏ 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking that Penyulap is now simply trolling? This is just getting too bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Penyulap realizes that the user called him an ass. In light of the rest of the information that came about here, I wouldn't be opposed to indef block, no talk page access, rather than the 3 month block in existence now (Contrary to my earlier comments). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call me a troll, you may call me an ass, or you may indeed call me a troll's ass for good measure, I do not mind, I prefer the third. I see the same systemic problem that I saw with AndytheGrump recently, where the accused does his best to undermine wikipedia by refocusing the discussion upon his accuser.

I would suggest that, (using your own language and phrasing so you can understand with ease)

• You "obviously know too little English" to place blocks upon other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex language issues. You found an editor upon whom you placed a block as having "broken, almost incomprehensible English." and yet still resisted any advice on the matter from many other editors and admins.
• You've said "I am at a loss to understand why you would think the Please, Don't mind too part of Historiographer's edit is relevant to the block reasons." and resist any attempt by many people to help you understand why it IS relevant.
• You've said "some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried." and don't want to take advice from the people who can understand with some ease.
• You've said "Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them."
• You suggest that if an editor is capable of being misunderstood by someone else, they should be blocked

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that it is not the block which requires review, but your adminship that requires review. Penyulap ☏ 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick, please. I'm no particular friend of FPaS, but you're way off base here, and doing yourself harm by continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this has become a complete WP:BOOMERANG. Pen, you've made it clear you like to engage in some devil's advocacy and humor, but you never seem to know when to quit. You're really pushing people's patience with this act. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a current issue with Penyulap - inserting themself into situations where they are 100% policy unaware, and thus inflame the situation - often by encouraging the other editor to speak out more loudly and improperly. A couple of months ago we had another editor who got their wrist slapped for posted unblocks "on behalf of" editors - I'm going to have to go back and find out who it was (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, please be kind enough to keep your personal attack 100 % to yourself. Penyulap ☏ 14:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What personal attack? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only person who finds Penyulap's behaviour peculiar. Somehow the quality of the trolling reminds me of Archtransit (talk · contribs) and socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects with non-breaking spaces (or strange accents?)

At Redirects for creation, redirects from the pinyin spellings Bù​liǎo​ qíng and Bù​ liǎo​ qíng to Bu liao qing were requested. The request seemed reasonable to me, but I cannot create them because the titles supposedly contain "a non-breaking space or other unusual space character" (presumably it's the accented "a" that's the problem; for all I can tell the space is just an ordinary space). The error message said I should raise the issue at this noticeboard. Could an admin create the redirects? Huon (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, both of those do contain disallowed characters and should not be created. I can create redirects without the invalid characters for you. 28bytes (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved these redirects to Bùliǎo qíng and Bù liǎo qíng, respectively. These look identical to the ones requested, but do not contain the hidden embedded characters that no one is likely to type. For future reference, if you see %E2%80%8B anyplace in the address bar, that's the blacklisted character; remove that and you should be able to create the redirect without admin assistance. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and fixing it. I thought it was simply the diacritics that were causing the problem, and didn't notice the hidden characters.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't have noticed myself if I hadn't stumbled across this list a while back. 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: if the blacklist tells you exactly what's wrong ("an non-breaking space or other unusual space character"), it's usually right. If it's vague or says nothing, it's usually a false positive. --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No-indexed page appearing in google search due to mirror site

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anindya Ghose should be no-indexed, and it is; however, an old version of it exists on this mirror site. The page has now been created at Anindya Ghose and the author has requested deletion (through IRC) because he does not want the AFC version to appear in a google search. In a search for Anindya Ghose Wikipedia, the mirror site version appears as roughly the fourth link down. Is there anything we can do about it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no... the author will need to contact whoever runs the mirror to request its deletion or no-indexing there. 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale merge proposal

Foo was here. One article still has the tag, the other doesn't. I would close it myself but it seems like an admin should finalize it. I was never involved in either article, I just came across it researching grafitti.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Closed now. Jafeluv (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)