Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Equazcion (talk | contribs) at 10:10, 11 September 2013 (→‎RFC on a new user right for trusted template coders: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "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.

      Shortcuts

      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

      Administrative discussions

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

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

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

      Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

      (Initiated 128 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I came here to add this discussion here. There have been no new comments for over a fortnight. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Question for other folks at CR: does my single comment in this discussion suggesting an edit to the RfC statement for clarity preclude me from closing this discussion as involved? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 47 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)[reply]

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 45 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

      (Initiated 40 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC: Tasnim News Agency

      (Initiated 78 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)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Feb Mar Apr May Total
      CfD 0 0 31 0 31
      TfD 0 0 5 0 5
      MfD 0 0 1 0 1
      FfD 0 0 3 0 3
      RfD 0 0 55 0 55
      AfD 0 0 4 0 4

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

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

      (Initiated 116 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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 116 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 110 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)[reply]

      Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

      (Initiated 106 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)[reply]

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

      Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

      (Initiated 97 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)[reply]

      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

      (Initiated 91 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

      (Initiated 91 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

      (Initiated 84 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 78 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)[reply]

      Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Novogrudok#Navahrudak_is_the_right_transliteration_from_the_native_languge_of_Belarus

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 6 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024_Haitian_jailbreak#Requested_move_8_March_2024

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 8 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests#Requested_move_24_March_2024

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 24 March 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 14 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)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Administrator Nick-D, editor EyeTruth, former editor Blablaaa and the battle over the Battle of Kursk page

      I raise this complaint regarding administrator Nick-D over his handling of the disputes over the Battle of Kursk article. I believe the actions of this otherwise sound administrator were inconsistent and were the result of manipulation on the part of a rather elusive and argumentative editor currently editing by the name of EyeTruth. Though the actions of Nick D may appear as favoritism, I believe they were actually done in good conscience and represent an honest mistake.

      The administrator became involved following a conversation on the administrator’s talk page between editor EyeTruth who had a lengthy history of contention and edit warring on the page. I was one of a number of editors that opposed a change in the wording to the article. I was not a party to the conversation on the administrators talk page, nor did I receive a knock regarding it.

      Editor EyeTruth has been persistently arguing for a change in the wording of the page to include the term "blitzkrieg" in reference to describing the German plans for the battle. This had been contested by a number of editors over the past three months, and had resulted in warnings and blocks being administered (see collapsable below). Nick D came in on request of user EyeTruth as an administrator to help resolve the dispute. Soon after Nick's involvement a discussion was started on the talk page to resolve this issue. While the discussion was underway editor EyeTruth inserted the term again here on 17 August at 17:45. This disrupted the ongoing discussion by short-cutting it. No action was taken by Nick-D against EyeTruth for changing the page.

      EyeTruth then immediately went to Nick D's talk page, saying:

      Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

      Twenty minutes later I returned the phrasing to as it was before, with admonition to EyeTruth “You were asked by the administrator not to change the article until the weekend had passed. You are not in position to decide what is or is not equal weight. EyeTruth, you need to participate in the talk page and await a consensus.” It should be pointed out that two other well experienced, sober editors, Sturmvogel 66 and Binksternet, had reverted earlier attempts by EyeTruth to insert his preferred phrasing (see collapsible below).

      Shortly after this, Nick D issued a block against myself here, not just from the article in question, but from all of Wikipedia. I responded with an explanatory statement on my talk page, which was the only option available to me, but no response was offered from Nick-D, which is his right.

      An hour later administrator Nick-D blocked the article’s page from any further editing for the duration of one week here.

      Given the above, it seems curious that no block was placed upon editor EyeTruth when he inserted the contentious material on 20 August at 06:03. It would seem inconsistent to then block editor Gunbirddriver for simply returning the wording to the consensus opinion, especially in light of the fact that an ongoing discussion was underway on the talk page which had promise for reaching a conclusion that was workable for both sides. What role did EyeTruth’s comments on Nick D's talk page play, seen here at 07:34:

      “Ok, Gunbirddriver has reverted it. His edit summary is the most striking thing about this action. The way he bends words is very scary.”

      Is such influence appropriate? His comments on the talk page are responded to within thirty minutes with this response by Nick D: here:

      Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter.

      Is it right for editors to be essentially requesting blocks from administrators on their talk page? If the administrator felt it necessary to fully protect the article for a week, why was it also necessary to first block editor Gunbirddriver, an otherwise steady and reasonable contributor?

      As to the talk page discussions, the tone on the talk page had been marred by harsh language from EyeTruth for some time, and I believe the discussion would have been well served if Nick-D had noted the contentious manner in which EyeTruth was conducting himself and encouraged him to keep a civil tone. The repeated calling me out as delusional, a liar and as an editor attempting to insert original research into the article needed to be restrained (see collapsible discussion below). Here is a sample of some of the fair:

      It is only in your delusion.

      followed by

      I never called you delusional; instead, that particular claim of yours is the delusion. Aren't you tired of flashing the "I've-been-insulted-card"?
      "Trying to insult you"? You're funny. Insulting you, or any other person, is not worth my time. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS!

      This particular phrasing with all caps was repeated over and over again on the talk page.

      A sample exchange:

      Phrases like "Hahaha", "LOL" and "OMFG" are completely inappropriate and they need to stop. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      Hmmmn, interesting opinion. OK, this is now way too hypocritical. How about "hmmmn" and "BTW" and "hehehe". Oh wait, how about "cowboy"? Hahahaha! I won't even bother wasting anymore words on this one lol. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

      Or this on the Wkipedia Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

      Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do.

      Or here:

      I finally took a much closer look at what you did in this article. THE END: a more compact article. THE MEANS: merciless butchery. Reading the lead, I saw an outstanding job but as I went down...! I think we need to bring in other editors on these recent cleanup of yours to save us both an unnecessarily deadlock. You're refusing to comprehend simple explanation and at the same time insisting on the credibility of your original research. EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

      Personally, I think this sounds like he is not in full possession of his senses. Why would I be out to contend every step taken by EyeTruth? My editing amounts to merciless butchery? I have made over two hundred edits to the page.

      Throughout EyeTruth has displayed an array of deceptive and manipulative practices. On the administrators' talk pages he is very servile and feigns ignorance, when in reality he is a very experienced editor and is well versed in wikipedia administrative policies. He has moved warnings and blocks off his talk page over to his archive section seen here on 5 July and here on 20 August.

      He has also been threatening:

      User:Gunbirddriver, you can heed my advice on the article's talkpage or be blocked. And this won't be a block based on biased, false information, like you did. It will be real and stick to your account for good. So heed my advice and the advice of many other editors and admin. EyeTruth (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

      This editor has an extensive past history editing on Wikipedia that we are unaware of because he has hidden his identity by creating a new user name. He has misled and manipulated two administrators through deceptive practices. He has removed content of warnings to an archive record, feigned ignorance, and perpetrated lies of omission and half-truths, while routinely mis-characterizating the positions of others, and their motives for taking their positions (see Collapsible space):

      I have strong reason to suspect that User:EyeTruth is former User:Blablaaa. User:Blablaaa received a block of indefinite duration in August of 2010. User:EyeTruth began editing about seven months ago and has a rather limited track record of working upon Wikipedia. Despite this apparent lack of experience, both editors are extremely well versed in more advanced editing techniques, and are well experienced in the Wikipedia administrative processes of attempting to resolve conflicts and its methods for dealing with disruptive behavior. Both editors are aggressive in argument and assume bad faith on the part of their dissenters. Both editors are willing to pour a tremendous amount of time and energy into their arguments. Both are not native English speakers, though EyeTruth shows significantly expanded use of the language over Blablaaa. Most striking is the history of highly contentious arguments both editors have been involved in over seemingly minor points. In undertaking these arguments both editors tend to insult the intelligence and integrity of the editors they are in argument with, frequently make accusations of lying, improper citations and original research, and they both undertake convoluted arguments that not infrequently assert contradictory positions. Both make use of internet acronyms such as lol, OMG, :¬), @, will place sections of text in green to highlight a section, and in their comments will use bold and all caps frequently when attempting to drive a point home. Both have a fair amount of knowledge in military history, and both will sometimes take peculiar positions which though reflect some truth, tend to distort the record in some manner. Both lean heavily on David Glantz as a secondary source of information and insist upon what they would consider to be proper citations for any entry made. Both have received unequivocal support from User:Caden. Both have a tendency to forum shop until they achieve their desired outcome. Both were involved with the articles of Battle of Kursk and Battle of Prokhorovka. In addition to making edits on the English Wiki page, User:Blablaaa made edits to the Deutsch Wiki page on the Battle of Kursk article. There is no corresponding German page for the Battle of Prokhorovka. User:EyeTruth has stated that he has been speaking English since the age of three. User:Blablaaa had edited under a number of other identities prior to the series of blocks that constrained his editing in 2010. User:Blablaaa announced he was leaving Wikipedia in late 2010.

      As to administrator Nick-D, I believe he was taken advantage of and ill used by User:EyeTruth. In the past I have taken note of his work and admired it. I think he is a fine administrator of sound judgment, and I have no issue whatsoever either working with or taking direction from him.

      I apologize for the length of this statement. I have notified both individuals. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      References:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=EyeTruth&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2F3RRArchive&fulltext=Search

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_95#General_Question

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blablaaa

      Before, I suspected you enjoyed trolling, but now you've proved it for real. This is too fukin funny XD. EyeTruth (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Any admin that will look at this report should please consult with other admins that have been involved with this issue. Gunbirddriver has a solid history of reporting very warped version of this dispute. The above report is so twisted, it almost amount to a lie. The admins that have dealt with this before are: User:EdJohnston, User:Mark Arsten, User:BBb23 and User:Nick-D. EyeTruth (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Trivia: Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute. Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). Well, Gunbirddriver continued edit warring as usual and thus was blocked, so he has come back with a vengeance. His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me. Please talk to the other admins that have been involved, or dig into all the links he posted and look through their respective contexts. EyeTruth (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think anyone's going to bother. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 03:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wall of text is it, Vanisaac? Well, let me try to clarify the issues:

      1) Editor EyeTruth is an editor with an unknown history. Under the current identifying name, his history goes back 6 months, but he admits below that he has edited on Wikipedia for well over five years. I have edited on Wikipedia for almost three years, starting in October of 2010, and all my previous edits can be found, and all administrative actions can be seen as well. This is not the case with EyeTruth. We do not know his history, as he has chosen not to disclose it.

      2) Editor EyeTruth has a history of deception with administrators. The deceptions include mischaracterizing talk page discussions, mischaracterizing other editors, moving warnings from his talk page to an archive, failing to disclose the move to editors involved in discipline measures, asking that the block administered by reduced under false pretext, and then mischaracterizing the whole event in an attempt to again attack my character. I do not find this to be a helpful manner for an editor to be conducting oneself. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I have to confess to not having read all of the above lengthy post in detail, but I'd like to address a couple of points on my actions:
      1. I warned EyeTruth after he made this edit on 16 August: [2]. I didn't think that a block was appropriate as the edit added material and was made in good faith as part of a strategy in which EyeTruth was inviting Gunbirddriver to edit and add to this material - it struck me as being an honest mistake rather than deliberate edit warring. EyeTruth's subsequent editing was better as it included attempts to acknowledge both sides of the dispute, and so wasn't edit warring given that it represented a shift in their earlier approach. The article history [3] shows fairly productive too-and-fro editing between EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver over the next few days, so there was no reason to block anyone or (I thought) fully protect the article. I blocked Gunbirddriver as their edit on 20 August [4] removed material which was under discussion on the talk page (where it had a reasonable amount of support), and seemed to have been a bad faith recurrence of the edit warring (especially given the misleading edit summary - I had suggested that both editors walk away from the article for a while several days before). I then fully protected the article to prevent any further edit warring - in retrospect I should have done this several days earlier, but I'm always reluctant to fully protect high-profile articles.
      2. I was the main admin involved in responding to Blablaaa (talk · contribs) and I don't see any similarities between them and EyeTruth.
      I'm not sure why this post has been made now - I instituted the block and protection over a week ago, and have deliberately taken a 'hands off' approach to the discussion on the talk page, which seems to now be well on track to resolving the content dispute - I've commented a few times to suggest ways to resolve the dispute, and I think that the resultant discussion is going well. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The post is made now because I had been away for a week following the block, and then it did take a bit of time to try to pull together the various threads. The talk page discussion is not at issue. For the record, I would not mind the term "blitzkrieg" being used in the article, but I believe it would be better to place it in a discussion section at the end of the article rather than in the section attempting to describe the German plans. The main reason for this is because the term is vague and there are multiple understandings of its meanings. EyeTruth himself is forever telling the other editors that the problem is they do not have the right understanding of the term, thus making my case. In addition, the German’s never used the term, and German officers writing about the battle after the war who were well aware of the term did not use it in reference to this battle, when they did use it in reference to other battles.

      Leaving EyeTruth aside for the time being, I believe the events that occurred and the order they occurred in were not good.

      To review, Nick-D made a statement on Mark Arsten’s talk page here which ultimately would support EyeTruth’s position, i.e. insertion of the phrase into the article. EyeTruth then arrives at the talk page of Nick-D to request his assistance in resolving a dispute here, already knowing that he supporedt his preferred action.

      EyeTruth then adds the same version back in, which Nick pointed out was not likely to help the situation here.

      Your edit appears to belie what you've written above: you have re-inserted your preferred claim that "the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg" without noting alternate viewpoints.

      Precisely so. What EyeTruth claims on administrator talk pages is not at all consistent with his interactions with other editors.

      EyeTruth then inserts the phrase in again with a call to Nick D to watch the page. I remove the phrase, as we still are in discussion on the talk page. EyeTruth goes to Nick’s talk page again, Nick blocks me.

      It does not seem right for an editor to be calling for an administrator to block another editor. I also do not understand why when moderating the talk page no time or attention has been given to curbing Eye Truth’s poor behavior. I do not understand why he is allowed to attack my character on an administrator's talk page with no effort made to check him, or to contact me so I have a chance to respond. I find it offensive for him to call me a liar, which he does over and over again. I also find it offensive when he accuses me of original research, yet no effort has been made by any administrator to curb his language.

      For administrators to maintain the moral authority required to command respect, they must act in a manner that is even handed. They must avoid acting in an arbitrary manner. Blocks placed must not reflect favoritism. EyeTruth inserted the same term into the article in the midst of a discussion. He could have offered a version of rewording on the talk page, but he did not. He circumvented the process and added to the conflict. Reinserting the term where he did and how he did did not move the process forward. There is no explanation for Nick-D allowing EyeTruth to change the phrasing in the article to what he preferred and then block myself when I attempted to maintain the phrasing until the discussion had concluded on the talk page. This is not even handed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Everything was going so bloody well. GBD the non usage of blitzkrieg argument is still viable. The vote is 6 to 3 with over a week to go. I must say I feel some responsibility for proposing the vote, I did not realise you could not contribute at the time. It took 48 hrs to sink in that your silence was enforced. I really apologise for that. But. They are not the same person! Its bloody obvious. Look at the style of language, the radically different approaches. This baaabaa or whatever is not the same person. Ive looked at the language, style of argumentation, even the attempt to reach consensus is radically different. I sense you are pissed off because the recent block stopped you from contributing for a few days. Dont let it blind you. Please drop the stick. Drop it now. Its not too late. And EyeTruth, do not retaliate. I have tried to be a bridge in my modest way in the short period ive worked with you two. You may not have even noticed. I dont care. I have respect for you both as good eds. its only WP :) Irondome (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Everything is still going fine in terms of the discussion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The block stopped him from contributing for just a day and that was before the poll was even conceived. I do respect GDB's point of view. Irondome, you probably have noticed that I fully understand you guys' perspective on this issue, and even agree to its factualness to an extent, but I'm just working with WP's idea of notability. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Suggestion Why dont we reset the vote, so you GBD can submit your own propsals? Its doable. And I am sure EyeTruth would agree. Wouldnt you Eyetruth? Thats a good way of proving you are not baabaa or whatever BTW, behaviourally. Lets just strike all this through. Hopefully not many eds have seen this yet, so we will all be saved from a show-up. can we do that Nick? Lets just get out this place. Cheers Irondome (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Naah. There is nothing to retaliate. There is also no need to reset the vote. This dispute has unnecessarily gone on for way too long. Adding another month to it is not palatable, at all. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A separate issue is the past history of EyeTruth. Whether or not he was previously the editor Blablaaa, he clearly has hidden his past, whatever it was. EyeTruth has reflected upon his personal history of previous editing of Wikipedia:

      P.S. It was all subjective 5 years ago, and although the guidelines has tightened up since then, they are still open to the user's discernment. However, since the editors' consensus for this article is one wikilink per article, then I'll submit to it. (Anyways, I've been following the consensus ever since the last discussion). EyeTruth (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

      Here is Sturmvogel 66 being surprised to learn that EyeTruth was well familiar with Wiki editing techniques:

      I beg your pardon, most editors with barely over 100 edits don't fully understand how to consolidate refs.

      So clearly EyeTruth has a history of editing Wikipedia of at least five years duration, but the account name he currently is using only goes back to 19 February 2013, some six months. That should cause some pause.

      In addition, there is clearly a history of deceptive behavior when dealing with administrators, as can be seen in his movement of warnings from his talk page to an archive, which subsequently convinced administrator Bbb23 that his block had been administered in error, when in fact as can be seen above in the collapsable section, it was not administered in error. Further, EyeTruth knew it had not been an error and did nothing to inform Bbb23 of that fact. A lie of omission is still a lie, and the earlier movement of the warnings onto his archive was most likely done for the purpose. He then went on to mischaracterize the event on Mark Arsten’s talk page here, portraying himself as some sort of victim. This behavior should not be given a pass. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      You are becoming too funny Gunbirddriver. FYI, my history with WP goes back far more than 5 years, so I do feel thoroughly underrated when you say it is just 5 years. And if you really didn't know about WP, or how to do very basic edits in it, five years ago... then I'm speechless! Also Bbb23 is not stupid. Stop thinking that your are the greatest genius that can comprehend anybody's mind. I gave Bbb23 links to every single thing related to this drama and he dug into it and came to his own conclusion. Your words are full of so much %#$@%&#%, I really don't want to give anymore comments. (BTW the censored text is nothing vulgar and it is not the four-letter word shit as some may insinuate). EyeTruth (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


      Okay EyeTruth, to clarify the deception seen in the sequence of events on the block issue, they were as follows:

      Editor EyeTruth is warned by Administrator Ed Johnston on 3 July here, with warning

      To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.

      The warning was removed from the EyeTruth talk page by user EyeTruth on 7 July and placed in an archive here. EyeTruth was warned a second time by administrator Mark Arsten on 3 August here. After ignoring the previous warnings, EyeTruth was blocked by administrator Bbb23 on 5 August here.

      When EyeTruth protested the block, Bbb23 appeared to become confused, commenting here:

      I've reviewed what happened again, and I believe my block was misplaced, although not for any of the reasons you've mentioned here or in the unblock request on your talk page. The tipping reason for the block was your alleged failure to heed a warning from another administrator. However, now that I've reviewed the events, your last revert on the article was before the warning, not after. And the other administrator had declined to block either you or the other editor when evaluating the first report.

      Here Bbb23 is clearly referring to Mark Arsten as the first administrator, who in response to EyeTruth’s complaint warned both EyeTruth and myself, though he declined to block either of us. In reality this was the second administrator warning EyeTruth. An earlier warning had been issued to EyeTruth on 3 July by EdJohnston here and here, where EdJohnston had said:

      Currently you seem to have no support from other editors in your desire to use the word 'blitzkrieg' in this article. To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus. Thank you.

      If EdJohnston’s warning had remained on EyeTruth’s talk page Bbb23 would not have been confused. If the move had just been an incidental transfer of information from his talk page to an archive, EyeTruth had the opportunity to correct the misunderstanding in the mind of Bbb23, but instead responded thus:

      It just felt so partial, and I was wondering if it was some planned and calculated move to help the other editor. I was just really curious. But it turned out to be a honest mistake. Apology accepted. Nothing else needed.

      Later, he went on to mischaracterize the whole event:

      Do you know that Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute? Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me.

      Indeed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      First off thanks Gunbirddriver for not telling me about this thread. Since you took the time to mention my name the least you could of done was let me know. Secondly, EyeTruth is not User:Blablaaa. I do agree with EyeTruth that the term should be used in the article and I've said so on the talk page. Things were being discussed and it was going well so I'm not sure why it was brought here. As for admin Nick-D I do agree with you Gun that Nick tends to favor certain editors with favortism. I've had my share of problems with Nick in the past and he was never fair to me and never fair to Blablaaa. If you feel your block was wrong then try to do something about it. In the past Nick was questioned over whether some of his blocks were correct. Caden cool 13:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, well that’s helpful, Caden. This complaint is not directed specifically at the discussion on the Battle of Kursk talk page, but is a more general complaint. I filed it when I did because I had gone away for a week, and upon returning it took some time to attempt to pull the threads together. I do not believe EyeTruth has been forthcoming in his interactions with administrators. In addition, during the discussion on the talk page it was clear that EyeTruth had extensive experience on Wikipedia, much more than his six month history would support. I do not believe the discussions he has been a party to have been conducted in an open and honest manner, and I believe this to be counterproductive to cooperative editing. I have been attempting to determine the prior identity of this editor. I take your word for it that he is not Blablaaa. That means then that we have yet to learn the prior identity or identities.Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Gun. When I first posted here, I didnt take enough time to look at your evidence. I have since read all of your posts here and I checked all of the links you provided. I believe you may have a case. I'm not so sure anymore about EyeTruth. After reading all of your links it's possible that he could be Blablaaa. Or he could be another banned editor. I'm really not sure. One thing I'm sure of is that his behavior towards you was far from civil and I'm surprised no admin did anything about that. Another thing that must be looked at is how Nick-D handled things. He didnt handle it well. The block Nick gave you was a bad one. He blocks you but lets EyeTruth off the hook? Makes no sense and looks like favoritism. Caden cool 06:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "In the past Nick was questioned over whether some of his blocks were correct". Actually, only one of my blocks has been overturned as being a bad call, and that was the indefinite duration block I imposed on Blablaaa. He or she was later blocked for an indefinite period for basically the same reasons I blocked them. As the note on the top of my talk page says, I don't have any delusions of perfection as an admin (far from it in fact), but what you're trying to allude to here isn't correct. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes one of your bad blocks was correctly overturned by an admin that called you out on it but you were also questioned over others that were said to be also bad blocks. Blablaaa was NOT blocked for the reason you claim and you very well know he was male and not female. Come on Nick you should know better than that. Caden cool 11:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      According to their block log, Blablaaa was blocked for an indefinite period with the reason of "Disruptive editing" as a result of this entirely damning RfC into their conduct. This disruptive conduct was the same reason I blocked them several months earlier. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Gunbirddriver would have easily avoided a block if he hadn't rushed into editing right after Nick-D suggested that all editing should temporarily pause for some days. Also, summarily reverting an edit that had incorporated new points from the discussion and characterizing that action with a very misleading edit summary is what ticked off Nick-D (See Nick's post above). Normally, it would have ticked me off as well, but I'm already used to stuff like that from Gunbirddriver. Caden, you should see that edit summary. One of the most blatant lie I've seen in a while. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The block was instituted after you essentially drew a red flag on Nick-D's talk page. The back and forth on the talk page seemed inappropritate to me. How can an administrator be impartial if he is allowing an editor to carry on an ongoing chat, and then essentially take direction from him? The edit summary I offered was accuarte, and the admonition was one you should have heeded. If a term or phrase had proved to be contentious, as it had over the previous three months, what made you think adding it back in had suddenly become acceptable? Further, if you were certain, as you claim, that the edit would be acceptable, why the heads up note on Nick's talk page at the time of the edit that you were changing the text again, followed by a second note telling him that darn Gunbirddriver had reverted it back? You clearly anticipated being reverted. That being so it would seem paramount to run the phrasing by the other editors engaged in the discussion before inserting what you claimed to be a neutral compromise back into the text. Would it not have been better just to propose the change to the other editors, and leave Nick-D out of it? As it was played out it appears to me as a heavy handed version of dispute resolution. I did not have an administrator that I was using to back me up, and I do not think it would have been appropriate if I had. As to what "ticked Nick off", you do not know that Nick was ticked off. I would say he was not, but simply attempting to help resolve the conflict on the page. It was the manner in which the information about what was going on was conveyed to him and the obvious plea for administrative action that I find objectionable. The lion's share of responsibility falls upon EyeTruth. Nick's share was in allowing himself to be used in this fashion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So what part of the "back and forth on the talk page" seemed inappropriate? The edit summary you offered is terribly misleading. And yes it ticked Nick off because he just explained above that it did tick him off. I gave Nick heads up because at that time you were the only editor that was still actively hell bent on not accepting a balanced solution: Sturmvogel, Binksternet, and every other person from the DRN (except Hasteur) already agreed to go with the balanced solution. And I NEVER pleaded for an administrative action from Nick-D. Show me where I pleaded for such. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "So what part of the "back and forth on the talk page" seemed inappropriate"
      All of it. You went to the administrator not to resolve conflict but to push your opinion. The mischaracterizations and feigned naivete was all a part of it. It was just another means to an end. This strikes me as inapporpriate. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not at all "ticked off": this was a routine block made for continued edit warrig, and this article doesn't excite me all that much. I watchlisted the article after I agreed to help cool things down, and would have spotted this edit warring and responded without EyeTruth's note on my talk page. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps so, but with EyeTruth commenting there and you responding it gives an appearance of impropriety which should be avoided. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't follow your logic at all, especially as my post was simply "Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter". I also posted on the article was protected on its talk page. Admins who don't explain their actions aren't doing their job properly IMO, and it would have been bad form to have not responded to a post on my talk page by stating what the actions I'd taken were. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In all fairness to Gunbirddriver, he didnt see Nick's edit until after it was to late. As for Nick being ticked off, that's just not acceptable. He's an admin so he's expected to do far better than that. I do believe Gunbirddriver was and is trying to do a good job as an editor on the Battle of Kursk. I dont agree with the block Nick gave him though. Caden cool 15:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I can't tell when he saw it, but the fact that he attempted to use a very misleading edit summary to miscolor the situation was pretty bad, but that alone may not warrant a block. And I do agree Gunbirddriver is trying to do a good job, but he also has a few lapses in his good job. I'm not against his block, neither do I support it, nor did I wish for it. EyeTruth (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Convienence section break

      Eyetruth, please start making positive assertions showing the misstatements by Gunbirddriver instead of just saying "You are becoming too funny" as a euphamism for "You're full of ****". Also consider disengaging from this thread other administrators will look over the thread and ask questions of you if necessary. At this time, all I see is a very large boomerang that is in transit. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hasteur, I already spent so much "making positive assertions showing the misstatements by Gunbirddriver". Sorry, but I'm not wasting it again. I explicitly pointed out Ed Johnston's verdict to both Mark Arsten and Bbb23. They both know fully well about it. You should also look at the full verdict in WP:ANI. It was fully binding on how the DRN turns out, of which you clearly knew how it turned out as unresolved with a slight majority in favour of a "compromise". This drama has gone on for too many months, but this time around I just don't have enough spare-time to keep dragging myself through this quagmire anymore. Frankly, really don't. (Oh BTW, pls don't even start by insinuating that I said "You're full of ****". I didn't censor a four-letter word. So no, I didn't say "you're full of shit" nor was I even remotely implying that.) EyeTruth (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Why not just let us know what user names you used in your prior editing on Wikipedia?Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a link titled "user contribution". EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. If you want to see Gunbirddriver in action then see the Battle of Kursk talkpage and see our discussion on his talkpages. I would start posting them all here one by one if I still had that much time on my hand as before. You see stuff like "cover your mouth because it is disgusting when your food is flying out" or "kid now grow up" (maybe not exact wordings). And almost half of our convo is nothing but his attempts to twist the hell out my post, and me trying to figure out what the heck is going on. For example, I once stated that Dianna had pulled out from the drama and later Gunbirdriver came around and wrote that I claimed or suggested that Dianna conceded to the argument. Stuff like this just kept happening over and over again. Even in the essay he posted above certain things are presented out of the chronological order just to miscolor the whole situation. For example, while he is talking of stuff that happened in August, he throws that Sturmvogel and Binksternet also reverted my edits (which actually happened in early June) but he conveniently forgets to mention that both editors are now in support of a balanced solution to the dispute and have now advocated the inclusion of the term in carefully worded passage. The above essay he wrote has so many stuff like this, and I've shown his misstatements time and again in different venues over the past four months. But doing that all over again now is simply beyond the capacity of my schedule, as I don't have 2 or 3 days of constant editing to spare anytime soon. So before you digest just one side of the story take some time to look deeper or talk to others who have gotten closer to this drama. The only thing anyone could prematurely hold against me is my sometimes harsh language to Gunbirddriver; but the guy have sometimes used language harsher than anything I've used for him as well. BTW, "harsh language" doesn't include when I call him out on violating WP:V or WP:OR. Even Sturmvogel, Irondome and Howicus have very politely called him out on it. (But those mistakes were most likely made in good faith). EyeTruth (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Certainly I would be fine with any administrator reading through the discussion on the talk page. I think I was fairly constrained. In contrast, I would not expect creating section titles such as Blunders in the article and The real discussion would be the best way to go about reaching out to the other editors and create a consensus. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed this discussion by chance; I should have been notified immediately that my name was mentioned. Eyetruth, you need to notify everyone above that you mentioned by name. You can use the template provided at the top of the page to do so. The reason I left the Battle of Kursk page was remarks by EyeTruth such as "Diannaa, this better be a mistake instead of being some twisted attempt to spite me loool..." (directed at me) and "that was before I realized you had zero regards for accuracy or adherence to sources, and absolutely no squirms throwing in original research" (directed at Gunbirddriver). These are examples of the toxic environment and time-wasting discord I encountered when I edited the page again briefly in June (I have edited/watchlisted on and off for over three years). During the period I was on the page, EyeTruth was at the root of the discord, in my opinion, not Gunbirddriver. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for not notifying you. I only mentioned your name incidentally in an example. BTW Diannaa, your actions back then did look very sketchy. You kept claiming that the sources didn't say what was being attributed to them, even though that clearly wasn't true. Till today you still haven't clarified whether your claims were mistakes or intentional. Also, GBD did mess with WP:OR, or at least with WP:V, but of course those were likely done in good faith. EyeTruth (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      See, this is a good example of why I departed from the Battle of Kursk article. It's disheartening to be expected to defend my integrity every time I post an edit. Insinuating that I would falsify sources in an attempt to win an edit war is a personal attack, and I refused to stick around to be insulted in that manner. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Diannaa, don't expect a dude that can't even see or hear you to know what's in your mind. You need to clarify whether it was a mistake or intentional, else I won't know what to make of your actions back then. If you really expect me to just assume that you're a righteous angel, then I see nothing but arrogance. You shouldn't feel insulted if your claims were made in error. EyeTruth (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, no. We have a policy, you have no choice in the manner, you are to assume good faith unless you have explicit evidence to the contrary of which you need to lay out here. I suggest you learn the policy quickly.--v/r - TP 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I do have something that could amount to explicit evidence, but whatever. I will assume all she did was 100% in good faith, and I will let bygones be bygones. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Diannaa. I notified User:EdJohnston, User:Mark Arsten, and User:Bbb23. Caden cool 09:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have consistently supported GBD in terms of the present blitzkrieg discussion in terms of content. Till now I have not had any doubts as to the impartiality of involved eds. I did not look until recently at the long and often nasty discussions before I began to participate. ET, you obviously have loads of experience on WP. Your smooth navigation from procedures to technical skills admit that. I do not think you are baablaa, but you are a former ed. Lets just cklear the air here. It may wipe the slate so we can all move together constructively. GBDs theories have slightly poisoned the well, so clarity would be good. No way taking sides here. Just like to know where I stand re other eds. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      GBD is actually older than me on here as far as serious editing goes, so he should be proficient with "technical skills" and "smooth navigation" as well. Is it collapsible tables? Sturmvogel had to only use it once for me to learn it. Is it referencing and intext citing? WP has done all the explanation you would ever need such that you can never mess any of it up. If all fails, the sandbox is also there to practice. So I really don't see why he wouldn't know as much as I do on here. That is why what he's been saying lately actually makes me laugh out loud. I have edited on and off as ip as far as I can remember, at least for past 6 years and have even had tenminutemail accounts; one or two or three, I can't remember. I really usually don't keep track of online accounts unless I take the thing seriously, which I started for WP early this year and may be dropping it soon as I'm slowly getting too busy for it. EyeTruth (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not a question of editing skills. It is a question of operating on a level playing field. My past activity is known. Yours is not. You should provide the previous user names and IPs. Then we can approach the discussion from an equal level of transparency. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You should provide all the IPs you've used on Wikipedia before in your entire life, then we can have an equal ground here. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. I have only edited as Gunbirddriver. Oh, and Gunbirddriver2 for images. Your turn. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest we drop it and close this down. It may be that ET has a long IP stalking, or whatever. I just do not think it is this baablaa person. I see discussion has resumed on our subject talk page. I think work done there would be far more profitable to everyone. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it was a bad block, insomuch as it done with (quite appropriate) page protection. Since Gunbirddriver couldn't edit the protected page, it's hard to see the block as other than punitive. Since the standard for admin behavior is not perfect I'll simply suggest Nick-D not do that again. Folks concerned about the unfairness of the admin action: please see no justice.
      • Gunbirddriver and EyeTruth are being given an implicit message here which I'll make explicit: You've been going back and forth at each other for a week and not getting much response from the admin community -- while the community values ya'll spending your time contributing it's expected you figure out how to get along or use the available content dispute resolution mechanisms. (WP:DRR) There's just not going to be much interest in sorting through accusations ya'll throw at each other to declare a winner and a loser. The pattern I've observed in similar situations in the past is the eventually folks lose patience and both participations get sanctioned. NE Ent 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I am ready and willing to get along. However, the bar for “getting along” is being set rather high when the other editor involved, EyeTruth, is threatening to have me blocked, succeeding in having me blocked, hiding administrative actions taken against him on an archive, misrepresenting himself to multiple administrators, and keeping his extensive past history editing Wikipedia hidden from all other editors. It is an environment that does not readily lend itself to open interactions, dispute resolution and assumptions of good faith. ‘No action taken’ will likely be perceived as a tacit approval of the behavior. I have no means to correct it. I merely present it to you as clearly as possible.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Interaction ban

      NOT DONE
      There is clearly not a consensus to enact this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Is it appropriate to request an interaction ban with Crisco 1492. To my recollection, I have been banned blocked three times on WP. Two are in the last month in heated discussions with Crisco 1492. He has MFDed three of my pages last month, each garnering 2/3rds suppport keeps or more. He ANed and ANIed me three times in the last month. We just don't seem to be able to get along. I think most folks around here are aware of the issues, but I'll provide diffs if necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think you mean blocked? I'll be back later with an opinion.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought there was a such thing as an interaction ban. I am making inquiries. Is that a possible request here. I have seen such outcomes in the WP:POST reports. I don't know if I can seek one here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are still required to notify. There is such thing as an interaction ban, I was referring to your "banned 3 times" - you were blocked, not banned, as banning cannot be done by a single editor.--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony, despite at least two red-letter warnings on this page, you failed to notify Crisco of this discussion. I've done so here. Also, still awaiting that apology for libeling me. Cdtew (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TonyTheTiger: Yes, there is a red-letter warning at the top of this page, and a warning in orange at the top of the edit page. They both say "you must notify", not "the editor will automatically be notified". As for libel, you stated five times I was a racist with no basis for that statement beyond your own malice. The textbook definition of defamation per se - putting it in writing makes it libel per se. Cdtew (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see the motivation here. If Crisco 1492 is successfully identifying things you have created that you shouldn't have, why should we discourage him from continuing to do so?—Kww(talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see how asking for an interaction ban is warranted when both times you've been blocked for something you really shouldn't have been doing anyways (edit warring and implying that other editors were racists without proof). I'm still waiting for an apology after you implied that I and others who disagreed with you are racists, but given your previous behaviour I know that's an uphill battle that's going to take over a month. Now, if you want me to stay out of your user space, I don't mind, and only ask that you return the favour (with the obvious exception of notifying each other when required, such as with ANI postings) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      STRONG oppose - This is just TTT's latest attempt to say "I am right, the rest of the universe is wrong!". PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Interaction ban between TTT and Khazar2 (close requested)

      BAN ENACTED
      per the strong consensus reflected here, Khazar2 and Tony the Tiger are hereby indefinitely banned from interacting with one another or commenting on one another's actions, effective immediately. Violations of this ban will be met with escalating blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      • Request I-ban for me - I withdrew my earlier request for this, but if Tony's volunteering for interaction bans, I'll have one of those with fries. He's not only posted about me around 200 times this month, but also followed me to another, unrelated project to pick a new fight. Several direct, explicit requests for him to leave me in peace have been unsuccessful. Details and diffs here. I'm going on Wiki-break to get away from the madness, but would love to have a Tony-break on my return. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support requested i-ban. 200 postings of this (an implicit swipe at Khazar2) without a single apology, then further ABF everywhere Tony mentions Khazar2? No thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong support - Khazer doesn't have a truck in this (or a toy truck, even), yet he's getting insulted around the entire site. Definitely time for an interaction ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose-obviously an almost baseless sanction request.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may feel my RFC notification was inappropriate, but what is wrong with giving advice to a person starting up an award? What have we fought about at an unrelated project?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you read Khazar's post? Let me copy it out in full (diff still as given above): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I need a break from Tony. As a quick recap, I started a brief RfC at WT:FOUR after voting against Crisco's proposal for deletion and a failed attempt to get Tony to moderate his own draft RfC. Like Cdtew, I thought I was something of a neutral outside party on this--I'm not involved with MILHIST and have never won the award--but both us of quickly learned that anyone who's not 100% behind Tony gets on the enemies list in a big way. I believe Tony's now approaching 200 posts on more than 150 pages accusing me of bad-faith rigging of the RfC.

      Ranging from:

      to this a few hours ago:

      • "*I continue to feel that this is one of the most disingenuous processes I have been involved in on RFC... this sneaky process seems to have been used to make statements about having any leadership without any discussion of the rest of the organization of the project. There seems to be no interest in discussing the organization of the project other than to use an RFC about one role of the leadership to make statements about the overall leadership of the project. This all seems to be an attempt to throw the project to admins who have never expressed an interest in the project" [5]

      Or see the 150+ posts he made between 6:00 and 8:00 on 20 August, all copies of his claim that I had deliberately crafted my RfC "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions".

      Simultaneously, he's shown up at another project I'm initiating; he's already made about 15 posts critiquing it at WT:GAN, going so far as to spend hours creating a massive dataset in his user space to prove his points. Finally another user had to tell him to lay off there, too.[6]

      Despite direct and explicit requests from me that we not interact with each other for a while, Tony's pinged me back into the debate ("All along, I have said that Khazar2 either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience"), continues to post at the Million Award page, and continues to post his accusations at WT:FOUR.

      I've turned the other cheek on most of this--I voted against the last proposal to topic-ban TTT, for example, and I've voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion at WT:FOUR--but now that we're approaching hundreds of posts, his persistence is starting to wear me down. Is it possible for me to request here that Tony leaves me in peace for just a few weeks, or is the best solution to simply take a break from Wikipedia until this blows over? As a third alternative, is it allowed for me to simply withdraw my RfC? Frankly, the FOUR debate strikes me as a fundamentally trivial issue, and it's not worth this level of harassment. If there's no administrative will to police something like this, I'm prepared to just say he wins, take a break, and then get back to regular editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30 am, Today (UTC+7)

      • I am not sure what behavior you are trying to curb. Advice on an award is not problematic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was stating my continued displeasure with an RFC, it was nothing personal about you.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since I wrote the RfC, and you've stated so many times that I did so from manipulative, masterful, sneaky, dishonest, etc. motives, it rather obviously is personal. Tony, I hope we'll work together again in the future without hard feelings, but for now I want a break from your ongoing drama, and I've said that to you over and over again without result. Since you're asking for mutual bans for people you can't get along with, I'm simply asking you to add me to your list. We can make it short-term--a few months or so--but you need to leave off for a bit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Support - If there is one less editor for TTT to hurl baseless libel at then it can only benefit the encyclopedia. @TonyTheTiger: Before you start attacking me; Khazar2 is not making valid criticisms of you while Crisco is and as such your attempt to I-ban him is attempting to stop legitimate criticism while this one is to stop YOU from throwing around BASELESS LIBEL at another editor as though it was candy! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support - Since TTT seems good with being I-Banned, here's one that makes sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What behavior toward Khazar is this attempting to curb. Commenting at WP:GAN at a discussion about a formative award, WP:FOUR on a RFC that I have always disagreed with.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • He's repeatedly asked you to leave him alone temporarily, and instead of doing that, you seem to be following him about. Did you know he is working very hard to bring some articles on core topics to GA? For example, he and I just finished bringing Auschwitz concentration camp to GA. Not everyone is capable of working on these articles, it's not easy material to work on. So I definitely don't want to risk losing this valuable contributor, so when he asks you to leave him alone for a while, I do so wish you would do that, rather than the opposite. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks! Don't worry, though, I'm not going anywhere--will be back in October chugging away regardless of outcome here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong support - This puts an end to the hounding, and the horrendously false allegations. Not that I have much confidence in Tony abiding by an IBAN, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the very least an IBAN provides the grounds for formal sanctions if Tony is unable to abide by it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which was also something at the forefront of my mind, and what my second sentence leads on to. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support temporary interaction ban of three to six months duration. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC) This would include making reference to or commenting on each other's activities anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; commenting about or posting at the talk pages of initiatives being worked by the two editors such as the Four Award or the Million Award; posting on one another's talk pages, except to give official notices; and undoing one another's edits in article space. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What counts as an official notice? Every 3 months, as the director of WP:CHICAGO, I thank all editors who have produced a new WP:GA or WP:FA for the project. This is sort of an official capacity, but not something policy mandated. I consider it as official as a quarterly project newsletter.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think notices on behalf of a wikiproject could be counted as "official notices"; it's just a boilerplate message, right? what do other people think? --- Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure it counts as boilerplate because from quarter to quarter I usually phrase it differently, but they usually look something like this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why would you thank Khazar when specifically asked not to interact with them? If the purpose of the message is to thank the contributor, and therefore encourage them to continue contributing to Chicago related articles, why would you want to jeopardise further contributions with a message they clearly don't want? Unless something like this is automated, I'm confused why you'd even ask whether it is permitted, rather than just avoid it (which seems an easy thing to do). - Shudde talk 12:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tony, I specifically and explicitly told you just two weeks ago that I didn't want any more of these. I appreciate your efforts to thank other users, but to apply for special permission to keep "thanking" me is disingenuous and obnoxious. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, that's a pretty strong consensus that wikiproject notes are not welcome and would be included in the ban. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Support Per Dianaa. Why not just make it an indefinite one? My spider sense tells me that this would just rear its head again in 6 months. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support as per Diannaa. I would also recommend an indefinite ban (Indefinite =/= infinite), simply because I know that Khazar would feel free to request that it be lifted if circumstances required it (i.e. if there were some potential collaboration with Tony in the offing). I don't see any reason to sunset the ban in 6 months and risk disruption once it expires. Tony's comments in this thread smack of WP:IDHT, and that cemented the case for me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This logic makes sense to me. Thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Tony can be an incredibly fussy editor, I'm sure this is perfectly valid request.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support This seems like a legitimate and indeed necessary request. Intothatdarkness 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since discussion has slowed to a halt over the past few days, I think an uninvolved admin should make the proper closure here. It is, I think, a fairly self-evident one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since TTT came here asking about an interaction ban (if I understand what TTT is referring to correctly, partially because he ended up being blocked for false accusations of racism based on an apparent long running lack of understanding of what racism even is). Then started complaining when people said no to the interaction ban, because he hadn't actually asked for an interaction ban just asked if it was appropriate (which while nominally true is clearly missing the point). And since TTT's explaination for why he doesn't want an interaction ban in this particular case doesn't really seem particularly convincing, but Khazar2's reasons for the request are. I give my wholehearted support. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second close request - It's been a week, and discussion has slowed to a trickle; is it possible to close? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Support. The IBAN should be enforced ASAP. Khazar has had enough of it already. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Very slow but long-term disruption

      I don't really know how best to handle this, but some admin action (or edit filters or other solutions) seems necessary. I first noticed this when deleting Siamese Twin Mental Disorder, written by User:J341933. It contained BLP violations against a person I'll not name (to avoid the intended purpose of coupling his name to diseases or other negative aspects on search engines). Looking at other pages created and deleted by the same editor, and looking at other instances of that BLP being named on Wikipedia, I noticed that this seems to be a case of on-wiki harassment of a BLP (and other BLPs related to his family) that has started at least as early as 2005.

      J341933 created this page, which was first created in 2006 by User:Yairhaim. That first version was about the same family as the Siamese twins article deleted today, and contained nonsensical BLP violations like " Shortly later she gave birth to two sets of twins in 1968 but Mr. and Mrs. X only kept one child." J341933 also created Achael Drorim, which is about the same person as the Siamese article and about the same family X.

      Another article, with this variant title, was created by an IP address in 2005. This seems likely to be the same person as User:Yairhaim, who created this page in 2006, about the same family as the Siamese twins article deleted today, and contained nonsensical BLP violations like " Shortly later she gave birth to two sets of twins in 1968 but Mr. and Mrs. X only kept one child." That page was recreated by J341933 as well.

      The 2010 edits by User:X1041261m and User:027441205ha are also about the same issue, e.g. this page (created by both), where the second instance again has ridiculous "twin" assertions: see e.g. also this edit, and yet another variation of the same title. User:Yotvata is yet "another" editor from the same period involved in this (see his deleted contributions or something like this).

      Perhaps this article, a thrice deleted article that was recently kept at AfD with no consensus, should get wome extra scrutiny witth this report in mind as well, but it may be that it turns out to be perfectly acceptable.

      Perhaps someone here remembers the circumstances surrounding this user, who is clearly related to this mess and has already some sockpuppets, e.g. this cat and this cat. One of these created yet another variation of the same title, this one, which was deleted 6 times before being salted... This leads us to other users, like User:Wachovia, from 2005, but also to very new ones like User:Bitachonalim.

      Sorry for the lengthy report, but I wanted to show the number of accounts involved, the long term abuse (it is too persistent and negative to be a prank IMO), and the number of articles they have created over the years (plus a fair number of other articles that were vandalized).

      Any suggestions for the most efficient way to minimize their potential for further disruption? (Note: I have only notified the current user, all others have either been blocked or haven't edited here in years). Fram (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This user left some rather strange shit on my talk page. I can't tell if they're intentionally trolling or incompetent, but they are most definitely not here to contribute positively. Ishdarian 22:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Ishdarian, that diff was blatantly disturbing. I'm pretty sure it's a troll. 173.58.96.144 (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for the replies. I have blocked that editor indefinitely, and started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglaseivindhallgerber because I found at least one other sock of him, and he used many socks earlier, so there may well be sleepers and other undetected socks. Probably not much more that we can do, unless someone is willing to write an edit filter on the BLP name? Fram (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      All known socks blocked, and no further socks or sleepers found (as far as CU can determine). Will keep an eye on this, any help is still welcome. Fram (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Off-wiki canvassing

      What is the correct procedure if a discussion is being swayed by off-wiki means? At Talk:Paris#Changing_the_photo_at_the_start_of_article, the !vote after being slightly against changing the infobox photo has suddenly gained another 5 !votes for it, explained by Talk:Paris#.27Parachute.27_revisionists..--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've poked in that page the odd time, and it might be helpful if someone with a lot of patience were to help mediate the overall dispute. There definitely are factions pushing for control of various aspects of the article, which certainly is unfair to Dr. Blofeld's efforts to bring it to GA status. Resolute 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No need for patience, really - This complaint isn't about the article content itself, but the WP:MEAT tactic used to 'force' certain POV's; it doesn't matter whose POV's they are. There is no call to discuss article content at all. THEPROMENADER 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] . All non editors, most with new accounts all turn up within a few hours to try to sway an argument. Isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway? Not that those "votes" have an ounce of credibility anyway, but it is very concerning that Der Statistiker has no respect for other editors and seems intent on pushing his opinions whatever the cost. And yes, I've heard little but whining and sniping about my edits to the article which passed it as a GA. At one point they were proposing to revert back to the April version, which if you compare it to now it sums up what I've had to deal with.. I think if Der Statistiker continues to cause disruption and making derogatory remarks then a topic ban from Paris related articles might be the best thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: Following comment moved from separate section below. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A long and heated discussion over which picture to use to represent Paris has taken place. Some want to show famous Parisian sights, others want to show skyscrapers outside the city. Both arguments have merits. Unfortunately the discussion has turned ugly. Minato ku suggested that those who don't share his opinion want to show a city where "everybody is white" [12]. Completely beside the point, and a thinly disguised attempt at calling other users racists. Then, when the consensus seemed to go against his preferences for skyscrapers, the same user decided to go on a WP:MEAT-campaign. At the website skyscrapercity.com (hardly a neutral place), the user repeatedly encouraged members to go to English Wikipedia to comment and vote in favor of Minato Ku's preferred picture [13], [14], [15]. He even went on to instruct them how they should modify their profiles to appear more credible [16], [17].
      His meatpuppetry did have the desired effects, a number of new users turned up, their only edits consisted of being in favor of Minato Ku's desired photo change [18], [19], [20], [21].Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Mentioned above, Wikipedia:An#Off-wiki_canvassing. Might want to merge the sections so that all the discussion is in the same place... Ansh666 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. — Scott • talk 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Why was this archived? (Perhaps the 'done' in the message above triggered the bot) THEPROMENADER 04:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The bot is set to archive 2 days after the last comment. The only thing that changes that is a fake date stamp to manually delay archiving. Monty845 04:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Or {{subst:DNAU}}. Be sure to remove it once the thread is closed so it can be archived. I have added it above. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Much thanks - will do. THEPROMENADER 08:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A 'two-cents' second thought about this episode: Minato ku has been making (a few) edits to Paris-based articles since 2007, so should have known better than to rouse the off-wiki campaign as he did, but one question is bothering me: How is it that his first edit since a year and a half is a vote for the 'La Défense' image on the Paris talk page? It seems evident that someone involved in that debate before the vote 'put out the call' to draw that contributor here, so I (for one) would feel badly if he alone took the blame if he was not alone in organizing the drive. If this is the case, it would be kind (to Minato ku and all contributors involved in this) if that 'someone' came forward. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'd put good money on it being one particular editor, who opposes any Dr. Blofield-initiated edit with an apparent disregard for whether it's an improvement or not, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not because I am not active that I don't read Wikipedia. The Paris article was quite calm until a few months ago, I had no reason to participate here if nothing happened. In the few previous months, I was too busy and I didn't go in Wikipedia. When I decided to go again in Wikipedia page, I have seen big changes and debates, I had to put my opinion.
      ThePromenader seems to think that my interventions is only based on la Défense (I don't know what he has against La Défense). This is not true, my interventions are mostly based on a bad impression that I notice in many media and here. I have the impression that everything is done reduce to the minimum facts that are not according to the homogeneous, touristy, old and quaint stereotypes of Paris. I was even accused of calling people 'racist' when I have given this bad feeling about what is happening here.
      I hope I am wrong but many of the talks seem to confirm this fear rather than the opposite.
      I only put my two cents in the talk section, I didn't edit the article, I didn't bring people here for a vote that did not not even exist at this time. I have rebuked those who came and insulted some editors because of me (I am sorry for that).
      I find some reactions to be quite exaggerated here, as if it was a problem or suspicious thing to have people who don't agree with them. Minato ku (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies, your first intervention (after a year and a half) was two months earlier than any vote. Just goes to show that off-wiki maniplation can give everything a 'suspect' angle it shouldn't have. THEPROMENADER 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: personally I don't care about 'sanctions' (I didn't begin this thread - but it doesn't look as though anything is going to happen anyways), I just don't want to see anything of the sort happening again. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This has been waiting for attention since two weeks now, can someone close this issue please? THEPROMENADER 06:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Template edit protection

      Can we stop with this fucking bullshit fully edit protecting every template out there with more than about, I don't know, 500 transclusions? {{Iw-ref}} has been doing fine with semi since 2009. Why did it need to be sysop'ed now? — Lfdder (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Before we answer that, you need to explain why you're abusing User:Mark Arsten and why you completely failed to notify him about this thread. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Abusing Mark Arsten? ....what? Mark Arsten is not the "subject of the discussion"; I'm not obliged to notify him. That was an example. — Lfdder (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You come here with inflammatory language about protection issues and then use Mark's action as an example, and you don't think you have to notify him? To use your own term, bullshit.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter to me who did it this time. This issue is much more pervasive. — Lfdder (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you attempted to discuss the protection with any of the protecting admins? NE Ent 19:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Am I supposed to identify all the admins that have made dubious edit protections and go ask them all individually? This is the place to discuss admin actions. — Lfdder (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)It's a place, not necessarily the place. I'd maybe ask a few what their thought processes are as a starting point. The policy at Wikipedia:High-risk templates is rather vague and open-ended, so it might be useful to see how admins are currently interpreting it. Then I'd start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:High-risk templates and/or WP:VPP, if you feel strongly about it. NE Ent 19:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Also, see all the comments here. — Lfdder (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • (Non-administrator comment) While I entirely agree that Lfdder's approach to starting this discussion was inappropriate, I also agree that there has been a widespread full protection of templates that "may" not have needed to be fully protected. I suggest that Lfdder have a read of WP:CALM, and lets discuss this like mature adults (even if not everyone here is an adult, as that is not an excuse not to act like one in a forum such as this). I personally would have opened such a discussion as an WP:RfC on the appropriate forum to get a community consensus instead of coming to this toxic wonderful AN forum, and I certainly wouldn't have come here shout vulgarity and bitching / complaining in such a manner, but to each's own I suppose. Technical 13 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, first things first, I'm all for establishing exact numbers about how many transclusions merit semi or full protection. I'd strongly support getting a less vague guideline on the issue for starters. But, in this case, {{Iw-ref}} has over 13,000 transclusions, so I think that it qualifies as "high risk" in pretty much any definition, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's never been hacked or vandalized and a non-admin successfully edited without harm [22]. I'd call that low risk. Can anyone provide a diff of a template being hacked recently? NE Ent 00:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Particularly now that there are WP:BEANS all over the place. Resolute 19:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're to go by the philosophy that prevention is better than having to cure, we might as well full-protect everything on the wiki. But we don't, because we don't. Full-protection is more akin to a pound of prevention, and the general wiki/wikipedia philosophy is to prevent only when demonstrably necessary. equazcion (talk) 19:55, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      • Let me start by saying that the current system, as I've witnessed it, seems to be the best plan in my opinion. In my experience, the default is full protection for heavily-used templates (although of course we have no definition of what makes a template heavily used or not), but we've generally been open to unprotecting or reducing protection when there's good reason. For example, see the logs for {{NRHP date for lists/dates}}: this is definitely a heavily used template, but I unprotected it with permission from the protecting admin because it was a regularly-updated template and because a non-admin was doing most of the updating — in short, the protection was causing problems, because it was definitely not a good idea to require someone to file an editprotected request every week. If you know of a template at which protection is causing more problems than it prevents, you should ask the protecting admin to unprotect, or file a request at the bottom of WP:RFPP, but remember (1) this generally isn't applicable unless the template needs to be changed often, since you could always make an editprotected request; and (2) template vandalism can be quite insidious, especially because nobody thinks to check obscure subpages. For an example, see the second section of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 69. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking for myself, if, in my wiki Brownian walks, I stumble upon a template that could use tweaking, if it's unprotected I'll fix it if not I'll go find something else to do. So if ya'll want to add template work to the list of things only admins can do ... NE Ent 02:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a template guy I agree with Technical 13 and NE Ent. I've been noticing full protection much more often now. To put yourselves in your template coders' shoes for a moment, imagine if the articles you tend to edit required a talk page posting and explanation every time you had an idea for a good tweak; you'd be far less likely to contribute your skills quite as often. Traditionally full protection was reserved for the "top 1%", so to speak, of heavy-use templates -- ie. it was rare. It was actually further reserved for low-level technical templates that were generally transcluded several layers deep and weren't broadly watched, and could therefore do extensive damage easily without immediate notice. I don't think it's all that necessary for most of the actual displayed article tags, save for the very very top used ones. Templates (even heavily-used ones) should continue to benefit from crowdsourcing the same as other content. PS. We could resolve this easily by creating a new non-admin rights group for template coders (just for editing full-protected templates, while others would be editable by everyone) if the community would be amenable to that. Equazcion (talk) 06:07, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      • Lfdder, I agree with the users above: your use of inflammatory language and attacks negates any legitimate points you otherwise raise in your comments. That, combined with the fact that you completely failed to notify the involved admin of this discussion, or even attempt to discuss this directly with him, makes you look even worse. Looking through Special:WhatLinksHere, I can find at least 5000 mainspace transclusions, mostly on BLP-related articles, and I'm still counting. Also, the template itself states that it's deprecated, so why would you like to edit it? I see no reason to dispute Mark Arsten's full-protection. Lfdder, even though we see your frustration (you are a frequent template editor), you need to calm down your tempers before taking the issue to a noticeboard. And I'm not saying all this just because I reverted one of your edits yesterday. Heymid (contribs) 05:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bandwagon's in town. — Lfdder (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Usually it shouldn't take more than a couple of days before an administrator responds to an edit request. However, in this case, it appears that there is indeed dispute over your proposed edit, which I believe is why no administrator has made a decision yet. Sometimes, dispute resolution needs more than just a couple of days. Heymid (contribs) 14:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A couple of days is too long. Where is this dispute? Not that it matters; it took two days to get a response in the first place. — Lfdder (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      As one of the people who is marginally involved in the maintaining templates, my idealized formula for determining preventative full protection is somewhere in the range of "If transclusions > 10000 and count of changes needing to be undone in a 1 week period > 3 => full-protect; Else semi-protect". I petitioned recently to get the {{AFC submission/draft}} locked down because we had a few editors somehow go on a spree of putting their own thoughts in to a heavily transcluded template. My personal viewpoint is anything that would take the backend wiki-database to spend more than ~5 hours to do the re-evaluation is enough to warrant the preventative protection. Hasteur (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Unfortunately, we've have chosen to decide who can edit templates by choosing from the (IP, unconfirmed, confirmed, admin) set. Given the potential pain of a bad edit to a high transclusion template, I understand why we don't want the extremely low hurdle of "confirmed". One can be pretty close to clueless about templates and be confirmed. The additional challenge is that admin is too high, it just isn't right. It means I can edit such a template. I have played with templates a bit, but I am very much the newbie. I was sweating bullets the other day when I edited a template with maybe a few hundred transclusions. The "only" rational for the admin hurdle is that I hopefully have enough clue to realize the impact, and check with someone who does have a clue.
      Dare I suggest a new user right?(Edit: It occurs to me I do not know whether this would be feasible. Can one condition edit rights on name space?) I know we propose these at the drop of a hat, but the right editors to be editing templates are editors like Hasteur and Technical 13, not the average confirmed user. (I could even support that admins would not get it automatically. I don't think I should have it.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As I suggested above, I think a new non-admin user rights group just for editing full-protected templates is all we really need. Restricting template editing across the board to a new rights group would a be much more major change, and is not likely to gain acceptance right now. Equazcion (talk) 14:34, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      Equazcion, oops sorry I missed your suggestion above. In an attempt to turn a blunder into a positive, this means two independent suggestions were made, not simply one and a "me, too" :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Still at the mercy of sysops then. I see that you're already making ground; my nick's been left out of the editors in this discussion that might get this right, even though I've been doing little else other than fixing up templates lately. — Lfdder (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of why you weren't listed in the editors for whom it makes sense to have this right is (IMO) because your temperment is not the right for the extra privileges afforded being able to edit through full protection. As evidenced in this thread and WP:ANI#Protected edit queue your method in attempting to get annother volunteer to do something is significantly lacking in clue. Hasteur (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My temperament? Just because I swear doesn't mean I'm temperamental. What a load of bollocks. — Lfdder (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't read every single oppose, but most raised issues relating to article (as opposed to templates). User:Beeblebrox made a strong case in opposition, and, as noted by the number of "per Beeblebrox" follow-on opposes, his opinion carried weight. Note that his strong oppose carried within it the possibility that templates should be a special case: If there is evidence that there is a specific problem with backlogs of requests to edit fully protected templates I would prefer some sort of solution that was technically limited to an the template namespace but as of yet I have not seen evidence that such a problem exists in any namespace. In addition, at least one oppose, by Manning Bartlett specifically noted the possibility t hat templates should be considered separately. (and of course, many of the supports cited template issues).
      I see that there was an alternate proposal for PC2, specifically covering the template issue, but PC2 is not the same as a template edit user right, it is the use of an existing mechanism to try to accomplish something similar. Being qualified for PC2 is not simply not the same as being competent to edit templates, it is close to orthogonal. Many of our fine prose editors and admins ought not to be touching highly used templates. In contract, we have highly technical editors who should be allowed to, yet may not be close to having the wide range of experience need to pass RfA.
      I do note that the prior RfC went down in flames, but I think that it might go differently for a user right for template editors.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll also note the Trappist RfA, initiated specifically to edit templates. While I appreciate the general argument (if we trust them to do X, we should trust them to do Y, so let's approve admin or not), I think a good case can be made that template expertise is a very different animal. Editors can fail an RfA because they aren't active enough in AfD. Fair enough, but what if an editor wants to work on templates? We don't require general expertise to operate a bot, we ask for bot specific expertise, so many bot operators are not admins, and many admins are not allowed to run a bot. The technical expertise to understand the ramifications of a template edit are far closer to the concept of bot expertise, than they are to the admin skill set. Maybe Trappist will become an admin, but it is a close call at the moment, and it would be a travesty if the editor's interest in improving templates were stymied because the editor hasn't the set of experience relevant to getting the block and delete buttons.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hopefully the next RFC on the topic is narrowly focused on the editing protected templates issue. Perhaps a proposal to allow PC2, ONLY in template space, and only on templates that would otherwise have been fully protected on high visibility grounds. The main reason we protected them is to defend against vandalism, not to protect against misguided but good faith edits. Thus we would only be concerned with the trust aspect of the reviewer right, not competence. Monty845 17:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, Monty. Let's do it (the RfC). equazcion (talk) 17:03, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      Show me the link to sign up. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I've been starting too many RFCs recently, I'm gonna leave it for someone else. Though would be happy to comment on a draft if requested. Monty845 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I just noticed this discussion and I have to say I have very strong feelings about this as well. There are very few templates out there I cannot edit and I find it extremely annoying that I have to do all the work and then ask an admin, often who wouldn't even know if the coding was correct, to apply the changes. That has gotten me to the point I will not do any of the coding for a protected template anymore. If I find a problem I just submit an edit request and let them deal with it. If I cannot be trusted to implement the change, I shouldn't be trusted (or expected) to do the work. It is extremely frustrating. I would also add that the higher the visibility of the template, the less likley vandalism will last long. For example, if someone were to vandalize Template:WikiProject United States or any number of others it would be reverted in seconds. We simply do not need anything higher than semi protection on most templates. Kumioko (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Kumioko, I say this with all respect, but get over it. Your repeated verses of "If I'm not trusted with all the tools, I should be kicked out"/anti-admin/"I was mugged by a conspiracy" are getting old. Your supposition that vandalism to a template would get quickly noticed and reverted does not deal with the initial problem that the protection was put in place. If a user does (accidentally or intentionally) modify a high visibility template, that change puts a significant load on the back end page generation servers in that the template has to be re-evaluated and will not show consistent results to what the base template looks like until the refresh has completed. Take into account then the efforts of the reverter, which adds another re-evaluation to the stack and more effort. I would think you'd prefer to have fewer changes that require undoing (and subsequently fewer inconsistent pages) than submitting great update requests and causing a great backlog on the page rendering. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, but I know you haev no respect for me or my editing so you need not hide your contempt from me. And frankly, I don't care if people are tired of hearing about it. Don't like it, tough shit, not my problem. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia not worry about hurting the feelings of a few editors who want to keep me out of their little club. Your right though, it does put some load on the servers but just like we don't need to worry about edit loads, we don't need to worry about that. Visual Editor puts a lot of load on the servers too and were stuck with that piece of crap. There isn't any proof that fully protecting hundreds of high use templates prevents any harm. In fact, given that I could point to several templates that need to be edited but haven't been because they are protected, the evidence suggests the opposite. That full protection prevents needed edits from being done. The alternatives would be to promote some of us to admins so we can pitch in or make a new role for template editor. None of which will pass because....honestly...because it would be a loss of control on the part of the admins. Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've also started a "few" WP:RfCs lately myself... Equazcion, I'd say the honor is probably yours... :) Technical 13 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      With my fan club if I started it they would vote it down just because I submitted it!:-/ Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Please remember WP:AGF. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Kumioko was making more of a lighthearted self-deprecating remark there, Bushranger. I'll maybe get an RfC draft started soon, although I'm not calling dibbs, in case anyone else feels motivated to start something first. equazcion (talk) 23:07, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      True, but I was referring more to the comment just above the outdent. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Your both right, I was making a self deprecating comment/joke and I was inferring that the community/admin process needs to make more use of the AGF guidelines. If an editor has been here for 6+ years and has 450, 000 edits, then its unlikely to the extreme they are going to start vandalizing pages. On the other hand, once a person is an admin they can pretty much do anything they want and the process says that it requires an Arbitration hearing to remove the tools. So that process works? No, it does not. Kumioko (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • RFC started please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New userright: Edit protected in Template namespace only. Could somebody add this to {{cent}}? That template is semi'd so I can't do it. Thanks. 64.40.54.181 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would rather there have been a draft posted somewhere for our review before it was put to the community. This one is very scant on rationale (it has none, actually) and only poses a single yes-or-no question, when a full RfC could've listed a couple of possible eventualities. I appreciate you wanting to move forward quickly, but please consider withdrawing this so we can put together something that has a better chance. equazcion (talk) 05:36, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
        • Monty845, could you elaborate on your comment at proposals, regarding a possible non-userright solution? I'm working on an RfC draft that might include more than one option. Thanks. equazcion (talk) 06:04, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
        • I started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor userright. Feel free to add/tweak, discuss via its talk page, or just watch its development. With the Village Pump proposal already existing, I'm thinking the two can be merged when ready. equazcion (talk) 07:31, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree. It is premature, and a premature RfC will almost certainly go down in flames, which may taint subsequent ones. For example, there is a possibility that PC2 limited to Template space for designated templates may work, but it would be smart to have a little discussion about that before launching an RfC. In addition, someone noted the lack of specificity as to what constitutes high volume templates, so it might be smart to include that specification in the discussion. As another point, if it is to be a new user right, as opposed to using PC2, I'd like some feedback from the developers or other knowledgable parties about how difficult that is.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If anyone knows of any devs they can contact for a general feasibility assessment of the current proposal, that would definitely be helpful. equazcion (talk) 13:29, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
            • Folks as much as we may all agree that this is a good thing, we are all being naive to think it will actually pass. There are simply too many people that want to keep the status quo. If they start breaking tools out of the admin set then the admin power shifts and regular editors start to be able to do things for themselves. Of course they will phrase it into an issue of trust or some silly thing but the bottom line is, they will not be able to hold it over our heads and they will not be able to hold editors hostage anymore. I know I'm, throwing AGF out the window with that statement but from my experiences dealing with many many admins over the years (some are really good and some should have never been promoted) there are a lot that do not want things to change and will not allow it. Since the admins have a significant chunk of the experienced editor population the only way for this type of thing to succeed is for a bunch of them to agree to this or something like this. Its just not going to happen. Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would've agreed with you before I started watching Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk. It is the only reason I decided to start the RfC. Everyone on all sides of the debate, admin and otherwise, appear to predominately wish for something like this. equazcion (talk) 14:08, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
                • I know I sound unnecessarily pessimistic but my skepticism is based not on contempt of the process alone but on repeated historical observation. Earlier this year Dank championed a very well thought out and articulated RFC to make several improvements to the RFA process. Even after significant support and an exhaustive collaboration it failed as have nearly every other (with the exception of only a select few like Rollbacker and Filemover). Just look at the comments made, many of the comments in that RFC state both directly and indirectly at a perception of a loss of power. I personally hope this passes and intend to support it but I have the feeling this will end the same as the others in the past because too many have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Those who perceive they have power want to keep it and no matter the net benefit to the project, they will prevent this from passing. Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Could you link to that RFC? I'd be interested in having a skim. equazcion (talk) 19:30, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
                    • Yeah its a monster though, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC. It was in three phases. There are also a lot of discussion about it in the archives of WP:RFA starting about archive 118 or 119 and going to about 223 as well as Dank's talk page archives. Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thanks. Wow that's a doozy. When I have a free couple of weeks I'll wade through it :) equazcion (talk) 20:15, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
                        • And that's just one, there have been several such RFC's regarding RFA reform's which eludes to my skepticism of this noble task. The community isn't very accepting of change. I am hoping for the best but expecting the status quo. Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Easy close. Who wants it?

      Five points for Ravenclaw. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      TFD is pretty backlogged, and this one is super easy.

      Also, I had this idea: NinjaKiwi has recently increased activity at their games exponentially by dividing all its registered players into clans, posting leaderboards, and awarding points and "medals" and such for the most active clans and players. Let's put all the admins into clans, have them compete for top closing tallies, and watch those backlogs disappear! Go team! Equazcion (talk) 05:11, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)

      It was the first time I have closed a TFD in a long time, so I don't know where to put any record-keeping templates (e.g. "this template was nominated for TfD on X date; see link here"). Could someone help me out please? NW (Talk) 06:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I added the talk page tag. Thanks for the close, NW :) Equazcion (talk) 06:11, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Bot use by blocked users

      The case has been explained as a simple case of "what does this do?" "huh" "oops". Given that it seems to have been a good-faith mistake, no action seems necessary against Viriditas. If bots need to be fiddled with to prevent further occurances of this sort, that's something for WP:VPT; if blocking policy needs tweaking, that's for the relevant talk pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Please see this edit: [23], and discussions at User talk:Citation bot#Link to blocked editor and Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Question about bot access by blocked editors. An editor who is currently in the middle of a three-month block appears to have (indirectly) edited a page that was involved in the reasons for the block. The edit was actually carried out by a bot, rather than by direct editing by the blocked person. The edit was also an entirely benign one, from a content perspective. However, it seems to me to have been, arguably, block evasion nevertheless, although I recognize that different editors might interpret the action in different ways. What do administrators think about the situation? (I'm going to notify the blocking admin.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      If I understand the situation, anyone, blocked or not, can cause the bot to check a certain page. That person has no control over what the bot does there, the bot will do what its programmed to do, and the only input from the person is to send it to run on said page. If that is the case, I think its harmless, if practical, it would be better if it stopped blocked users from triggering it, but its minor concern, and I think it can be fully dealt with at WT:BAG or another BAG page. Monty845 17:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A decision to select and use a particular bot, knowing what that particular bot will do sounds like editing to me. Maybe not clearly enough to smack someone over, but nevertheless editing. Doing it on the article where they were involved in a conflict on adds to that. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a...minor edit. Why do we care who told the bot to do it? I see no reason to suggest that Viriditas was able to issue instructions to the bot (i.e. able to control its actions), and there's no possible way in which problems can arise based on who told the bot to run this task. Blocks are levied to prevent disruption, and the only disruption that's resulted here is by those who are trying to prevent Wikipedia from being improved through edits like this. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Nyttend, with respect to what I am "trying" to do, you may want to revise that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? You are trying to prevent someone from doing something that only improves the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't normally say that blocked editors are permitted to make minor edits, or noncontroversial edits, or edits that are deemed to improve Wikipedia. I think it's reasonable to examine whether bot edits fall into a different category, because the editor has limited control over what the bot ends up doing, or whether bot edits are essentially comparable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's clearly block evasion performed in a roundabout means. I think that the block timer should be reset to 3 months from the time of the edit.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How do you know who it was? Apperently the bot doesn't verify the username you put in at [24], so we don't actually know who triggered it. Monty845 18:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's a further complication. It's possible that someone else could use this as a way of impersonating a blocked user. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (ecx2)Personally I think its perfectly fine but this precedent has already been set so its really out of our control. Rich F was blocked for using automation because they considered the use of excel and offline tools to be automation. So the rules are pretty clear, if that was considered automation in his case then this, absolutely is also and is a violation of the ban/block. Further, if this bot allows blocked users to use it then the bot logic needs to be updated to not allow blocked users use of the bot or the bot should be stopped. Also, under the current rules it doesn't matter if its a minor rule, its basically socking and block evasion. He is blocked/banned and using another account, to make edits. If we don't like it, then we need to change the policy, but policy is clear here. Also, unless we haev some evidence to prove otherwise, we should assume it is the user. Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is one of the most absurd discussions I've seen on here. Even if a blocked user (as Monty845 said above, unverifiable that said user triggered it) triggered a bot over which they have no control of what the bot does I don't see how that could be construed as block evasion. In fact, I would argue that knowing that they have no control over the actual content of the bot's edit, the fact that they triggered the bot to clean up an article is a show of good faith (I mean, we are suppose to AGF, right?) and they shouldn't be admonished and punitively punished for this. Technical 13 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm all in favor of AGF where appropriate, but calling this discussion "absurd" does not seem to display much of that. I think Kumioko raised a significant point about the ArbCom precedent. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to think that's true, unfortunately history shows otherwise. When I got fed up and left I made some edits as an IP. Some insisted that was socking...so I created a new account in the hopes of a clean start...apparently that is socking...so all I could do was use the same account (or a variation at least). Kinda the same thing here. The user knows they are blocked/banned and willifully used another means of editing. Call it a sock or not, but the result is the same, they used an account other than the one that they have, which is curently blocked. Personally I thnk we need to modify the policy to allow this, even if we specify this bot specifically, but that will never happen. because WP is incapable of doing that sort of meaningful change. So we are stuck with a one size fits all policy that will not allow this type of editing. Wiht that said, you are correct that we don't know for sure its the user. However, I think its very likely that it was. Its the same sort of stupid practice that caused Rich F to get baneed for a year, our own bullheadish incompetent and inflexible policies. But they are what they are and this one is clear. Kumioko (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A blocked/banned editor should not be making even harmless edits. Any bot which asks editors to type in their name is just begging for malicious "false flag operations" to get some blocked editor in bigger trouble. It would not be appropriate or fair to extend a block because of an edit which cannot be linked to the banned editor (unless the editor admits editing by invoking the bot). But asking the editor if he did it, then extending the block if he says yes, does not seem like a sensible practice, since it provides a benefit for those who lie and punishes those who are truthful. If there really no technological to have the bot page record who edited it to cause the bot to operate? If not, then perhaps they should remove the unverifiable data about which editor invoked the bot. Edison (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In all fairness your absolutely right, but again that brings up a bigger problems. Do we allow the bot to be used by anyone, including blocked users or users who would try and get another user into troubel, or do we require the bot op to fix it. I think the latter would be the most responsible thing to do but I'm not sure if that's possible. Again though our personal feelings are irrelevant. We are stuck with a bad policy and it states clearly that this is socking, block evasion or both. Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      One thing to keep in mind about the "arbcom precedent" that Kumioko brings up is that Rich wasn't blocked simply for using Excel and offline tools. He was blocked because his use of such created errors and piles of junk that he blindly inserted into articles and left for others to clean up. People who like to complain about Rich's ban tend to disingenuously forget that part of it. As to the active question here - I'd think telling a bot to go forth and edit is no different than using something like AWB or twinkle. And since you can't use the latter while blocked, nor should you use the former. Practically, however, without knowing for certain who makes such a command, there's nothing that could be done. Resolute 22:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Citation bot does not check the username at all. I started it as an experiment on Progeria and put in a username, User:Aswcdevfr, that is not registered to see what it would do. It processed the request and made edits to the article. A blocked/banned user should not be making any edits to article even through a bot like this, but in this case we do not know who made the edits for sure and should not do anything to the editor. The BOT should be looked at though as to how it works to see if this can be corrected. GB fan 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      At this point in the discussion, I'm pretty much convinced that Edison and GB fan are correct. Edits of this sort are improper evasions of blocks, and the editors who have argued otherwise here are incorrect. It's no different than a blocked user creating a sock account, or editing as an IP, and making helpful noncontroversial edits. However, there is such a large risk of a "false flag" in this situation that I cannot in good conscience support any sanctions. We need to find out whether it is technically possible to set the bot to reject requests from blocked accounts (or set the bot to determine and enter the name of the requesting account automatically, or set the blocking software to extend to blocking submissions to bot activation pages), and to make that the default for all bots. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I asked at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Question about bot access by blocked editors, and the answer is that it's technically feasible to set bots to reject requests from blocked accounts, but impractical to do the things that I suggested above in parentheses. However, it's enough of an undertaking that there would have to be a clear consensus that the community wants it to be done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      [25] It is very possible to allow me to input someone else's username into the bot and it run. This should be fixed. As of now, since there is no guarantee the blocked user made the edit, no action can be taken. I recommend the bot be shut down until such time this impersonation cannot take place. ~Charmlet -talk- 21:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless the bot is causing harm, I think that would be something of an overreaction. Resolute 22:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I agree. I think what is important now is fixing how bot software works. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)The bot allowed me to input User:Howicus' username and it made the edit. As far as we all know, Howicus made the edit (request). Thus, it is impersonation, and is inherently harmful. Either include a verification (maybe have someone create a page in their userspace at User:Example/citationbot/run with the page name, and that's the verification), or disable the inclusion of who made the request. ~Charmlet -talk- 22:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm in favor of just not asking who's operating it anymore. I never saw a need for it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with that. It allows block evasion, by just pretending that it doesn't happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think of that as block evasion much more than purging a page while blocked is block evasion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that once we go down that road, then making a minor edit from another account while blocked isn't block evasion either, and I don't accept that as being a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, purging doesn't really edit a page. It just makes sure that the most recent edits are displayed. Bot edits, in contrast, are edits. If, for discussion's sake, we temporarily assume that the editor requesting this bot edit really was the editor whose username appears in the edit summary, then this is a situation in which the blocking administrator had determined that this editor should not, for a period of time, be making edits to that particular page. We really need to change the way bots respond to requests, whether or not the username of the requesting editor is displayed in the edit summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      [ec between 23:12 and 23:19] In one way, you're correct. That's why WP:EVADE says that we shouldn't remove helpful things like spelling fixes when they're performed by banned socks, and the same is true of telling a bot to check a page to see if it's eligible for a pre-approved fix. If WoW or JarlaxleArtemis decide that they'd like to tell the bot to improve pages, it won't cause problems to those pages, it won't inspire disruptive editing by other people, and it won't enable them to move pages to "Citation bot on wheels!" or "HAGGER bot". Blocks may not be used as punishment; per WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT, we impose them to prevent damage and deter similar damage. Nothing is damaged when a page is improved in this manner, but this encyclopedia is disrupted when people use the letter of policy in a way contrary to its purposes. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not "disruption" to insist that blocked users cannot edit, that is, that they cannot make changes to the encyclopedia. Blocked means no editing, period. That's neither hyperbole or being overly "bureaucratic", that's just basic policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't this basically just asking someone to make an obvious fix and them making it? Such edits are allowed. We don't extend blocks for editors making such requests.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's not the same, because in that case the editor who makes the change has to be willing to take the responsibility for the edit upon themselves. Bots can't take responsibility, so any change that comes about is solely the responsibility of the editor asking for the change, and since a blocked editor cannot make edits, they also cannot take responsibility for edits. Blocked is blocked, they should go do something else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The policy isn't about taking responsibility. It simply means that the one making the edit is making an appropriate edit for reasons that are independent of having been asked to do it. Here the bot is making an obviously appropriate edit and would not make said edit unless the bot's programming determined independently that it was an appropriate edit to make. The bigger concern you should have is that any editor can apparently do this without it being possible to find out who is actually responsible unless that person tells you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually:

      Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors

      Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

      Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

      Being able to justify the proxy edits one makes is indeed taking responsibility for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      One further point, although "obviously helpful edits, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism may be allowed to stand", that is a judgment about the edit, and not about the action of the editor. Even "obviously helpful edits" made by a blocked editor in defiance of a block constitute block evasion, and should result in the same consequences, i.e. resetting of the block clock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      [double ec] Precisely. Some of us are here to build an encyclopedia, and the primary purpose of this website is not to stick it to blocked people. We block people because their editing patterns have demonstrated that we can't trust them to edit generally in a productive manner. Our blocking policy is one way of ensuring that the encyclopedia is improved, and when you use the blocking policy to suppress helpful edits of this sort, the blocked user is doing more to help the encyclopedia than you are. Unless someone's put this username in as a hoax, Viriditas has found a way in which he can contribute in a way that unambiguously helps the project without causing the problems that led to his block. No problem can possibly arise from this kind of thing, except for the time wasted by people who care more about the blocking policy than about improving the encyclopedia — and he's not to blame for that. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There are many blocked editors who contributed productively to the encyclopedia before they were blocked, but they were blocked because of their behavior, which was, in some way disruptive and made it more difficult for the rest of us to edit productively. Their behavior brought on the block, and the result was they cannot edit. That's the bottom line: if you're blocked you cannot edit. Blocked editors who have productive edits to make to help the encyclopedia can make those edits once their blocks are lifted or run out - there's no hurry and no deadline. Your interpretation of policy is unusual to say the least, and I would suggest that if you are interested in changing our policy about blocked editors not being allowed to edit, positively or not, you start up a policy change discussion on WP:VPP. In the meantime, though, blocked means not being allowed to edit, period, no exceptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey, I happen to have User:Viriditas's talk page on my watchlist, so I saw that the user requested passing on the following message to this thread:

      I was logged in and browsing the March Against Monsanto page yesterday when I noticed a new link in the left pane under my "Toolbox" menu that I never saw before called "Expand citations". Curious about what this link actually does, I clicked through it and noticed that it allowed me to use the citation bot while blocked. This was an unintentional mistake and I have no intention of doing it again. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

      Just passing this on... Sailsbystars (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, Viriditas was editing while blocked, which is unacceptable. However, Wikipedia does not have firm rules, and I see no point in pursuing this. If Viriditas does the same again then we can reconsider the matter, but at present I see no reason to think that as at all likely. I am sure we can all find things to spend our time on which will be more helpful to the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I am sure we can all find things to spend our time on which will be more helpful to the project." +1 to that... This whole topic is a tiny bit over the top.. I could say soemthing about the butterfly effect but I don't feel it is worth the time. ·addshore· talk to me! 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      I have moved Nyttends close statement out of this top, and put it back as a reply to Tryptofish. Please don't use closing statements to get the last word in a discussion you are involved with. I'm closing this because continuing this discussion is unlikely to have any benefirs for anyone involved. Fram (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      • I am entitled to say this. This discussion was closed before I had the opportunity to reply to some very unfortunate comments by User:Nyttend directed at me. He said that I was being disruptive by raising this topic in the first place (18:14), and that I am trying to prevent edits that improve the encyclopedia (23:29). I'm fine with expressing differences of opinion, but Nyttend, as an administrator, should know better than to say those particular things. I'm clearly not trying to prevent a constructive edit. Look at what I said in my opening comment, about the edit being benign. I brought this up at AN, not ANI, as a discussion about a non-urgent issue, not an urgent incident. I didn't revert the edit. I made it clear that, once there was the issue of a false flag, I was opposed to any sanctions. Having a discussion that leads to a recognition that bot configurations may need to be revised is not disruptive. And, now that Viriditas has explained that it was a good faith mistake on his part, his explanation is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You've wasted enough of everyone's time by trying to prevent someone from improving the encyclopedia. Please heed the "this is closed" and don't prolong the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Edit protected

      Both the editprotected and editsemiprotected categories have active requests from August, and there are more than forty editsemiprotected requests. Please deny unfulfillable requests (or ping requesters) instead of letting them hang out for a month and a half. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A0B7:B544:704A:6325 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      SPI backlog

      Just a friendly notice that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is becoming slightly backlogged with cases that require administration. At the time of this message, there are 11 open cases received CheckUser verification and 16 open cases are standard behavior cases and 9 cases that have already been dealt with and need housekeeping. Respectfully, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Where's the undeletion list?

      Greetings all. Where's the list of who will respond to undeletion requests and can someone link it on the word "undelete" at WP:Administrators please? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It's at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. equazcion (talk) 11:08, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      And I have added it. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although, WP:REFUND is the appropriate noticeboard for such requests ES&L 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Remember that WP:REFUND is only for pages "that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator." PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Otherwise you might just get the templated advice for the next step if you ask for something controversial. This may be WP:DRV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, so my point being well established above that linking to a "category of admins who will provide copies" is blatantly wrong ES&L 12:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've retargeted the link to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (or WP:REFUND), which is at least a quasi-official page. It in turn has a link to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Graham87 08:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Amorica (legend)

      Can someone please remove File:BlackCrowesAmoricaalbumcover.jpg per WP:NFCC? Werieth (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      •  Done. Thank you for the hint. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes closed

      An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

      1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
      2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
      3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
      4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
      5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
      6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
      7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

      For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Archived discussion

      Request for topic ban exemption (Arthur Rubin)

      NAC: The topic-ban was instituted by ArbCom, so this is a matter for them to consider, not the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      @Kww: suggested this would be the appropriate venue, although I suspect ArbCom requests would be more appropriate. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, I am topic-banned from pages concerning the Tea Party movement. I would like to request an exemption from that ban, solely for the purpose of reverting the blocked IP-hopping "Michigan Kid", some of whose IPs are listed at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list (which I'm not often maintaining, myself). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Michigan kid (reviisited) (August 2012) for some background. I recently discovered a mass rollback tool, and I would prefer to be able to use it against this blocked editor. Some of the IPs were blocked for a year in late 2012, and, since they are continuing to edit, I believe the block should remain in effect until at least September 7, 2014. I first reverted those edits which were obviously unnecessary; and then changed to reverting those edits which were not probably useful, but he (or she) edits faster than I can keep up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Two questions
      1. Why is it that you are substantially more likely than others to notice Michigan Kid?
      2. Can you make assurances that your ability to notice him is unrelated to your involvement with Tea Party articles?
      —Kww(talk) 01:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hm, I am wondering if we (the community) really have the authority to approve this exemption request. Maybe Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment or an email is a more appropriate venue? Tiptoety talk 04:53, 11 September 2013
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      RFC on a new user right for trusted template coders

      An RFC is under way to determine whether or not to create a new user right that would allow trusted template coders to edit fully protected templates: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right. equazcion (talk) 10:09, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=572467242"