Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Brews ohare's topic ban appeal

Note: Moved from WP:ANI. –MuZemike 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Appealing user

– Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Tznkai's extension of Speed of Light sanctions as stated below:

• Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.--Tznkai (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Above ban reviewed and continued, available for another review four weeks after 10 December 2009. Discussion archived atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Brews_ohare_restriction_review.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor who imposed the sanction (consensus not required, nor obtained)

Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diffof that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. As I am blocked, no notification can be given. It appears that Tznkai is presently inactive, and returned to WP only after a direct request by ArbCom for commentary.

Statement by Brews_ohare

Tznkai indicated here the intention that these requirements were not intended to be long-term, and recommended that I undertake this appeal. The intention of these restrictions was to cut short debate over procedural issues. I had undertaken to engage on Talk pages about WP policies, and some editors viewed that engagement as somehow attempting to escape the original ArbCom sanctions about "physics-related Talk page discussions". I did not have such an intention, and I certainly pledge to avoid any policy discussion that could be seen as somehow pleading a case for lifting the SoL restrictions and doing an end-run around an appeal.

I wish to point out that in the recent action against Trusilver I have expressed my views in his support. I do not, however, consider that to be an obstructive or disruptive action, but to be a normal part of such proceedings. I was an invited party in this action.

Presently I am blocked by Ucucha as violating Tznkai's extended sanctions as a result of suggesting a change in wording of a resolution. He also has suggested these sanctions should be reviewed. I would assume that repeal of these sanctions also would result in lifting this block.

Statement by DESiegel

I have no view as yet on the merits of extending or lifting these restrictions. However should they be extended, since they include a prohibition on editing the Wikipedia namespace, and in line with the currently proposed Wikipedia:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations, I suggest an exception for edits to AFD pages of articles where Brews_ohare is a creator or major contributor. Reasons in principle for such an exception can be found at the linked proposal page and its talk page. DES ^(talk) 00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

With the proviso that such comments should be kept brief and to the point, this does not seem problematic. However, any tendency towards circular argument, Wikilawyering and so on will undoubtedly cause this to be reviewed again. I don't think Brews has understood and accepted the problem identified at arbitration, which was largely, to my view, about arguing the point long after it became obvious that he was in a tiny minority - WP:STICK applies here. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis. You're refighting the arbitration case. Again. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis again: you are not helping to fix the present problems, it's pretty clear to me and several others, including sitting arbitrators, that you are part of the problem not least because he seems to understand things a lot better than you do. With every word the "Brews crew" write you reduce Brews' credibility and chances of success. With friends like you he has no need of enemies right now. Sad but true. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Brews_ohare

I wrote some big replies to Guy which I have just removed. I originally though that Guy was serious, but that was not the case. I have inadvertantly added to noise here by replying to Guy's trolling, sorry for that. See the soapbox thread below about Brews started by Guy below for what I mean. The following subsection are more relevant responses. But perhaps it is more important to consider what Brews has recently done for Wikipedia:

(latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

05:42, 5 March 2010 (hist | diff) Attitude (geometry) ‎(add image) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (hist | diff) Strike and dip ‎(add image) (top) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (hist | diff) Lehmann discontinuity ‎(add image) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: adjust image size) 06:06, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: clear up origin of figure) 06:04, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(different source) 06:02, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(fix author's name) 05:57, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: rephrase) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add image; comment) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: more specific section title) 22:57, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(link in caption) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: link) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(extra period) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 22:52, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add to caption) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: rearrange links) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(re-order Earth sections) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: link) 22:42, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: add to caption) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(reorganize sections of Earth) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→P-wave shadow zone: add connection to seismic waves) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Lehmann discontinuity ‎(link) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(format text) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(add depth to caption) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(add url) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add figure for seismic wave velocities; source) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: extra 's') 18:58, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(link) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(note on Venus) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(more details; another source) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(correct terminology) 17:52, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(clarification on nomenclature) 17:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(Second LVZ & source) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) N LVZ ‎(Create redirect for LVZ) (top) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Mantle (geology) ‎(→Structure) 17:28, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle (geology) ‎(→Structure: link) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(delete repeated "the") 17:24, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(clarification) 17:22, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(word change) 17:19, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→See also: link) 17:15, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 17:14, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add source; alternative models) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Hawaii hotspot ‎(→Hawaii hotspot characteristics: link to lvz) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Valles Caldera ‎(→Geology and science: link to LVZ) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→See also: typos) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→References: See also section) 17:31, 20 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle plume ‎(template: spell out some details in present template on citations)

17:09, 20 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle plume ‎(→Role of the core: link)

Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're conveniently forgetting all the crap he's done because he can't abide by the terms of his ban, or refuses to back back down. Out of Brews 500 most recent contributions, THREE ([1], [2], [3]) were not related to his fighting his bans. A productive editor does not have a signal to noise ratio of 0.6%. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But most of that noise happens precisely because Brews trips over some procedural obstacle imposed after the original ArbCom case leading to a huge volume of discussions, like this very discussion here. My opinion is that in most cases nothing substantial happened apart from the fact that he crossed a procedural line drawn in the sand. You can then have endless arguments about that, which is precisely what is happening right here.

A simple solution would be to relax the namespace ban allowing Brews to contribute to essays but not on Admin and Arbitrator's noticeboards unless invited to do so. Then no one active on such boards has to cross Brews' path. If Brews agrees with this, then the problem is solved, I would think. A statement by an editor in which he promises not to do certain things is worth much more than trying to impose some sweeping rule.

If anyone is familiar with User:GoRight here, then I can assure them that solving the Brews' problem so that he can contribute constructively to articles is far easier than getting GoRight to do the same. E.g. so far no one has posted on Brews talk page to ask him what consessions he is willing to make to move forward. In case of GoRight there was a flood of Admins pleading with him to find a solution to address his endless Wikilawyering on Global Warming pages. I haven't heard any Admin complaining about the effort being invested there being a problem, though.Count Iblis (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If Brews wants to edit articles productively, then all he has to do is edit articles productively (physics ones excluded). However that is not what Brews is interested in, Brews is interested in fighting his ban and banging his drums at every possible occasion and framing himself as a modern martyr. Letting him edit the Wikipedia namespace means letting him soapbox even more than he already does.

This situation is akin to someone getting himself thrown out of a bar for disruption and told to not come back for a month, then going back there the next day arguing with the bouncer that he was unfairly thrown out. So he get thrown out again, and told to not show up for two months. The next week he sneaks in the bathroom window, and the bouncer catches him buying cigarettes next to the bathroom and throws him out. He protests, saying he's only banned from the dance floor, and that he should be allowed to buy cigarettes because it is legal to buy cigarettes. And so on and so forth.

If Brews wants to be allowed back in the bar, then all he has to do is stop throwing a hissy fit at the bouncer every day, while trying to find ways to sneak past the bouncer when the bouncer says he can't come in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews is also interested in contributing to articles, otherwise he would not have edited all those geology articles and made figures for them. Brews' main expertise is, however, physics. So, it seems to me that we could end this drama by simply talking to Brews and getting him to agree to some compromize everyone can live with till the end of this year when the topic ban will be completely lifted.

From your more sceptical perspective, you could think of this as "calling Brews' bluff". Why not do that and see what happens? Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Brews ran out of it a long time ago. I did, and I still do, support Brews productive editing efforts. I supported him when he wanted to edit mathematical physics articles even though someone wanted him to be blocked for it, I support him when he wants to edit geology articles even though one could certainly interpret the ban as to mean he's not allowed to edit these topics either. What is NOT productive however, is him (along with Tombe, Likebox, Hell in a Bucket, etc...) trying to "fix" Wikipedia because their editing style and views conflict with a low-drama environment (domination of talk page, incessant fighting of restrictions, trying to amend policies, comparisons to Stalin, Hitler, and other famous despots, comparisons to literary figures such as Inspector Javert, rants against Arbcom, Admins, and wikipedia editors in general, appeals to Jimbo, personal attacks, accusations of censorship, and so on and so forth). Totaled together, "Brews' side" has well over 50 blocks for disrupting, arbcom violations, edit warring, personal attacks and the like. So you'll pardon me if I and others have a hard time seeing this as the actions of reasonable people concerned with Wikipedia, rather than the actions of fanatics who sees Wikipedia as a battleground and who are trying to avenge their fallen comrade and canonize him as a saint.

You, and Brews, and Likebox, and Tombe, and Hell in a Bucket, and ... have been told several times now that the quickest way to get these bans lifted would be for you to back off, stop fighting the ban every two weeks, and cease being a bunch of drama queens. You chose to not back off, keep fighting, and create a bunch of drama. And so you've hurt your cause much more than anyone else ever could, and now the bans are probably there to stay for the rest of the original year. And you know what? If you keep fighting them, it's very possible that they'll get extended.

The ball is in your court. Play nice for six months, or keep ripping the scab off the wound. The former leads to Brews being able to edit physics articles and Wikipedia space, the latter to other ARBCOM cases, and very possibly blocks, including indef-blocks, and topic bans for people who didn't previously had any. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So far there has been only one initiative by Likebox to appeal the topic ban. So, this idea of a fight every two weeks to lift Brews' bans is nonsense. All the discussions at Admin or Arbitration level are initiated by Brews' opponents. In these discussions we also make some proposals. Sometimes David uses language that is inappropriate. But you cannot just point at that and then say that we all have to shut up and that only you can give your comments'.

So, no I won't shut up making statements along the lines of: "let's get Brews to agree to a voluntary topic ban on AN, AN/I and Arbcom pages and let him edit articles from some approved list of topics, physics related or not, that list being periodically reviewed". Such statements do not contain references to Hitler or Stalin. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IP writes: Brews really should be editing under guidance from a mentor

That was proposed by me some time ago, but rejected out of hand, and not at all because I proposed unacceptable mentors. I proposed that Headbomb or Finell could be his mentors. Then the IP goes on to write that I should not be involved with Brews, which is rather strange. I'm WP:AGF here and will assume the IP has read about the original ArbCom case form a biased source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr IP, you are clearly not familiar with my contributions on this issue and you conveniently ignore what I wrote above. This text here is what some people claim applies to Brews. But the editor in question to whom the text does apply is not constantly persued in the way Brews is. His work on Wiki articles is virtually nonexistent. Nevertheless if you look on this very page at the thread about Abd, you see some not so constructive postings by this editor, that do not trigger much outrage at all. This editor is also under a topic ban, but for a much shorter time and much more targeted toward the problem area.

The official position that engineering Prof. Brews has to be restricted from all physics articles because Wikipedia has such enormously high standards and Brews is not 100% perfect is thus simply untenable. What is really going on here is that there is an ownership issue problem with the dispute resolution processes. Some Admins are more interested in being involved with one type of dispute than in another disputes.

What then happens is that if the unpopular dispute comes up, that is seen to be disruptive. If you defend the editor in question here, you let the discussion go on for longer and then very soon you'll be seen to be part of the problem too. Some Admins want to control what disputes get discussed and you're then disruptive for not letting them do that.

The opposite happens when the popular dispute comes up. E.g. when Ottava Rima started a thread on AN/I accusing an Admin he run into of using drugs, that Admin was told to get a thicker skin (Jehochman wrote that, if I remember correctly). In these cases, there is almost unlimted patience to discuss things. Count Iblis (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Headbomb

This is all speculation. Why not discuss with Brews and try to get him to agree to some compromizes like e.g. that he will not start AN/I threads himself, that he will not comment on cases where he is not involved as an editor etc. etc. Then Brews can contribute to his and my essay in peace without causing trouble. Almost all of the perceived problems with Brews are cases where someone else referred him to AE because of an infraction but that would not be a problem at all had Brews not been under a restriction. Then Brews has to present a case and you get lots of discussions at ArbCom or Admin level about basically nothing. In this case it is Brews posting on namespace territory. But had Brews not been under a namespace restriction, there would not have been any problem at all, as what he wrote was not offensive or otherwise problematic.

So, I don't foresee any trouble if the ban is lifted. But if others are concerned, there are still ways to address those concerns (e.g. by getting Brews to agree to voluntary restrictions as I explained above). Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David Tombe

One of the main problems with Tznkai's additional sanctions is the fact that Tznkai is no longer active on wikipedia, and that one of his last comments on the matter suggested that the sanctions had run their course. The exact words are here.[4]. I know that Tznkai's words fall short of actually formally revoking the sanctions, but this needs to be balanced against the fact that no event has occurred that would have been likely to have altered Tznkai's intentions. And indeed when Tznkai made an appearance at the recent appeal to have Brews's sanctions lifted, he spoke very highly about Brews and suggested that everybody should shake hands with each other. David Tombe (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Yet again we find ourselves in the same situation we always are. Coming to contest a bullshit block that shouldn't have happened. When will arbcom realize that the process is flawed. How long until you make changes? This block is in answer to percieved usurpation of the powers directly resulting from the last arb case. If you want David, Count, Brews or myself to go away do something that makes sense and look in the mirror regarding your own behaviors and see the problems melt away. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Let's ask ourselves the question, "What edits would Brews make assuming the namespace ban lifted?" Given the long history of disruption, failing to get the point, and trying to change policies to accommodate his behavior rather than change his behavior to accommodate policies, I think is is safe to say that Brews' would use his newfound freedom to further soapbox against ARBCOM, ANI, behavioral policies, his topic ban, proposed new levels of bureaucracy to rectify the "great wrongs" that's been caused to him. Just look at his recent bans log. Blocked on Feb 28 for getting involved in a physics dispute and violating the namespace ban. This created a whole lot of ruckus with the Trusilver case. Then, knowing full well that he ban still applied, he went on vote in the de-adminship process (March 5), ranting against "arrogant admins". Then after that blocked was lifted, he again (March 15) went to edit the admin noticeboard, again as part as his campaign to right the great wrongs caused to him.

Brews et al. have been advised several times that the best way to get the ban lifted would be to drop the stick and focus on him being productive rather rather than thread all over Wikipedia screaming how much ARBCOM idolizes Stalin, that Hitler dreamed of having an army of Wikipedia-admins to enforce his policies, and that I'm some banana republic dictator hellbent on crushing dissent. Yet, they steadfastly refuse to do so, and keep fighting tooth and nail with a liberal amount of accusations of Stalinism, Tyranny, Nazism, invoking French literature, legal terms, philosophical essays on the nature of civilization, and the list goes on. Just ask JzG who first met them at Jimbo's talk page.

And this is what is happening with the current restrictions. If anything, we should consider increasing them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved 66.127.52.47 (talk)

This may not yet be the time to formally lift the ban, but I think the enforcement admins have been too hair-triggered lately, especially about article space. They do have discretion and Brews is making decent efforts to edit within his restrictions. If Brews is making reasonable contributions the admins might informally decide to back off a little bit. When those contributions appear intended to test boundaries (which some of them do) and the admins feel they have to respond, they could choose more proportionate responses, e.g. talkpage messages or short (6 hour) blocks, instead of the longer blocks that don't appear to have much preventive value, yet cause enough drama to be viewable as POINTy. OTOH, I have to agree with John Blackburne that Brews's activity at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bivector/Archive_1 was not pretty (I didn't examine the article edits directly, but I don't have any reason to think that the talkpage discussions are inaccurate). The "pseudoscience" arb finding about academically demanding subjects seems relevant there.[5] -- Brews should tone it down. Brews really should be editing under guidance from a mentor who would be able to interpret the restriction and have some authority to relax it, and also to act on behavioral issues even when they aren't under the formal restriction. Has that been explored yet? Also, he should dissociate himself from Count Iblis, David Tombe, and that crowd. They are not good examples for him to follow. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Trusilver: There is a tendency in WP dispute resolution to describe any drama-prone personality as an "excellent contributor" if they've also done some edits that are not actually block-worthy. Brews has made some nice diagrams and some other useful contributions, but I prefer to reserve a term like "excellent" for those who actually, you know, excel. I think Brews is potentially reformable into a good editor but that's about as far as I'd go. He causes too much hassle (including in non-physics parts of article space, see talk:bivector/Archive 1) to be considered better than marginal right now. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Count Iblis: I don't doubt Count Iblis's good faith but I'm quite familiar with his contributions to this saga and I feel that his judgement (and that of several of his compatriots) is so poor that Brews is better off staying away from them. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Likebox

Unban brews.Likebox (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Martinp

This whole situation appears to have sufficiently exhausted the community's patience that few uninvolved people are commenting here. (There do appear to be plenty of comments from those involved in the situation overall, some of which are not helping). The admin who placed the discretionary sanction is not around to shed further light on his(?) intent or provide perspective, and based on the dearth of discussion no one else is really following with an unbiased eye except for rather mechanical (not a criticism) AE blocks. So clearly the status quo is not working. The diffs brought up by Headbomb are in and of themselves not past the realm of normal wiki discourse and disenfranchising contributors from appropriately voicing their opinions in meta-discussions is not something we should do lightly.

As someone uninvolved, let me propose for discussion the following, based largely on the 1st para of Brews' statement and JzG's comment:

Brews' restrictions on discussions on physics-related topics are maintained at the present time(I know some people don't like that, but that appears contentious and I want something we can all work with). However, Brews' blanket restriction from commenting in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces is rescinded, with the strong recommendation that such comments should be kept brief and to the point, without any tendency towards circular argument, Wikilawyering, or "retrying the case".

Given that the current restriction has degenerated into much drama, if Brews proves unable to participate in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces productively (or self-police himself to avoid participating if he cannot), the only reasonable solution will be a community ban. On the other hand, if Brews does participate at an appropriate level and productively, this may lay the groundwork for further relaxation later.

As an infrequent contributor and nonadmin, I cannot offer to follow through on any monitoring, so by posting this I am primarily hoping to restart stalled discussion towards a win-win solution. Martinp (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Trusilver

I don't think it can be disputed that Brews Ohare is an excellent contributor to the project. His level and quality of contributions make me much more inclined to overlook some of his issues in the past. The problem I have with the sanctions against him is that they have gone far beyond the scope and the intent that they were originally intended. I see no reason that they should remain, but a reasonable compromise would be for someone uninvolved to take up a coaching position and offer feedback to Brews on his projectspace edits.

Every opportunity should be made to resolve this without the need for sanctions. Unfortunately, the entire dispute around Brews' topic ban and this subsequent projectspace ban has become so convoluted and dysfunctional, that everyone needs to take a few steps back and just breathe. Trusilver 21:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Brews_ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The preceding is cross-posted by yours truly from [6]. Tim Song (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I would suggest that we simply extend the Brews_ohare topic ban to a full Wikipedia space topic ban. I've seen enough from this user in the recent weeks to fully support this. I therefore propose the following restriction.

"Brews ohare is placed on an indefinite topic ban by the Wikipedia community. He is banned from editing any page in the Wikipedia namespace along with any page in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Further, he is banned from discussing on any page anything related to physics, broadly construed. Should he break these restrictions, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up to one month for repeat violations."

Discussion

• There, that should be relatively unambiguous and stop many of the problems we've seen. Support. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as utter bullshit a non reasonable extension. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we please have a list of diffs that shows exactly what is so disruptive about Brews' edits in recent weeks? To place things in the right context, what do we make of Guy's thread below about Brews that attacks me and Tarc? Is that ok. because Guy has a licence to engage in soapboxing on Admin noticeboards? Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per RyanPostlethwaite. Although I doubt this will make any difference, considering this is simply restating the existing bans, which Brews et al. are fully aware are still active, and which Brews keeps violating every chance he gets, while being encouraged by the et al to do so. IMO, an indef-block is in order. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose continuing or strengthening the ban on Wikipedia and Wikipedia namespace participation at this time, no opinion on the Physics part. Examining Brews' recent contributions at WP: and WP talk: does not seem to uncover anything which would be clearly disruptive (one can hardly call commenting on an RFaR in which you are a named party disruptive...) (I went as far back as Feb 17). In view of the mess around this situation, I would err on opening the door to see what happens rather than continuing something which has become rather Kafkaesque, even with the best of intentions. See my suggestion going the other way above. Martinp (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hell in a Bucket. In addition, rebound sanctions for all those proposing pointless sanctions, following the ancient wisdom of I'm rubber, you're glue.Likebox (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward

At risk of all the parties coming forward and continuing this (please don't. Count Iblis, Likebox, Guy, Headbomb, etcetera.. you've all had your say, repeatedly above) I detect that there is no consensus for widening the restrictions, but neither is there consensus for removing the sanctions.

I would like to offer a suggestion for moving forward. If Brews ohare shows he can comply with the existing sanction (physics and related Wikpedia/Wikipedia Talk areas) for a set period of time (I would suggest 60/90 days), and if there are no further issues, then at least the restriction on Wikipedia/Wiki Talk areas can be dropped, and I would be willing to look favorably at an Arbitration amendement request to amend the remaining sanctions/restrictions at that time.

Everyone's tired of seeing the same people fight in the same way. Let's get some normalization here and then look at moving forward. Ok? SirFozzie (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that relaxing the wikipedia space restriction now, followed by a review of the physics restriction after a suitable period (60/90 days) would be a better option. As far as I can work out, the problem with Brews' edits in the wikipedia namespace are currently related to breaching the restriction. If that is lifted the actual comments seem rather anodyne. This would also give Brews a good opportunity to demonsrate whether or not the issues leading to the arbitration finding have been addressed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would rather see improvement in Brews's editing pattern before I am comfortable in seeing the restrictions dropped. To have to have gone through this three separate times in less then a month (blocks on 2/22, 3/5 block, and 3/15) does not show willingness to go forward in such a manner. Let's see improvement in his current editing pattern, and a willingness to back away from pushing boundaries and then move forward. But to move forward without such improvement is not a good idea. SirFozzie (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, since this is the status quo anyway. Follow the terms of the ban, don't kick in the hornest's nest every two weeks, and then a review is made, lessening the bans if appropriate. Three months would be the minimum IMO, considering the incessant limit testing we've dealt with so far. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose continuing sanctions as is. I would support Spartaz option. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Come on guys, this is exactly what I was talking about above in the same people in the same way statement! Let some new people talk.. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support This cycle needs to stop. Keep the ban in place for 3 months, then do a review if there have been no problems. If he doesn't comply with the letter and the spirit, a ban for three months then 3 months more under the current restrictions with a review following. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (and small comments by me, Headbomb, Likebox et. al. should be ok here, detailed arguments go elsewhere, otherwise this would be a censored poll). As Wikipedia is primarily about writing articles and not about talking on talk pages, surely the physics topic ban should be reviewed first? Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support in the spirit of moving forward with clarity. However, I would recommend a shorter continuation of the status quo, for instance 2 weeks or maximum 30 days (these were the timelines originally imposed by Tznkai), prior to revisiting. The goal of the restriction should be preventative, not punitive...the goal is to lessen some of the noise and prevent disruption, not disenfranchise a contributor for extended periods of time. And Brews, noting that your block expires tomorrow, please comment briefly, ideally on your own talk page, and don't wade back in with long screeds and edits pushing the boundaries. Regardless of how Kafkaesque this has become, the goal is to demonstrate that you can participate in way that doesn't make most other community members hit the scroll down arrow with their eyes glazing over, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Vomit in disgust at the amount of time and energy expended dealing Brews and Tombe over the last 2+years. Support any process/restriction/ban/deal/whatever that will reduce the drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox puts it very well. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have anything to do with this annoying mess but have unavoidably stumbled across it on a couple of occasions. To my mind an extraordinary amount of time and effort has been wasted on what is ultimately a trivial matter ("the question of Brews ohare," or something) which is not really acceptable. SirFozzie's suggestion is good and does not require any official consensus per say as it amounts to little more than saying, "no, we're not changing anything right now, come back in three months if you've held to the restrictions in the interim and we'll see" (I support 90 days rather than 60, but really who cares so long as this goes away for awhile). I would recommend that some uninvolved admin step in very soon and say that the appeal is not successful at this time, close the thread, and advise Brews to take note of the suggestion by SirFozzie which has been endorsed by others (again it doesn't need consensus, it's just a suggestion and the status quo is maintained). Clearly nothing else is likely to come out of this discussion and it really deserves to be put to bed. Finally I would echo a point made by some others, namely that some of Brews' ardent defenders have actually been hurting rather than helping that editor's case with their (at times strident and repetitive) commentary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• I too have kept coming across this mess and I fully agree with Bigtimepeace. I do not like turning away expert editors, but experts have to learn how wikipedia works. It is clear to me that Brews has not done so. If he can not learn that, he will be happier elsewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would suggest 60/90 seconds. This is going to stop the drama right away. --Dc987 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Having watched on the fringes throughout the whole SoL Arbcom and related materials, Brews refuses to get the point and should be given a short leash. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Based on this section and the one below, where Brews says "I am not engaging in this matter further," I think we can archive this entire thread. There seems to be support for SirFozzie's suggestion: i.e. Brews complies with the existing restrictions for 2-3 months at which point a lifting of said restrictions could again be considered. I am uninvolved but have now commented here and below, so I'm hoping another uninvolved admin can fill out the result section above and archive the thread. There's no need to spend any more time on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: When a user is up for banning, all their opponents come up to speak, because they all want to get the ban. There is no selfish reason which would ever motivate someone to speak against a ban, so when a banned user has supporters, that's a minor miracle. Brews ohare did nothing wrong. The correct thing to do is lift his sanctions completely. If you do this, all the noise will go away.Likebox (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't support for a removal of restrictions at this time (I'd say there's a good chance there will be later) and Brews seems willing to let this go for now so I suggest you do so as well. Your preceding comment is also wrong on a couple of points. One, while I can only speak with certainty regarding myself, I think most people who have commented here have had nothing to do with Brews and are certainly not his "opponents" (I do not edit on any science articles and as far as I know have had absolutely no previous interaction with Brews ohare). Two, folks speaking against a "ban" (which is not really what we are talking about) might be doing so simply because they like the person in question and/or have worked well with him or her. That's fine, but to suggest that, in any situation, editors who argue for some sort of restriction are partisans while those who argue against are objective observers is frankly ridiculous. Again, you really need to drop this matter, let it rest, and allow us to revisit it in a couple of months. I assure you I'm doing Brews much more good by advising him to let it go for awhile then you are by pleading his case over and over again until the cows have become too bored to even try to come home. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On “Moving Forward”

If Tznkai's restrictions are overturned, will my behavior change? Will I stop making suggestions to authors to reconcile, to write more clearly? Will I stop asking ArbCom to phrase their resolutions in a more friendly fashion?

Are these actions really awful, damaging attacks on WP?

I don't think so. But they are precisely the actions that have led to the blocks imposed upon me. Apparently they are violations of Tznkai's requirement that I avoid all "namespaces", whatever that means. That is why I have requested lifting these sanctions.

Yet people really stand there in the open and say my suggestions are to "vomit in disgust" over, and that resisting crazy blocks brought for these actions is "drama" and "kicking the hornets' nest"! Am I supposed to sit there and be squashed? Trusilver reversed one block for cogent reasons, and was desysopped over technicalities. Is there a single cited diff, any evidence, demonstrating disruption? Not so far. I can't follow the mindset. It isn't factual, isn't common sense, isn't in the interests of WP. Indeed, I do have "to learn how WP works", as it appears to be, shall we say, counterintuitive.

The reasonable thing to do is to lift Tznkai's namespace restrictions and see if my so far innocuous behavior on "namespaces" suddenly transfigures into horrible disruption. If it does, you know exactly what to do next. There is no need to predict the future (a talent no-one has) and to take preemptive action.

Lifting Tznkai's namespace restrictions has no effect whatsoever on the sanctions originally imposed by ArbCom on "physics-related discussions". Brews ohare (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people understand your argument. However a good number do not agree that it makes sense to lift Tznkai's restrictions at this time. What is being suggested above is that you simply let this issue go and hold to those restrictions for 2-3 months. Honestly, is that really so difficult? Surely you can tell that you (and some others) have exhausted the patiences of many who read these noticeboards. It's not a question of whether that is fair or not, it has happened. In such a situation it is often best to simply drop the matter and go off to some other part of the project and do good work. Implicit in the "follow the restrictions without complaint for a couple of months" suggestion is the idea that, if you do so and then refile a request to have the restrictions lifted, the request will likely be supported by most. Your best response at this point is not to continually argue your case when clearly people disagree with you, but rather to show that you understand there is not consensus to remove the restrictions at this time. While you disagree with that (obviously), you would honor that fact, agree to hold to the restrictions, and return at some future date to again ask editors to examine this issue at which point you would reference this thread. We're talking about a 60-90 day absence from project space which should not be a big deal. Try to put your own feelings about how right or wrong this whole situation is to the side and instead consider showing a bit of willingness to compromise by letting the matter rest for awhile. That will do you considerably more good in the long run, trust me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I agree that there is no consensus about lifting Tznkai's restrictions, and of course, I can do absolutely nothing about that fact. I recognize that no argument however cogent and reasonable, can change that matter. Unfortunately, no behavior on my part, however proper and extended that may be, can possibly sway those inclined to "vomit all over me". After all, there really is no problem at issue for months already, other than Wikilawyering actions by Headbomb, supported by Sandstein and Jehochman. We will, of course, find out in due course whether more amusing diversions surface. Brews ohare (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole does not help your case either. No one said they wanted to "vomit all over you" (???) or even that you were going to make them vomit. The statement to which you refer clearly expressed disgust at the amount of time being spent on this entire matter, and as such was not even directed at you personally, so there's absolutely no need for you to take it as some sort of personal affront. And as I said above with respect to your overall arguments, we get it—your arguments and actions, cogent and reasonable and proper; actions and comments by certain others, Wikilawyerish and drama inducing. You have adequately made your point, so continuing to complain that not everyone sees things as you do and lashing out at other editors is only digging a deeper hole. It's time to drop the stick and indeed this entire matter for at least a couple of months. In fact I'd suggest that the only additional comment you should make here would be to say that you are going to do precisely that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bigtimepeace: Well I made a cardinal error here. The vomit was over the situation, and I am just collateral damage. I just never will learn that any small item that can be disputed will become a diversion from the larger issue. Brews ohare (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I will add your requested comment: I am not engaging in this matter further, and do not believe either actions or arguments will have any effect upon my detractors, who will remain adamant. Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Following a further exchange with Bigtimepeace on his talk page, I would like to summarize my view of this proceeding.

The appeal is found here. It is an appeal of namespace restrictions added to the SoL bans by Tznkai.

I have made no comments of any kind on namespaces since Tznkai's restrictions that would cause any concern of any kind were it not that they were technical violations of Tznkai's restrictions. The appeal to lift these restrictions is therefore of zero risk to WP, and no diff anywhere in namespace of a tendentious nature can be found to contradict these claims.

To take the view of SirFozzie and others that blocks raised against me because of these technical violations are in themselves indications that I have made problematic comments in namespaces is invalid.

If Tznkai's namespace exclusions were not present, no-one would even think of filing a block request. In other words, the filing of these blocks is an example of this form of Wikilawyering:

Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;

So far, administrators have not addressed any of these obvious points, and have stressed instead their impatience with this formal proceeding, and stressed also their desire to express this impatience. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re Brews ohare

I propose as follows: User:Likebox, user:Tarc, user:David Tombe, user:Hell in a Bucket and user:Count Iblis are banned for a period of two weeks from commenting on issues relating to the arbitration case involving user:Brews ohare, broadly construed.

Otherwise the poor sod stands no chance of ever getting a proper hearing, the signal to noise ratio is simply too low. Brews is trying to be heard above the Greek chorus but it's not really working above, we need a period of time free of his fanclub.

1. Support as proposer Guy (Help!) 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Support--they are really not doing the Brews situation any good in any context. I've followed the saga on and off because Brews's buddy Likebox co-inhabits some math articles I've been involved in. I think the "fanclub" is a big part of Brews's problem and you might want to add a few more of them to your list. Brews might be reformable but the fanclub members are bad influences on him. Brews should find better examples to follow. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

   Followup-Tarc and Likebox have been added. I haven't thought of Tarc as part of the fanclub, but I don't exactly keep careful track. So: support adding Likebox, no opinion about Tarc. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

3. why only 2 weeks. They really aren't helping and some new cheerleaders might be more helpful Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What is needed to to block User:JzG and User:Spartaz for bringing up crap like this. These Johnny-come-latelies have latched on to the Brews case as soon as they sense the political winds changing, but they have not done the difficult work of bringing it to the community's attention when it was unpopular. Now they think that their political sonorousness is needed to make this case flow better, and they would like to ban those who fought very hard for months to get this case reviewed.Likebox (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to include you, no need to feel slighted, feel free to add yourself. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry--- let me say that again in simple english for the ESL speakers: Brews ohare's bans stink, they always stunk, and , and anyone who read the evidence and the case would know that. But two months ago, nobody would have ever said anything, because they were too intimidated by the blocking and banning. But then a bunch of weirdos, such as myself, Hell in a Bucket, David Tombe, etc, made some noise, and now that the political winds are changing, JzG wants to take over and pretend that his political instincts are necessary to carry the motion.

Hey, Guy, you're just a Johnny come lately. Your help would have been useful two months ago. Your help is certainly not necessary if you are not respectful towards those who were active long before you.

In addition, this type of grandstanding on Administrator Noticeboard pages is beneath contempt, and should be discouraged in some way. Threatening people with frivolous threats of administrative actions is the scummiest play, and there is no policy which can be used to adress it.Likebox (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Er, may I ask what edit or edits of mine led to being listed as a party to this? I have weighed in on this matter from time to time, but purely on the angle of supporting a desysop of Trusilver. When asked, i.e. User talk:Tarc#Unblock by Trusilver I have made it clear that I have no opinion on the original block of Brews ohare. This is very puzzling. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I will add support iff your name is removed from the list :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've agreed that the others named...though unlike the two, Iblis at least maintains a respectful tone...have added more to the problem over time, and I'm asking Guy on his talk page to remove me. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, this whole thread is inappropriate here. Till now I restrained myself from commenting here. I actually thought that Guy was an Admin until yesterday and was shocked to see this thread. I then checked to see if he is indeed and Admin and I found out that this is not the case. I now think I wasted my time yesterday by giving detailed replies to Guy in the more serious thread above. This thread here is pure soapboxing by Guy who doesn't seem to like the fact that sometimes others can dominate a topic in an area he normally dominates.

The fact that he names Tarc and has so far refused to retract his name speaks volumes. It proves that he doesn't base his objection to others being involved in Brews' case on objective facts about the conduct of these other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am taking a break from sysop tools, you will see from the logs that I have been a very active admin in the past and might well be again in the future. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see! Well, I do hope that the Wiki community realizes that a thread like this is a real example of disruption. Note sure what your aim was. Perhaps to cause a big drama here by me and the other listed people so that you could point to this tread to make your point. I guess we need to update WP:POINT to write about "higher order" pointy behavior where you create the issue about which you want to make a point first. Count Iblis (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sarcasm always helps, of course Guy (Help!) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure the sanction is written as well as could be, but something must be done to discourage further disruption. These accounts aren't exactly meat puppets, but their behavior is somewhat analogous and highly problematic. The long term, persistent disruption needs to end. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jehochman, you are contributing to the very disruption you perceive by re-opening this nonsensical proposal and commenting here, instead of coming up with some concrete proposal in the thread above that would allow Brews to contribute constructively to Wiki-articles. Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• My god, what the fuck is going on here? I have nothing to do with the people named above, apart from commenting about the Trusilver desysop in which they did as well, and I do NOT even share their opinion on the matter. There was no overt antagonism, hostility, or anything of the sort in any of these posts. I do not know brews ohare. I do not care about brews ohare. Guy drops here this baffling ban suggestion out of the blue, but when I and several other uninvolved editors point out how I have no connection out this, both here and on his talk page, he just stands there with some middling, meandering "its part of the background noise" non-answer. And now Hochman is here with with, of all things, meat-puppet allegations? Tarc (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• @Jehochman, as you are so fond of telling others, sounds like it's time for you to start an RFC. Arkon (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to desysop Jehochman, and permanently restrict his contributions to WP namespace. Why would you look to ban someone who has broken no rules? That's not behavior we expect from administrators. )(disclaimer: Jehochman has sanctioned me in the past).Likebox (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• No idea about Tarc. The real names of the others are Randy, Andy, Brandy, Mandy, and Candy. They are not all the same person but they come from the same town. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is actually quite comical.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whatever happened to Sandy? Brews ohare (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Likebox

• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here Likebox follows me to an article and complains about edits I made nearly 5 months ago. My edits were discussed and sustained in large part. We are working on a featured article drive for black hole, a sequel to the work we did at gamma ray burst. I don't appreciate politics spilling over to article talk pages. It's disruptive. Above, Likebox makes some pretty hostile remarks about me. Could this be a mere coincidence? Not likely. Could somebody please deal with this problem before it gets more severe? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's impossible, Likebox is gone from Wikipedia. It must be a compromised account. Better ban it immediately until we can sort out what's going on. 71.139.1.204 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Likebox may have reacted to statements about his edits being OR. I explained on the talk page that while those edits are not really OR i.m.o., the texts he wrote are too detailed for the article. Note that if someone has spend a great deal of effort writing up something then it is not nice to hear that it is removed on the grounds of OR, if it really is not OR. The word "OR" can really be insulting (I know that this maybe hard to understand for most editors who don't work on technical articles). On the other hand, I can also understand that Jehochman does not like his efforts on the article being dismissed as bad work. Count Iblis (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Instead of OR, I really meant "lacking sufficient references" and "too much detail". Summaries and links to articles would be fine. Thank you, Count. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes--- that was me patrolling some pages at random, since I deleted my watchlist. My only complaint was to ask to save the text to talk. I may be disillusioned and not inclined to contribute, but I still follow up on what's going on.Likebox (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP, SPAs, a proposal

Per the investigation and discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations I propose as follows:

1. user:John Quiggin and user:TimLambert are cautioned not to edit articles, especially biographies of living individuals, where they have a pre-existing off-Wikipedia dispute with the subject. Suggestions for improvement, comments regarding potential issues of editorial conduct etc. should be raised on the talk pages or appropriate noticeboards taking care to assume good faith and ensuring that comments about named individuals are kept neutral and supported by evidence.
2. The individual who has edited as 99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.144.192.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.141.252.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is a single-purpose or agenda account and is banned from commenting on or editing articles in respect of or relating to user:John Quiggin (John Quiggin) or user:TimLambert, including John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), John Quiggin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This topic ban applies to the individual not the addresses and will continue to apply should the user choose to register an account.
3. Serenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose or agenda account and is banned form editing the article John Lott, constructive suggestions for improvement to the article may be made at talk:John Lott iff supported by reliable independent secondary sources.

---

• Support as proposer. I know the IP raised a partly valid concern but he did so in a way that was grossly biased, tendentious, failed to recognise obvious issues with his own conduct, failed to follow the normal processes for dispute resolution instead going straight to escalation, was reported in an inaccurate manner, and at the same time engaged in conduct which was also indicative of an undeclared off-wiki agenda. The style and substance of the complaints mitigated against speedy investigation and resolution, and no credible attempt was made to address the issue with the user directly beforehand. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have gone unnoticed, but I did discuss this issue directly on Quiggin's talk page on March 2. Quiggin was not interested in discussing the topic.[7] As to your other concerns, could you offer a diff as a supporting reference? Thanks. Also note that the listed contribs for me are anything but SPA and show a broad and rich edit history, as did the contribs I provided, including article creation. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be a sensible solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - There's a clear conflict of interest concern, and when we have BLPs at stake that makes it much worse. -- Atama頭 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose #1, but support #2. COI, even if it exists, does not preclude the editing of the relevant articles - guideline (not policy) merely states that the COI should be disclosed and that the edits still need to observe NPOV etc. Yes, care should be taken to cite all relevant text to reliable sources and to maintain a neutral tone. But cautioning John Quiggin and Tim Lambert not to edit articles is an overreaction.radek (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see what you're saying but we should be sure that we maintain a "clean hands" approach in respect of BLPs, I don't think either will find it hard to persuade others of genuinely valid edits on the talk pages and if my reading is right this is roughly what Jimbo thinks about this particular issue. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• The COI guideline also has suggestions regarding how to handle disruption caused by editors who have conflicts of interest, see this section; the first proposal above is only a minor expansion of what is already suggested for COI editors. -- Atama頭 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support generally. With the first one `I'd prefer to see a form where they can still edit the article, but only after taking the proposed edits to the talk page and obtaining consensus for them (with the obvious corollary that no consensus defaults to no edit). This is how past COIs have been managed. Orderinchaos 17:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all 3 - #1 is too weak, what is this "cautioned not to edit" business? Either they are allowed to edit those articles or they are not. If not call it a topic ban. If so why say anything? #2 and #3 seem unnecessary as there is no prohibition on being an SPA as JzG is aware (I am only assuming that they are SPA since I haven't personally checked their edit histories). --GoRight (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal does not prohibit SPAs. It restricts two specific SPAs who have evidenced problematic behavior. MastCell ^Talk 05:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I guess in my attempt to be terse I was being unclear. JzG appears to be (based on the description above) seeking to impose sanctions on these editors based solely on their being (allegedly) SPAs. I am not aware of any policy that forbids SPAs from editing the pages he has listed. If their status as SPAs is not at issue why is it being raised?

      Having read the associated sub-page I believe that the IP was raising valid points and we should not be shooting the messenger, especially one pointing out valid (I assume since JzG is warning Lambert and Quiggin) BLP concerns. Likewise writing glowing comments about Lott doesn't seem to violate any particular policy either, does it? There is no checkuser confirmation that Serenity is Lott, is there? So why are sanctions being proposed here without evidence? Refer the matter to SPI where it can be handled properly if sock puppetry is suspected. --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The irony of sanctioning one set of BLP violations while condemning another set is what gets me the most, I think. JzG's proposal at least treats both as problematic behaviours needing to stop. The elephant in the room is that one is left-wing editors attacking a right-wing one, while the other is a right-wing IP attacking two left-wing editors. Let's leave the baggage at the door and be fair minded Wikipedians here. Orderinchaos 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support generally per Orderinchaos. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• To be even-handed, upgrade #1 to a topic ban or downgrade #2 & #3 to a caution. —DoRD (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd - Community sanction proposal

Resolved

 – It's been well over 24 hours. Proposal failed; varying (but worthwhile) input received as to on what grounds. I thank all participants who provided such input which was relevant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Abd, I've been persuaded to make the following proposal:

Abd (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction (probation) that consists of the following terms:

1. Abd is restricted to posting an absolute maximum of 1000 words per 48 hours to any discussion of a particular topic or article - this restriction covers all pages on Wikipedia except his userspace. The word count shall not include his signature/timestamp. Abd is advised to interpret this as a general maximum of 900 words per 48 hours, with an 11% allowance. Wikilawyering will not be considered.

2. Abd may occasionally request an exemption from term 1 to post a particular comment to a particular page, or in rare cases, be exempted from particular discussions altogether; these requests are to be made to the Arbitration Committee by email - granted exemptions will only be effective after being logged at User:Abd/Community sanction#Exemptions. Should the Arbitration Committee deem that an excessive number of exemptions are being made at any given time, this exemption term may be suspended for an appropriate period of time. The suspension of this term shall take place once a sitting unrecused arbitrator has posted a notice on his talk page, and logged it at User:Abd/Community sanction#Exemptions.

3. Should Abd make edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page, and it has been logged at User:Abd/Community sanction#Log of page bans. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. Should Abd violate this restriction, he may be blocked for a short period of time, up to 1 month in the event of multiple or repeated violations. Blocks are to be logged at both User:Abd/Community sanction#Log of blocks and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Log of blocks and bans.

5. The maximum block length shall increase to 6 months after 5 blocks have been used to enforce this restriction and/or the case remedy.

6. WP:AE is to be used to report violations of this restriction, or to make appeals regarding the enforcement of this restriction.

With respect to term 2, if ArbCom are unwilling to deal with this, or are not ready to pass it off to BASC, then we can come back and reconsider an appropriate mechanism for exemptions (with a group of editors or administrators) later. But I think this considers the more fundamental issues covered in every other term. Even if this doesn't pass, at least we can find what issues are in dispute (if not all). Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds a bit too complicated for my taste. I like simple sanctions. I am especially not sure whether it is a good idea to apply such a complicated and wikilawyerable sanction to an editor whose principal problem appears to be wall-of-texting and not getting the point. Can you imagine the long discussions about what is "one discussion"? A straight project namespace or site ban would be much easier to interpret and enforce, if this conduct by Abd is indeed widely considered to be disruptive. Also, procedurally, WP:AE is part of the arbitration process and should/may not be used for non-arbitration enforcement purposes.  Sandstein  06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If he wikilawyers or is unable to follow this last attempt, then as the sanction suggests, it will be to his own peril and a site ban will be all that's left to exhaust (as a project namespace ban cannot address the core issue). AE has been specified due to the unique interaction between arbitration remedies and community sanctions; I expect any reported violations regarding the case will also include violations about the community sanction, and I don't think it would make sense to create 2 separate discussions or bring too many arbitration matters over here. Of course, if ArbCom is not willing to deal with term 2, then it'd be like any ordinary community sanction and term 6 would also be ineffective. It's purely a courtesy thing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I honestly don't see the issue with him writing long spiels, he now tends to collapse the full text and leave a summary. No one is forcing anyone to read the whole thing, frankly I see some of the compaints in this area, not NcmVocalists which I believe is well intentioned, to constitute bad faith actions. Unomi (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Abd seems inept at sticking to any sanction put forward to him. He's been to arbitration and was given a tight restriction yet he's shown unwilling to work with it. Abd has now become a process time sink. Forget the additional sanctions, they won't work - go ahead with a full ban. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a problem with his long screeds? Yes. Collapsing them does not help because very often these long screeds include begging the question and other rhetorical devices, or include commentary that shows he has (once again) interpreted criticism as support or is (once again) making claims that have been rejected many times before. Frankly any dispute with Abd involved is going to take five times longer than one without, which is why the sanction was introduced. He seems to want to Wikilawyer round that sanction now, which is just more evidence that he doesn't things take on board. If he could just keep to article space everybody would be a lot better off. It's not time for the banhammer yet but I suspect we are now into escalating block territory. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• This is too complicated. Abd is already wikilawyering a relatively simple restriction. And this ban allows him to comment on any dispute he wants to, which is bad. He is supposed to go to quiet articles and work there constructively. If he isn't capable of doing that then he won't be able to comply with this restriction either. P.D.: The purpose of Arbcom's restriction was keeping him out of disputes, and this restriction does not do that. Instead, it gives him a wide door into any dispute of his choice. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears from your third sentence onwards that you believe this probation replaces ArbCom restrictions - it does not; these are additional restrictions. If he continues to violate the remedy in the ArbCom case, he'd still be blocked in accordance with the ArbCom case provisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I stroke that part. I think that this puts another layer of complication in the restriction, and would make it enforcement more difficult. I think the problems from the increased completion will outweigh the benefit. Others in this section have described better the problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• After looking at his recent behaviour on wiki, and some of his activities at WR (which I've not looked at before), it seems clear Abd isn't here for the good of the project. I'd support these additional restrictions as a second choice, with my first choice being an indef block. Verbal chat 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• One wonders how much thinner the community's patience can get before the seemingly inevitable happens. I think he's deliberately setting himself up to be a WR martyr, a rather foolish objective. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• What happens on WR should be irrelevant for any Administrative decisions to be taken here. My opinion is that Abd is a good editor and his leaving would be a loss for the project.  Dr. Loosmark  22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Abd has made his views clear on WR, and he has confirmed that both accounts are his. His editing and behaviour is enough to justify a ban, his WR descriptions of his activities here just confirm it. Verbal chat 23:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts? Guy (Help!) 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Abd's actions off-wiki are absolutely relevant, particularly when they include personal attacks, failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors (both things he was admonished for in the same RfAr) and even a recent attempted outing of an administrator in response to his most recent block. -- samj _in^out 15:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal, while understandable, is too complicated and will a> create more enforcement effort for other editors and b> give ample opportunity for wikilawyering. Abd has demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept his existing editing restrictions and unwilling to contribute uncontroversial edits. An additional project space ban may be helpful, but I think we've passed that point already. As such I'd support an indef block, at least until such time as Abd unambiguously states that he's willing to play by the rules. -- samj _in^out 02:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• That you can even suggest sanctioning someone for writing to much beggars belief, that you further propose that someone should be limited to a daily wordcount takes this into the realms of Stalinist era mock trials. You should be ashamed of yourself.Amentet (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Counter Proposals: MYOB sanctions for Ncmvocalist who has a long history of sticking his nose into other people's disputes just as we see here, and Topic ban Enric Naval from discussing Abd anywhere on-wiki to put an end to this continuing disruption and harassment. --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Stricken since this may be considered a disruptive comment, although I believe what I said on both counts. The actual disruption in this case was not caused by Abd, but rather those in pursuit of him. That's all I have to say on the matter. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, guy, the only thing more impressive than the sophistication of your arguments is the breadth of you vision. --Ludwigs2 13:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You really don't have a leg to stand on GoRight. Tossing this red herring in here is exactly the type of disruption MYOB sanctions seek to prevent. I note that you have just been warned by your unblocking admin for this very comment. -- samj _in^out 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight may not be the right person to raise this matter, but don't shoot the messenger just yet. He may be on to something regarding Ncmvocalist and his long history of long proposals. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case GoRight should follow the usual process by raising it in a separate thread rather than making threats and distracting "counter proposals" - Abd/GoRight discussions have a strong enough tendency to veer off course as it is. Content length restrictions seem generally problematic to me and the best way to deal with WP:TLDR contributions is to ignore them. -- samj _in^out 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Yep, and Yep (except when they're in some context where you can't ignore them), in that order. ++Lar: t/c

You're both right here, obviously. There is an existing request for enforcement against Abd, that needs to be dealt with first. Actually I think that simple enforcement of existing restrictions is probably enough to be going on with, especially since Abd seems to have no intention of abiding by them right now. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I had tried to collapse the above discussion since the comment was withdrawn as being potentially disruptive (i.e. a digression) but SJ seems to have restored it. I am unclear on why but I do not object to having it in plain sight if that is what he prefers. --GoRight (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the edit summary: "please don't collapse others' comments" - that in itself is disruptive. -- samj _in^out 05:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious, I was under the impression from TS that collapsing apparently off-topic discussions was accepted community practice and considered to be a service which would actually lower the disruption. Restoring those discussions on the other hand, would seem to have the opposite effect but perhaps that is just me. Am I wrong in these understandings? --GoRight (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- samj _in^out 11:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious, not at all how I had interpreted his response. --GoRight (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem... you and Abd WP:HEAR whatever it is your want to hear, even when it is the exact opposite. -- samj _in^out 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh. --GoRight (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too complex and not likely to be workable. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Lar that these proposals are not workable. As arbitrators have commented, regrettably Abd does not yet seem to have found a quiet article or set of articles to work on. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Despite this being complicated it can work within a mentoring agreement. The official restriction will formally be that Abd is placed under mentorship. The understanding is then that the mentor will try to get Abd to stick to certain types of restrictions like the one proposed by Ncmvocalist, at the discretion of the mentor, in order to minimize disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good idea, but a mentorship clause was enacted by ArbCom, and it had to replaced with non-mentorship restrictions. The other thing about mentorship is that it's voluntary, be it from the mentor or the user being mentored - I'm not sure both could be achieved here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Its value is strongly dependent on the mentor, the only suggested menotr I can recall was spectacularly inappropriate, more of a WP:AMA-style advocate. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• My recollection of this was similar, but very vague; we probably should find the relevant links to it so others know the context. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fritzpoll. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Guy is referring to when GoRight offered himself as a mentor. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of indefinite rangeblocks

Resolved

 – I'm going to go ahead and mark this tentatively resolved, as we've made a good dent in the number of indefinite rangeblocks. Some lingering questions remain as to whether the {{AOLblock}}'s are still necessary and whether the ones from 2006/7 are they still open proxies-perhaps someone can take a look and unblock if not. Thanks to all for the input. –xeno^talk 15:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like some input on the following indefinite rangeblocks found through WP:INDEFIP. Are they supported by WP:IPBLENGTH ("IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked")/WP:RANGEBLOCK ("make them as brief as possible")? Should some be lifted? (Please note the purpose of this thread is not to admonish any of the blocking admins, but to determine if the blocks are still necessary. I notified the ones who are still active as their input would be appreciated.) –xeno^talk 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked ranges

No. ↑ IP ↓ Admin ↓ Timestamp ↓ Reason ↓ 44 216.91.92.16/28 Nlu 20061027155527 Kellen Company's spamming initiative ban 45 217.106.166.0/24 Alphachimp 20061110044107 Heavy range-wide spamming from Amazon affiliates. 50 207.200.112.0/21 Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20061122204929 {{AOLblock}} 68 64.12.0.0/16 Pilotguy 20061222160306 {{AOLblock}} 70 67.18.0.0/16 Mangojuice 20061228131829 open prox - web hosting company ThePlanet.com, reblocking anon-only 139 81.28.187.0/25 Drini 20070124210432 spamming coming from several ips in the range 145 72.249.45.0/24 Dmcdevit 20070127063027 Select Solutions hoting company, used for anonymous abuse 146 72.249.44.0/24 Dmcdevit 20070127063110 Select Solutions hoting company, used for anonymous abuse 193 64.157.15.0/24 Dmcdevit 20070204013144 change to anon-only 224 69.64.64.0/20 Ryulong 20070220221231 Hosting range for Abacus America 234 208.70.72.0/21 Ryulong 20070311030913 AirlineReservations.com network 261 152.163.100.0/24 Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20070419221308 {{AOLblock}} 262 152.163.101.0/24 Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20070419221618 {{AOLblock}} 291 66.212.71.0/24 Voice of All 20070615030202 anon only 303 195.93.0.0/17 Ryulong 20070713085312 {{AOLblock}} 336 65.98.192.48/29 Yamla 20071016173957 Conflict-of-interest edits to Fellowship of Friends. Please have your network administrator contact me. See User talk:65.98.192.48/29 339 77.244.32.0/20 AzaToth 20071108192610 Spamming links to external sites: spambot network 348 64.40.32.0/19 Krimpet 20071211073120 {{anonblock}} 349 66.109.192.0/20 Krimpet 20071211141035 {{anonblock}} 364 67.15.0.0/16 Thatcher 20080201034238 Hosting company, see User:Thatcher/Ev1 365 66.98.128.0/17 Thatcher 20080201034505 Hosting company, see User:Thatcher/Ev1 368 64.124.215.0/24 Yamla 20080205151758 Static address range allocated to ogilvy.com PR firm engaging in inappropriate marketing, sockpuppetry, and spam 386 71.127.224.0/20 Mr.Z-man 20080402171920 This network has recently been used abusively. If you are affected, please e-mail unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org using the instructions provided on the block screen. 389 143.235.208.0/21 Ckatz 20080405071354 Abusing multiple accounts: Known current IPs for User:EverybodyHatesChris; no other non-EHC users in past year 401 198.22.123.0/24 Ryulong 20080530234428 These IPs belong to the Best Buy store chain's in-store computers. 413 72.137.197.0/24 Ryulong 20081010025354 Vandalism: Long term abuser 423 204.255.212.0/24 Od Mishehu 20081203154509 Reduce to anon-only - the reason for this block doesn't justify blocking registered users. Not an endorsement of the original block. 435 216.220.208.0/20 Versageek 20090307212923 {{anonblock}}: {{DynamicIP sidekick}} 464 64.202.160.0/19 Jake Wartenberg 20091104003416 GoDaddy software servers (going back to hardblock, gave IPBE instead)

I went ahead and unblocked some of the non-proxy ones. I would leave the proxy ranges blocked unless the IP range no longer belongs to proxy servers. Nakon 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the two I blocked (well, downgraded from hard to soft, Jpgordon made the original indefinite blocks) on this list, 64.40.32.0/19 and 66.109.192.0/20, see this AN discussion from 2007. Fran Rogers❇ 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the ones in particular I thought should be lifted. Just because the ISP is free doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to edit? –xeno^talk 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the block being lifted, personally. The community seemed to want at least a soft block at the time, but it's probably worth revisiting, especially since the technical measures in place to curb abuse have greatly improved since. Fran Rogers❇ 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at both those ranges. I'd think that if the block had been causing any issues for non-registered users, there would have been at least one request on one IP talk page, but there haven't been any in the admittedly brief checkuser time span, and there are no undeleted contributions from either range, period. (It appears to me that Special:DeletedContributions doesn't know CIDR lookup, since I just deleted the only contribution within checkuser time, a rather bizarre personal attack page against Lee Iacocca.) I'm just as biased against proxies as I was when I made my original comment regarding loosening these blocks; and just as ambivalent about this particular situation as I was then. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused what lead to the blocking of 64.40.32.0/19 which my tool apparently shows no edits from - was it because vandal accounts were being created from the range? And on the other hand, the 66.109.192.0/20 actually showed a fairly disproportionate (from personal experience) amount of positive edits from anons when they were able to. –xeno^talk 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember anymore. I imagine it seemed like a good idea at the time. Perhaps I saw something nasty in the woodshed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

K... Thanks for the input - I'm going to go ahead and lift these two and we'll see how it plays out (can always reblock if the wiki starts falling apart =) –xeno^talk 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

<- 216.220.208.0/20 was soft blocked because it (a mobile gateway range), was being used to create multiple batches of new accounts which were then used for vandalism. I have no strong opinions on whether or not it stays blocked. --Versageek 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think 216.220.208.0/20 needs (edit) account creation to remain blocked indefinitely...it's been over a year. Swarm^(Talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked this one as well, no prejudice to reblocking if mass-creation of vandal accounts resumes. (This may be covered by a filter now, so hopefully it won't be an issue). –xeno^talk 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeno, thanks for following up on these. The 143.235.208.0 range block was put in place to deal with an ongoing, highly abusive series of IP edits, sockpuppets, and the like from User:EverybodyHatesChris. (Said user employed multiple sockpuppets, edit warring, article ownership, abusive tirades, and even off-wiki "hate" sites directed at the admins who were blocking him. He even went so far as to use a sock account in an extended charade that involved tricking another editor into mentoring him.) The range block was instituted because of the number of accounts he was operating in that range, and the very low proportion of non-EHC edits that originated in it. EHC also used several other ways in, but it has been some time now and the efforts appear to have slowed. It is possible that he's still around but is avoiding the previous behaviour; alternatively, he may just take advantage of the opportunity to jump back in if the block were to be lifted. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - some of the fresher ones should probably be left alone. Thanks for the input. –xeno^talk 02:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The 77.244.32.0/20 block was such a long time ago, dunno if it is still a spambot network, though unless no-one from that network complains, I would assume it's still a blacknet. _→AzaToth 11:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis

Resolved

 – User:Free Belarus and User:Mogilev82 indef blocked by User:Nihonjoe for edit warring and sockpuppetry Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you keep him in both categories so everyone can be satisfied? Poland has moved its location around so much over the past 300 years that they could well legitimately have a claim for him. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably didn't explaine myself good, I am keeping both categories! They are the once who keep deleting the Belarusian categories from the Kościuszko article without any rational. I mean, he faught for Poland (more accurate, for the Polish-Lithuenian commonwealth), the place he was born in was a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I haven't deleted any of the Polish categories he has! I just added the Belarusian categories since ethnicaly he was of Ruthenian (today that is called Belarusian) stock, his native language was Belarusian, and he was even baptised in the Orthodox church as done by Belarusians. And about the Poles article... but the man wasn't an ethnic Pole, he was Pole by nationality, and the article talks about Poles as the ethnic group. Free Belarus (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is "they"? I don’t delete Belarusian categories or references, but you, 79.177.169.82, and Ales hurko keep removing Kościuszko from the Polish article and repeatedly delete his Polish identity. We have always shown him in Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian pages, which is as it should be. After you wrote the preceding remark stating that you are keeping both categories, you again deleted Kościuszko from Poles. You are vandalizing Poles and Tadeusz Kościuszko and you should stop it. Nobody is stopping you from mentioning him on your Belarusian pages. —Stephen (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't deleted even one Polish category! You wrote he is a Pole as of Poles, and I wrote he is Pole as in Poland. He was Belarusian by ethnicity, and Polish by nationality, while you tried to label him as Polish by ethnicity thought he isn't, whoever want's to see the arguemtn beetwen us it is on the Poles talk page. Free Belarus (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Today alone you and 79.177.169.82 have each reverted these pages over and over and have broken the 3-Revert rule. —Stephen (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And you added to a collage a person who is not Polish ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

After going throught edits by User:Marekchelsea, you can see that he has a long history of removing categories without any rational (this is a partial list): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Ginczek&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdynand_Ruszczyc&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Miko%C5%82aj_Dani%C5%82owicz&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwik_Tyszkiewicz&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christoph_Grabinski&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mstislav_Rostropovich&action=history (he is like some bot, he says he removes unsourced information, even when this information is sourced). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanis%C5%82aw_Bu%C5%82ak-Ba%C5%82achowicz&action=history (another case where he ignores references) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100308140730&target=Marekchelsea (just go through his contribution pages, all he does is edit wars where he deletes referenced information only because he doesn't like it).

Dear admins, please intervent! Free Belarus (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tadeusz_Ko%C5%9Bciuszko&action=historysubmit&diff=351031808&oldid=351031458 Here is what he does! Deletes referenced information from the text and referenced categories from the article. Free Belarus (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m not aware that I have deleted any referenced information. Kościuszko is as much a Pole as George Washington was an American. You keep trying to rationalize a way to remove him from Poles, but he is a Polish national hero and belongs on the Poles page. Besides your reverts to Tadeusz Kościuszko, you have reverted Poles at least four times today. That’s blatant edit-warring and a breach of 3RR. If you are the same person as 79.177.169.82, then you really have gone beyond the pale. —Stephen (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

American is a nationality, it's not an ethnicity!!! Don't you get the difference?? There is a difference between ethnicity and nationality. Poles is an article talking about Poles as an ethnicity, that's why he doesn't fit there. I already told you I don't argue with the fact he is Polish by nationality and a Polish national hero, no one can argue with that, but he was not of Polish ethnicity, and the article talks about Polish ethnicity. Please read the difference between nationality and ethnicity, those are really slightly different things. Free Belarus (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we already talked about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poles#Ko.C5.9Bciuszko_doesn.27t_belong_to_the_page_image Free Belarus (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you have reverted Tadeusz Kościuszko four times. You’ve now violated 3RR on both pages, Tadeusz Kościuszko and Poles. —Stephen (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of arguments? You are the one having this edit war. Free Belarus (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And now that I look at it, you and User:Marekchelsea also broke the 3RR, but the difference is I use referenced information, and you push nationalistic POV. Free Belarus (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of deleting referenced information without providing any evidence. Now you have accused me of violating 3RR. Can you prove it or are you lying? —Stephen (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The one who deleted referened information was not you but the second guy, and about you braking the 3RR... look at your edits at 09:06, 20 March 2010, 16:56, 20 March 2010, 17:03, 20 March 2010, 19:08, 20 March 2010. Free Belarus (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On Tadeusz Kościuszko, my edit of 09:06 was only a partial revert. My edit of 16:56 was likewise a partial revert. My edit of 17:03 was a revert. My edit of 19:08 was not a revert, but the removal of a stray letter space. So you see, I did not delete any referenced information, which you accused me of, and I did not break the 3RR rule which you accused me of. You, OTOH, have broken 3RR on both Tadeusz Kościuszko and Poles today, and you have made rash, untrue accusations about me which have proven to be completely untrue. You, sir, are a miscreant and you should be blocked from further edit-warring and reprimanded for making false accusations. —Stephen (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A partial revert? What kind of animal is that? It's a revert, just a revert. I didn't accuse you of deleting referenced information, more like adding unreferenced (adding him on the ethnic Poles collage thought not beeing an ethnic Pole), if it came out that way worry, in that I blame the other guy and I have links to that here. But you, "sir", are writing him as a Pole like in Poles thought he was not Polish by ethnicity! He was Polish by nationality, and that's why I wrote him as Pole like nationality. You also add him to an ethnic Poles collage thought he was not an ethnic Pole, ignoring that discussion page, so you, "sir", should be baned for edit waring and pushing a POV! Free Belarus (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how anybody who uses a User ID of Free Belarus can be anything other than disruptive. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds: 1. Racist. 2. Stupid (judging a person by his nick). 3. How is adding referenced information be disruptive? 4. My nickname shows my oposition to Lukashenka, if you have any problem with that, I don't care. Free Belarus (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A partial revert is where part of an edit is reverted and part of the edit is kept. In the case of the 09:06 partial revert, I reverted one single word and left this material intact: this. And now, after lying about me deleting referenced information, and lying about me breaking the 3RR rule, now you accuse me of edit-warring. You are the one who has broken the 3RR on two pages today, not me. Just as Woogee supposes, you, Free Belarus, are a disruptive element, a liar, and a troublemaker. —Stephen (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A revert as I understood is canceling an edit someone did, which is what you did. By your defenition, some of my reverts were also partial because all I did was replacing Poles with Poland, no? And you are the one lying, I didn't lie about the other huy deleting references, he really did that. You are trying to escape from the real argument which is who should be in the collage and what categories should be kept by those cheap tricks. You did break the 3 revert rule, I don't see how the edit of 9:06 is a revert. You are the only troublemaker here, and the only liar here, trying to enter someone of not Polish ethnicity into a collage of Polish ethnicity. I, unlike you, were honest enought to use the discussion page. Free Belarus (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In the partial reverts, I cancelled part of an edit, not the entire edit. It still counts as a revert for the 3RR, and the sum total of my full and partial reverts does not exceed three. Your reverts do exceed three, both on Poles and on Tadeusz Kościuszko. Then you lied by accusing me of deleting referenced information, then you lied by accusing me of reverting more than three times, and you lied by accusing me of edit-warring. Now you accuse me of lying, but you do not say what the alledged lie was or where it might be found. There is nothing honest about your wild, unfounded accusations or in your blatant edit-warring. I have proven each lie you told and showed your many reverts and how you have broken 3RR. You still maintain that I broke the 3RR, but you cannot find the illusive fourth revert. You can’t, because it does not exist. —Stephen (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the difference between a partial edit and an intire edit. Dude, you are the one lying. I blame the other guy for deleting links and categories and I brought a link to that, you I blame for entering someone to an ethnic collage when he doesn't belong to the ethnicity. And again, you have nothing to say so you take it to a personal level. I gave referenced information there, when you put him in a collage of ethnic Poles and I asked for a link about him having Polish ethnicity you ignored that, so my acusations are clear, you are the one trying to blur them. I didn't tell any lies, and you proved nothing. In fact, you are one of the weirdest person I ever met! You didn't give any references, you ignore the discussion page, yet you say you proved something, which looks really funny. I gave you the dates of the 4 reverts, and no, I don't see a partly revery as a non-revert. Free Belarus (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I disproved case of the dates of the four reverts you gave...the fourth one was not a revert, but the removal of a stray word space. There were only three reverts. For the purposes of 3RR, there is no difference between partial reverts and full reverts. Again you have accused me of lying but you still do not say what the lie was or where it may be found. You accused me of breaking the 3RR, but you can’t find the offending fourth edit. You lied about it. You accused me of deleting referenced material, but you can’t point it out. You lied. You accused me of edit-warring, but you can’t show the evidence. You lied about it. And you’ve accused me of lying, but don’t say what the lie is or where it can be seen. Again you’ve lied. Here is the evidence of the edit-warring and breaking 3RR by Free Belarus:

Poles: 6 5 4 3 2 1

Tadeusz Kościuszko: 4 3 2 1

Can we block this nationalist for edit-warring. It's completely out-of-touch to accuse Stephen of nationalistic motives. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor has been indef blocked by User:Nihonjoe for username violation only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I am the nationalist here? Study the case before opening your mouth, ok? I gave links showing the person is of Belarusian ethnicities, and added the proper categories, but for a reason one person deletes those categories and the references without explaining. Another person writes he is a Pole by ethnicity, thought he ignored all my requests to bring links for that. I actualy watch the NPOV rules. And about my nickname... since when opossing Lukashenka is labeled as nationalism? Free Belarus (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@Mogilev82: Please change your sig so that it doesn't say "Free Belarus", the username that you were blocked for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, don't make me regret unblocking you, I'm perfectly capable of putting the block back in place, and continuing to use the name you were blocked for does not exactly make me resist doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW you change your signature on the Preferences page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now blocked Free Belarus (talk · contribs), Mogilev82 (talk · contribs), as well as two IPs he used (79.177.170.41 (talk · contribs) and 132.66.181.112 (talk · contribs)), for edit warring and abusively using sock accounts. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Need people familiar with checking for open proxies

I've just noticed in the navbar at the top of this noticeboard that "Open proxies" is actually directing to a WikiProject page that isn't being serviced. This should probably be changed to a process page somewhere. In the meantime, there is a backlog there so folks who have experience with this would be appreciated: Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. –xeno^talk 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look. Jehochman ^Talk 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Protection: ready for more testing

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Flagged Protection: ready for more testing --MZMcBride (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Spoiler Alert!" The flags will be orange with puce borders. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news: FlaggedRevs said to cause cancer. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Only Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. And Chuck Norris has never cried. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to review

In closing Yorkshirian's ban discussion Friday, I also blocked him with talk page disabled. He has emailed me asking to have access to it restored so he can make a statement. I've declined, as I don't think prolonging the inevitable is in anyone's best interests. However, since this is probably not my call and my call alone, if someone disagrees, they can restore his access to his talk page without the need to talk to me first. If no one disagrees, then I guess this gets archived in 2 days and we move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer a consensus, since it is probably best that no one admin should decide. I feel that providing the request was made in appropriate tones, I see no reason for it not to be granted. The content then posted can be reviewed and allowed to remain, removed, deleted or oversighted according to policy. The ban discussion regarding Yorkshirian noted that they were generally more subtle than to post diatribes, so I would not expect an invective filled rant. Under the circumstances, what is the harm? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LHvU. AGF and allow access to talk page. If reason is given by Yorkshirian to remove the access then the case for doing so will be much stronger. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to have any effect so I don't see any reason to hold out false hope. I mean, sockpuppetry, multiple past indefinite blocks, an ArbCom ban and now a community ban all for pretty much the same stuff, it's really not very likely that he's going to be able to say something that will persuade us to let him come back, is it? Guy (Help!) 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk access is supposed to be removed only for abuse of user talk access. WP:PROT#Blocked users refers to "extreme cases of abuse". Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read that three times, and I think you are suggesting the talkpage access should remain blocked. Please correct me if I am wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear. I don't care either way but I think the blocking admin should be careful not to hold out false hopes. The sockpuppetry alone would normally be enough to qualify for a ban and that was not the worst of his problems. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Guy, that's my concern, and the reason I blocked access to begin with; IMHO talk page access would be pointless and likely to simply prolong the beating of a dead horse. Yorkshirian still has email, and the email address of ArbCom. If any admin thinks restoring talk page access is a good idea, I won't stand in the way, but I'm not looking for a consensus here that I'll enact. I've already done what I thought best. Since I'm only 90% sure it's the right call, I've thrown it out to others.--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We usually don't stop banned users using their talk page unless they actually do abuse it. That said, given that he's actually banned not just blocked, you could easily defend it on precisely the basis you give. So, it could be defended either way, and the main thing is that if he wants to appeal he is given the opportunity for a fair hearing by ArbCom, however they might prefer to do that. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Restore talk page access. If then abused, remove. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with abuse, I'm concerned with pointlessness, giving false hope, and wasting Yorkshirian's time. He's banned, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very fifty-fifty since it's already been done. There's not much harm in leaving it in place, but it's true it may only serve to prolong matters if access was re-instated. You can appeal a ban by email even if you have your access to the WP email system revoked because WP:BASC posts their email address for just such a situation. I say leave it for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SfD backlog

There are several open WP:SfD that are weeks old and needs someone to close them. —Farix (t | c) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I closed several, but there are still three old discussions open that need attention, all from one day in January. A couple of them are a bit complicated, so it would be really helpful if they were tackled by someone more familiar with the typical organization of stub type categories. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Minimum Requirements check and deletion of an RfC

Good day, could the minimum requirements be checked for the following RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20. According to the Minimum requirements standards of the RfC community, it lacks the evidence of a second user attempting to resolve the issue. The user in question is User:RBCM (Who has neither a user page or talk page), who signed the RfC but failed to provide any "evidence showing that he tried and failed to resolve the same dispute." The issue in question was my alleged conduct problem in the Diablada article.

The RfC in question has been open for nearly 6 months, and so there has been plenty of time given for RBCM to provide evidence (All of the "evidence" has been provided by Erebedhel). Therefore, the RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20 should be deleted by an administrator as it is uncertified appropiately (i.e., it fails the minimum requirements).

I had originally posted this in the RfC talk page, but I was suggested to bring it over to here [8], since the matter essentially deals with deleting an RfC that fails the minimum requirements. Thank you and have a great day.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The page also has another request for deletion. Maurreen (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that there was a prior attempt in my part to delete the RfC in an MfD. However, I ended up withdrawing the MfD claim on the basis that it was discovered that User:RBCM was not a sockpuppet of User:Erebedhel. However, I am posting this at AN for deletion on a different basis: The RfC in question does not hold the minimum requirements. The RfC should have shown evidence of both users (RBCM and Erebedhel) attempting to resolve the dispute; however, the RfC only shows evidence from one user (Erebedhel). User:RBCM fails to provide any evidence. As such, since the RfC does not meet the minimum requirements, it should be deleted.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Player Uno page

Hello,

This is Nicolas Dansereau, the man behind the wrestling persona known as Player Uno. I recently tried to edit out my real name from your wikipedia page to protect my identity from people, and was refused to do so. I was wondering if you could take this information off or delete the page as a whole as having my real name advertised publicly on wikipedia can endanger my work as well as my privacy. The information about the character is fine, I don't think it is necessary for fans to be able to seek out my personal profiles, emails and accounts to try and invade what little privacy I have.

I would be very thankful if you could help me out with this. Thank you.

-Nicolas Dansereau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.113.41 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the identity of a "professional wrestler" is not a secret. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This one isn't since the name is sourced within the article. However, it is Player Uno that is the notable subject and not the real life individual. Perhaps is Mr Dansereau were to contact us and request a OTRS volunteer see if they can mitigate the references to the real life identity, which may be possible per WP:BLP, then this matter may be resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

With stuff like this out there, there's no way you can keep your real name secret. Besides, you didn't just remove your name, you put in another name altogether. Woogee (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Some of these wrestlers are chasing a dream", from the above website. Zackly so, and there is no reason to complain if that dream is treated here in a more neutral way than you'd prefer. There's no such thing as preferential treatment on Wikipedia, and ye shall live or die by thine own publicity (Book of Madison Avenue, Chapter 1, Verse 1). Rodhullandemu 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any info in the article that gives people the subject's e-mail, or account details. I think this is more a control issue. The subject wants to control what is written about them. sorry, but as long as it is accurate and verifiable, then it meets WP:BLP, even if it is negative information. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability by itself is not enough to include something--it also has to not have undue weight under the neutrality principle, which means the sourcing has to meet some level of prominence rather than merely existing. Whether that Slam article is sufficiently prominent to warrant including info from it that is contested by the subject, I don't know, but it's by no means obvious that it does. Anyway, OTRS is the right place for the OP to contact. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Conservapedians and RationalWikians

There's no need for admin action, and no need for discussion to take place here. Take the childish bickering back to the respective wikis; continuing this crusade is a sure-fire way to be a nuisance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Per WP:BATTLE, I find it inappropriate for members of Conservapedia and RationalWiki to fight with each other. There are many users who have referenced to Conservapedia and RationalWiki, and it's getting ugly. People should not be using Wikipedia to promote/complain about either site. I mean not to propose this only to protect Conservapedia (where I am a contributer), but rather because I don't find Wikipedia to be the place for this kind of nonsense. That being said, this should be resolved neutrally where we don't have users promoting CP either. Here's a list of questionable activities I've witnessed:

• User:Huw Powell links to Conservapedia on his user page, describing it as "humourous"
• User:Theresa Wilson (aka SusanG [9] at RW) brings RationalWiki drama to Wikipedia as seen in her contribs; in addition, she practically first came here to oppose User:Ed Poor's RfA.
• User:TK-CP has a user name promoting Conservapedia, promotes Conservapedia on his user page, and appears to be here to bring the CP vs RW drama here. Seems a single-purpose account
• User:Beach drifter inappropriately added a humor tag to WP:What happens on other wikis stays on other wikis, an essay I created suggesting that CP and RW editors do not fight on Wikipedia.
• User:Tmtoulouse uses his user page to promote RW.
• User:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor has an anti-conservapedia username, promotes RationalWiki on his userpage, and attacks Conservapedia on his userpage
• User:SuperJosh Oh-One promotes RationalWiki and attacks Conservapedia on his userpage. He implies that he is a single-purpose account.
• User:IrrationalAtheist used to get into CP vs RW drama. On his RW userpage, he indicates that he has retired, and that RW has become a gloified 4chan /b/.
• User:MykalOfDefiance promotes RationalWiki in his userpage
• User:Thanatos-RW has a promotional username and promotes RationalWiki on his userpage
• User:Ed Poor's RfA, found at [10], received many legitimate votes, but some were based exclusively on the fact that he is a Conservapedian. Some users registered solely so they could support/oppose his RfA.People should not be using Wikipedia to promote/complain about either site.
• User:AmesG promotes RationalWiki and attacks Conservapedia on his userpage.
• User:Oneforlogic promotes RW and attacks CP on his userpage
• User:ListenerX promotes RationalWiki on his userpage, and claims to have originally created the account for a single purpose.
• User:R. fiend has a section on his userpage titled "What a fucking idiot" which attacks Conservapedia and it's users.
• User:Keegscee (now blocked), a RationalWiki user [11], has brought much CP vs RW drama here, including an incident where he directed vandals to Conservapedia as seen at [12]. The user is blocked; this is noted as a pile on example.
• User:C6541, a RationalWiki user, has some questionable content on his username. While looking for examples of CP/RW drama, I found he has "Blogs are for Twats" on his userpage.

I know it's coming, armies from both sides (or at least from RW) will try to say that I'm being biased. I beg for members of CP and RW to refrain from getting into this matter, and for uninvolved parties to see the problem here. Please, put politics aside, and act in the best interest of WP. Wikipedia is not RationalWiki; we are not here to debunk Conservapedia, RationalWiki, or anyone else. Admins, please search for RationalWiki and Conservapedia under "everything" in Wikipedia's search function, and try to clean up questionable activities where feasible. Wikipedia is not a battle ground or webhost, and I also recommend a specific mention at WP:What Wikipedia is not for this matter. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the larger issue regarding WP:BATTLE but am concerned about a broad prohibition on taking the mickey. The world (including Wikipedia) would be a dull place if we could never poke gentle fun when people do daft things. Would the current contents of my user page fall afoul of such a prohibition? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage does not attack or promote either CP or RW. Per WP:NPOV, how can we say that either is acting daft? If I were to poke fun at RW on my userpage, do you think for a minute that RW users here wouldn't be all over me, persecuting me for being a CP user, and trying to get me blocked? Another problem at bay is that some people have been directing people to RW when they ask questions about CP, as if it's a reliable source. They have also been citing it on occasion. It's probably best if we aren't in the middle of the feud if we want to be credible. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We certainly should not be using any wiki as a reference for article content - except for what they say about themselves, which is acceptable in an article on the wiki itself. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The same is probably true at the reference desk, correct? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be - but I practically never visit the Reference Desk, so I have no idea what is going on over there. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"People should not be using Wikipedia to promote/complain about either site.'" So shut up then. (also, see: Streisand effect) SpeckledHen (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it that someone who has the phrase "Seriously everybody, stop bringing your Conservapedia and RationalWiki cabal to Wikipedia." linked to an essay they wrote about the whole issue start a complaint about this? Where is the line drawn? If I link to my blog on my userpage, is that in violation of promotion rules? 71.218.53.183 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am proud to be the first person slammed by the plaintiff. Ironically, they are "a CP user" and have an apparent "persecution" fear. I can't, and don't, pretend to tell the WP admins how to run stuff when it reaches this level of silliness, but what the IP just above says makes a lot of sense to me. As does SpeckledHen's comment. Huw Powell (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the plaintiff is displaying (assume good faith) poor reading skills, as my page says "I just learned about "Category:Liberal Wikipedians" whilst reading this amusing file at "conservapedia", so I added myself to it, I think." I wrote that several years ago. It's not part of some "battle". It's just where I heard of the userbox. Huw Powell (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on, but referring to someone as the "plaintiff" doesn't help the impression that it's not a battle. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Would "instigator" or "complainant" be any better? SpeckledHen (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a coordinated attack ongoing. SpeckledHen (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

← "Per WP:BATTLE, I find it inappropriate for members of Conservapedia and RationalWiki to fight with each other." So why are you doing that? You are the one who (after trolling RationalWiki) came here to continue this "battle". [13]

"People should not be using Wikipedia to promote/complain about either site." Agreed. Why are you doing it then?

"...rather because I don't find Wikipedia to be the place for this kind of nonsense." Yes, and RationalWiki is not Wikipedia. Your point was?

"User:Theresa Wilson (aka SusanG [14] at RW) brings RationalWiki drama to Wikipedia as seen in her contribs; in addition, she practically first came here to oppose User:Ed Poor's RfA." It's User:TheresaWilson. I don't see her bringing RW drama to WP. I think she, like a lot of RW users editing WP, tries to keep the Conservapedia article as unbiased and as well-referenced as possible, to contrast it with what CP has to say about WP.

"User:TK-CP has a user name promoting Conservapedia, promotes Conservapedia on his user page, and appears to be here to bring the CP vs RW drama here. Seems a single-purpose account" WP:AGF. TK was already taken, so he rather uncreatively chose that username. Since he only came here to complain about perceived bias in the Conservapedia article, it's even justified. I'd hardly call that promotion.

"User:Thanatos-RW has a promotional username and promotes RationalWiki on his userpage" See above. As for the userpage, that's hardly promotion, it doesn't even link to RW. Maybe you should reread WP:USER.

"User:Beach drifter inappropriately added a humor tag to WP:What happens on other wikis stays on other wikis, an essay I created suggesting that CP and RW editors do not fight on Wikipedia." Is Beach drifter an RW user? It seems you had an issue with this editor and are now trying to lump him in here too.

"User:Tmtoulouse uses his user page to promote RW." According to WP:UP#NOT: "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." (emphasis mine). I don't think that's extensive.

"User:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor has an anti-conservapedia username" WP:AGF (starting to see a pattern here). ConservapediaUndergroundResistor registered this name because that was his name at RW. ", promotes RationalWiki on his userpage" that's hardly promotion, it doesn't even link to RW. ", and attacks Conservapedia on his userpage" Yeah, that's a lame joke. Why don't you inform the user (politely) that it is unacceptable instead of starting a big drama-fest? Also, according to his userpage, he didn't come here to attack CP. His short editing history barely has anything CP related.

"User:SuperJosh Oh-One promotes RationalWiki and attacks Conservapedia on his userpage. He implies that he is a single-purpose account." Wrong again about the promotion. The "injecting liberal bias" part is a joke reference to how Andrew Schlafly sees anything that he doesn't agree with as "liberal" and accuses WP of "liberal bias". So adding material that he disagrees with to WP, no matter how well-sourced, is injecting liberal bias according to Andrew Schlafly. geddit?

"User:IrrationalAtheist used to get into CP vs RW drama." You are referring to this, right? I encourage everyone to read that and decide for themselves who started the drama. "On his RW userpage, he indicates that he has retired, and that RW has become a gloified 4chan /b/." Your point?

"User:MykalOfDefiance promotes RationalWiki in his userpage" So is it verboten to say that you love RationalWiki (note: no external link to RationalWiki) on your userpage?

"User:Ed Poor's RfA, found at [15], received many legitimate votes, but some were based exclusively on the fact that he is a Conservapedian. Some users registered solely so they could support/oppose his RfA.People should not be using Wikipedia to promote/complain about either site." Indeed, and those !votes were not taken into account (and Ed Poor's RfA failed even without those !votes). Still, I believe Ed Poor's behavior at CP should be taken into account when deciding whether he is suitable to be a WP admin, but that is just my opinion, and I am aware of WP's rules, which is why I did not vote at that RfA.

"User:AmesG promotes RationalWiki and attacks Conservapedia on his userpage." Another "promotes RationalWiki", still wrong. As for the CP part, how is that an attack?

"User:Oneforlogic promotes RW " Yawn " and attacks CP on his userpage" No.

"User:ListenerX promotes RationalWiki on his userpage" Still wrong. He discloses his COI. ", and claims to have originally created the account for a single purpose." Please read WP:SPU. Also, please take a look at ListenerX's contribs. Thanks.

"User:R. fiend has a section on his userpage titled "What a fucking idiot" which attacks Conservapedia and it's users." No, just Ed Poor. Still, you have a point (although I personally agree with R. fiend and find Ed Poor's comments disgusting. Call the Thought Police.)

"User:Keegscee (now blocked), a RationalWiki user [16], has brought much CP vs RW drama here, including an incident where he directed vandals to Conservapedia as seen at [17]. The user is blocked; this is noted as a pile on example." So this is no longer an issue. Your point?

"User:C6541, a RationalWiki user, has some questionable content on his username. While looking for examples of CP/RW drama, I found he has "Blogs are for Twats" on his userpage." And this is related to this issue how?

"If I were to poke fun at RW on my userpage, do you think for a minute that RW users here wouldn't be all over me, persecuting me for being a CP user, and trying to get me blocked?" You mean like what you are doing to RW users? I wouldn't.

Yes, I agree that WP should not be a battleground and that it should not attack or debunk Conservapedia. But you will always have editors who need to be reminded about the rules; so remind them about the rules, politely, instead of starting a crusade against everyone involved with RationalWiki.

Btw, I feel left out. Am I not promoting RationalWiki too by having a link to it on my userpage? -- Nx / talk 11:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It definitely looks like a concerted attack on RationalWiki now. Three persons User:PCHS-NJROTC with this thread, User:Nobs01 here and now user:Seregain here. A cabal would appear to have been formed. SpeckledHen (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is too widespread to just leave a warning and be on my way. We need an official statement that this childishness is unacceptable here. I haven't a clue who those other users are. I'm just tired of the nonsense where RW fans repeatedly direct people from here to their site, which is essentially spamming. Ditto, to a lesser extent, for Conservapedians that spam for CP here. RW has made concerted attacks on CP here; they posted that CP violates the GFDL, yet they whined when a CP member (me) posted a legitimate mention of GFDL violations at RW, without a single biased mention about the overall content of the site. I am trying to be fair and act in WP's best interest, I beg that you (RW users) put your personal convictions aside and do the same.

OH MY GOD! All the RationalWikians coming to their site's defense even though this is a two way deal! C'mon, nothing on my userpage promotes or bashes either site. I've hardly any involvement at the Conservapedia article. It's a call to end the CP vs RW drama, not help either party. Are you for neutrality on Wikipedia, or are you so consumed by RationalWiki that you must bring your cabal here? Please, end the drama, see that Wikipedia is not the place to bash your opponents or promote your cause. Wikipedia is not RationalWiki, and Wikipedia is not Conservapedia. Who cares that I am a Conservapedian? Notice that I also reported User:TK-CP, who is a Conservapedia admin? I am here to build an encyclopedia, and my membership here long predates my membership at Conservapedia. I beg that admins ignore the comments of the RationalWikians (and any unreasonable Conservapedians that may comment for that matter); it seems I have hit a sore spot on both ends of this. Please, may NPOV provail, and both sides remember to keep their cabal at their respective sites. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Err, except that this IS the CP/RW drama. You're here making it. Right now. And you've been making it on RW for a week. @SpeckledHen, how can these people be a cabal when they're poor, poor victims? 98.226.15.58 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem at bay is that all of these people don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing, yet it is far outside of WP's goals and purpose. This wouldn't be here if RW (and to a lesser extent, CP people) weren't spamming. Also, if RW mentions this on it's WIGO thing, then they're essentially guilty of meatpuppetry. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, consider this: someone at RefDesk asks what RW is, and I give them a link to TK's description of it, and then go on to say that it's run by morrons, and insult its founder. Would that receive treatment equal to that of an RW user responding to someone asking about CP with a link to RW, random insults, and hate towards ASchlafly? This is Wikipedia, not RW, not CP. C'mon, I'm trying to be fair here, you'd be amazed at how much better WP would be if everybody did the same. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have links of that happening? I couldn't find anything. Maybe it was reverted - and rightly so. I don't see a problem here, WP's policies work. But you seem to be suggesting that WP go beyond that and condemn RationalWiki in an official statement? Or just ban anyone who is a member at RationalWiki?

"yet they whined when a CP member (me) posted a legitimate mention of GFDL violations at RW" That's not how I would describe what you actually did. -- Nx / talk 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see no need for any administrator intervention here...everyone should feel free to help yourselves to the trout I just broiled up, though. It's got a nice lemon pepper seasoning. — Scientizzle 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Not everyone can edit

I was tooling around, and noticed some inaccuracies in the Madonna article. I asked why it was, as there appeared to be no vandalism or ongoing edit-warring occurring, and was informed by Buzzsherman that: "This page will not be unlocked", He thoughtfully provided a link to the protection log for the article.

This article has been since 9 July of 2009, the reasoning being offered by the admin performing the semi-protecting: "(the) High profile article that will always attract high levels of vandalism. Needs indefinite semi)".

I get that vandalism is a royal pain, and reverting it grows tedious, but locking an article indefinitely seems to run counter to the idea of an encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit - even us unregistered users. I was going to point this out to Enigmaman, but I cannot, as I have to be not just a registered user, but an "established" registered user. I am guessing that means I have to have a certain number of edits before I even earn the right to question his administrative protection. So, my next step is here, as Enigmaman is an administrator.

I have some problems with both an admin who cannot be contacted by the rank and file as well as an article being semi-protected indefinitely. I am guessing that this sort of action is not in keeping with the Third Pillar about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This means we must put up with the hassles of reverting vandalism and sometimes even locking an article until the vandals get bored. Locking it indefinitely is wrong, plain and simple. It keeps the user who chooses to participate anonymously - but positively - at arm's length. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected, so if you want to edit it, register, otherwise, edit one of the 3 million articles that aren't semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately some articles have to be protected indefinitely as they're vandal magnets and amount of vandalism from IP accounts would always vastly outweigh constructive IP edits if the protection was lifted (as new vandals would keep hitting the article there's no prospect of them getting bored and going away). Moreover, reverting this predicable vandalism would be a waste of editors time', particularly in light of the widely reported decline in the number of active Wikipedia editors. As such, the semi-protection of the Madonna (entertainer) looks sensible to me. If you'd like to edit it please register an account. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested to Enigmaman that he creates an unprotected sub-page of his talk page so that unregistered and new editor are able to contact him. I've also informed the IP of the {{editsemiprotected}} template and how to use it. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't even know there was such a template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The semi-protection experience for unregistered (or non-autoconfirmed) users could be improved. Co-incidentally, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Make_it_easier_to_submit_edit_requests. In addition, I think MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext could be made substantially clearer and friendlier by reorganising it. We don't need to quite go MediaWiki:Welcomecreation, but it could definitely be more inviting. Rd232 ^talk 08:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the textbook example of why we need to have FlaggedRevisions installed for all BLPs ASAP. (X! · talk)  · @489  ·  10:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about the tedium of reverting vandalism, but does anyone have any solid proof that of all the IPs editing Wikipedia (the English language one), that most of them are vandals? I ask because I am getting this vibe of 'what's your problem? Register an account and be done with it' - one of the reasons some people flee the Project, or don't bother getting involved in the first place. My first 20 edits had two different, established editors calling me a vandal and threatened me with a block, despite the fact that none of my edits could even remotely be perceived as such. There is a definite - prejudice seems too strong - lack of good faith for IP edits. I'm just wondering if there are real numbers regarding constructive IP edits versus vandal IP edits.

Thanks for letting Enigmaman know about the issue with his usertalk page. Is there any way to check and make sure the rest of the admin populace doesn't have the same issue? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:HUMAN 80% of IP edits are good and aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but conversely 80% of all vandalism is done by IPs, so semi-protection, even permanent semi-protection, is a legitimate technique to help reduce vandalism, especially when it's targeted to specific pages shown by their history or by recent activity to be magnets for vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Someone did a review some time ago and got many of the semi-protected user talk pages unprotected. The vast majority of admins can be reached by any user. However, by dint of being the person who has the block/delete/protect button, some admins get a lot of abuse from people with a lot of time and a lot of proxies on their hands. My user talk page was not permanently semi-protected; rather, it was semi'd until hopefully the vandal whose ire I earned got tired of finding open proxies to use. I'm afraid that contacting me in this case will not change my mind. Until flagged revisions are implemented for BLPs, it is simply unreasonable for some pages to be open for all. There are millions of examples as to why they should not be. If you'd like, you can check the article's history to see what it was like before I semi-protected it. Finally, if you believe the article can be improved in some way, you can simply go to the article's talk page and use the aforementioned editsemiprotected template. Someone will review your proposed change within the day. Enigma^msg 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See WT:Protection Policy discussion its not clear that that is the consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

207, all we are trying to do is point out that there are advantages to registering an account. We can't force you to register and you are within your rights to remain an IP editor if you wish. Constructive editing is always welcome, wherever it comes from. By posting here, you've learned a bit more about Wikipedia, and will know how to deal with the situation the next time you come across it.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that edits by IPs do tend to get closer scrutiny by some editors. Although over 80% of IP edits are good edits, a high proportion of vandalism is also done by IP editors. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Enigmaman pointed to a study that indicated that most of the vandalism was done by IP addresses. I'd like to see a reference for that, if I may. And to be blunt, if you are an admin, you must make yourself accessible to any who would want to contact you - it is part of the job. If you don't agree to be such, you can always turn in your badge and tools. I know that comes across as a lot more harsh than I am intending it, but you shouldn't have the tools if you aren't prepared to accept the weight of them.

I am unclear as to this "flagged revisions" suggestion, so I am unsure of its weight as an argument against setting a time limit on protection of articles. Understand I am not saying that we should never have protection; I am stating it should not be indefinite. This is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit, not just the registered accounts. If there is something in the Foundation material that explicitly states this, please point it out to me.

Practicality does not and should not trump our guiding principles. Either the encyclopedia is for everyone to edit, or it isn't (and we are excluding vandals of course). And the edit-protected template being utilized in an indef protected article is like asking mommy for a cookie; no matter how reasoned the arguments, Mommy decides if you are going to get that cookie.

Articles are created (within the scope of our policies and guidelines) by consensus. Filtering any changes through an admin who has an apparent view of the article in question seems to run contrary to that foundational principle. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as that last sentence is concerned, I think you may be confusing semi-protection with full-protection (which in the latter nobody but sysops can edit a page). With that being said, the practice is that editing is a privilege and not necessarily an inherent right. If abused, that ability can and should be taken away (hence our protection and blocking policies). I hate to be hardline (and I hope you don't take offense), but if an article you wanted to work on was protected from editing because of vandals or spammers, you have them to blame for the protection because they were the ones responsible for having editing privileges on a certain page taken away.

With that said, I'd personally like to see more reviews on those articles that have been semi-protected, especially those that have been the longest (i.e. those ones protected indefinitely) and see if protection is still needed. This can be particularly important now, as we have more tools that deal with certain vandalism patterns such as the edit filter, more CheckUsers than what we used to have, vandalism-tracking bots (for both on-wiki and on IRC). Just as with indefinitely-blocked users, the same (perfectly-natural) mentality of "lock, throw away the key, and forget about it" applies to indefinite protections. –MuZemike 22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientizzle is too biased

Resolved

 – Trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look the History of Younus AlGohar & MFI related articles, it will be revealed that Disputed articles that Administrator Scientizzle is too biased as he is clearly supporting Younus AlGohar & MFI as he is not listening to other party and keep on blocking the other side and encourage one party to go ahead and do anything as a result they are using wikipedia for advertisement. Kindly do something to stop Administrator Scientizzle as soon as possible.--119.160.39.120 (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked. I see some serious disruption from sock puppets. Also, what looks to be a lot of confusion about WP:SELFPUB and WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of Scientizzle, any bias you may be seeing in his behavior is not as clear to me as it is to you. In fact, having waded through several talk pages, I'm inclined to congratulate him for being willing to involve himself in that mess. If you have persistent concerns, I would recommend being specific and supplying diffs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:PETARD case to me. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there some blocked/banned user who also used the Scientist moniker? It isn't unheard of that some malicious yet stupidly arrogant fool would create various accounts using the same theme. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, meet the newest IP sock of Iamsaa (talk · contribs)...excuse me while I go block it. — Scientizzle 19:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you suggesting that I am a sock of a blocked user? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm...no. That would be 119.160.39.120 (talk · contribs), the original poster. I have no reason to suspect that you are. Should I? — Scientizzle 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, No; I haven't the time to sock. Your comment came riding in on the coattails of mine. It seemed you were accusing me of being a sock. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Too biased" - love it. Orderinchaos 04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I prefer to think of myself as having the optimum level of bias. ;) — Scientizzle 13:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review requested

Moved to WP:ANI#Block review requested for Kurfurst -- PBS (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock-l list could use additional help

The unblock-l mailing list, which is one of the places to which we refer blocked users to appeal their blocks, could use a couple more administrators to respond to requests.

Typical e-mails that come into the list include the following:

• Users who have been blocked for whatever reason, and have chosen to e-mail the list instead of posting an unblock request on-wiki.
• Users whose on-wiki unblock request has been denied and would like further review.
• Users whose talkpage editing has been disabled and are seeking review through the mailing list as an alternative.
• Users and would-be new users who are caught in rangeblocks and need accounts created or exempted.
• Users who have been ArbCom or community-banned and need to be advised of the correct procedures to be followed to appeal their bans (if any appeals remain open to them).

The requesters span the gamut from good-faith users who made a mistake, to bewildered would-be users, to out-and-out trolls, and it probably takes a good degree of patience for an administrator to self-select for this particular activity. The work of the admins who spent significant time working on unblock requests (both on the list and on-wiki) is appreciated, and as indicated, we could use a few more of them. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keepscases erroneously blocked indefinitely

Resolved

 – User blocked in error, now unblocked. –xeno^talk 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keepscases (talk · contribs) just got indefinitely blocked a few hours ago, due to an investigation on Meta which showed that he was a sock of various other users, grouped together as TownDown. I remember reading a discussion somewhere (I have no idea where) in which Keepscases and a third party happened to mention that there is another Keepscases on commons who is not the same person as the Keepscases here, and the account is not unified according to VasilievVV's SUL utilities page. I don't know where to go to bring this to wider attention, so I come here, even at the risk of looking like a fool if it turns out Keepscases was socking all along. I think it deserves at least a second look both here and on meta. —Soap— 01:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a local checkuser look into this. Wouldn't Keepscases have been picked up in one of our sweeps? –xeno^talk 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked the stewards to take another look at it. The blocking steward responded that Keepscases on enwiki is the same one who has been socking on the other wikis. Don't think there is anything more to do here. NW (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Apparently I didn't have all the facts; investigation still ongoing, I believe. NW (Talk) 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting, then. The Keepscases on commons was very knowledgeable, and skillful in images, while, the other one here is a Wikignome, and is an active RfA participant. He had also stated that he "was not the same person I'd been consulting with on Commons", and asked me if I thought that the sockmaster was trying to impersonate him. (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingoomieiii) I think there's more to this. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should he upload a camera photo so that he can distance himself? I've searched through the commons user's contributions, and he hasn't uploaded a photo (of the latest 500 edits) but he might have uploaded a photo of his own. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, our Keepscases (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to the Meta and elsewhere one, far as can be seen. I just had an extensive discussion with the Meta checkusers and the data simply doesn't line up, and we repeatedly checked through it. Per agreement with them, I'm going for unblock on technical evidence - Alison ^❤ 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all your help. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only person stupid enough to be wondering to himself "What was so urgent about this that a steward needed to block Keepscases here anyway?"? It looks that way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No big deal, mistakes happen. Thanks all. Keepscases (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel really sorry for this mistake, I talked with Keepscases and I apologized, and I apologize for the error to the enwiki community. @lestaty ^discuţie 03:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Where was the discussion on en.wiki opting into global blocks of named user accounts? –xeno^talk 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet another case of incompetent, heavy-handed admining. There was no checkuser evidence for this, and if one looked at the talk page contributions of the banned user Towndown one found that he was either a (poor) speaker of English as a second language or someone who was language impaired. The Keepcases here is clearly either a native speaker or a very accomplished speaker of english as a second language. Five minutes of checking by a competent admin would have found grounds to seriously doubt the same user was behind both accounts and would have held off for CU confirmation. Par for the course around here.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly note the user was not blocked by an en.wiki administrator. –xeno^talk 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Tan | 39 13:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, an en.wiki user was blocked by someone who was clearly incompetent in this instance. What steps will be taken to prevent that from happening again?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that steps should be taken. However, I did find your rant amusing, given the lack of understanding behind it. Tan | 39 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that en.wiki ever agreed to have stewards place blocks on named users in non-emergency situations, so I would gather a specific WP:VPP confirming that we would prefer they hand these off to local checkusers to vet. –xeno^talk 13:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What did i fail to understand? Did someone with "admin powah" not wander in and block someone foolishly? What did i fail to understand? Honestly puzzled. Remember, for the unwashed masses our experience of admin actions like blocking are identical no matter who takes them, or who empowered to do so. Keepcases doesn't seem to much care, but as a basic governance question, this is something that should be addressed.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have much to do with governance on the English Wikipedia, but it has highlighted a grey area of jurisdiction upon which we should shed some light. lestaty made an unfortunate mistake, that was investigated an reversed promptly, for which he apologized, and the injured user has no grievances.

Now we can explore the deeper issue of whether we want stewards blocking named users here. That should take place at one of the pumps or perhaps WT:GlobalBlocking (though I as far as I understand this wasn't a global Block in the technical sense but it did originate at the m:global blocking venue) –xeno^talk 14:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No action on Move Page. Problems?

Resolved

 – Page moved, thanks to User:Graeme Bartlett --Taelus (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I created a new posting "User:AnnaSomerset/Laimes" that requires an Adminstrator to Move to make live. I thought I had asked for a move back on 9 Mar. but have seen or heard nothing since. Have I not followed the right procedure or made some other error to hide me beneath the radar? Any help, suggestions would be appreciated. AnnaSomerset (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it for you to Laimes deleting a redirect. This may need a hat note. Someone closed your requested move because they thought you could move it yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I closed the move, apologies for misinterpreting you, I had assumed you had requested the move as you wanted feedback/a viewing before it was moved into the mainspace, thus I recommended Articles for Creation. Sorry for any inconvenience, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)