Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Let me just mention that without Sandstein handling things, this rather important area appears to be somewhat understaffed at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised one bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this? (strange site-redirect)

Resolved

 – Typing error by OP, no action required. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this: http://survey.prizesgiveaway.com/enwiki/w/index.php?f=wikkipedia (Popped up when I manually typed wikipedia.org into my browser) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you mistyped, wikipedia.org should take you straight to the main site. Your computer may be infected with a virus or malware that's redirecting your browser to other URLs. Run MalwareBytes (malwarebytes.org - Make SURE that's the site you download from) and Antivirus (http://free.avg.com/gb-en/homepage or http://www.free-av.com/ are safe). Exxolon (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems the most likely explanation; I've had to deal with browser hijackers before, they can be really quite annoying. Another common one is for the hijacker to replace search engine hits (google, yahoo, ask, and whatever else), with its own advertisements. By the way, I would recommend trying to download any antivirus or malware applications from a different computer if possible, as it may well attempt to intercept URLs of known antiviruses. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

More likely it's just typosquatting. I just typed wikkipedia.org into a browser window and it took me to the prize givaway site. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't notice the "f=wikkipedia" in the url indicating the referrer ;) Yes, it must have been a typo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Definitely a typographic error, marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:M12390

The user User talk:M12390 has been repeatedly warned on his pages on issues concerning MQM, Altaf Hussein, and Imran Farooq. It seems he has an agenda he's POV-pushing. On the page I fould him on for a recently deceased person (Imran Farooq), 2 editors (one of which was me) have inserted content that is sourced (after a discussion with another fellow who considered it uncited, but we duly found sources) and he removes it saying it is "irrelevant." In addition to his bias he has gone and first WP:NPAed the other editor User talk:Saqib Qayyum#Why are you hell bent in highlighting the "Muhajir" background of Imran Farooq? and then at my own page User talk:Lihaas#A Lahori CANNOT be neutral about Karachi (which came AFTER i warned him about personal attacks).

I believe this is the right place to post the message, the help desk didnt answer my query on September 19.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

I think ANI might have been more appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Any unbiased researcher would soon learn that Lahoris in particular and many opinion-makers of cities on the GT Road (Peshawar -> Islamabad -> Lahore) for some reason cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Check this out. According to the Daily Mirror "Within minutes of the death of Dr Farooq - a leading member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement which means United National Movement - websites in Islamabad were awash with claims he had been assassinated or killed by his own bodyguard."

Where did these people find out about the details of the murder when the Scotland Yard has been scrambling to get clues?

Also, UK-based Punjabi supporters of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (based in Lahore) are writing all kinds of conspiracy theories against the MQM similar to this. This website is based in Rawalpindi, another city on the GT Road. M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is just users from opposite points of views, I have edited there and there has been ethnic labeling without clear supporting citations, user Lihass wants to categorize Farooq as an immigrant, Farooq was born in Pakistan and where I come from we don't do that, as in a person born in England is English, if his father was born in Pakistan and moved to England then his father was an immigrant...anyways, User:M12390 has got a bit heated about that, as I see it a word in his ear to keep cool and stay civil are all that is needed for the time being. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Off2riorob for your kind comments. I would definitely try to keep my cool. :) M12390 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, We had a civil discussion about the content and the cites showing where he was on the talk page.

As for M12390 his attacks both here and on both talk pages are WP:NPA by any stretch of the imagination. He has also had warning from many others in the past over all such articles. How many more warnings? The first time i did so he responded affirmatively, then went again and i wrote him (without a template), and he went right back to attacking and labeling.(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

Lihaas is a biased contributor. He has no business "warning" me. First, I accepted him as an unbiased contributor so I showed good faith. However, he rapidly became aggressive, started accusing me of whatever, and started threatening me. I absolutely have no problem with the neutral point of view. However, there are certain things that just cannot be neutralized. In those things we need to at least initially give the subject matter (especially if it is a human being with a vulnerable family ) some benefit of the doubt until a strong neutral point of view emerges with time. It is only human. Lihaas is biased to start off with, and the other person he mentions in his complain above is as bisaed as Lihaas is. Many Lahoris just cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Why is it? I don't know. I don't see many Karachiites going around commenting on Lahore-based anything. But some Lahoris make their business to poke around and malign Karachi-based people and entities. Something is up!!! M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Shutterbug

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Ban enacted. Courcelles 05:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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

See enclosed relevant evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 03:33, 2 June 2009 - Blocked 24 hours for violation of topic ban. 19:57, 17 May 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Wobblegenerator, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 18:12, 19 May 2010 - Shutterbug sockmaster account indef blocked, for sockpuppetry. 20:28, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:MrSimmonds, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 20:29, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:JessaRinaldi, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 22:57, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jbsweden9, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 01:59, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:AlexJohnTorres12, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:42, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jimgreensboro, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:44, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Mike Greenwood, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:45, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Monsignore, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:49, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Fairyday, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 20:25, 24 September 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Margaret's son, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 01:31, 29 May 2009 - Notice of WP:ARBSCI restrictions by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 03:31, 2 June 2009 - Block notice for violation of topic ban by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 17:06, 19 May 2010 - Indef block notice for sockpuppetry by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

1. The account is already subject to probation, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation.
2. The account is already topic-banned, and restricted to one account, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted.
3. After violating probation, violating the topic-ban, violating the restriction to one account, and violating site policy on sockpuppetry, the account has been indef blocked [1].

• Request this be changed from an indef block, to a ban.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support. As proposed, above. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that if it passes an official amendment is appended to the relevant cases to centralize the aftermath. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious. MER-C 07:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support; the user appears to only be interested in causing disruption, and making it a community ban protects the community when having to deal with any future sockpuppetry. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If he was hoping to be taken seriously, using ten different sockpuppets was not a smart move. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support User has proven that they refuse to follow the policies of Wikipedia and the restrictions that have been placed upon them on several occasions. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I thought it was done already. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Recurrent sockpuppeting can only be fixed by permaban. I am not familiar with the contribution of the user but the proposed decision does not look like controversial 203.202.234.226 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Etc. etc.; once this is over we can stop paying attention to him anymore. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is overdue. The user clearly does not intend to follow site policies.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OgreBot + Commons images

Please note: I am requesting to create a supervised automated bot to assist in the process of clearing the {{subst:ncd}} (i.e., commons) backlog. I am requesting approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot 2, and I wanted to get consensus here for it. Please feel free to comment here or there. Of course, I am going to be extremely careful with this bot, and any unforeseen issues will be printed out and I will have to fix them manually. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck to you! If it works, that would be fabulous. (bot clueless here, but, really, fabulous. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-working 404 Wikipedia link

Firstly I hope this is a place to bring attention to a non-working wikipedia article link.

I was searching for "Senkaku Islands" from google, and clicking on the wikipedia result gave me a "404 Not Found" error. Typing "senkaku islands" in Wikipedia's search box will throw up the same error. Similarly, clicking on "senkaku islands" on the disambigiuos Senkaku article page shows up the same 404 error. Same with this redirect page. In fact, the only way I can reach the article is to search for the less common Diaoyutai.

A check with the move logs show that the page has recently been subject with quite a number of moves, due to it being a result territorial disputes between China and Japan. (That was the reason why I was searching for the article originally, as I was looking for more background on the incident). The last discussion regarding the move resulted in a "no-move" agreement among the editors, but the prior moves may have somehow "broken" the way Wikipedia is linking to the article.

If I'm reporting this to the wrong board, hopefully someone can re-direct me to the right place to report this error. As this is a hot news topic at the moment, the article will be highly sought after and the bad link should be fixed as soon as possible. Thanks in advance!Zhanzhao (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, it works for me... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too; either you have a virus sending all links to external spam sites or something broke somewhere temporarily. The better venue for questions of this nature is WP:VPT, by the way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm thats odd, will hop over to WP:VPT to post the report, but can you guys test this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands? Thats the exact wikipedia URL for the Senkaku Islands article that I have problems getting into, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 06:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No issues whatsoever with that link on my end. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Brett Jon Salisbury

this may not be the correct place to bring this, please forgive me if so. i am having a discussion with a user at this deletion talk page. it appears this IP, the main editor and possibly author of the article, may be borrowing other users accounts (notice two seperate posts signed by two different usernames, posted in the same edit by the IP editor). cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

upon further inspection, the author of the aritcle is obviously the same person as this IP. IP is now impersonating other users in the discussion in an attempt to influence me. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the other users involved in the discussion on the AfD, the intent of the IP user does not seem malicious. However, the IP/User (apparently having technical difficulty figuring out logins, signing posts, etc) could definitely use a clue. Actually, probably more than one.... In addition to technical issues, their style of arguing makes them very difficult to work with. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

External link w/brackets?

I'm not completely sure this is the right place to post this, but I've been having trouble putting a link into the article The Sibley Guide to Birds. I'm using the cite journal template in a reference, but the link is broken up when I save the page because the url has brackets in it. I can't use a link shortener because those are all blacklisted. The url is http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113[0255:OL]2.0.CO;2

Can anyone help? —out^offocus 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It should work if you change the brackets to %5B and %5D, respectively. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113%5B0255:OL%5D2.0.CO;2 ... Testing link --B (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —out^offocus 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the "right" place, btw. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain and User:BilCat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

A while back I saw that Association football articles were referenced simply as "football", but American football articles were called American football. This didn't make sense, so for awhile I changed Association football articles from "football" to Association football to help avoid POV bias between the two codes. I went to Manchester United with this and another editor said to me, "No, it's an WP:ENGVAR issue, since in Manchester, people call Association football simply as football."

That's fine with me, as long as there isn't a POV, so I figured "Ok, i'll fix the American football articles to put them in line with the Association football articles rather than the other way around." That's when the trouble started.

I opened up an RFC on the issue, and no consensus could be reached either for or against the ENGVAR option or the full code name option, so I went with the ENGVAR option and Cuchullain (talk · contribs) and BilCat (talk · contribs) (who participated in the RFC, but did not contribute any solutions to fixing the problem) started on a campaign to destroy all my attempts to help with the problem.

It's gotten to the point where They're talking about me on their talk page, and whenever I try to bring more people into the RFC or reopen it elsewhere to get a firm consensus for or against anything, they call it "forum shopping".

I'm not sure what to do, or where to place this, I can provide more diffs if needed (diff cataloging isn't my specialty, i'd have to look back), I just want to solve this problem (NPOV between the two codes) and move on. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I stopped editing American football articles 2 days ago to avoid you. As to discussing you on another user's talk page, I was asking his advice on taking you to ANI. He recommended against it. There's no issue left fo me to discuss here. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of what i'm talking about here. I wished I never would have to say this about another Wikipedian, because I see it as incivil, but I need to be honest: I don't want to be around these either of these two anymore, as they don't want to solve the issue, but I want to still solve the issue. If BilCat wants to give up on trying to find a compromise, that's fine, I can't stop him. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is now a parallel thread on ANI Rodhullandemu 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I moved it to WP:WQA a second ago as well. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The American football articles and soccer articles should use the same approach. There's no reason to have wikipedia pretend that soccer is the only "real" football in the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Internationally it's the most common usage of the term "football", though; American football, as the name implies, is generally only referred to as football within America. In any case this content discussion is irrelevant to AN. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire discussion is content-related, and should all be sent back to the article talk page. It seems like the soccer fans are trying to squelch dissent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:66.217.112.3

• 66.217.112.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also uses 66.217.112.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and perhaps other IPs) has been told repeatedly information from blogs, Twitter, IMDB and anything else that can be edited by anyone are not valid sources. This user keeps trying to introduce "fan speculation" into Law and Order: Criminal Intent and other Law and Order articles about show cancellations, new shows, etc. User has been warned repeatedly, but ignores warnings or is uncivil in return. Was warned 9/13, and stopped editing for until today, when he posted another "fan speculation" section, and cited a ref for another section that was unsupported in the Law & Order (franchise) article. Trista (user-Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about edit filters

Can admins see what an editor's attempted edits are when they are blocked by the edit filter? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can generally accomplish this by using the "examine" or "details" option from the Special:AbuseLog and relevant revision.   Thorncrag  01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Not very legible, is it?  :) But at least it's there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD's generally closed too soon

This is a general complain, not aimed at one editor, so I post it here. Many editors, especially many admins, close AfD discussions early (hours or even days early) without a good reason (real "Snow" or "Speedy" closures). I am not claiming that the outcome would have been any different if we had let the discussions run a bit longer, but the current standard of letting AfD's open for at least seven days was achieved after some fairly lengthy discussions. I noticed the problem with it when someone added a day too early to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and Mathbot automatically indicated that only 16 of the 78 discussions were still open, half a day before the full seven days would expire.[2]

Looking at the actual log for 8 September only, I see that the first one was closed some 16 hours early, the second, the third and the fourth nearly two days early (as were the sixth and the seventh and many others by the same closer), and also by other people this one and this one and this or this. Oh, and this or this. And this one, after 4 1/2 days. The vast majority of the 62 discussions already closed, where closed hours to days too soon.

I'll notify the three editorsd with the most early closures of this thread, but could everyone who closes AfD discussions please respect the minimum time of seven full days? Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any disputed AfD should run the full 7 days, but I'm not seeing how a closure "16 hours early" causes a problem. If some editor intends a thorough dissection or a heroic re-write, it seems inadvisable to wait until the last few hours. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I check things listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, so yeah, had not realized there was a problem with things being listed too early at that page. Someone should go ahead and fix that page for future reference. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, that doesn't seem to be the problem, since you lowed many pages from the log for the 8th, which isn't listed there yet. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, some of those may have been relisted already, and thus were at AFD for longer than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I only close from User:Excirial/Dashboard. I didn't realize that the listings included those earlier than they should be closed, although the nature of the list should have told me. (In fact on the top of the /old page it says "This page contains Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the deletion process") I'll watch the times as well as dates now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Boldly changed the text at the top of the page to reflect what it really is [3] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have revised this change to reflect the actual policy: that fthe page lists discussions within 24 hrs of closing, but only those that have been open 168 hours may be closed. It would be even better if we could rewrite it so it actually did list the ones that can be closed, the way WP:PROD indicates the expired prods. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, why are you all balming this incorrectly on the Afd/old page? This lists only pages where every single one has passed the seven day (168 hour) limit. It doesn't list discussions 23 hours early, it lists a day only when the most recent discussion is at least 168 hours old. I have reverted the incorrect changes to the text of the AfD/Old page. Please check such things before making such statements. Fram (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I regret to have to admit that some of the examples above are my closings. I should not have closed them when I did. The reason I did so is the pernicious effect of instruction creep, and the effect of seeing what everyone else does--in practice I seem to have been looking at areas on the page where most of the articles are already closed, and following their examples by closing others nearby. I've previous been trying to fight this, and protested rather vigorously to the individuals, but in view of the insistence of one or two of the regular closer who have refused to change their ways, I seem to have unconsciously decided to join them--some of this may have been the understandable but not really good motive of trying to get my share rather than be foreclosed in this area by those who refused to follow the rules designed to allow cooperation.

But I see nothing on the above list that needs to be reopened to prevent error, either mine or the others, but anyone is I think free to do so.

I suggest we enforce this strictly, unless a SNOW close is appropriate in special cases and can be justified. The justification of a SNOW is like IAR--no good faith editor who wants to object. There might be one other special case: a BLP where the continued discussion is harmful.

I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours.

I think we should clarify the relistings to indicate that a relisting must be for another 7 days. There are too many examples where one is closed after a single additional person has spoken. If we need to send out a message we need more time, it is simplest and fairest being for the same amount of time. If we already need to wait more than 7 days, no harm is done by another 7. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be ashamed of following the crowd and closing some AfDs early. At all. But what you describes certainly confirms what I have said before: If there is a rule not to close an AfDs early, but it is not followed, then it creates bias of a kind that I would prefer not to see: Admins who decide it's not all that important for themselves to follow the rules strictly have more influence on AfDs than those admins who insist on painstakingly sticking to the rules. Hans Adler 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I agree with the sentiment, but not your take on relistings. Relistings do not need to be for seven days, and in many cases should not be. If one additional !vote validates the outcome, then a close is appropriate. If discussion is ongoing and progress is being made, then yes, discussion should continue. A hard and fast rule on relistings is unneeded, in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. If someone really cared that much about an article, they should have commented in the first week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, the {{Proposed deletion}} template includes a hard-coded timestamp; when the proper amount of time has elapsed, the template itself changes the visible text to highlight that "This article may be deleted without further notice". We've used similar functions for templates associated with the Arbcom elections (changing pages to open voting at the correct moment, for example). Could the AFD template be amended to show how long the page has been in existence? If the AFD is created with the nomination, then a template could add a "Don't close me early" flag until the current time is precisely 7 days after the first timestamp. Even better, the {{afd2}} template is substituted, to format the debate. We add a timestamp to that, so that the nomination is timestamped. Then, the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, normally invisible, could display a notation under the title if the elapsed time is less than 7 days - or a different "This debate has been open 7 days, and may be closed shortly" notation once the elapsed time has gone past 7 days. Either way, we could retain the highly useful WP:AFD/OLD listings while avoiding early closures. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns voiced by many and have also noticed this problem. If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. As a partial solution, I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy to add the following to deletion policy: "Administrators may without discussion undo any closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed." Comments are welcome on the policy talk page. Additionally I support any templated timestamp solution as per Ultraexactzz's proposal.  Sandstein  20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I was waiting a week, but I wasn't. That needs to be cleared up, but the above proposal makes sense. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good solution, but it would be even better if admins had a place where they can find all AfDs that need closing, and only such AfDs. Then the problem would disappear automatically and we would prevent tensions from building up between admins. Hans Adler 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to make a template on an open AFD add the AFD to a category exactly seven days after the AFD has been started. Ucucha 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of using a category rather than a list. It seems appropriate for the purpose. Hans Adler 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the AFD2 template adds a timestamp, then REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD could add the category if CURRENTTIME=TIMESTAMP+7 days. We've already got the REMOVE template in place (it adds debates to CAT:AFD), so no need to add another invisible template that would need to be removed on closure. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

At first glance, this report has had the effect that the editors most responsible for these early closings have stooped this (thanks!), only to be replaced by others. These were closed after this discussion started, so... 14 hours early, 16 hours early, 13 hours early, 12 hours early (and many more by the same editor, who I'll notify), 5 hours early, 14 hours early, 14 hours early, 8 hours early, 8 hours early, and some more by this editor as well. Basically, this AN discussion has replaced the three editors most active in closing discussions early, with three other editors doing the same... Fram (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful and wait the full 7 days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(addition) Let's admit here: closing AfDs is fun. It's either like whack-a-mole when you have 10 delete !votes in a row, or more like sitting in the judge's seat with a controversial AfD; both are pretty amusing. A typical AfD cycle for a day's log goes: 25% are speedy closed, SNOW closed, withdrawn, or closed after 8-12 days (for relists) well before the 6 days. Next to go are the whack-a-moles, which comprise another 25%, in the first two hours. Slowly throughout the day some trickier AfDs get closed (again 25%). (This is where, admittedly, I do most of my work, after the moles have already been whacked by someone else.) 15% get relisted. Finally, the 10% is the nasty part that actually makes it into the -8 log: it's either annoying long or it has around five disparate !votes (the gray area where it's too many to relist and too few to call a consensus). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wade through the coding this afternoon, and (hopefully) have a template add-on that will timestamp the debate when it is opened, list it as "Scheduled to close at (TIMESTAMP+7 days)", then - once that time passes - list it as "This debate is eligible for closure". Once the debate is either A) no longer included in CAT:AFD or B) included in Category:Relisted Deletion Debates, it will remove the timestamp. Consensus, above, is certainly strong enough for a trial. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely a guilty party on this one, closing some that were at 6 days and X hours, rather than 7 days. As a general rule, I guess, we all need to know where we stand on UTC-- in my case, I'm 5 hours behind, so at 7:00 this evening my time, it's Saturday on Wikipedia. If I was in California, 4:01 pm local would be 0001 hours UTC. I pledge to be more careful about this. Mandsford 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the guilty list and considering that there are now several threads about this it's surprising that this wasn't bought up at my recent RFA. In my case it was because I was closing from the 7 day log. That's the log I do relists from and while there it only made sense to also close any clear unambiguous keeps. Later as I gained more experience I became more mindful of the time it was posted and not just what log it's on. However, I still think that administrators should be able to use their best judgment in such cases. If a debate is close and/or still receiving comments then it should be left to tick out the full 168 but does it make sense to leave "borderline snow" AFDs where everything that is going to be said has been said and nobody has posted anything in 3 days open just for the sake of process? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for timestamp on AFD2 template

I've gone ahead and coded a timestamp function for the {{afd2}} template - the code can be found at User:Ultraexactzz/Afdtimestamptest, and a sandbox example at User:Ultraexactzz/afd test. The afd2 template is the template that actually formats the deletion debate. The code will take the timestamp (+7 days) at the time the debate is formatted - this becomes the time of the nomination, and the +7 days sets the time after which the debate may be closed. It then compares the current time to that timestamp. If the current time is prior to that of the timestamp, a small notice gives the scheduled closure time (in the form "This debate is scheduled to end at 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC).") If the current time is after that timestamp, the notice becomes a standard-font bold "This debate has been open for 7 days, and may now be closed by an administrator.". I have not added categories, though this could be included as appropriate (and if there's consensus to create a Category for debates ready to be closed). I also am unsure how to remove the notice if Category:Relisted AfD debates is present; it might be that removing this parserfunction becomes a step in relisting, for now. The notice at WT:AFD points discussion to this page; should we make a request there as well, or just note that I'm calling the question? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Minus the by an administrator part :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea, but as for the implementation, I think {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} is a better place for it so that the "can be closed" note will be automatically removed after the debate is closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, generally. Maybe we do both; we use the AFD2 template to enter a parameter (the current timestamp +7 days) into the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template, and then have REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE call that parameter when deciding whether to show "Debate scheduled to close at" or "This debate may now be closed". This has the virtue of not requiring the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template to be substituted, since debates are shifted in category all the time - we get a lot of bad inputs or custom categories, which put the debates into "Not yet sorted", and then someone changes the template to reflect the correct category. For example. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The relisting script will have to update the template and either change the timestamp or a relist parameter or both. There is no parserfunction, AFAIK, that tells if a page is in a category. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that relisted debates are as much of a problem. To the best of my understanding, a relist means that at the time of relisting, there was no clear concensus; if there is a clear concensus 3 days later, I see no reason not to close it - it had its full 168 hours, and the result is clear. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cases of unanimous consensus

I am going to give an example, below, and pose a question:

1. Something was nominated to AFD.
2. It has no objections to deletion.
3. No one has done anything to demonstrate notability.
4. The AFD has unanimous comments from individuals, all who have commented, with, Delete.
5. Duration of the AFD since time of nomination is 6 days, 23 hours.

In such a case, is the discussion above, stating that admins are forbidden from ever closing such AFDs early, even under obvious WP:SNOW provisions, in unanimous cases? -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that an administrator should be able to use his best judgment in such cases. Both of us work off the 7 day "relistable" log and it does make some sense to go ahead and close the slam-dunk keeps and deletes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But here's the problem: 6 days 23 hours ... 6 days 22 hours .... 6 days 12 hours .... 6 days 1 hours.... 6 days 5 minutes.... This is one of the times when a clean cutoff rule is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the case of: 10 unanimous comments in favor of Delete, no objections to delete, no one commenting keep, no sources in the article, the article is a completely unreferenced BLP page, and it has been 6 days and 1 hours? -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins are forbidden from closing even such AFDs early by current policy ("at least seven days"). Slippery slope problems aside, that's because somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours. The only possible exceptions to the seven-day-rule are, AFAIK, WP:CSD or WP:IAR (that is, situations where following the seven-day rule would be positively harmful to Wikipedia or members of the public). This would include unsourced, potentially libelous BLPs, but not much else.  Sandstein  12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps my view on this is clouded by the fact that until recently, I could only close "keep" and only for slam-dunk (or nearly so) cases. Deletion is more permanent and harder to undo and it's more likely that someone may show up at the last minute with a source then then it is for an 11th hour damning rebuttal on a borderline snow keep. However, there are some clear cut cases in the delete department such as this one. (borderline G3) That probably could have been closed at day 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that closing AfD's a bit early is harmful. As Sandstein said, "somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours" - yet what if an editor provides sources after 7 days and 1 hour, once the article is deleted? Then the difference is the same. A well-reasoned keep !vote should have the same bearing on an article's inclusion no matter if the discussion is active or has been closed for 3 months. As long as closing administrators recognize this, deletion becomes much less permanent. I certainly don't think AfD's should be closed before 6 days (in order to allow discussion during every day of the week), but a flexible closing period after that time seems fine. A 168 (24×7) hour listing period is fairly arbitrary anyways - how long do they list AfD's on venus.wikipedia? :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have what you describe: a hard line minimum duration and a flexible closing period afterwards. The only difference ist that the hard line is currently set at seven days, as agreed per community discussion, and not at six days as you propose. The point of this thread is to get people to comply with the hard line minimum (which is of course arbitrary, but it has to be set somewhere).  Sandstein  06:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So I think the point of confusion (for me at least) is that, without careful examination of the current hardline duration, one might assume that AfD's can be closed on the seventh day, when in theory, they should be closed no earlier than the eighth. It's similar to how the 17th century spans from 1601-1700. Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing, for example, should be pointing to the discussions of one day earlier. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I've made that change. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Having an article that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria stay on Wikipedia for 23 additional hours is not much of a problem either. The advantage of having a non-arbitrary dead line is that it reduces uncertainty, confusion, and unnecessary discussions. (Some of the arguments in this discussion seem to assume that editors are checking their watchlists 24/7, yet many editors are active only once in a week or even less often.)  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As well as curtailing the time open for debate (we chose seven days specifically because access to Wikipedia is often on a weekly cycle, especially when weekends are taken into account), the rush to deletion also means that certain admins end up closing all the debates. That's partly why I gave up closing AfDs: other admins were 'cheating' by closing them early, and ignored my requests not to. Seven days should be a bright line (excepting CSD and blatant IAR issues), and those who breach it should be sanctioned. Fences&Windows 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, would you also consider WP:SNOW a blatant IAR case? For example, 4-5 days, 9 keeps with a strong basis in policy, maybe one other delete either not based on policy or with a good counter argument? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IAR should only be invoked when following the rule would be harmful to Wikipedia. In the case you describe, no harm would be done by waiting until the full seven days have elapsed to close the AfD, and so it should not be closed early.  Sandstein  14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR doesn't actually say it needs to "prevent harm", it simply says ignore rules which prevent you improving or maintaining wikipedia. And keeping an AfD open when there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it passing is a waste of the community's time; why not close it? The existence of WP:SNOW and the fact that many, many AfDs are closed as WP:SNOW seems to indicate that there is at least partial consensus that it is an appropriate interpretation of WP:IAR, and I don't think this is the correct venue to build consensus on whether or not WP:SNOW is an acceptable reason for closing AfDs early. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We can disagree with respect to SNOW/IAR cases, but there are many AfDs being closed early that do not fall into either category. These are the main problem here, I think.  Sandstein  15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree there; admins do have a certain degree of flexibility with WP:SNOW due to WP:IAR (there's always discussion with the admin / DRV if others disagree with an AfD, and further discussion is likely to be needed if WP:SNOW closes are to be challenged in general), but the discretion of the closing admin isn't infinite; withdrawn nominations with no support and WP:IAR should really be the only reasons to close early; as discussed above, the 7 day period is set at that for good reasons. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is room for some template magic, here, and that might help give the full 7 days, but this edit should fix most of the problem. Debates will now be listed at "In Closing" only after a full 7 days have elapsed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I thought I was the only one who used WP:CAFD; guess not! :) It may take a little while to get all of the AfD closers on the same page (pun not intended), but we can be lenient as far as sanctioning until then. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why even SNOW cases would need to be closed before the seven day mark. Even if there are a bunch of editors !voting keep and no editors !voting delete, I see no harm in leaving an AfD discussion for its full seven days. I understand that you can IAR even if you're not preventing harm (as Giftiger wunsch pointed out a few posts up), but what's the real point in this case? I suppose to avoid drawn-out discussion, but if an AfD is snowing, I feel like a lot of users wouldn't feel the need to even !vote... I personally am in favor of having a cut-and-dry policy for this, such as waiting 7 days in all cases. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – There is zero momentum for altering the topic ban at this time, and it is getting "snippy" from both sides. I am closing this to keep it from getting out of hand. --Jayron32 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I have an "indefinite topic ban" for what was believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. It has been almost three months now, wondering if this can now be lifted? --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the relevant discussion? → ROUX ₪ 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

General Sactions imposed on Obama Related topics and quite a lengthy history behind it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Based on a quick look, oppose lifting the topicban. → ROUX ₪ 21:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Block log has multiple Rigthwing conspiracy blocks. Ron Paul POV pushing at ANI, birther fun at ANI, and Climategate 3RR board posting with PA at 3RR noticeboard. I am convinced this Topic ban is for your own good. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not true, look at my block log for yourself. You only show your own bias.--Duchamps_comb MFA 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose...based partly on a quick look as well...but also because the request seems to indicate that the user still believes that they didn't do anything to deserve a restriction in the first place. --Onorem♠Dil 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to have discussed it (lately) with the administrator who imposed it. You should discuss the issue with NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) before bringing it here. It is at least conceivable that he may be willing to suggest some standard for good behavior after which he would be willing to rescind it or commute it to a finite period of time. As others have said, if you're not willing to recognize that what you did was wrong, there is no reason to remove the ban. --B (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets get the story straight, If you look at the log you will see (I have been treated unfairly in my opinion). [4]

There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given an indefinite.

The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist.

Time line of edits that lead to topic ban: My first eddit as of 00:04, 4 July. [5]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [6]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [7]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July. [8]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [9]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [10]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July. [11]

I stopped editing the article as of 01:37, 4 July; I was blocked as of 08:00, 4 July. So for 6.5 hrs. I had no activity, I walked away with consensus from the talk page to not add any of my information or refs. Is this not how wikipedia is supposed to work? I would also like to add I had no warnings of any kind from the blocking admin or anyone else. Since when do we give topic bans for 2RR?--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR is not the only thing you can do wrong at Wikipedia. The entirety of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines does not reduce to 3RR and nothing else, the fact that you keep returning to the lack of 3RR violation as proof of innocence in regards to your topic ban only reinforces to me the need to keep it in place. If you are genuinely interested in why you are topic banned, you should read WP:TE, and if you can explain how you will STOP doing the the things listed there, then you may have something. But claiming that you are not guilty of a violation you are not accused of isn't going to win any points. Try actually addressing the problem instead of redirecting. --Jayron32 05:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I am guilty of 2RR, pushing the flag pole, poor sourcing with worldnetdaily.com, and possibly below average writing skills. I many times edit in political places where it makes me enemies. I have learned to use a 1RR personal policy to keep from being so combative. However if you look at my argument how others who were topic banned from Obama, it is clear I have done nothing even close to the others who received an "indefinite topic ban". So I am asking the ban be lifted with time served 3MO. --Please explain to me how no prior topic block, no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given, is this how topic bans work? Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence dissenting voices?--Duchamps_comb MFA 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You show a long term issue with pushing fringe view points on BLP pages, Violating WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP not to mention as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please review WP:AGF as well as the statement "Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence dissenting voices?" seems to characterize it in WP:BATTLEGROUND. You shown a troubling and disruptive pattern thus a topic ban was administered. Again discussion with NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) is your best option at his point as he made the ban rather than coming here behind his backThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted on his talk page this morning [12] thank you for the good faith. Ok, I miss spoke I should have said,"Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence users who add material that is counter/objectable to other users and their POV?" Or something like that. Again thanks for trying to stereotype me and my actions and misrepresenting them.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any evidence that Duchamps comb can be a constructive contributor in this topic area, or indeed any controversial topic area. "I haven't been as bad as other people" is a singularly terrible rationale to appeal a topic ban; if there are other editors who edit like he did, I would ban them as well. NW (Talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already said I see/know what I did wrong, admitting fault. As well said I would stick to a strict 1RR policy in the future on Obama related articles, what more do you want from me? It may be a "singularly terrible rationale" but I am seeking fairness, to treat one user more harshly than others seems to signify to me the actions of the admin MAY have been too severe or politically motivated. If I am wrong please explain to me how no prior topic block on Obama pages (or any other), no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given, is proper wiki admin procedure...--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can claim that you are admitting fault if you keep claiming that you're only being topic banned to silence your POV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not exactly what I'm saying, it is more complicated than that. I do believe I have admitted where I have went wrong, and how I might edit Obama related articles in the future with 1RR. I have respected the Ban for almost 90 days now. However I do feel compared to other editors who were banned form the same topic I was judged more harshly.

I bring up the second point as I feel admins have too much power in topic banning, as well it is easy to email an uninvolved admin/buddy to issue a ban on a user who's political views you disagree with. Here is one example with user Hkwon who was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Administrator_Fut.Perf..27s_self-issued_topic_ban_to_User:Hkwon According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. So, Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion? Abuse of power can happen, and what better way to silence minority voices than topic banns. [13]--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground, you continue to talk about there be conspiracy to silence based on the actions of a Admin who is not Nuclear Warfare. You have been involved in three seperate incidents Birther, Climategate, and pushing a Ron Paul POV. Those are three separate topics where admin Intervention was required to sort things out. Several Admins have agreed with his evaluation; neither is this about your POV. We have Admins from every Political, religious, Scientific, and Ethnic Background and every level of commitment to those ideologies on the spectrum. Their only common threads are:

• Respect for the Project
• have a degree of Trust from members of the community
• agree with the five pillars of policies

Don't tell me that anyone here is trying to Silence you because some of these people like myself are very close to your ideiology. The difference being they just know how to be civil and respectful of others which you seem to have trouble with. Thus a topic ban was correctly applied. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You continue to project on to me your feelings and incorrect misconceptions of my opinions and misrepresent my block log yet again. Somewhat unfairly bring up things from over three years ago. First off I have never used the word conspiracy. Nor have I said Nuclear Warfare was trying to silence me. Only that I FEEL I was dealt with more harshly than others. I simply used the illustration of the topic banning on Korean cuisine/dog meat to illustrate a point that topic banning could be used inappropriately, which you totally missed. You continue to insert the straw man. How about answering this question, explain to me how with no prior topic block (of any kind), no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given to me, and my "birther incident" contained no uncivil comments or even 3RR after Ihad walked away for almost 7hrs deserved an indefinite topic ban?--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You hadn't walked away. You were blocked for a week, and coming across your contributions, I felt that you had not been a constructive presence on these articles for a long time, if ever. Had I come across other editors with the same behavior as you (as I don't watchlist articles in that topic area, such a thing is unlikely unless I happen to run across it), I would do the same thing. Period, end of story. NW (Talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom has specifically granted admins greater power to enact blocks and bans in certain highly controversial areas, one of which is Obama-related articles. Second, your insinuations of people abusing their authority to enact PoV-pushing does nothing to encourage me that you've learned, so I have to Oppose lifting restrictions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Brother I wish it wasn't so [14] but usualy it is mob rule, birds of a feather stick together.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This should be closed. This is not getting anyone anywhere. Duchamps needs to abide by the bans or find somewhere else to play. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have abided by the topic ban now for almost 90 days, however the admin has not issued a term or time limit, perhaps he will, so I will not have to come back ever so often to hear others who only want to lynch me for past behavior, and not look to my positive contributions or assume an ounce of good faith about me...--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The time limit is indefinite. This means that it has no set end. When you can demonstrate that you understand, at a bare minimum, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, the community may decide that your topicban is no longer needed. Your comments here have indicated that you do not understand why you have been topicbanned, and see it merely as 'silencing of minority opinion,' instead of what it really is: preventing someone from inserting unsourced fringe conspiracy theory (and frankly, racist; were Obama fully Caucasian we would not be seeing any of this nonsense) garbage. → ROUX ₪ 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Roux, you have just totally crossed the line sir! Uncivil is an understatement, calling me a RACIST (you do not know what race I am, or what race I am married to). Then to add insult you call my efforts are garbage, conspiracy theory, and fringe.--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Absolute Abuse by an Senior ADMIN (User:Varlaam) - Requires Severe Action

Resolved

 – Varlaam is not an admin, and had already been appropriately blocked for the interaction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Being a Senior ADMIN, (User:Varlaam) should have been a role model to others in assuming good faith. But he is involved in severe verbal abuse with User:YellowMonkey at Yellow Monkey's Talk Page. Following are the extremely abusing words he has used againg Yellow Monkey:

Where the hell were you when me and Dewaine turned it into a bloody table, eh?

Have you read the talk page yet? When were you in Vietnam?

Varlaam (talk) 11:10 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)

I am not a fucking American, and I used to live in Australia.

Where were you during the Vietnam War, eh? I found the first ever half-Vietnamese war film yesterday, put it in the table, and now you are fucking busting my balls over it, asshole.

Varlaam (talk) 11:19 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)

Try doing some actual work some time. Varlaam (talk) 11:20 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)

Try looking at the version of the page from earlier this month after Erik deleted the entire bloody list. Did you happen to notice that, eh? Varlaam (talk) 11:23 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)'

I request severe action against User:Varlaam to stop him from acting like this to other fellow Wikipedians. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 06:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Varlaam isn't an administrator.
2. He was blocked for the above personal attacks half an hour before you posted the above.

I'm not sure there's anything left to do. --Jayron32 06:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:Varlaam has been blocked, and is not in fact an admin here. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for de info. Just had a look at his talk page. 1 week block is too less for such a big abuse. Moreover this not the first he is warned / blocked. Also he defies by saying that he wont worry about the punishment. Then block him to not worry indefinitely . ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 06:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A block is not a punishment. If he acts unruly again, he can be blocked again. --Jayron32 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, indefinite does not mean "forever", it means "without limit of time", which is not the same thing. Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban proposal

Per RfC input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010), I am proposing on behalf of the multiple editors in good standing commenting at the RfC that the following topic ban be enacted:

"Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) is prohibited from using any community input process for proposing the removal or curtailment of display of any public-domain Rorschach Test images, broadly construed, until September 25th, 2011." Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I believe that there is community consensus for an indefinite topic ban for Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) on the subject of Rorschach Test images. Danglingdiagnosis is henceforth prohibited from adding, removing, or altering in any way the display of images depicting the Rorschach Test and from initiating or participating in any community input process to achieve this end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Process Discussion

• ps, Jclemens, you should have notified Danglingdiagnosis. I have done so. It might also be a good idea, in the interest of fairness, to notify everyone who commented at the RfC.→ ROUX ₪ 06:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, good catch. I do tend to rely on others' use of watchlists on topics and pages in which they have an expressed interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• As far as why the duration I proposed wasn't longer, it is true that consensus can change, and I'm really hesitant to propose an indefinite prohibition on any user bringing up a topic in good faith. In formulating the restrictions proposed here, I tried to balance the disruptiveness of repeated, essentially unchanged requests for removal vs. the WP:CCC principle. If the community, as judged by the uninvolved administrator who ends up closing this proposal, believes that a longer topic ban is appropriate, I would not oppose it. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • When/if it changes, either someone else will bring it up or the user can appeal the ban; if consensus changed then they should have no problem getting the ban lifted. T. Canens (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The most important two words there, Jclemens, are 'good faith.' Danglingdiagnosis neither brought the proposal in good faith, nor argued in good faith. Instead, he repeatedly evaded answering direct questions, preferring to use rhetorical tricks (such as somehow defining 'censorship' as 'releasing information') to try his case. He proved in this instance, and in the previous one that he is immune to actual logic or comprehension of policy, and is the poster child for WP:IDHT. → ROUX ₪ 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell DD absolutely acted in good faith here, working toward improvement of the article. He didn't seem completely bound to the notion of removing images as others above have claimed, and when the RfC was submitted for him, he was still in process of dialog with other editors, asking for opinions on what an RfC to improve the article might contain. Those aren't the actions of the closed-minded ideologue he's presented as. Roux above brings up IDHT, but in the end they were DD's arguments that weren't being heard, as evidenced by the total lack of interest in discussing them. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (sorry, ROUX, I editconflicted with you when trying to edit my statement)
  • Exactly as he did last time, he was attempting an end-run around the consensus on the talkpage of the article. Last time he pretended it was under the umbrella of 'involuntary health consequences,' citing also concerns about photosensitive epilepsy--which he then proceeded to blithely ignore in order to focus on his pet peeve. Doing so very deliberately and specifically was an attempt to bypass the extant consensus at the talkpage of the article in question. That is not acting in good faith. This time he tried to gain exactly the same result, via a different set of rhetorical tricks. He was seriously attempting to argue that releasing information is censorship, while preventing such release is not. That is not acting in good faith. You say he was engaging in dialogue to find out what such an RfC should contain? Sure he was. And quite deliberately ignoring everyone saying "There is no need to bring this, consensus has not changed here." DD's--and yours, I might add--intense focus on not listening to anything that disagrees with you is also not acting in good faith. → ROUX ₪ 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Again: DD did not submit this RfC. People were saying there was no need to bring this... so fine: he didn't. He was working to see if there was a compromise that could be reached, trying to find something that COULD be brought to find a new and better consensus. Maybe he would have brought the RfC anyway, but so far he was just working on it as a possible thing to "bring" if consensus supported it. Note that even after it was an active RfC he was having dialog with Xeno (IIRC) to improve the questions. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And again--you seem to be missing the salient point here--the consensus has been crystal clear for years now: the images stay. Period. End of story. He was told this the last time he tried to do this, and was told then that he was trying to sidestep consensus. The exact same thing happened here. And that is why he is going to be topicbanned, whatever the length of time may be, from doing it again. He has shown that he is unable to accept that what he wants will simply not happen here, for a very wide variety of reasons, no matter what rhetorical tricks and ignoring dissent he tries. → ROUX ₪ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • And again, that's not the salient point since DD did not suggest removal and seemed open to consensus building that did not involve removal. So arguing that the consensus was against removal is completely irrelevant... yet repeated ad nauseam. You've topic banned a guy for saying things he did not say.Crcarlin (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Roux is completely correct. Consensus has been clear for ages; this latest RfC was nothing short of disruptive and trying to promote his own views, which are obviously against consensus. I see no evidence that he is trying to find a compromise given that there have been multiple discussion over this same topic before, and none of them have been in his favor. He keeps trying, and refuses to accept the final decisions made. This sort of stubbornness is detrimental to the project and is only annoying. An indefinite topic ban is the only thing that will stop this ridiculous behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have taken a look at the discussion and closed it accordingly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you acted too fast here. Danglingdiagnosis should have been given a chance to respond. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Buried history

Since last year, the archives for Talk:Rage Against the Machine have been moved to Talk:Rage Against the Machine 1. Being that's the talkpage of a nonexistent page, it has been deleted 6 times. Could an admin go through the deleted revisions and merge them with the correct archive page (Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 4) so we have a proper full archive? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I removed the text that Cluebot placed the other day onto the talk page. I think I corrected an issue that was having the bot place the text on the erroneous page so we shall see in a day or so what is up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I already fixed the problem, so ClueBot shouldn't add more. However, we need to dig stuff up from the deleted history. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Except, I'm not sure which threads are supposed to be where on the page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone needs to go through and add back in the stuff still. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bomb Iran

Resolved

 – done Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please move Bomb Iran (parody song) to Bomb Iran please? I'd do it myself but Bomb Iran is protected; the (parody song) suffix isn't needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Short term Admin mediation needed at Canton Viaduct

I would like an admin to review the edit history of Canton Viaduct over the last week. Every time I make an edit, User:Doncram reverts it. Given that there is prior history of bad faith interaction between us at other articles, I would like to prevent further escalation if possible. A short term, unofficial mediation would be helpful. I will notify Doncram that I have made this request. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Geesh, this would be unnecessary. But, well, if Blueboar is asking for it, that is evidence that something is necessary. Basically this regards my request to him at User talk:Blueboar#Canton Viaduct that he not come on too strong for a newish, focused editor. I was actually encouraged that Blueboar could hear what i had to say and did back off somewhat (relative to his pattern of prolific article and Talk page edits at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, one of the main places i have had interactions). This is being discussed, and there is a wp:BRD type process going on. It would be helpful perhaps to get some other editors comments at Blueboar's talk page, but i don't see this as ANI relevant. However if ANI action were to be taken, i would hope for it to be strong guidance to Blueboar to chill. I will post notice of this new ANI discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues, where other discussion of Blueboar's behavior has occurred, and has seemed to garner some help from other WikiProject Freemasonry editors in related edits. I don't have time for further discussion now but i will return later. There is no urgent problem with anything at the Canton Viaduct article, and there is no urgent other problem which can't be discussed slowly over some time instead. --doncram (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't accept that there is a history of bad faith interactions on my part with Blueboar, or at least that there is no unjustified bad faith if that is different. Since Blueboar focussed on some disambiguation pages such as Masonic Temple and others that i had developed, i have been forced to deal with him on topic after topic, and I have disagreed strenuously many times. I believe in all or almost all cases where a decision was then reached, my position was supported by consensus of editors, i.e. each of Blueboar's many related AFDs has been rejected. At some point Blueboar began claiming there is obviously bad faith because of all the disagreement, but that is misleading reasoning. I have at times expressed some well-justified exasperation. And, here we go again. --doncram (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, considering in your last revert, you removed a reference supporting Blueboar's contention while restoring unsourced text, I can see how BB might be getting a bit frustrated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time. Doncram, it seems as if you are happily willing to revert any and all edits I make to any article we both want to work on... (while strongly objecting if I revert one of your edits). It is frustrating. Instead of edit warring this time... I am asking for an admin to step in. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm in as an involved editor, not as an admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Huge backlog of images tagged for speedy deletion

Hi.

There is a huge backlog of files that need to speedy-deleted building up and requires administrators' attention. These files are listed in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no urgency in processing these files since it makes no real difference whether the files are deleted or not. It does give us a chance to review the files in question, so it shouldn't be rushed. There are a significant number which will want deleting from here and from Commons.

The only Commons-related backlog which may matter - and which we don't have any really solid processes to handle - are the name clashes: the cases where an image here has the same name as a different image on Commons. Some of these are in Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons, but only a very few since this category is populated by manual tagging.

Supposedly there is a toolserver query that will generate a listing of all images - here - but I certainly couldn't get that to work and in any case rerunning the query every time you want to look is a bad idea. We should probably have a periodic report generated onto a page here in enwp. Likely someone with half a clue could do that easily enough. Fabulous virtual prizes await! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This backlog has been around for forever. It's not urgent, but admins should try to clear out one subcategory when they have spare time. It takes about 10 minutes or less for me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on cutting down the undated category; I don't know if I'm making any progress, but it can't hurt. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... "It takes 10 minutes" and "I don't know if I'm making any progress" leave me confused. I wish I could help... Alas. Fleet Command (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it takes ten minutes to clear out a subcategory. It also takes ten minutes for a new subcategory to be populated :/ /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about a category here backlogged by months when a related Commons category is nearly 2.5 years behind, although I have been working on it. Rodhullandemu 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That I can help. I'll review three files per day until this category is depleted. You admins can help eliminate the aforementioned backlog without undertaking much pressure: Every day, each of you admins delete one file from one of those two categories. How's that? Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Files don't need deleting surely, just reviewing to check the bot did the move OK. Theoretically,anyone who wants to use the image in an article could just check that the info is all ok, there's nothing hinky, and remove the tag.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "files don't need deleting", it means that you've got the context wrong. Files in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons need speedy-deleting. If an administrator delete one of them each day, soon these categories will be depleted. In the mean time, I'll review three files in commons:Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review. Fleet Command (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you meant the admins to delete files out of the category that both you and Rodhull had been referring to, rather than the categories you started the thread about. I like your approach though - everyone does one or two regularly, rather than one poor sod thinking 'I've got to sit down for three weeks and do this...' I'll try to do a review whenever I log on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people

Hi all. The above database report contains a number of BLPs that could either be sourced or deleted through the BLP Prod process. It could use some attention; does anyone want to take a look and possibly consider watchlisting it? NW (Talk) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by the extremely small number of items currently on the list. Either we are patrolling and correcting or deleting very efficiently indeed, or we have successfully taught potential user to source BLP articles. From my own patrolling of CSD, I think the second is not the case. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the bot just does not manage to catch everything. Still, it's usually a couple of articles every day. NW (Talk) 01:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, most new article creations that belong in Category:Living people aren't created with it and don't immediately get it added, although they nearly always do get it eventually. If the report used the category as a base, this alone could result in missing articles. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Different in URL case result in different pages

Hello,

If anyone tries to access same URL but in different cases, they are redirected to different pages. Its not the ideal behavior.

On web, human do type web address manually (sometimes) but don't remember the case. In such scenario, they should rather be redirected to right page instead of making the distinction between the cases (upper/lower) used to type URL.

For verifying the same, try opening the URL given below and you will be redirected to entirely different pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComponentOne [Correct URL] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Componentone [Incorrect URL]

Hopefully, it will help you improve the site.

Ankur.nigam (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is case sensitive, because different articles on different subjects may be under different letter cases. Wikipedia has LOTS of articles, and we want our titles to be as precise as possible. In the future, if you have questions of a technical nature like this, the better place to ask would be at either Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Jayron32 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. But, given that Componentone was a very old deletion, I made a new redirect to solve this specific problem. Courcelles 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been left hanging, reinstating for a reasonable response

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) wants to add trivial, and he hopes defamatory, content to the Katie Couric BLP article. His attempts were reverted by several editors. In talk page discussion here, the vast majority of editors rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the NPOV Noticeboard here, where all but one editor also rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the WikiQuette Noticeboard here, where he was again informed that his proposed content was trivial, undue weight and tabloid-ish. Now he is dismissing the consensus input from numerous editors, calling them a "mob" (see this edit summary), and he has chosen to edit war instead. His comments in his edit summaries, (...I am not going to repeat the explanation. Find it.) and (Discussion is over, no one contested my last statement for over a MONTH.) indicate a reluctance to resolve the dispute through discussion. A bit of help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:Hearfourmewesique notified of ANI discussion involving him.

OK, let's put this in proportion:

• Trivial – this word is being flung around like monkey feces, with no actual solid proof to it.
• Defamatory – it's a video depicting Couric making fun of the Palin family, as reported by multiple reliable sources, not a picture of her breasts exposed in a third world tabloid.
• Vast majority – this article is a fan club; there is not a single entry that counters the constant appraisals of her character and work that this article entirely comprises of.
• Mob – it's wikilinked to WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, again with the fan club issue.
• Undue – we are talking about one sentence of somewhat negative reporting within an article that's entirely biased in Ms. Couric's favor and tenaciously guarded by the "mob" I was referring to earlier. This is a technique that seems to have been well developed on Wikipedia: get enough supporters and anything can be achieved under the pretense of consensus. Luckily, User:Drrll (the one in "all but one" that Xenophrenic mentioned) has enough common sense to understand my point, as opposed to any other editor that has been "swarmed" by the myriads of comments that were intended to flood mine and Drrll's.
• My comments – those are my two final comments after sweating bullets over extensive explanations of the validity of my point, being repeated over and over again until I got to that point (of simply instructing Xenophrenic to start listening to me, instead of exhausting me with these techniques). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is strong support on the talkpage that the content has no actual value in her life story, user Hearfourmewesique is not listening and has been replacing the addition anyway, this has resulted in the article being locked. There is a consensus against the user and he should listen to those voices and when the article is unlocked in a couple of days if he again readds it against consensus, that would imo be disruptive editing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A look through Hear4's contrib list indicates that when he veers into political articles he's trying to paint certain people a particular way, and his "fan club" comments above are par for the course when it comes to editors who want to violate the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and here we are with the politics: you find whatever you can to try and make me look bad at any cost. Your "look" can be summarized in Couric and Michael Moore, to the latter's article a concise and neutral paragraph being added, with multiple reliable sources, on an issue that wasn't covered before I added that paragraph. Unless you can prove that I want to violate BLP intentionally, I will interpret this as a personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So just what was the point of adding a lengthy blurb about how Michael Moore supposedly supports the idea of a mosque on Ground Zero? Do you think his article also reads like a "fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly??? Wow man, I though you'd be wiser than that, being a veteran here and all... read the sources, he's proudly "shouting it" on his website! Having said that and the issue being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, it should be in his bio. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, does the Moore article read like a fan club article? I don't think so. And like pundits such as O'Reilly and Hannity, he thrives on controversy. Meanwhile, your continued attempts to make a mountain out of the Couric-Palin molehill skew the matter. That video didn't come out until long after the election, and there is no end of people who made fun of Palin in public, at the time, so the fact that she did so, in private, is nothing unusual and is undue weight in the article. As far as a "personal attack"... well, I merely read what you wrote earlier, and as a "veteran", I saw that it fits the pattern of many, many editors I've seen here who complain when they aren't allowed to put their negative trivial stuff into an article - for example, as with the siege of the Palin article during the fall of 2008, which I helped to defend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your position that you can add anything you want that you can find a citation for it the problem you are having. We are writing the life stories of living people and we should use editorial judgment as regards what has value in their life that is worth adding, if you find yourself in a minority that the content you desire to add is worthwhile and noteworthy that is the time to start listening, not the time to suggest all the people that disagree with your position are members of the article subjects fan club. Off2riorob (talk)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Far more important in the grand scheme of things is that despite all the initial hype, Couric and CBS News have yet to make a dent in their ratings deficit - a fact which actually is stated in the article. I wonder if a "fan club" article would be likely to mention that fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "lengthy blurb" is a short four-sentenced paragraph (just finishing the Moore thought). As for Couric... this might seem trivial, but none of you are considering that it's an indication of her being biased against Palin, a fact which influenced the interviews, prompting Palin's supporters to see it as being from the most negative perspective ever. Declining ratings are nothing compared to that. Nowhere is Coric's personal agenda mentioned anywhere in the article. She's not a neutral reporter and this is a clear influence on her work, which is seen by millions of people on a daily basis. Is any of that mentioned in the article, even when supported by multiple sources? No. So... yes, it's a fan club that happens to mention poor Ms. Couric and the declining ratings she can't raise... sniff sniff and sad puppies.

P.S. Just for the record, I happen to agree with her on the Palin issue; I believe Palin is one of the most incompetent political candidates the US has seen in years. On the other hand, I'm not a TV reporter and I'm not influencing masses of people based on my wording. Again: all I want is for the article to be a bit more balanced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. If you don't understand that, or cannot understand how your editing has taken on that quality, you should not be editing the article at this time. Please consider this a final warning from an uninvolved administrator to cease and desist. NW (Talk) 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:GREATWRONGS is a specific instruction to "only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources". I have supplied seven, and Drrll supplied one more, making it eight. Final warning? It's the first time we interact, pal, chill out.

To BaseballBugs, per WP:OSE, the fact many others were making fun of Palin at the time doesn't make it OK and/or trivial for Couric to have done that as well. Besides, she didn't do it in private, she was reading the script at her stand, with the camera being aimed at her; she just thought the camera was turned off. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear what Palin had to say about Couric also, but that wouldn't mean it belongs in the Palin article. Also, a fact being verifiable is not a ticket to inclusion in an article, it's merely a minimum standard that must be met before it can be considered for inclusion, especially on a BLP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Hearfourmewesique actually believes he has some damning "gotcha" content here, as evidenced by his mistaken assertion that Couric "thought the camera was turned off". In fact, Couric asks and is told that they are filming during the first 24 seconds of that video footage, and she even does the customary 3.. 2.. 1.. sound-check countdown before launching into her read-through, which she promptly interrupts with the exclamation, "Where the hell do they get these names?" There is actually nothing defamatory about that video footage, and Couric wasn't "caught" doing anything other than learning for the first time about people with names like Trig and Track that live at the far fringe of our nation, eat mooseburgers, hunt caribou, and leave 90% of Americans scratching their collective heads and asking: WTF?

When, in an effort of compromise, I left the trivial content in the article, and expanded it a bit to describe just what Couric was making fun of, Hearfour reverted those edits, too. Apparently, too much information for the reader ruins the "we caught Katie doing something baaad" aura he was trying to push, and shows it as trivial. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountain-out-of-molehill stuff. A lot of Americans wondered the same thing. Maybe she could have asked a softer version of that question during the interview. Like the time Jay Leno asked Frank Zappa why he named his son "Dweezil". Frank's answer was, "Because I wanted to," and that was the end of that discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to reply to a point made by Hear.. It appears he is claiming that the incident shows Couric's bias and provides context for the infamous Palin interviews that came after. The sources do not support this -- they merely remark on the trivial details already mentioned. Anything more is from (unreliable) Palin supporters with a grudge. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're claiming that Palin supporters are unreliable – because they're Palin supporters? Why would they even bother getting upset unless something in Couric's portrayal of Palin wasn't all kosher? Have all Palin supporters unanimously decided to scapegoat Couric on an empty basis? Your logic has more holes in it than a bagel factory at 5 AM. Most of these sources point at the fact that the interviews followed shortly after the video was shot, and were seen by some as an extensive smear campaign. Yet I'm the one accused of a smear attempt because I'm stating what's covered by several press outlets... huh? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

post-ANI

Hearfourmewesique is now tagbombing the article: [15] and his edit summary shows a combative, battleground mentality. Can we take a definative action here, and stop this since he does not appear to wish to change his own behavior? --Jayron32 03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mentioning moving this from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640 to AN The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Hear: Yes, the pro-Palin, anti-Couric sentiment ("extensive smear campaign") appears to originate from right-wing blogs which are not reliable (especially for BLP). You say you're working for balance in the Couric article -- what other criticisms have you discussed on the talkpage and/or added to the article? Surely there is more substantial (and objective) press coverage of her journalistic credentials, for instance, when she took over the news anchor position. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(Remark: the following comment was made before PrBeacon added his reply above.) Call it what you wish. The article is biased and I'm sick of this game. I'm not trying to reinstate the YouTube issue, but the article is still written from a non-neutral perspective and the least of my rights is to tag it as such.

To PrBeacon: I would love to try and find whatever you want me to find, but fist I need to know that the consensus won't eat me alive, just like here or on the Michael Moore issue. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to exercise your rights. You seem to be taking this as a personal crusade, as though your personal rights are somehow what this is about. It isn't. This is about creating an encyclopedia. --Jayron32 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm uninvolved here. If there is any more edit warring on the article about either the "trivial" content or tagging, I will re-protect the article and block whoever is edit warring against consensus. I don't care which way the consensus goes; whoever edit wars against it will be blocked. Consider this the only warning to all parties involved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32 (talk · contribs) – comment on content, not on editors. I have no personal crusade, but I'm feeling like I'm being subjected to one. Show me the non-positive comments and/or reports in this article that would make it an actual encyclopedic entry. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? Could you parse that, cause I am not sure I understand your request? --Jayron32 05:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I wrote: show me where the balance is. All I see in that article is positive reviews, positive criticism and positive achievements and awards and whatever else is there to cover the positive outlook. Show me anything that counterbalances that. Oh well... judging by your later comments, you just want me blocked or out of the way, as long as the article is untouched. That's Wikipedia for ya. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed? How many fora does Hear4 have to hear from before he gets blocked for edit warring? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am of a similar mind. I recently reverted him (my sole interaction with him) so I'm out, but at this point he's running through WP:TE like it is a to-do list. I would not object if something were done. --Jayron32 05:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He was recently blocked after this thread started at ANI - (Archive 640) Content dispute has escalated... Upon his return, he copied it here with the new title you see above, "I've been left hanging, reinstating for a reasonable response" and tagged the Katie Couric article [16] [17] as POV -- which Jayron mentioned above (I inserted a break to show where it continued here at AN). -PrBeacon (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Review of rev-del requested

I've just gone on a rev-del spree. Faust (talk) changed username at one point: their old username was their real-life name. Recently off-wiki incidents have given them concern about real-life security and they asked me to take certain steps to remove the link between their real-life name and their current username. As a result I have revision deleted many edits to their talk page, to another editor's talkpage, and to another editor's talkpage archives.

Because this involved a user's security I felt it best to act first and ask for forgiveness later. Apologies. Obviously, if it's found that I've acted inappropriately I have no problem with my actions being reversed.

Anyway: revision deletions are available in my deletion logs: //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=TFOWR

For obvious reasons I'd prefer not to discuss certain aspects of this matter at AN, but I'm happy to discuss anything via email.

Thanks. TFOWR 09:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't edits like this oversightable if necessary? I have no complaints with these edits. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. My concern is the number of edits I've revision deleted - it was some time between the original edits being made and my revision deletion. That's meant that I've had to delete 10-20 edits in a row, in some cases. TFOWR 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant "no complaint with these deletions"; sorry for the confusion. I think you've done the best thing possible here. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't taken your comment as a complaint, but thanks for the clarification! TFOWR 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the rename log entry, which was probably the most obvious link between names. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, Fetchcomms. I had discussed that with Faust, but avoided mentioning it here (per WP:BEANS) until I had a clearer idea how acceptable this all was. I think at this point all of Faust's concerns have been addressed. TFOWR 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to block this account and deletion of the userpage

Resolved

Could you please block this account indefinitely without autoblock and delete my Userpage and my talkpage? Thanks in advance. -- Andreasweber (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has done it, so I guess it is too late to ask why. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask him on his talk page or email him, but I see no reason not to grant the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered this old Pre-SUL-Account and now i can forget about it since it's kind of deactivated. If it would have been possible to delete it entirely i would have done it. In dewiki it is kind of usual to request an account do be blocked in order to deactivate it. Thanks again. -- 85.176.135.99 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Wrong Version

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is reaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT levels. Admins are not going to act unless good faith efforts are made to civilly discuss this with other parties involved. There is no evidence that has been attempted. There is nothing more to do here. --Jayron32 05:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi all. I have done very constructive and time consuming edits to Pata Khazana, a page that lacked sources or references, was very biased, inaccurate and a disgrace to Wikipedia, but immediately these guys began reverting my edits completely. User:Sommerkom: [18] 169.232.246.46: [19], and User:Tajik: [20]. I requested page protection [21] and User:Airplaneman did it. I asked Airplaneman that he protected the wrong version but Airplane replied by telling me that he doesn't feel like helping me and the person who deleted my constructive edits was "lucky." [22] Can someone please help straighten this up. Thanks. Btw, the page was created in April 2009 and veyr few edits were made before me [23] and as soon as I fixed stuff in it all of a sudden the edit-war began. I thought this was very interesting to let you know.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the link's at WP:WRONG. Lagoo, please please discuss this with the people you disagree with. And you didn't notify anyone of this thread (you're supposed to; try {{subst:AN-notice}}). Airplaneman ✈ 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think people with such behaviour will listen, it's waste of time to discuss with them. It has been tried before by someone but they refused. See Talk:Pata Khazana. More importantly, I have nothing to discuss with anyone. My edits are fully sourced.--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, you haven't tried yourself. Please try it. Airplaneman ✈ 01:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to also read the WP:AGF guideline. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I provided complete books as sources but ALL my sources were totally removed. For example this book covers the entire article and it along with all the rest of the sources (especially an original copy of the manuscript in the native language Pata Khazan pdf) were totally removed when my edits were reverted. Now you have an article that has nothing cited. Even my linking of pages was reverted.--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is going to help you if you do not try to discuss it with the editors who disagree with you. Arguing about this is just a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So discuss it with the users. If you have nothing to discuss, you have nothing to add. Semi-protection would not have helped, as it only blocks IP addresses and users less than four days old and/or with less than ten edits (see WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and WP:SILVERLOCK for relevant info pages). Airplaneman ✈ 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is entirely and absolutely required that you at least make a good faith attempt to discuss this with them on the article talk page or their individual user talk pages. You have not done so. Please discuss on Talk:Pata Khanzana. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Don't bite the newcomers. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing here but just explaining that the wrong version is protected. I have no idea how to start a discussion over there. What should I say to them? Can you help me out please?--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As stated earlier, this will get you nowhere. Please go and talk (that's what a talk page is for). Airplaneman ✈ 01:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Say to them what you said where. Present evidence of why you think the info you added is OK, and do this civilly. It'd be a good idea to notify them on their talk pages about this discussion and the one you will start. Airplaneman ✈ 01:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socks?Confused user

1. RomDolce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last edit was 08:57, 2 September 2010
   
2. Kumpayada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first edit was 13:51, 22 August 2010
   
3. Kumpayada ! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not a registered username)
   
4. Kumpayada My User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not a registered username)
   
5. Society01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not a registered username)
   

• Hello to all Admins and Abusefilters! I've got a question to ask of you, when it comes to a potentially problematic user creating more than 1 account, what is your view like? Now, as I understand it from looking into the contribution history of the two main active accounts (1.RomDolce & 2.Kumpayada), the User:RomDolce claimed to have forgotten his password and so he created a new account (Kumpayada) but somehow later in his statement, he claimed (on the page of an unregistered account name User:Kumpayada !) to be able to login again as RomDolce. Also, most if not all of his edits are quite problematic given that his comprehension of English is not that good yet he claims to have a professional level of English. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are the multiple accounts being used abusively? You have said that the user publicly aknowledges the connection between them; what are the accounts doing, besides existing, that is the problem? Running multiple accounts is allowed, so long as the use of multiple accounts is not to avoid scrutiny or break rules. I'm not saying that something shouldn't be done, just that I'd need to see more evidence of abusive use of socks. --Jayron32 06:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me that 3, 4 & 5 are non-existent user (I've just speedied all three for CSD U2) but his edits are quite worrisome at times. Can someone please leave him a note to advice him to stop his nonsense of creating pages of non-existent users? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Kumpayada doesn't look like it is being used abusively, but RomDolce's edits are definitely problematic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Homer, I beg to differ because if you look carefully into Kumpayada's contribution history, you would noticed a similar trend developing now, same shit of not providing edit summary when called upon and not discussing with others when conducting controversial moves. Seems more to me that his behaviour is that of a little boy who does what he fancies here on WP than a mature adult trying to help or improve, correct me if I got it wrong. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"wikipedia aint that reliable so u shouldn't copy and paste from it" - ring any bells?

Just reverted a vandal edit which included the above phrase, and I'm sure I've seen it recently in vandalism by other editors too. Ring any bells with anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems more or less like relatively common vandalism from people who seek to discredit Wikipedia's reputation. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry

A question has arisen concerning the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt which, until some hours ago, was in the article Theodore Roosevelt. It's not precisely an admin matter, but it does concern what is and what isn't original research in respect to the coat of arms. I'd appreciate some eyes at the discussion, as well as suggestions about appropriate places to post a notice like this to get some more participation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I posted notices at WP:ORN and the talk page of Project Heraldry. Discussion should be centralized on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

 – WP:AIV clear for now GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a sizeable backlog at WP:AIV. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting caught up now. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism I've come across but don't know how to fix

The page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li_Kung-lin_001.jpg seems to have a vandalism issue, as it contains an attack on another user halfway down. Oh, and apparently it has an "expression error." I'm on Wikipedia so rarely that I doubt I'd derive much benefit from learning how to fix this (were it a normal page, I'd likely blunder about, clearing out the unwanted text or reverting the page to a previous edit or something), but I thought that this ought to be fixed, and so I hereby bring it to the attention of those who may be better capable of addressing this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.252.56 (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see either an expression error or an attack there? → ROUX ₪ 08:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. I also don't see any recent edits to the page, its Commons page, or any of the articles it's transcluded on. The only thing I can think of is that somewhere a template was vandalized and it's been fixed since then. —Soap— 12:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Might have been commons:Template:City, which was apparently vandalized and then protected. Ucucha 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

commons:Template:ISOyear too. I could still see the (particularly nasty) vandalism on a few pages before I purged them. Ucucha 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And it appears the revisions have been Revdeleted. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Closer needed at :Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll

Has been open over a month, and participation has tapered off so a close seems in order. I was a participant or I'd do it myself. Have fun! Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look, and decided to participate instead :) T. Canens (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unable to create talk page

I tried to add WikiProject Tags to Talk:Nguyễn_Thái_Dương and got an unauthorised message The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

Why? It seems that Nguyen Thai Duong was redirected to Nguyễn Thái Dương yesterday, but didn't/couldn't move/redirect the talk page. Can someone fix up the disconnect please. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I wonder how many false positives those title blacklist rules produce. Ucucha 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot platform

As some know I am developing a bot platform and I like to see if the project received wide support before continuing. d'oh! _talk 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is backed up

Resolved

 – No longer backlogged GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that bad now. There are 2 user reported, both of which are marked as {{uaa|b}} ( Not a blatant violation of the username policy.); there are 5 bot reported - 2 {{uaa|m}} ( Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear.); 1 {{uaa|b}} ( Not a blatant violation of the username policy.); one {{uaa|wait}} ( Wait until the user edits.) which appears to be a Star Wars reference; and one uncommented. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The backlog is pretty much clear now; I've moved the ones which suggest waiting until the user edits or worth keeping an eye on to the holding pen, and marked a couple as non-vios / removed a couple which others marked as non-vios. The only thing left are the two I've marked as non-vios, pending confirmation by a second opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Dilma Rousseff A clear example of admin abuse. --Ftsw (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you've posted to both WP:ANI and here? Shubinator (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Increase in the edit count? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasK - after he uploaded a possibly copyvio joke image of Obama. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barackobama.jpg. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Zarapastroso

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Ban enacted per WP:SNOW. Tiptoety ^talk 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm here to propose a full de jure ban on Zarapastroso (talk · contribs). This troll has been using socks and IPs to put the word "scruffy" over and over on dozens of pages, and now seems to be planning another attack. User:MuZemike has stated on his talk pages that the IP ranges concerned are too busy to softblock, let alone hardblock, so I'm proposing a de jure community ban to make it easier to immediately revert his edits without question. (example diff) Anyone agree? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. Clear intent to do nothing but cause disruption. The Thing // Talk // <font.color="#0A5">Contribs 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban as proposer. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Don't know if I really have a say but I support as the dude just wants to cause problems.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Obnoxious edits.--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban; additionally, don't take the uyser's word that the IP addresses can't be blocked - have a checkuser check this one out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban as being a victim of his trolling. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why don't you just ask him to stop? Do you think he will start vandalizing again? What is his motive? I use a BlackBerry and I was blocked because of this idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.22 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment the above user is probably Zarapastroso. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. And there's no factual basis to believe your accusation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.20 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Then create an account at home, then log in on your Blackberry. Also, please sign your posts. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I use Wikipedia on an account already, I just edit sometimes as an anon IP from my BlackBerry because I'm a nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.19 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: BlackBerries do not have their own special IP, they are a part of a range and their IPs jump. The so-called vandal could very well use any and all IP's in a certain range. I think my phone is in the same range area. Therefore, people who aren't causing problems appear to be a vandal and are thus affected by blocking a single IP from a cell phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.20 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's AGF here, folks. I happen to also agree with the IP, and I already mentioned this on my talk page here.

That aside, I direct people to this abuse report I filed the other night. Again, I'm a bit skeptical on the efficacy and success rates of abuse reports and cooperation with ISPs, but I have a feeling this person won't be stopped unless the ISP yanks the plug on him or the university he attends sanctions him for off-campus misconduct, assuming his school has such a policy. –MuZemike 18:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support to make it "official", although he's essentially banned already. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Do I supposedly know this moron from somewhere or was this just for kicks? HalfShadow 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I remember reverting a few of this user's trolling with scruffy. Derild4921☼ 02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm one of the users that this troll affected, and I think a ban would probably be the best thing to do in this case. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 02:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gavin.collins. Stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of policies

The conduct of Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is currently being discussed at RFC. The conduct issues alleged are "persistent, tenacious editing and other unhelpful discussion behavior in policy/guideline discussions about notability and other topics." Gavin has refused to respond to the RFC, citing the non-disclosure of the draft RFC before it was posted [24]. A read through the evidence on the RFC/U will give a fairly clear picture of the past history.

Unfortunately, the conduct which brought about the RFC has not improved, and I feel that it has gotten worse. Gavin has over the past weeks made several hundred edits to Wikipedia talk:Notability, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, where he has persisted in advocating views which are at odds with the community consensus, and refused to accept that community consensus is against him. Moreover, some of the positions he has advocated are so absurd and out of line with well-established practice, that I am questioning whether he is sincerely arguing for them in good faith, or whether this is an attempt to achieve a relatively more moderate position in an Overton window fashion.

Among the things he has advocated recently is that current policy prohibits editors from sourcing lists with multiple sources. Gavin goes further than this, he says that current policy prohibits editors from updating lists until the entirety of the updated list has been published elsewhere. For example, adding Barack Obama to List of United States presidents is a "bastardisation" of the list, and an act which "would be sackable offence in any accademic institution" [25]. Nobody has supported Gavin's view that current policy prohibits us from keeping lists updated, yet Gavin has insisted that "its policy" and that "there is strong evidence that it is supported" [26]. (Note that this is not "Policy ought to disallow..." but "Current policy disallows...". The former is disagreeing with policy, the latter is misrepresenting policy.)

It is difficult for other editors to back off from discussing with Gavin, because Gavin has a history of editing policies and guidelines to fit his view when the discussion has died down. See for example this edit to Wikipedia:Article titles in June.

I find that Gavin has violated a number of policies here:

• civility violations by openly mocking the people who hold different views than him on inclusion policies [27], and casting spurious aspersions of WP:MADEUP violations [28]. Comparing the update of a list with "plagiarism" and a "sackable offense" is also intimidatory and incivil.
• Gaming the system. At WP:GAME#Examples, I think #4, #5, #6, and #7 are especially relevant. Also, a editor who "resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." is explicitly listed as a sign of a disruptive editor.
• Failure to respect consensus.

The current situation has become intolerable. The two notability discussions have the potential to affect thousands of articles and need thorough, sincere, and open discussion. Instead, editors are being sidetracked into having to rebut the positions by Gavin, again and again and again. Several hours have been wasted on responding to each of Gavin's 200+ posts which more or less are a reiteration of his unyielding position which the community has rejected.

Gavin has previously been warned that his actions are disruptive, and that AN notification may become necessary [29], since that warning only yesterday, Gavin has made 16 more edits on WT:N continuing to insist on that point. Gavin's refusal to respond to the RFC and moderate his conduct has also led to discussion here where there is a general agreement that firmer measures need to be taken, the disagreement being whether it should go to ArbCom or here to AN. At this point binding intervention is needed to put an end to this, and I am sorry to say that that means sanctions. My opinion is that banning Gavin.collins from the Wikipedia and Wikipedia_talk namespaces is an appropriate course of action. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I must differ with the opinion expressed above. The community has not rejected Gavin Collins' position. A small segment of the community would like to circumvent fundamental Wikipedia sourcing policy. Doing so is deleterious to Wikipedia. Gavin Collins has correctly represented the primacy of sourcing requirements at Wikipedia. The small group of editors wishing to skirt fundamental policy are the problem. The loosening of sourcing requirements only allows for flabbier articles, turning Wikipedia more into a discussion forum than an information resource. Wikipedia's fundamental role is the compiling of sourced material—not the creating of new content. Gavin Collins has represented the conservative approach to what Wikipedia is, opposing the erosion of principles that the small group of editors arrayed against him represent. Bus stop (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin argued today that "a "List of 95 notable theses about X" taken from source 1 through to 95 [...] would be a made up list topic", which is not al atll what WP:MADEUP is about. Similarly, he claimed that an article like List of bus transit systems in the United States should be deleted "as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research", and continues that it violates WP:CONPOL and again WP:MADEUP. Such statements demonstrate an "understanding" of our policies that is so far removed from the general view of them, that it is indeed true that the community has rejected his views. Some of his points have been supported by some people, but even those (excepting, apparently, you) have stayed far from his more extreme statements. According to Gavin, we are not allowed to have a list of all winners of event X, based on a published list that goes e.g. four years back, combined with newspaper articles for the last three or four winners. This would be madeup, a bastardization, a homebrew, and so on and so forth: this would be subjective original research. If you believe that this is correct according to "fundamental sourcing policy", and that the majority of the editors would agree with you, then good luck to you, but you are wrong. Fram (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I replied to Gavin after I posted that warning, I didn't feel it correct to start this thread myself at that time. However, I totally agree that a namespace ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk is necessary. As the RfCs and his conduct since indicate, Gavin is unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that his point of view is a very clear minority viewpoint on anything, and he continues to beat a dead horse over and over again, to the exasperation of nearly everyone else involved, filling talk pages with endless pointless discussions. Having a minority viewpoint is not a problem. making suggestions based on them, and arguing for them, is also not a suggestion. Making virtually the same arguments over and over again, even when it has become abundantly clear that they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting adopted, is disruptive though. I think the current RfC says it all, really... Fram (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what is conservative about his statement "I agree that this section does not reflect the consensus of the RFC, but I disagree with the view that no one agrees with this viewpoint, for these ideas have only articulated in the last few days, and it will be a long time before they are even understood, let alone accepted or rejected.". Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to stress: those of us from Gavin's RFC are not seeking to have Gavin banned from WP-space because he has an incompatible viewpoint - everyone is free to have an opinion however extreme to the consensus is may be. This issue is strictly about Gavin's behavior and tactics of late, highly emphasized in this whole list/notability discussion. He's used these tactics before but in discussions on somewhat envelop-pushing ideas that weren't terribly far from consensus (read: reasonable ideas that may have been accepted under the right circumstances), as not to really call attention to this behavior (see the Kender mediation, for one). But now from several areas of late (climate change, article titles, and notability and lists), the more extreme and departed his ideas, albeit potentially good ones if we were a different type of work, are from consensus, the more and more his SOP of behavior is seen and how problematic it is.

Again: tl;dr: this is not because Gavin holds a contrary position; that would be censoring. This is because Gavin does not know how to consensus-build when his contrary position has been flatly rejected, to the determent of others due to time spent defusing that. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins has already been the subject of two previous RFCs and temp bans. Neither of these caused him to change his behavior significantly, only the pages that he edited and the Wikipedians that he fought with. Now there's a third RFC, which he has announced that he will ignore.

Having lost several disputes with others over the application of WP Rules and Guidlines he is now engaged in a war to change those rules. Once he's finally succeeded in winning by Stonewalling and Beating a Dead Horse he will then be able to go back and reopen those disputes using the version of the WP rules that he has personally rewritten. I believe this is an example of WP ownership, only instead of feeling ownership over any particular page/subject he seems to be applying this toward the whole of Wikipedia, or at the very least any page that he chooses to edit.

It is therefore my belief that a complete and long-term ban for Gavin.collins from the whole of Wikipedia is absolutely necessary. Since he refuses to be civil to his fellow Wikipedians and adhere to the rules then what other choice do we have? A topic ban simply won't work. He's shown many times already that he has no problems changing topics and continuing with the same behavior. Perhaps when his ban has expired he will decide to come back to Wikipedia and play nice with others. - Seanr451 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to hear about this from Gavin Collins: he is not planning to join this discussion[30]. Any specific questions (or remarks, encouragements, whatever) you have for him can probably best be posted directly to his talk page. Fram (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the contention that Gavin has been uncivil. He may have a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I find no evidence of incivility. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, in general - it's borderline incivility that wouldn't merit individual review and certainly alone would not merit any block. When added to the big picture, it is something Gavin should be aware of that, for example, sarcasm in the middle of a long protracted discussion due to his insistence is not helpful to building consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus that Gavin has been a disruptive editor but we need to be 100% clear that the problem is very specific. It's important to focus on WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT, WP:GAME (namely the "stonewalling" provision), and perhaps WP:OWN applied to policies and RFCs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is allowed to dissent. But when WP:CONSENSUS is the primary goal of any discussion, repeating the same dissent over and over becomes disruptive to Wikipedia. It causes good editors to burn out, withdraw from the process, and even exit Wikipedia in frustration. It also prevents policies from adapting to new circumstances, which means that long-standing problems prevail (at best. Sometimes they even get worse!) By no means am I saying that people should be forced to give into the majority like some kind of twisted thought police. But EVERY participant is obligated to show SOME kind of movement during a discussion for the sake of building a WP:consensus. An unwillingness to negotiate is troubling. But an unwillingness to negotiate, stated repeatedly and forcefully, does real and noticeable damage to the sense of community. What should we do? I think a topic ban would be extreme, but I would prefer it to nothing. I sincerely think that a warning from an uninvolved administrator could have a powerful effect. It would establish that the community does not condone his tactics. Once that is established, I'm willing to assume good faith that he will improve voluntarily, and we would have a warning on record if he does not. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this on the theory that since all the previous warnings, e.g., this one, have been so obviously successful that we should keep doing the same thing over and over?

Personally, at this stage -- after all these years, three RfCs, and a long string of individual complaints -- I think that that rational people should quit expecting voluntary improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the RfC by BOZ and I, Gavin tried twice to get a highly valued editor with over 100000 edits banned on AN/I for not following Gavin's twisted understanding of policy and consensus. He subsequently went into full-on IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode on his talk page when asked to stop his attacks on the unfortunate editor in question. He has driven numerous editors off this site, as noted on the RfC. He now refuses to participate here because the issues were not discussed with him on his talk page, on his terms. This is classic Gavin - my way or the highway. Enough already. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here you will find the ban proposal and subsequent discussion with multiple administrators on his talk page, as well as the second ban proposal a month later which resulted in that subheader on the above referenced talk page thread. BOZ (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say it's just gotten ridiculous. Taking a position that can be called consistent with consensus only as a joke in poor taste, then trying to use unflagging tendentiousness to ram it through at the policy level and thereby enact sweeping top-down changes to Wikipedia practice... once is too many times, and this editor is way past once. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think doing an end run around the RFC is a great idea. And as much as I hate to play this game, it took a hell of a lot more to talk about banning/topic-banning certain notable individuals on the other end of the spectrum than what Gavin has done. I'm generally of the opinion that Gavin has kinda worn bare his welcome on notability topics writ large, but that is a nuanced problem that needs a nuanced solution. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Protonk in this case. In Gavin's second RFC, I recall one of the concerns being "If we limit him this way, then he will just go somewhere else and become someone else's problem." And, well, that's exactly what happened. Banning him from notability discussions will just send the problem somewhere else, so like Protonk says we need a more nuanced solution. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk here too. Gavin has a very specific problem and is not beyond becoming a productive contributor, unlike some other editors. The situations calls for a more nuanced solution than a topic ban, and I think BOZ has come up with one that is fair and focused. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal 1

Given the level of disruption, I think that a topic ban is appropriate. Here's my current thinking on how to word it:

"Except for comments made on his user talk page, Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or discussing any page or section of a page related to notability), broadly construed, for one year. Gavin.collins is additionally prohibited from nominating any list or article for deletion through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process during that time."

This would stop the endless, time-wasting "discussions" at WT:N and other pages, and would prevent him from carrying on his campaign by filing a long string of spurious AFDs. What do you think? Do you think that this is enough to stop the disruption? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any claim that user:Gavin.collins has done anything wrong regarding WP:N. He does seem to be on some sort of bender on other pages, so why is this the preferred solution? Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Frankly, you should look harder. The barest tip of the iceberg on what he's done wrong at WP:N is edit warring on a policy page. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  What policy? WP:N is a guideline. If user:Gavin.collins is causing problems vis-a-vis Lists, why not topic ban him from Lists, broadly construed, and see if his behavior doesn't improve? Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  God. I looked at my comment after I wrote it, went, "oh, lovely, I referred to WP:N as a policy, not a guideline", and knew this was the sort of wikilawyering response I was going to get. Well done. Hey, turns out, edit warring on guidelines is not really spectacularly better than edit warring on policies! Whoda thunk it? Anyway, I suggest you look at the RFC; the current charlie-foxtrot in context of lists is far from the whole story. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Abductive, I'm not finding your name at WT:N, where Gavin has posted more than 1,100 comments over the past two years. I'm also not seeing any signs of your participation at WP:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, where Gavin has edited the main page 100+ times and the talk page 200+ times just in the last month or so. Could it be that you aren't seeing how disruptive this endless repetition of his demands that we re-write notability standards to meet his highly unusual standards, simply because you aren't watching the pages he's disrupting? Disruption that's off your personal radar screen is still disruption, I believe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Back on May 12, I discussed the notability of small settlements with user:Gavin.collins. I have also argued with him on WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI and here I'm trying to figure out what he is talking about at WT:Article titles. Abductive (reasoning) 07:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal 2

I disagree with most of the wording -- it's too loose in places, too restrictive in others. My preference would be:

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from topics relating to notability, broadly construed, including the notability of individual articles, for one year. Violations of this ban may be enforced by standard escalating blocks."

If he can come up with other valid reasons to delete articles, there's no reason to ban him from AfD nominations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I (really) like the simplicity, but I'm not sure I understand it. So if Gavin nominates an article at AfD and claims a reason other than notability, it's okay? For example, if he nominated just any of the 50,000+ "List of..." articles, and said that WP:NOT prohibited lists he didn't approve of, then that would be okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure the concept of "other valid reasons to delete articles" makes sense, given the definition of notability as what "determines whether a topic merits its own article". Given that, it seems like any participation in AfD whatsoever falls under "notability, broadly construed". —chaos5023 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the CSD criteria are safe, for example. "We formed this band and we're really cool" should not be grounds for blocking, for example. However, "Who cares if he's a 15-time winner of the X Award, it's just a genre fan award" would be under the above wording, in my opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense for it being fine for him to do speedy noms. Initiating or participating in an AfD, even if CSD criteria are involved, still seems like participating in something that's mainly about notability, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I prefer this.Second choice if the copyvio stuff is sorted out. It's simple so he can't lawyer his way around it. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weakest possible support: don't feel we need to use the "b" word yet. But I agree there's a problem and this action is preferable than watching the problem continue. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Hum ho. Whilst there's clearly an issue here, Gavin gets a ban whilst those who spam AfD discussions (which is clearly the cutting edge) are allowed to continue? *Sigh* Black Kite (t) (c) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I don't disagree, but isn't that kinda WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Spamming AfD is not okay, is disruption and should be stopped; this is a separate topic from Gavin's disruption. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I unfortunately agree with you Black Kite. I tried to propose something a little more lenient. Something that would be a model that we could use for other editors who have a similar problem. (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and should be treated the same.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would prefer that user:Gavin.collins get back to the useful work of nominating pages on non-notable topics, which he seems to have been neglecting lately. I find it remarkable that he is to be banned from AfDs when he is not accused of abusing that system. Perhaps he could be topic-banned from Lists for a while, but maybe the fear is that that would make him more effective. Abductive (reasoning) 18:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I do not believe this will be sufficient and that eventually a complete ban will be required. However, I readily admit that I cannot foresee the future and thus could be wrong. This proposal still allows for a block but only in response to his continued bad behavior, and does give him the option to voluntarily change said behavior. Seanr451 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Is Gavin a pain to deal with? Absolutely. Has he gotten entrenched in a dispute with people that refuse to acknowledge the triviality of their goals? Certainly. Was he right to request a block of AlbertHerring? Possibly ... the mass creation of stubs by bots is a horrible thing to do, and I'm amazed that the community tolerates it. Blocking Gavin basically gives the win to the people that are in the wrong, and I can't condone it.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We have to be clear: this is not if Gavin's interpretation (or anyone's interpretation) of policy is correct or not. It is sitting there pounding the floor expecting people to come to your stance when everyone else has agreed to move on with a completely different consensus, even when people try to reach out and get him involved. That is DEADHORSE and TE. I am very aware of a ban being seen as a form of censoring an unpopular viewpoint, which is why I'm not thrilled with this option either. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm just not certain that punishing tenacity is necessarily a good thing. I stay away from a lot of areas where Gavin charges in just because I'm older and can't take it any more. He tends to be spot on in analyzing the effect of policies and guidelines on articles, and his opponents generally don't bother to refute him: it's more a chant of "I don't like the effects of applying the guideline to my area of personal interest, so I'm going to act like it says something that it doesn't actually say". He doesn't move on to the purported "consensus" because he correctly recognizes that a consensus that defies policies and guidelines doesn't reflect project-wide consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree with Kww when tenacity is excessive it should be forcibly ended. Unfortunately in Wiki no response is the equivalent to agreement. This has the effect of never letting argument die as long as there is one oppose. No matter how overwhelming the consensus is ,bas soon as no one opposes they will claim that consensus has changed and make their changes. There comes a time to allow editors to walk away without fear of someone claiming a false consensus just because no one jumped up to force him back down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  I believe "tenacious" was accidentally used in some of the originating documents here when "tendentious" was meant. It's tendentiousness that's meant to be deterred, not tenacity. People refute Gavin effectively all the time; I have only seen him respond to this by a handwaved argument, possibly throwing around some debate or formal logic terms, amounting to a bald assertion of his own correctness, followed by continuing to reiterate the refuted point. This is certainly tendentious editing. (I think my favorite, though, was when he breezed past my own citing of long-standing Wikipedia practice by calling that practice excessively vicarious. There's an argument you don't hear in debate club every day.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I know the difference. I see Gavin as 95% tenacious, with the occasional lapse towards tendentiousness.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yea, yea, that's my fault :-P Anyway. I respect that Gavin is concerned with the problem of walled gardens and close groups of editors attempting to define consensus themselves - a concern that I agree is critical and certainly not an issue. The Kender mediation, in part, is a result of this. What is an issue is when the group of editors is a lot more diverse as at climate change, article titles, and the list RFC - very far from a walled garden group. Regardless of how "right" you believe you are, trying to continually push your point against a diverse agreement of consensus is purposely disruptive. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  There are better ways to deal with walled gardens too. It's a perfect chance for a wider RFC. Much more disruptive to insist you're right against 70-80% who say you're wrong. There's no right and wrong on Wikipedia. Only verifiability and consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Most of my interaction with Gavin was at WP:FICT. That "wider RFC" is probably one of the reasons that Gavin has such a bad taste in his mouth. Dealing with people that believe that only verifiability and momentary consensus matter and all of the existing guidelines and policies can be ignored gets incredibly frustrating. Once you have notability, verifiability becomes trivial, and without notability, verifiability becomes a tangled mess of original research, opinion, and easily impeachable sources. It doesn't surprise me that he's a bit burnt out.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough. But burnout is a reason to take a wikibreak, not to get disruptive. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  You might be onto something with this bad RFC experience. These long painful discussions actually teach us bad behavior. That filibustering is effective. That you can exhaust the opposition rather than work with them. That you can canvass a few people from a walled garden to build enough of a coalition to disrupt any effort to find a consensus. I wouldn't be surprised if Gavin picked up some bad habits there and I can't exactly blame him. But that's part of why I've been trying to push for a remedy that encourages Gavin to engage in better behavior, rather than just trying to pull him out of the situation entirely. If this remedy works, it's something we can use for future troublemakers at other RFCs. I would really like to see RFC behavior get better across the board, and finding a way to push people to work together would help that. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose without having taken other steps to temper the problem. I've suggested on the RFC/U an idea like the one below for independent admins to review his actions, increasing blocks when Gavin's overstepped TE, and eventually leading to a ban after 3 strikes. But that would a ban in general, not of specific areas, as that's almost akin to censoring; it would have to be all or nothing. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Abductive and Kww said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems to me that we need to pursue some other options before moving to the level of a ban. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Per Masem and Nuujinn, I think this ban discussion is premature. I'd rather let the RfC/U process run its course first, and I note that there is not, yet, consensus there for this proposal here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is close to what I proposed in the initial AN thread, but given BOZ's proposal below, I will call this second choice in case BOZ's proposal fails or does not work out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: work towards consensus or leave

The problem is that Gavin is not acting in good faith to build WP:CONSENSUS. He is willing to argue the same point for (literally) years until he gets his way, or scares people off from the discussion. He is otherwise basically WP:CIVIL and the closest thing to a personal attack he gets into is accusing people of trying to silence his viewpoint, which is usually an unfair characterization of people. I'd really like to see Gavin continue to participate, but in a more conciliatory way. So I propose:

An uninvolved administrator affirms that Gavin is not in line with Wikipedia policy on conduct, and gives Gavin a clear warning to stop anything resembling filibustering, stonewalling, or using argument ad nauseum to cause a negotiation to fall apart. The next time he finds his viewpoint challenged as being outside the consensus, he cannot continue to participate until he takes a straw poll on his viewpoint. If his view gains a consensus, the issue is resolved. If his view is not the consensus, he is expected to moderate his viewpoint to build a consensus or leave the discussion entirely. If he continues to argue the same point after it has been discredited, we will revisit this problem at WP:AN/I. If he refuses to put his viewpoint to a straw poll, we will revisit this problem at WP:AN/I. (Which will probably require a stronger action such as a topic ban.)

I believe this is the lightest possible way to resolve this issue. But I do insist on some kind of resolution. Action is preferred to no action. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the straw poll action; not that those aren't helpful, but it really should depend on the situation. What if he takes what he considers two different viewpoints (as presently occurring in the list RFC, claiming his Sept 24 contribution is a "new idea") even though everyone else sees them as separate? I would not have a problem with the admin stating "Gavin, I think you need to take a straw poll..." on a case-by-case basis. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most people would be able to see through a new presentation or new argument for an old idea. A warning would put Gavin in the hot seat. He knows that if he doesn't REALLY work towards consensus, he'll end up back here. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we been there, and done that, enough times already? Saying "I'll overlook the previous thirty-six rounds, but if you beat that dead horse for a thirty-seventh time, then I'm really going to do something" sounds like it should be spelled e-m-p-t-y t-h-r-e-a-t to me -- especially since we've said the thing, only with slightly smaller numbers, several dozen times now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Can someone produce an incident that resulted in Gavin being unequivocally warned against wasting everybody's time by overwhelming every talk page discussion he takes part in? I'm sure we haven't. Every other instance to fix the issue has failed because someone invariably calls for his head, a few editors show up to say that's totally out of line and unfair (which it usually is), and we go onward with no solution at all. We've tried the "off with his head" approach. How about we try drawing a CLEAR line that everyone in the community can agree with, and asking Gavin not to cross it? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean something like a section on his talk page that is titled "Some serious advice and warning" and includes language like "your mindset should be apologetic for wasting editor time and also for disrupting the actual encyclopaedic content" and "Personally, I am quite prepared to block you for disruptive wikidrama"?

I've already provided you with a link to that warning, and other people have provided links to similar warnings from other admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you're trying to help. But sadly, Wikipedia has become so polarized that an administrator message on a talk page doesn't do much if that editor has established themselves in the community. Take a lesson from what we're trying to teach Gavin here: that consensus sometimes means settling for less in order to achieve something, rather than asking for everything and making the issue last another 6 months. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm concerned that this would wind up just giving Gavin another go-round to do the same thing for another N months or years before his intransigence is again unambiguous enough to get yet another laborious process of intervention started. I would support this proposal if it seemed less vulnerable to that outcome. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's also the risk that we do nothing, because he hasn't reached the level of obvious policy breach that usually warrants a topic ban, and there isn't a consensus for it. Then he'd DEFINITELY have another go around to do the same thing, and we'd also say that there was no finding of wrongdoing last time because there was no topic ban. This is the motivation behind this proposal. To find a very soft but unambiguous way to put Gavin on notice. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Gavin arguing that adding Barack Obama to a list of US presidents is against policy shows that he's gone beyond obstruction to plain trolling. No reasonable editor could argue that position. A total ban from all discussion of policies and guidelines is needed to restore some semblance of sanity to these discussions. Fences&Windows 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

for anyone not following all of this, the link for the Obama discussion is [31] DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I, having too much time on my hands, have read this thread. Compared to other stonewallers around here, this guy deserves an award or something. Basically, "consensus" seems to be all about repeating your argument until those disagreeing drop dead. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

{NOTE: The details of how this proposal should be implemented need to be worked out if this gains consensus. While this could be used as written, I'm sure it is not perfect in this form. It looks like people are willing to support in spirit, but the details may need work. BOZ (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

Here is a modified and simplified proposal of what Shootwalker was proposing, mixed with some of Masem's ideas:

When a dispute arises between Gavin and other users on any discussion page (including user talk pages, policy talk pages, article talk pages, requests for comment), an uninvolved administrator will judge the situation and determine whether consensus has been reached, and if so close that portion of the debate. Gavin may not attempt to continue the debate, by reopening the closed discussion, moving the discussion to another forum or location, or restarting it on the same page.

If consensus is not reached, and Gavin is judged by a neutral, uninvolved administrator to be engaging in stonewalling, filibustering, or continually repeating his points, he must stop.

Edit warring from Gavin will not be tolerated, ever.

If Gavin is found to be in violation of any of the above, he will be warned on a first instance, blocked on a second instance, and banned from that venue on a third. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support not as terse as my version, but much more likely to have good results.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, this seems to be a reasonable approach as it does not censor Gavin Collins, but creates a framework in which his tendency to overwhelm other editors may be controllable. Also, it provides a sanity check for other editors engaged in the discussion by providing an outside view of the situation. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Again. Let's make the line in the sand crystal clear and remind Gavin not to cross it. His defenders believe he can at least do that, don't they? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think this might make him less tendentious, and we can all continue editing happily. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support as a good first step, even if more steps prove necessary. postdlf (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support I like it. Seems likely to be effective, and is a less extreme step than a ban. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Grants extreme power to these "uninvolved administrators". I can't waltz into a discussion, declare consensus, and "close a section of the debate", and I don't think any other admins should be empowered to do so.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have suggested a mentor, someone who is uninvolved *now* and thus would be a single go-to person that would become familiar in such areas. And I'm will to make that list really really hard to cross to avoid anyone gaming the system against Gavin. I'd also argue that this would be tracked as an editing restriction such that if this ban were to occur, the mentor would have to reapproach AN and says "ok, see all this, and I've warned and etc. and nothing's happening, I am suggesting a ban now" in order to get consensus on that final trigger. I would also say there probably needs to be counter-action. We cannot goad Gavin into tripping this without repercussions and that's again something the dedicated mentor could offer. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If Gavin gets a mentor(s), then I'd say that could replace the "uninvolved administrator" bit above. BOZ (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, that would be fine. Also, if a single person would have too much control, perhaps a troika would suffice. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kww, the admin won't be looking for consensus to wield power over the whole discussion. The admin will ask a simple question: is there a consensus for Gavin's view? If so, there is no problem, and the discussion SHOULD be closed. If not, then Gavin has to continue to work in good faith to build a consensus. Which means that if he engages in filibustering then he will be back here for a more severe measure. It allows Gavin to voice his viewpoint, but puts a greater onus on him to build bridges with other editors when he is clearly in the minority. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Better than the other proposals above. But will Gavin be getting a mentor? Is he open for mentorship? Bejinhan talks 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Fairly mild, but if it works, it is a reasonable way of allowing Gavin to contribute without disrupting and stonewalling. If it doesn't work, there are stronger remedies available. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support with either a mentor (if he agrees to one or three of those) or one or more uninvolved admins (note: I am not uninvolved). Fram (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request clarification As edit-warring is not permitted, can we officially declare a 1RR restriction on all articles? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would necessary, at least at this time. It seems that most of the problems folks have with Gavin's behavior are centered on talk pages, rather than article pages. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1RR on established policy/guideline pages (interpreted broadly, and NOT their talk pages) may be helpful. Gavin does sometimes engage in slow edit wars. However, this is mostly a side problem, not the key one. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...though, I suppose edit-warring can technically occur even if an editor is subject to 1RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support (considering cleanup as mentioned). Definitely better than an immediate ban but addresses the issue at hand. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Consensus Can Change is policy here. Restricting him from challenging consensus is not the same thing as restricting him from being disruptive, and restricting him from being disruptive wouldn't preclude him from challenging consensus. These proposals need to be thought out better because as it stands now there about 6 of them and it's one giant clusterfuck. -- ۩ Mask 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support in that I think it would be very worthwhile to have uninvolved editors/adminstrators judge consensus rather than those int he midst of the discussions. However, Consensus Can Change, so I'd put a time frame on how long until Gavin can protest. 6 months? Concurrence from another X number of editors (3?)? Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support As first choice if the copyvio stuff is sorted out. I have no intentions of kicking someone who is now firmly on the ground but we can't have a guy who drives people away from discussions in which they are participating in good faith. That's just not how it works, regardless of how much or little support Gavin's views actually have. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support In case the whole copyvio mess get eventually cleared. He must wait 6 months before "re-initiating & putting on the table again" a reform proposal that has been previous rejected by consensus. --KrebMarkt (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support This at least has the potential to reduce some of Gavin's problematic behavior. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2

First, an apology: I always got upset when people refused to see how disruptive A Nobody or Pixelface had been simply because they agreed with him, and I'm having the same problem in reverse. Still, I'd like to narrow the focus, and not wind up giving "uninvolved admins" extraordinary powers. I aso strongly dislike the idea of simply muzzling him on discussion pages: fighting for a losing cause (especially when that losing cause is the heretical notion that people should actually follow guidelines) isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, edit warring is generally unacceptable, and edit warring on policy pages is probably the worst form. Editing policy pages is also very rarely necessary. I'd like to simply restrict Gavin from editing policy pages. I'll act as a proxy for him: if requested, I will make any change to a policy page that he requests if I judge that there is reasonable consensus for his change. —Kww(talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

His interaciton on policy/guideline pages (not their talk pages) is not a issue, it's a symptom. As I've outlined in the RFC/U, Gavin has done this several times:

1. (possibly) Gavin makes a policy change (which is bold and fine)
2. Say "this needs to be changed for these reasons" (which is fine)
3. Long heated discussion ensues, Gavin's change is found to be the minority and not desirable. If Gavin changed the page, that change is reverted (fine). There may be a very slow edit war here (like 1RR across 3-4 days), but that's not disruptive or admin-needed action
4. Discussion dies down and lays stagnent for 7-8 days, usually as no one has anything else to say to Gavin's idea (that's SOP for any proposal...)
5. Gavin then and goes changes the policy again because "obviously" no one has disagreed with him so it much be consensus. That is the problem step, and that's behavioral problem, not edit warring.

I know exactly how Pixel and ANobody behaved on the extreme inclusionist side and I see Gavin doing exactly the same on the extreme deletionist side. Mind you, all three used different approaches, and in AN's case, clearly afoul of expected behavior. Gavin (short of the possible CCI problems below) hasn't done that but he has pushed his involvement in wide discussions beyond a reasonable point. I cannot disagree with the statement "fighting for a losing cause (especially when that losing cause is the heretical notion that people should actually follow guidelines) isn't necessarily a bad thing", but the problem that we have come to discover is that Gavin's interpretation of guidelines seems out of sync with the larger consensus. If you're trying to alphabetize a list and someone is blocking your attempts saying that C comes before B, you can't let that person block the progress going forward. Now, of course guidelines are interpretive and the like and not hard and fast rules like the order of the alphabet. What has been revealed in all of the latest issues with Gavin is that he has a vastly different view of what original research is as applied to source, article titles, notability, and so forth than the common point of consensus. That it, he is fighting to prevent OR introduction into WP (always a good thing) but using an OR definition that is more extreme than accepted (not good). And he's been told this and several examples have been fought through to show that his OR definition is extreme and inconsistent with consensus at the wide scale (not a walled garden). We cannot punish Gavin for holding that personal definition, or even trying to suggest we move towards that, but we need to do something when he endlessly debates about it with refusal to acknowledge his view is neither the current consensus nor gaining consensus. That is disruptive, and that's the goal of this community action, just to know when to say "I see my idea is not being considered, so I'll drop it and/or work towards consensus". Otherwise everyone's wasting volunteer hours to deal with Gavin. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Masem's probably right that this isn't the highest level of disruption, but it is unacceptably behaviour nonetheless. Further, if Gavin is prevented from readding his position to the guideline, and can find no one else willing to proxy (and thus affirm that his position is consensus), then that may stop the endless streams of disussion. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal but not by itself. The problem isn't edit warring but discussion tactics. Okay... we want Gavin and others to challenge consensus. But we don't want him to challenge consensus in the exact same way 3 times a day 7 days a week. We don't want him to back off for a few days and watch a consensus emerge among everyone else only to come back in with the same arguments. I know Gavin is not the first editor to do this. (Pixelface looks to have retired and A Nobody was surely banned for escalating further than Gavin did.) That's why I sincerely hope that we can try a remedy that works and can be applied to similar tendentious editors/debaters. I !voted for a remedy that I thought was less than fully effective because I thought it was better to find a WP:CONSENSUS than revisit the exact same issue 6 months from now. That's the kind of attitude I wish everyone had on those big policy issues and it's the kind of attitude I'd like to encourage in Gavin. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As with Shooterwalker, I support this but not alone. The WP:DEADHORSE issue needs to be addressed in some fashion, and I think the idea that being unable to directly modify policy pages will make Gavin unmotivated to filibuster and stonewall in discussions is too much to hope for. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My longest tie-up with Gavin was no where near policy, but on an article talk page where Gavin's near-unique interpretation of policy was endlessly debated. It is incorrect to see this as an issue related to WP: space in some way. Rather it is an issue about Talk pages, regardless of the space, that flows into both article and policy pages when there is insufficient will amongst the editors to stick up for the commonly perceived interpretation of policy. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Many copyvios as well

Now that he finally gets back to article editing, his first edits are introducing a copyright violation into an article: this is a near-straight copy from this, with one line completely unchanged and the rest slightly reordered (including the use of the exact same comparison that article made). Looking back at previous edits, the last one that added some text was here, and again it is a copyright violation, using the exact text from here (12Mb, don't open unless you need to...). He both times acknowledges his source, but straight or near-straight copying (not quoting!) is a copyright violation no matter if you acknowledge your source or not. Gavin types: "Owing to its uniqueness in terms of the intrinsic properties such as the proximity, relatively low visual extinction, extreme compactness and brightness, NGC 3603 is one of the best examples of a starburst region and since its discovery more than a century ago, NGC 3603 has been intensively studied" The source has "Owing to its uniqueness in terms of the intrinsic properties such as the proximity, relatively low visual extinction of only AV = 4 􀀀 5 mag, and the extreme compactnessand brightness, NGC 3603 is one of the most suitable Galactic templates of starburst phenomena in distant galaxies. Therefore, since its discovery more than a century ago,NGC 3603 has been intensively studied in many groups". Gavin edited the same article extensively, adding lots of data early in September, e.g. here. Sadly, this as well is a copyright violation, taken from here. Again, the source is acknowledged, but these are all copyrighted sources...

Considering that on checking three source-adding edits he made this month, all three are copyright violations, I fear that we have a serious problem at our hands, which may take a lot of cleanup... Fram (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if this is that significant, this needs to be handled separately from the above. (and probably takes priority as that is disruptive). --MASEM (t) 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

[32] is a copyvio from [33]. Any objections if I open up a CCI on this user? MER-C 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So the same happened at least a year ago as well... I don't think we have much choice but to open a CCI here, indeed. Fram (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to see more open CCIs, please do. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't gotten a chance to look at this, but assuming what you say is true (especially the part about this happening last year too), I think that nothing less than an indefinite block would be appropriate. NW (Talk) 13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this definitely caught me by surprise; I was not expecting to see a thing like this. But then when I think about it, I guess this is not that surprising... during the working phase of the Kender meditation as I recall, in order to avoid as much as possible any re-interpretation of the source material, it seemed like Gavin damn near just wanted to rewrite the article using only quotes and lines taken directly from the source material and, I had to challenge that and insist that we not do this. My memory may be faulty, but given this new evidence it seems to fit into a pattern. BOZ (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ. Gavin's interpretation of WP:OR is so extreme that it seems to prohibit summarizing multiple sources on the same subject. I wouldn't be surprised if he's using direct quotes from a single source because he believes anything else would be WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And WP:SYN, yes. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments like this, when the CCI-possibility was pointed out, is rather scary. At least with Darius (you know, the one affecting about 23,000 pages) , he at least attempted to clean (though far too little too late). --MASEM (t) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if this isn't the appropriate place to post this, but the possible copy violations are pretty severe:

• this is a copyvio of the source
• this is pretty much directly lifted from the cited source
• this is, IMO, a particularly egregious example lifted from a thesis

This is a mess. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001 MER-C 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have taken two of the articles listed by MER-C, History of science in the Renaissance [34] and Al-Baqara [35] both contained copyvios, with only very small changes in the text from the source material. Per BOZ and Shooterwalker, I think that a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR and ignorance of WP:C is the culprit here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit saddened as well, because I thought contributing decent content now and then to articles was one of Gavin's stronger attributes. I would like to take Fram for taking notice of this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, ironically enough, since he seldom edits articles, the number of articles that will have to be cleaned up is relatively small. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Gavin has responded to these allegations on his talkpage [36]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - although he blames Sjakkalle for this investigation, clearly others have shown just as much concern over this issue. BOZ (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that I am on a personal, bad faith, mudslinging vendetta against him to exact revenge on his delete vote on the Ellen Hambro article, where I supposedly have serious ownership issues. For the record, I have made two edits to the Ellen Hambro article, only one of which is substantial, and I haven't edited that article for nearly two years. (Nor do I have much interest in Hambro in particular, or Norwegian environmental agencies in general.) I have referenced the AFD several times, because it is one of the very few examples of a staunch delete vote on an article whose subject covered in a paper encyclopedia. The entire posting looks like an attempt to divert attention away from himself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that Gavin has removed the statement, and apologised for it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of his contributions seem to consist of failed AfD noms and prods. He also, once again, insists on deciding what the venue and terms should be before he wants to engage in any meaningful discussion about his actions. He is also engaging in blatant wikilawyering (again). Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And adding various templates here and there. It's a shame that it looks like most of the rest of his contributions are invalid. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

His follow up reasons are extremely unsettling; ignoring the copyright complaint for the moment, it is "my way or the highway" attitude that has persisted through all aspects of the RFC/U and AN and now the CCI charge that are(seems?) intolerable by the wider community. Gavin can wikilawyer all day that he is not doing anything wrong as there is likely nothing but essays to point out his behavior is at fault,. But, and the reason to be AN to get community consensus, is to show that, particularly when charged with violating a core contribution principle (copyvios), "my way or the highway" is not acceptable behavior if one expected to be a contributor to WP. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked (and unblocked)

I have indefinitely blocked Gavin.collins for copyright violations. I have offered to unblock if he recognizes what he has done wrong and offers to help clean up the copyvios. Of course, other sanctions (independent from the copyright violations) can still be applied in that case. Ucucha 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That was almost certainly going to happen. I've been considering it after seeing the discussion on his talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Having just about decimated the Accountancy article, I was just coming to ask someone to do that.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block. His attitude towards the copyright policy and contempt for those cleaning up his mess is unacceptable. MER-C 13:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask a devil's advocate question for those more familiar with how CCI is handled than myself: it seems to me that most of what Gavin has been shown to copy are direct (within a word or two) segments of articles, with attribution but without the necessary quote marks to make it stand out as a quoted section. I recognize that the examples I spot-checked that just adding the quotes doesn't fix the problem as there's prose form and word flow and all that would have to be dealt with, but the base question is: are we going overboard just because he didn't use quote marks? Again, I don't know CCI procedure that well, so if this is accepted as a problem, ok, great. The few CCI cases I've had a chance to look into is where there usually wasn't attribution and thus a more serious charge. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue, certainly from Accountancy is that he wrote no original text whatsoever. What he did was take two sentences from source Foo, and tweak a couple of words. Then a sentence from source Bar. Then a paragraph from Foo. Then two sentences from Thud...and so on. I deleted an entire five paragraph section that was entirely made up of copyvios from four or five sources, and another four paragraph section copied from three sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Up until the block he was claiming his interpretation was correct. Here is what he says now:

"Having re-read the Wikipedia:Non-free content, it does appear that I have "misunderstood" policy as Sjakkalle has pointed out to me in relation to the correct notation that is need to avoid copyright violations, and I appologise to Sjakkalle for biting his head off and shall strike my in appropriate comments from the record[5]. WP:Plagiarism sums up the Non-free content policy as follows:

"If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless duplication is limited and clearly indicated in the article by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations).

I appologise for this oversight. I am committed to rewriting offending citations where this is an issue, and I think most of these problems can be rectified with direct attribution where need be. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)13:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been told that before, but it's taken a block to convince him. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And...it's not going to help (mho) if he's doing things like [37] which is a straight lift of an entire paragraph from its own source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he provides the source for the plagiarized material seems to indicate he just doesn't (didn't) understand the concept of plagiarism. Doug, you say he's been informed about it before? –xeno^talk 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's discussed it before at Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the block notice, Ucuchna said "I will unblock you (and authorize any other admin to do the same) if you recognize the problem and commit to helping to clean up the mess in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001." Since Gavin's statement is such a recognition and commitment, I have acted on Ucuchna's authority and unblocked Gavin now. One might accusing Gavin on being late in recognizing this, but better late than never. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock at this point, but I point out Xeno's question to Doug; if this is Gavin's second warning on CCI, that's a larger issue. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm biased, but why is this even remotely a redeemable offense? It's mindboggling that someone who spent as much time arguing about policy as he did would not understand the basics of copyright and the most basic concepts of how Wikipedia works. Or is this unblock just tentative pending a further judgment as the copyright investigation proceeds? postdlf (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of chalking up the plagiarism to ignorance, rather than malice. –xeno^talk 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, we are talking about a few scores of articles with copyright issues, not several hundred, and so cleaning this up is a smaller scale operation than the one last month. (The vast majority of the articles listed in Gavin's CCI are results of the mass taggings in 2007-08, not copyvios.) Gavin reading and quoting the WP:PLAGIARISM page indicates that he understands what he did was wrong. I have a strong hunch that BOZ's analysis is correct: Gavin was so entrenched in his views of what WP:NOR implied that he thought that big changes of the text in the source would be a violation of that policy. I don't think he was acting in bad faith when he added those paragraphs, but acting on the erroneous belief that what he was doing was OK since copying small snippets of the source wouldn't harm the copyright holder. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That would be more plausible if he were a newbie rather than someone who's been around for three and a half years who has spent most of his time on here mired in WP policy. I don't doubt he thinks he's entitled to get away with it, but I can't believe anyone with his span of experience here could honestly think copyright law, or WP policy, permit it unless they had an infant's level of reading comprehension. At any rate, I think this is new grounds for a complete ban from policy discussions if (assuming the best) he has demonstrably no understanding of policy yet continues to spam discussions with his opinions of how it should be. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from (and to be honest, I've felt there was a reading comprehension problem at issue before, as with this), but I would object to pushing that line of thinking too hard. It's a bit mind-boggling and a fine refutation of the vocal minority who hail Gavin as the keeper of the one, true Wikipedia Way, but really, people are allowed to participate in policy discussion without fully understanding policy, and they kinda have to be. The sticking point needs to be the tendentious return to a position that has been shown to be not validated by consensus. Some of said positions being demonstrably illegal does bring the moral authority into question, but it's not being wrong, as such, that calls for intervention. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think the problem is that he's been so hooked on discussing meta issues rather than putting his ideas to the test on actual articles. If he had done that he would have realized that it's impossible to write an article in accordance with his understanding of policy and guidelines. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an easy way to settle this. Get Gavin to write up his viewpoint on WP:OR, and do an RFC at the WP:OR talk page. If the community accepts it, maybe the joke's on the rest of us. But if the community rejects it, we can ask Gavin to kindly WP:GETTHEPOINT and work within the community consensus. At that point, ignorance will no longer be a defense. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The last thing we should want is to give Gavin another forum to spam the community with his demonstrably wrong interpretations. Its sickening enough that he has wasted so much of everyone's time, with ideas that at first just appeared to be more conservative interpretations of notability guidelines, but ultimately proved to be incoherent and nonsensical views dependent upon copyright infringement. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Masem, I checked the archives of his talk page and didn't really find anything. Maybe I missed it. –xeno^talk 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See above, it was at Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes, not a warning. I note that another editor has said " Much of the text is neither brief nor properly attributed (i.e., quoted), and so needs to be removed and/or rewritten." -- see [38]. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - thanks for that. Now the question becomes: did he continue with his near-verbatim insertion without rewording or quoting subsequent to that discussion? –xeno^talk 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes is very enlightening on how his thought process got to this point. It didn't help that the person responding to the 3O request found in his favor that it was not plaigarism. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ again. I think there are quite a few policy misinterpretations in the 3O. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they did say "some sentences have been taken directly from the source and should be re-written or made into quotations to make the attribution obvious". –xeno^talk 17:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this thread from September might be informative about Gavin's views/understanding of copyright; he seemed to be saying that all lists (no matter how unoriginal and factual) are creative and thus copyrighted, but further implying that this is why we must attribute our lists to a source ("As regrads effort and copyright, all lists are creative, and all take effort to create, which is why they should be attributable to reliable source."). I responded that attribution is to show verifiability, that it can't cure copyright infringement if that's what copying a list would be; he made no comment on that. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Kender/Trim#Life_cycle and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Kender/Trim#Touching_base is informative as well. Gavin advances the theory that anything that is not sourced is OR, is disabused of this view, then advances the view that anything that is not sourced to a single source is OR. Disabused of that, he then argues for using nothing but verbatim quotation as a means of avoiding plagiarism. This problem with copyright violation is all tied up in his view of OR, rather than being an attempt to boost edit count, as is usually the case. I would ideally like Gavin to discuss how he would rework some of the deleted stuff, for example on Accountancy, so we can be sure he's got it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about in the above section. Thanks for not being as lazy as me, and actually going back to read that.  ;) BOZ (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's typically the next step in such a situations? I haven't dealt with any copyvios personally for several years now (and then, only with newbies copying and pasting whole websites) so I'm unfamiliar with the current process. I would hope at the very least he would be put on some kind of probation, with some kind of prior review of his future contributions to articles, and I would hope a very short leash on policy talk page spamming of his now-demonstrably false (and illegal) interpretations, not to mention some "re-education" of his policy understanding. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my "alternate proposal" above seems to have legs, so that will probably stick (in some form). Additionally, he has agreed to take on Kww as a mentor, to help him avoid this kind of trouble in the future. If either of those things fail, then things are probably looking bad for him. Otherwise, there's nothing else to do and he's free to go - at least, that's how I'm interpreting it. Now, if the people who manage copywright issues decide that more needs to be done, then that is up to them. BOZ (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: future issues with other editors

Something that frequently comes up in these AN/Is is that other editors have done similar damage to the encyclopedia (or worse). If we do find a remedy, I would like to add something to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors about how to deal with this specific problem. Namely, editors who cross the line between challenging a consensus one time versus filibustering, stonewalling, and argument ad nauseum. We haven't known how to deal with these problems in the past and I think we may have just found something worth emulating. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Gavin has accepted my mentorship regarding copyright and policy issues: [39]. I think everyone should let this proceed for a while, and we can see if more formal restrictions are necessary later. Feel free to notify me of anything he does that warrants special attention.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being cynical in public, but I hope that you have noticed that most of the problems are on "guidelines" rather than just pages designated as "policies"? Since hairsplitting is one of the long-standing complaints, I'm afraid that I don't see an agreement to seek help for "policy articles" as solving the problems at pages like WP:Notability or the list RfC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's helpful in combination with BOZ's proposal. Remember that much of the problem stems from discussion tactics and an unwillingness to engage in consensus building. As someone who cares a lot about WP:N and third-party sources I want Gavin there to provide sanity and balance. But Wikipedia is disrupted when editors resort to endless grandstanding and stonewalling that prevents us from resolving any issues. Either way thanks for taking on the mentorship role. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think having Kww coaching Gavin on copyright and policy issues is a good thing; Gavin seems to trust him, and I think that will go a long way. However, I share the concern whether having Kww in a mentor role is sufficient to address the concerns brought up about Gavin in the first place; Given that Kww has expressed his disagreement with the basis of the latest RFC (and thus, the majority of the complaint against Gavin), and was only one of two who opposed my proposal above (which has 15 people supporting, if you include me), and that I believe Kww is at minumum sympathetic towards most Gavin's views, this may affect substantially his impartiality in dealing with situations regarding talk page disputes. Therefore, I think we still need the ability to be able to seek out neutral, uninvolved admins in those situations, for the warn/block/ban. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good route out of this mess. For what its worth, I've offered to advise if asked by either. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note here - while I believe Gavin now understands Wikipedia copyright policy 'intellectually' (if you like), he seems to be struggling to work out how he can ever add content to articles operating under these rules. Perhaps if a couple of other users could contribute to the talkpage discussion....?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven DYK ban proposal

Closed. Further discussion may take place with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), and if necessary, users may file Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#.22Real-world_context.22. Ban proposal: DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is welcome to participate in reviews at T:TDYK or to post error reports about articles in queue for discussion at WT:DYK, but not to edit the queues, prep pages, or main template T:DYK directly. Support, as proposed (wording as recommended [40] by Rjanag). -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Obvious oppose, to the extent that my opinion matters. I've already conceded one point regarding appropriateness, and I refuse to concede the other point because it involves a matter of factual accuracy. DS (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Also, Cirt - I sincerely apologize for having accused you of violating WP:POINT in restoring that inaccurate hook; I did not sufficiently clearly indicate that it was inaccurate. My mistake. And I've already conceded the point about letting grotesquely-inappropriate hooks remain in the queue if I've been so lax as to not intercept them earlier. So what's your point? DS (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the apology, I accept, and it is most appreciated. This proposal was recommended previously at WT:DYK, both by Rlevse (talk · contribs), and by Rjanag (talk · contribs). It was not simply my original suggestion, though it is a sound one. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support, all this 'ban' really would be is a restriction on DS using admin tools to edit protected templates at DYK against consensus. Does not actually ban him from reviewing DYKs. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support I wanted to give DS the benefit of the doubt, but from my discussion with him (now rolled up at WT:DYK, see [41]) it has become clear to me that he doesn't even understand why editors are upset and doesn't understand what the point of this proposal is. He can't be trusted to exercise good judgment with regards to the DYK queues and therefore he shouldn't have the ability to override other reviewers' judgments unilaterally. He can participate at T:TDYK like everyone else. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Of course I understand; don't attribute motives (especially when you only have a part of the conversation). DS (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) No, you still don't understand what other users are upset about. I have already linked to the conversation in question. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Of course I do. You still don't understand what it's like to care about this project. <=== SHOCKINGLY UNFAIR PERSONAL ATTACK, MADE TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF 'ATTRIBUTING MOTIVE'; I DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT RJANAG DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. I did not respond to comments made in those eight hours because I was asleep; becoming angry at me for those is ridiculous. I have already agreed to the point re: proper procedure, and attempted to demonstrate this by using it to deal with what I saw as a serious error of factual accuracy (my point was addressed and ruled to be not a problem). DS (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support ban - because DS just went and removed another hook from the queue right after being advised by several users not to do that anymore without prior discussion. I had given qualified support to DS up to this point, but it now appears he simply doesn't care about the opinions of other users on this matter. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Wasn't this exactly, what you have done, Gatoclass? Only it was worse in your case because you removed the hook for the topic you were involved over with your head.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Please keep discussion focused: if you have concerns about another user, feel free to discuss with them at their user talk page, or at WT:DYK. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC) No it wasn't Mbz, it was a very different situation, but per Cirt this is neither the time and place for that debate. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support. I personally found it shocking that such a long-established admin acts this way. His way of using admin tools (as far as DYK is concerned) is simply incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support. Though I understand that DS is against fictional hooks without real-world context, removing them unilaterally from hooks or the main page is wholly inappropriate. I encourage him to bring up any problems he has with hooks at WT:DYK in the future, and I'm sad that it's come to this. Nomader (Talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose on both procedural and practical grounds. At 00:25 (UTC) today, the first complaint was raised on WT:DYK about Dragonfly's actions; exactly fourteen hours later, the topic ban proposal appears on this noticeboard (not on WP:AN/I, which would seem the forum for a demand that is so <irony>obviously important</irony> request). This is an obviously an insufficient period for any Wikipedia editor to be expected to reply to a discussion, given that we are a global project and operate in pretty much every time zone on the planet. As there was no reasonable time for a reply, there has been no attempt at WP:DR worthy of the name, and so a topic ban for DS would be completely inappropriate at this stage. My views about DYK are well known, but I think it speaks volumes that the matter has been handled in such an obviously inappropriate way, and the number of pile on supports that are above my !vote. The best long term solution would be a topic ban for all editors on DYK, by its simple abolition; every time it shows itself both incapable to apply the basic principles of WP editing, while being notorious for the miniscule numbers of readers who access the encyclopedia from the articles it features, it is adding another log on the fire that's cooking it. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Actually this seems to be a perennial issue with DS, I believe there are several other threads in the archives about similar removals (will try to dig them up later). As for the time that elapsed, you can see there was ample time for DS to reply, given that he did reply many times at the WT:DYK section linked above, and it was only after the discussion with him got nowhere that this proposal started. As for the appropriateness of having the discussion here rather than at the DYK talk page, I agree, and I too had suggested that consensus be reached there before bringing anything here, but that is not what happened. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I haven't found all of them yet, but other than the real-world issue that I believe is already linked, here is something from this September: WT:Did you know/Archive 58#Hook deleted from main page. I vaguely recall there being more like this (and note cmadler's comment "I'm really getting tired of reading about DS deleting hooks from queues"), I just haven't found them all yet. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I also don't see what about the above comments you think constitutes a pile-on (click through the link). They all have rationales with them (they're not JUSTAVOTEs), and they all came after extended discussion at WT:DYK (although you don't see that discussion here because Cirt rolled it up and somewhat hastily moved the proposal over here before the discussion at WT:DYK ended); they're not just showing up out of nowhere and dropping votes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose per Psychim62.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) To reiterate: after a series of warnings regarding hooks-pertaining-to-fiction and the best way to deal with removing an inappropriate hook from the queues, I removed a hook from the queues for a wholly different reason: although I felt it was a perfectly valid and appropriate hook, I had concerns about its factual accuracy. Those concerns have been dealt with and the hook has been returned to its rightful place the queue, and I find it ridiculous to have this lumped in with the other behaviors for which I was criticized and for which I have already conceded the point. For that matter, I have continued making several small changes to sentence structure and punctuation, in the intervening time. We have all wasted too much time on this; I will not remove hooks from the template, queues, or preparation areas unless there are serious concerns regarding factual accuracy or BLP issues; but in all cases I will make certain to restore [any hooks which I consider problematic] to the discussion areas to ensure that they are not lost. Now can we all get back to work? DS (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the problem is, you removed that hook right after you'd been advised by multiple users not to unilaterally remove hooks anymore, but to discuss on the talk page first. What you've managed to do over the course of several weeks is leave a strong impression that you simply don't listen to concerns that are being raised over your hook removals. This is a collaborative project and you cannot just ignore the concerns of other users and go on doing your own thing as if other opinions didn't matter. Indeed, you are doing the same with this very post, which amounts to "I've done nothing wrong, now let's all get back to work". Multiple users have informed you that your hook removals are problematic, but here you are asserting your right to continue removing hooks if you and you alone see a problem with them. That is just inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Wait, wait, hold on. Too much going too fast; I may have missed a statement. Where was that statement made, please? This would have been much easier if it was all in one place, but I've been hopping back and forth and it's difficult to keep track. Diffs, please.DS (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support, I was hoping to avoid this but DS repeatedly fails to get the concerns and to address them. @Physichim, this is not the first time. See the link in the WT:DYK thread to a thread only 7 weeks old where this same issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) {EDITCONFLICT} (EDITCONFLICT)Important question: why has no one addressed the issue of whether my edits to sentence structure, word choice, and punctuation are permissible or problematic? This is a question which must be dealt with, and I find it most disappointing that this debate does not yet include a section precisely defining which behaviors are or are not to be considered acceptable. Is this diff acceptable? Why or why not? What about this one? Or this one? Why is no one else taking the time to address these points? DS (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I personally don't have much of a problem with such edits of yours, what I've seen of them. The issue is the way you remove hooks without discussion, when it's clear that you don't understand DYK procedures related to hook removal or when it is and is not appropriate to do hook removals. And until you demonstrate that you do "get it" in that regard, I see no reason why you shouldn't be banned from doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Note: So far, it appears (at least), prior discussion threads involving this issue at DYK have included: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_57#Clarification_for_.22real-world_context.22_in_DYK_rules, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_58#Hook_deleted_from_main_page, and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#.22Real-world_context.22. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding the Taylor Vixen hook: "Yeah, I noticed that one hook was removed. The hook was for Taylor Vixen. I must say that agree with DragonflySixtyseven on that one. The hook text was rather in bad taste and very tabloidy, IMO. I don't think hooks like that should be promoted." Regarding the 'real-world context' - those were objections that I made on the suggestions page. Under what circumstances do you have grounds to complain about my objecting on the suggestions page? DS (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) @DS: I don't know about others, but I have already addressed this question of yours repeatedly and at length here, and clearly you still don't get it. The issue is that some of the editors there, myself included, do not feel you are capable of deciding what edits you make to the template and queues are appropriate and what edits aren't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (e.c.) Another thread in which it is made clear that DS's views on fiction in hooks is not shared by other editors: Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Clarification for .22real-world context.22 in DYK rules EdChem (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) At least 2 other editors explicitly support DS there, and the thread peters out without obvious conclusion. I gather DS's judgement in removing problematic hooks is in question, but given that we're talking about Main Page exposure, it seems quite appropriate to be conservative. This isn't a licence to ignore clear consensus, but it is a consideration. Overall this discussion seems quite extraordinarily premature - where are the prior steps of dispute resolution? Rd232 talk 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And for what I believe may be the fifth time, let me repeat that I HAVE CONCEDED THE POINT. Objections are to be raised on the suggestions page. Can we all get on with our lives now? DS (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC I strongly concur with your view that we should "err on the safe side" in regard to DYK problems. The problem is that DS has on multiple occasions removed hooks that others don't see a problem with. He does it without discussion on the DYK talk page first, and he does it incorrectly, just deleting them altogether instead of restoring them to T:TDYK for further discussion and without restoring the previous debate or leaving a message about why he removed them. DS is basically acting like judge, jury and executioner, and it has proven very difficult to get through to him what is wrong with his behaviour. I personally wasn't keen on this ban proposal, but I think at least until he demonstrates that he understands the concerns and will act accordingly, a ban would be not inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Ah, you're quite correct in that I hadn't been restoring problematic hooks to T:TDYK for further work; mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. My actions have been done in ignorance of the methodology which evolved for this situation. If I ever notice anything problematic (regarding BLP or factual accuracy; regarding the question of 'appropriateness' in fiction, - and let me say this for possibly the SIXTH time - I HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THE POINT) which I feel must be removed, I will immediately replace it on T:TDYK. The reason that I have acted so precipitously in making removals [edit: in OTHER matters such as porn stars talking about their breasts, or politicians who are in the middle of running for president, or forensic pathologists who are in mid-lawsuit over claims of criminal negligence which may have led to innocent men being executed, ALL OF WHICH ARE THINGS THAT I REMOVED FROM DYK) is that the front page gets hundreds of hits per second and that anything inappropriate draws dozens of complaints. DS (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And I'll say mine for the sixth time too. The proposal is not asking that you please make sure to replace hooks on T:TDYK after you remove them. It's asking you not to remove them at all. Not because you forgot to replace them, but because some editors do not trust your judgment in what should and should not be removed in the first place. You have not <big>CONCEDED</big> that point, no matter how big you say so; you don't even appear to understand it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Thankyou for conceding that your actions have been done "in ignorance of the methodology" - an ignorance that has persisted for many, many months as you have been contributing to DYK over a long period. I don't know of any other admin active at DYK who has remained ignorant of our procedures for such a long period, and perhaps you could ask yourself why that might be. But this confession is at least a step in the right direction. But while you have "already conceded the point" as you put it, I am obliged to point out to you that even after this concession, you still blew it in your very next hook removal by failing to restore the previous discussion as you had been reminded to do. You also removed the hook over a very minor issue that could easily have been resolved at DYK talk without any of the drama. The bottom line is that you are still not getting it right, and you are not getting it right because you don't listen to what others are trying to tell you. And until you do show some evidence that you are capable of paying attention, I see no reason why you should be allowed to continue disrupting DYK with your self-confessedly "ignorant" editing. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding recent behavior at this AN board by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) = The yelling and the bold and the all caps and the big font is not really helping matters. -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You're correct, but I hope you can understand that it's a little aggravating (in particular, the edit conflicts when I'm trying and trying to make my points). This is a ridiculous mess, and aside from the disputes over the appropriateness of fiction (where I have already conceded the point, I stand by each one of my decisions and -- since your premise is that I have a record of poor judgment in this respect -- I am more than willing to argue each one with you, right here. DS (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) There is no valid rationale for this level of text markup by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs). It just appears to the reader as screaming at other users, which is not polite. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Clearly DS is aggravated and tempers running high. Frankly I'm not all that surprised, in the circumstances. Jumping to such a ban proposal when there seems to have been insufficient communication/discussion (dispute resolution) is just all round bad. It doesn't help matters that the proposal has no clearly argued rationale. What are the actual, current, outstanding, still-disputed issues? Rd232 talk 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict) Whose fault is it that there has been "insufficient communication/discussion"? DS is pulling more hooks at the very same time he is blowing off the concerns of other admins or not responding at all. If we can get DS to acknowledge his mistakes and actually start paying attention to the concerns of others, I'm happy to suspend the ban proposal. But he hasn't done that yet. Gatoclass (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Important question: what's a prep area for if not for pointing out last-minute problems with hooks? This is not a rhetorical question; I may have misunderstood the purpose of the prep areas. DS (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Sorry, I've seen DS' constructive contributions at DYK in the past. This seems hardly necessary. He's conceded error; I'm sure he'll be more careful in future. By the way, Cirt, DS is reading the thread; you don't need to address him like he isn't here. Your comments are only serving to aggravate the situation further, I think. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I was attempting to avoid further escalation by avoiding back-and-forth and back-and-forth. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support - this has been a long time coming; DS has a fairly long history of unilateral actions and ignoring DYK consensus and conventions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Very Weak Oppose Seems like there's been insufficient discussion on the matter, but his actions both at DYK and here (All-caps shouting and the like) worry me almost to the point of supporting in spite of my first point. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose as whole however I would support an Interim ban until RFC/U fully examines the matter. RFC/U is to me what is needed right now. after such we Should come back and consider any other actions necessary The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, agreeing with PeterSymonds. Speaking as someone whose DYK hook has been removed by DragonflySixtyseven in the past, I know what it feels like to suddenly have an article you spent time on removed from the main page. But had we stopped to wait for discussion, what I would now consider a violation of our BLP policies would have stayed on our main page for several hours, allowing it to be read by up to hundreds of thousands of users. Questionable hooks should always be removed from the main page, ASAP. It is not like they cannot be readded if consensus deems otherwise. NW (Talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Again, I largely agree with this, but I must point out that not all concerns are equal. A BLP concern would obviously justify pulling a hook, as would, for example, serious POV concerns. When it's just a minor quibble over a possible inaccuracy, however, that can readily be dealt with by a discussion about it, pulling the hook in such circumstances is just needless disruption. Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed, the proposals for further discussion with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), and possibly Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, are indeed good ones. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Okay, I think it's clear this proposal is going nowhere, I had misgivings about it myself but in the circumstances thought it might be just as well to go along with it.

In place of the ban proposal, I would like to propose that discussion takes place with DS regarding the concerns that others have had with his edits, and that DS agrees not to pull any more hooks from the queue until those other users are satisfied that he fully understands our procedures and when it is and is not appropriate to pull hooks. If DS will agree to that, I think we can probably end this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed above proposal. More discussion by multiple users in attempts to resolve the dispute with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is a good thing, though if that does not resolve the matter, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct may be appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have some concerns that are unrelated to DYK, but would fit into a broader discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Can we get back to work now? DS (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update posted to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Update_regarding_User:DragonflySixtyseven. -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Robinson (Rock Star)

Resolved

 – HJ Mitchell wanted to kill it — Gavia immer (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

7 days and 3 hours on the prod for Jessica Robinson (Rock Star). Anyone wanna kill it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a process note, if deletion is time sensitive, why PROD? Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:Iaaasi

At this time, I would like to propose the unblock of User:Iaaasi so that he may start editing here again. He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. That is, he was implicated as a possible sock puppet of banned user User:Bonaparte (see SPI cases), but it was not conclusive that he is. After communicating with him off-wiki, I feel that he has met the letter and spirit of WP:OFFER, sock or not, and that I have confidence that he can return to editing constructively here on en.wiki. –MuZemike 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• If not for his socking (and I'm referong to Conttest and Umumu, which he apparently has admitted), I wpuld be inclined to support it. However, once he created these socks, I oppose this for now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: This user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [42]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery. 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs)

• Support: We need more racists editing articles here to get their point across. Our standards are way too high. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• From what I can see of his participation on simple-wiki, he has only been doing minor gnomish stuff there. I don't see anything in his performance that would give me confidence he has changed his attitude towards editing his apparent ideological hot-button topics, related to Romania and Hungary. Has he demonstrated he is able and willing to edit politically sensitive content in a neutral way? If so, how? Or is the plan to keep him topic-banned from that area? Unless this is clarified, I'm opposed to a lifting of the ban. WP:OFFER means not just that they have refrained from socking; if it has any meaning at all, it means he must provide a full, credible demonstration that all problematic behaviour patterns are thoroughly understood and under control. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I too have interacted a fair amount with Iaaasi. In my interactions with him, I have found him to be reasonably rational and generally accepting that what he did was wrong and is willing to learn from his mistakes. Regarding the accused racism above, I agree that does raise some concerns. As such, I have asked Iaaasi to email me a statement and I will cross-post it here for him. Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was involved at the time of the block and things seem to have calmed down from where they were in the weeks following the block. If this can keep up I see no reason not to let him back. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I too am interested in reading the user's statement before coming to any view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for unblock conditional on the following being imposed in lieu of the block: (1) an appropriate Romanian/Hungarian topic ban, and, (2) an account restriction (restricted to editing with a single account). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support pursuant to the Wikipedia:Standard offer being applied. Basket of Puppies 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock with a Topic ban on Romania and Hungary Ethnic relations broadly defined I am willing to trust this user as the worst case scenerio is we block him again. If he can create and write on articles in that region (Towns, Local landmarks, Foods Etc). If he can manage to edit under that restriction, in six months we can review the need for the topic ban The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist, if this editor is sincere, then give him a chance to prove it. It should be clear that violation of the conditions will lead to the block being reinstated. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Let's give him a chance to show that he can be trusted. Netalarm^talk 02:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Let's give him another chance. If he misbehaves again, then I think the punishment should be harsher. Bejinhan talks 06:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have already proposed his unblock as my personal opinion was that the unfortunate edit on his user page mentioned by Toddst1 and which was the cause of his block had not been intended by him to be what it actually looks like. Although acting on impulse on some occasions, as a Hungarian, I felt that Iaaassi never intended to offend Hungarians, he simply wanted to chivy certain Hungarian editors who had a permanent edit conflict with him about a certain article. I frequently edit articles about Transylania having a conflict potential between Hungarian and Romanian (or vice versa) points of view. My impression was that Iaassi has made a significant progress in seeking mutual understanding and respecting reached consensus. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist and Mjroots -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist and Rokarudi, plus, the editor is now aware of the consequences of being caught up in inappropriate nationalistic behaviours, and that any further incidences will result in possibly indefinite bans. Let's give them the chance to prove they have moved on and up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unfortunately, I can't believe in Iaaasi's troth. But if the community should be propitious to him, it will be in order with a concomitant of indefinite topic ban on Hungarian-Romanian related articles--Nmate (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Without any restrictions so we can see if he can respect Wikipedia. The worst possible scenario is that he will be blocked again. Adrian (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I just spoke with the user on IRC, I support giving Iaaasi another chance. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that this request is seriously misrepresented, as it takes no account of the numerous confirmed socks [43] that this user operated and the degree of disruption over a period of almost a year now. In fact we see no confirmation that there is not currently multiple active socks running by this user. If we look at the user history we do know that that some of the socks made several hundred edits. user:Umumu Total edits (including deleted):1,354 . user:DerGelbeMann Total edits (including deleted):564. Just two examples as we see during the socks made several thousand edits in total. If the past is any indication these several thousand edits on just the confirmed socks in a period of several months meaning hundreds of edits each month on just the confirmed socks. If the past is any indication we can be sure that there are currently active socks right now. The focus should be on finding and blocking those socks. Also it is false that Iaaasi edited to "show he is constructive" he edited with the socks to 1. Attack fellow editors 2. Parttake in administration procedures admin noticeboards [44] 3. handed out "warnings" with his socks [45] 4. The last confirmed sock is as recent as August [46] 5. Many times he edit warred using IP socks as well not a tenth of which are logged into the suspected and other categories. In conclusion I can see no benefit from "restoring editing privileges" when in fact the user edited with several thousand edits as it is. Also in full disclosure I have reason to believe that this user edited using a sock as recently as within a week of today so this might make me more prone to oppose. Also there is the issue of his open displays of ethnic hatred as discussed above which make me uneasy. However there may be a possibilty that the issues can be lessened by a full disclosure of all present and past socks by this user and a complete removal from the problematic area meaning anything to do with any Eastern OR Central European topic history geography biographies etc. This would still leave almost all of wikipedia to edit. Hobartimus (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have just checked the standard offer referenced by someone above and it says as it's first point. "Wait six months without sockpuppeting." As it is pointed out above the last confirmed socking [47] is in 2010 August 9th. Mind you this is only the last CheckUser confirmed socking by this user so there could be much more of it just not yet confirmed by CheckUser. Hobartimus (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - In the light of Hobartimus' comment about recent sockpuppetry (less than 2 months ago) I agree that the conditions of WP:OFFER are not met, so I oppose an unblock at this time. I have some ideas about a suitable unblock condition regarding articles subject to WP:DIGWUREN, but I think that discussion can wait until a full six months have passed since Iaaasi's last usage of socks. I support Jpgordon's request (below) for Iaaasi's complete disclosure of all past accounts he has used. I encourage him to be frank, since Jpgordon is a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose a nationalist editor who was socking as recently as August to return to his arena of conflict and generally engaging the old battlefield. Seriously misguided proposal.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Isn`t the purpose of the block to correct the behavior of one user, not to punish him? If this user is ready to change I think the opportunity should be presented so we can really see if this user is a nationalist or a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. This user has shown a great deal of understanding over various issues where I would`t call him a nationalist or something similar. For example on this consensus, [48]. Also User:Hobartimus recognized the valuable contributions of this user. Adrian (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Since I saw my name above I examined the link posted by Adrian. It is true that the user in question YellowFF0 seemed like a constructive user to me, in other words I was 100% fooled by the first edits of that account. Now this [49] later behavior, a brand new account reporting someone at ANI would have raised a bit more of a red flag. What's more important, the YellowFF0 account was active in late august and posting at ANI as late as August 25th, reporting User:Romaniantruths [50] to administrators. But the August 25th date, about a month before this unblocking suggestion was proposed shows, he not only socked in a Checkuser Confirmed fashion, he also actively used administrator noticeboards to report others to get them blocked. By this relevation found by user:Iadrian_yu it can be demonstrated that the words of the original proposal "he has met the letter and spirit of WP:OFFER" no longer apply. WP:OFFER states it needs to be more than six months for it to apply, now we found, it was actually one month. WP:OFFER does not apply to this case that is certain now. Hobartimus (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support as he was corrected and let's give him another chance--Yopie (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Socking as recent as August? No. And I dislike the IRC canvassing. T. Canens (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, concerns about the recent violations of site policy with socks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Iaaasi

I think the block of an user should be firstly a measure to protect Wikipedia against people who try to sabot it by destructive edits, not a punishment for someone who did something wrong without a clear intent, so I hope I can find understanding...

The fact that I was involved in conflicts in the past was against my will and was partly a consequence of my lack of experience from that moment and perhaps a result of the fact that I was too less calm.

The famous xenophobic profile page was a kind of childish revenge after an user tried (in the end unsuccesfully) to remove the Romanian name of a historical personality, not an expression of my feelings. My aim was in no case to offend all the users of Hungarian nationality, but my action was focused only against a single user. That is not an excuse, it was a terrible mistake and I regret it

On the other hand, I know that it is blamable that I evaded my block, but the only reason was to show that I want to be a good contributor and my goal is to improve articles, not to disturb others.

If I will be unblocked, I am ready to be kept under a strict observation and at the first mistake to be irevocably re-blocked. (Posted on behalf of Iaaasi by Tiptoety ^talk at 06:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC))).

The famous xenophobic profile page was a kind of childish revenge after an user tried (in the end unsuccesfully) to remove the Romanian name of a historical personality, not an expression of my feelings. My aim was in no case to offend all the users of Hungarian nationality, but my action was focused only against a single user. That is not an excuse, it was a terrible mistake and I regret it -- "Mistake"? No. Writing the number 1 when the right answer is 2 is a mistake. Putting your left shoe on your right foot is a mistake. Swallowing with your trachea instead of your esophagus is a mistake. The expression of gross bigotry is not a mistake, unless, perhaps, you'd intended to put "not" in every quote there and forgot to. "Not an expression of my feelings"? Whose feelings, then? Whether the hateful sentiments you expressed are your own or someone else's, you, the person who posted it, are responsible for your own actions and your own words. I'd want a heck of a lot more than this poor excuse for an apology. Oh, it's not even an apology -- it's an expression of "regret". And of course you'd be under strict observation if unblocked; we do that routinely to serial sockpuppeteers. Just how many accounts have you created? Please provide us a list, including those that we have not yet blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to post the following message from Iaaasi upon his request:

I don't want to accuse others for my actions, but I think the users Nmate and Hobartimus are not the most entitled persons to talk about correctness:

• User Nmate is a constant edit warrior and has a very colorful block log, including sanctions for this kind of things: "Ethnic slurs and incivility"
• Hobartimus showed hostility to me since the beginnings, one example being here, where he reverted my edit with no clear reason

I know there are serious reasons to believe that I am not trustable, but please give me a second and last chance.

–MuZemike 05:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning for participants!

Not accurate, off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must inform all participants in Iaasi cause, especially all with "Support" vote, that you can be reported by Nmate for really everything. I was blocked in "rolback" by his request for my vote here and he explicitly says here, that "when I was logged in to the Wikipedia yesterday, I recognized the situation and it induced my dudgeon and that proded me to fill that report at WP ANI".--Yopie (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

Unresolved

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the RFC at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it please? Thanks, nableezy - 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While We are on the topic of RFC if some one could close and summarize Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts it would be much appreciated as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the Ahmed Yassin one, but that looks to be much too complicated for this late in the evening... After a brief read-through I couldn't see an obvious consensus for any particular outcome, in case that's any help to whoever wants to close it.  Sandstein  22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

Unresolved

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the RFC at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it please? Thanks, nableezy - 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While We are on the topic of RFC if some one could close and summarize Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts it would be much appreciated as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the Ahmed Yassin one, but that looks to be much too complicated for this late in the evening... After a brief read-through I couldn't see an obvious consensus for any particular outcome, in case that's any help to whoever wants to close it.  Sandstein  22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD

Could someone uninvolved - if there actually is anyone left - please put Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination) out of its misery? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never closed one ... but crikey. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done subject to DRV, drama, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)