Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261

A dispute over whether to history-merge a user's sandbox to a main-space article

• I received a routine history merge request to histmerge User:Binksternet/BG to Black genocide, and routinely obeyed it. That caused an argument between two users at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Black genocide and User talk:George Ho#My user space. I was going to let their discussion run a day or two, but as the argument has now escalated to a 4-letter word, I better get a ruling on it before the dispute gets any more acrimonious. The two sides seem to be:
  • Binksternet: "Edits made in my sandbox should stay there."
  • George Ho: "A cut-and-pasted edit history should be re-united."
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[Not an admin but happened to notice this:] Binksternet is right. The rationale for merging histories is to give credit to every editor in the article's history. This does not necessitate showing every single edit by the same user resulting in a certain revision, whether it was made to a sandbox version or to a text file on the editor's hard drive at home. If a user prefers to work on an article in a sandbox, it should be their own choice if they want to include all of their little edits in the article history or if they prefer to cut and paste bits in larger chunks. As a user, I certainly prefer to see shorter histories with more substantial edits when possible (as it is when all, or most, edits come from a single user).

In my view, there would have been no need for a merge of histories even if Binksternet had cut and pasted a text with several contributors, as long as he had re-merged his final version of the text with the main article. But in this case, Binksternet is not only the creator of the article but its one and only author. There is nobody else to give credit to by merging the page histories. The end result of the merge was obstruction of Binksternet's work and an unnecessarily long and messy article history. --Hegvald (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Move the edits back to his sandbox. Since there is no policy against cut-and-paste moves from one's sandbox, Bink's right to control his own userspace wins out here. If George Ho has a problem with that, well, he can just deal with it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Anthony, Someguy1221 and Hegvald. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy standoff

Multiple users with clear POV as expressed on talk page are missattributing claims to CNN that are not in there at the Bundy standoff page. Even when the language is quoted, they decided to undo it so they can add in their original research or make claims about a youtube video not backed up by any objective viewing of the video. 70.8.153.27 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Page is protected after an edit war. Discussion on talk page is given a little more leeway so we'll see how it goes.--v/r - TP 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Full page protection over 10 ten days for IP revert war seems excessive for a current event. PP was done improperly without a template as well. This appears to be a dispute between two editors, not broad content. PP should be lifted (or at least reduced in time and scope) and editor sanctions meted out as appropriate. PP is more disruptive than the edit war. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Three points: (1) Lack of a template is a technicality, and not a reason for removal of protection in itself. (2) Only one party involved in the content dispute was an IP. (3) As I have indicated at your queries at both my talk page and at you RFPP request to remove or reduce protection, I will happily remove page protection early if/when consensus is reached on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And the reason you don't see consensus building is because this was a two party edit war who have no incentive to reach consensus or even address it. Thousands of other editors, however are locked out because a two party edit war, better addressed through 3RR and blocks. You really don't expect the "winner" of a 10 day hiatus to show up on the talk page or his antagonist to continue the edit war they failed to resolve with reverts, do you? What is the rest of the community supposed to do while these two editors stifle the entire page? --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already replied on my talk page. Please keep the discussion in only one place going forward; it's not productive to need to address the same issue in multiple threads. I'll use whichever forum you prefer; either here, my talk page, ANI, or any other of your choice - but please lets keep it to just one going forward. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For all interested parties, there is now a discussion at WP:ANI#Page protection at Bundy standoff to address the page protections as well as accusations about my use of the page protection tools. Further discussion should be directed to that forum. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-semitic editor

User_talk:Domeron has twice removed sourced material from the article American Freedom Party and now used the edit summary to describe the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a 'Jewish extremist source'. This user has a history of disruptive editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=American_Freedom_Party&action=history These comments should not be made on Wikipedia. Can someone with more experience and knowledge advise what should be done? LordFixit (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrected spelling. BMK (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting account. It seems it was created March 1st with 1 edit. Then March 6th, it made 9 nonsense edits to reach the confirmed editor userright. 1) Gaming the system, 2) Shows knowledge of the system. Many of it's edits are related to ethnicity/race. It made some edits relating to the crisis in Crimea, it argued over whether English were an ethnicity or a nationality, and then the edits you show above about whether the SPLC is a Jewish source (which I always imagined it was atheist). I'd say the account is WP:NOTHERE.--v/r - TP 20:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

By "atheist" do you mean "secular"? BMK (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. I believe they are secular but I also personally believe they have an anti-religion bias (SPLC - ChristianPost.com controversy). But, yes, as a Wikipedia administrator I mean 'secular'.--v/r - TP 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting is too weak a word. I really don't understand why more admins don't immediately block an account with obvious sock-tuning edits: you don't need to know who is wearing a sock to identify it as a sock. Domeron is now indefed, drama should be over.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Because this isn't a 1-admin makes unilateral decisions sort of website. Which is why I left some comments and waited for the next admin.--v/r - TP 23:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Because some are insightful enough to realize a finite if small false positive rate is damaging to the encyclopedia, so getting a second opinion is sometimes appropriate. NE Ent 02:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's XKCD

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.

---

http://xkcd.com/1357/ will bring a wry smile to many faces here... Guy (Help!) 17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend adding that image to Wikipedia:Free speech. It has a CC-BY 2.5 non-commercial license. We can use it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You are so right. And now it is done... Guy (Help!) 19:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And it is now speedily deleted. 1) you tagged it with CC-BY, which the page clearly says CC-BY-NC. And 2) CC-BY-NC is non-free for our purposes, and thus cannot be used on non-mainspace pages per NFCC. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Schoolboy error. The alphabet soup gets me every time... Guy (Help!) 19:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The mouseover text is particularly apt:

I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

I wish we could put this on the talk page of every fringe article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's so appropriate for this site. (Then again, Munroe is quite familiar with Wikipedia, so...) 206.117.89.4 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC) (ansh666)

As it's NC it's incompatible with our license and so we could only host the image under fair use, which isn't going to happen for a policy page. Thought I should point that out before anyone uploads it. Dpmuk (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately the artist used to publish under CC-BY, but now uses CC-BY-NC, and thus while 100% appropriate, we can't use. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I seriously wish I could use that in a custom template. If somebody decides to use the "omg ur suppresn ma fre spech" defense, bam, templated. Pretty sure that wouldn't be copyright-friendly though, as others have mentioned. Alternatively, we can just link to it when needed. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mind you, if someone wants to approach the author about using that under a CC-BY license for Wikipedia's purposes... --MASEM (t) 19:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are we allowing Randall's license to restrict our free speech? Someguy1221 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ba-dum tish! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 18 April 2014 (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.

Spam attack on Wikipedia

3 new, essay like, NPOV violating articles about discrimination against African American women have been created by multiple users in the last hour. Articles, in order of time created, located at Stereotypes of Black Women on the Internet, African American Women and Their Role in Interracial Dating and A Painful Reality: Misrepresentations of Black Women in Advertisements. I believe that this is a sustained attack against Wikipedia by either a team of vandals, or a single sock puppeteer. 123chess456 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you actually mean single purpose account. Blackmane (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is some kind of high school project or college course where students upload their papers to Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that these pages are not encyclopedia articles, they're certainly not spam or vandalism. They're misplaced, but the editors (who, I'm quite sure, are in the same class at university) are acting entirely in good faith. DS (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that they were probably made in good faith as a part of a gender studies class, I guess you shouldn't rush to conclusions. Retracting my previous assumptions that they were vandals. 123chess456 (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Same guy again, new IP address, adding same category he shouldn't to dozens of articles

Special:Contributions/108.6.110.183 Once again, he ignores all attempts of communications, and all of his edits get reverted by one person or another. I went through and checked the infobox of all the articles I used rollback on, the Cartoon Network not the original broadcaster of the shows. Multiple times in the past an IP address appears, and does this exact same thing. Look at the edit history of ThunderCats (1985 TV series) [1] for example, and you can see this guy just keeps coming back again. Temporarily blocking IP addresses doesn't help, he just coming back again, and editing again. If every single article he continues to edit war this nonsense in constantly over a long period of time, was just blocked permanently from IP addresses from editing it, that'd work. I think its necessary to get rid of this guy. Dream Focus 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Help With An Image

I need some admin help with this one. I am working on the WINC (AM) article, the station where Patsy Cline got her start. I have found an excellent photo of her standing next to a WINC microphone.

The website the image comes from is a fan page about Patsy Cline. It has alot of stories, old pictures and what not. At the bottom, it says the information is copyright "EllisNassour", but I'm wondering if this person really owns the copyright to that photo. The photo would be from after 1948, when Patsy first performed on WINC.

My question, since there isn't a confirmable copyright (and since anyone can snag a photo and put it on their fan page), is it possible for me to use this photo here on Wikipedia, specifically on the WINC (AM) article? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I found a cropped (and cleaned up) version of the same image on a Blogspot blog. In this case, no mention of a copyright is made, which further leads me to believe that "EllisNassour" does not own the copyright on the previously linked photo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• You want the WP:IMAGEHELP department. They're on the 4th floor. Rgrds. --64.85.216.69 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank ya, kindly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Martian lava tubes page move

Can an admin help sort out Martian lava tubes move to Martian lava tube? Two articles were created, and there's some clumsy editing going on which has lost the version of the article which has been worked on for the last week or so. — Brianhe (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done The complete history of the article is now at Martian lava tube. — Scott • talk 14:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, now can the talk page be moved as well? This is especially important to preserve the DYK history. — Brianhe (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for missing that. Thanks Bushranger. — Scott • talk 22:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

There are mutiple reversions at Pono (digital music service). I can't tell who is wrong. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is "wrong". This should have been taken to WP:AN3. However, I've blocked User:Joey192, a WP:SPA who apparently doesn't get it, for violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Happy Easter everyone!!—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Easter} 01:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy Easter to you too. Calidum 01:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How does this affect administrators? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're not actually soulless, it just seems that way because of the job. NE Ent 12:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Though some do come without souls for easy installation. tutterMouse (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Admins are people too! 206.117.89.4 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor using other accounts to remove block notices

This user [2] constantly removes any block notices on their user & talk page using sock accounts, people have re=added them before only to be instantly and constantly reverted before being stalked & abused online, should. Are they allowed to do that? 109.79.7.144 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi protected by Floquenbeam. However the template was blatantly wrong anyway and as it wasn't added by the blocking admin there isn't really a need for it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the template looks to be correct as if I'm reading the block log correct, that was what happened. Perhaps there's some confusion because talk page access was later removed by the blocking admin under their admin role only (but I'm pretty sure the disclaimer was only meant to apply to the new talk page removal not the earlier indef block). However I agree adding the template when not done by the blocking admin, arbcom, or by wider community consensus was unnecessary. While such a template would I guess technically fall under the active sanctions notice part of Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, unlike with a sockpuppetry notice, it doesn't really seem that useful. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If the user just wants to leave the project, they should just be allowed to remove the block notice. Until a questionable change was made to the user page guideline a while back, this was permitted. –xeno^talk 15:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's very important to protect the right to vanish: if we insist on leaving a stain on Wikipedia where a banned, blocked, vanished or otherwise disaffected user once was, then they have a stronger incentive to come back and engage in POINTy disruption. I am very strongly of the view that people who have left - voluntarily or otherwise - should be accorded the courtesy of blanking or renaming. Of course this is not a suicide pact, it only works the first time, but WP:VANISH implies that already. The default should be: "sorry it didn't work out, no hard feelings". I've requested renaming of several vanished users' accounts after email requests, I am not aware of any that have abused this, though of course there will be some. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) BTW I'm guessing that the editor who started this thread is probably the same one who added it in the first place [3]. P.S. Just realised these edits were last month and not a few days ago. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw the discussion regarding my adoptee, Duxwing

Hi, unfortunately I didn't have the chance to respond to this discussion regarding one of my adoptees, Duxwing. I've glanced through the discussion and I understand what's happened and what's being done about it. I will follow all guidelines regarding Duxwing's ban from editing certain topics:

Duxwing is prohibited from making copyedits to math and science articles for period of 6 months. They are further prohibited from making copyedits on all other Wikipedia pages for a period of 3 months, except where the edit has been reviewed and approved by their mentor. The latter restriction may be appealed at any time provided that the appeal has the full support of their mentor. Should the current mentoring relationship end prior to a successful completion, a new mentor must be approved by the community via ANI discussion.

Pinging involved users so they know I'm aware: @Duxwing: @Hahc21: @Dicklyon: @Neotarf: @EatsShootsAndLeaves:

Should anyone have any more questions regarding this, please feel free to leave a message here or leave me a message on my talk page.

Thanks, Newyorkadam (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Thank you for your efforts with the adoption program, the learning curve here can be steep. And best of luck to Duxwing. —Neotarf (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for helping. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your attempts are appreciated - let us know if something comes up that you find challenging the panda ɛˢˡ” 23:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Creating an article called D​.​A​.​I​.​S​.​Y. rage

Resolved

I would like to create an article about the extended play D​.​A​.​I​.​S​.​Y. rage but Wikipedia naming conventions are keeping me from doing so and I was directed here. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I got a weird error when searching this term, but I was able to create the page (which I then deleted because I had no content for it). You should be able to create it by following this link D​.​A​.​I​.​S​.​Y. rage. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! it says I can't create the page. I made a draft for the article here: User:Littlecarmen/sandbox. Could you maybe create the page with that? Littlecarmen (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I dragged your most recent revision into the mainspace. Happy editing, –xeno^talk 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Littlecarmen (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: This problem was probably due to the title blacklist. Graham87 10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox and Littlecarmen, I think the problem is that the original title was not simply letter/period/letter/period etc. Between each letter and each period, a zero-width space was placed for some bizarre reason — Littlecarmen, I assume you copy/pasted it from somewhere without noticing the spaces (how would you? I'm not objecting) that had been inserted. I suspect that you would have been able to create D.A.I.S.Y. rage or D.A.I.S.Y. Rage without difficulty. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits" and hence the prohibition applies regardless of namespace.
2. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Romance languages article protection

User:JamesBWatson appears to have set up both semi-protection and pending changes l1 protection over at Romance languages. I guess he meant to do only one of the two? Am I missing something here? I'd post on his talk page, but it's fully protected. — lfdder 18:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The semi-protection lasts two days, and pending changes will remain for two months. This is often a useful way to introduce an article back to open editing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks! — lfdder 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
2. Steeletrap (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
3. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
4. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
5. Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need some intervention

Zackdichens12 (talk · contribs) just moved their user page, not sure whats up, or if they want renamed, but can someone lend a hand? Werieth (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

They've now also moved there talkpage now so was wondering if someone again could have a word?, Cheers -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• - And again..... I think perhaps a WP:CIR blocks in order since the editor seems to show no understanding of how things work, Like there username [4], Page protection [5] and page moves [6] -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Or, we could just, y'know, rename them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliant idea lol, Seems they do understand CHU so blocks pointless I think -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary removal or revert of tags in Guntur page

Please administer the IP 117.201.209.92 which is removing tags in Guntur page. No proper discussion on talk page before removal of tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem seems to have stopped for now. Please request page protection at WP:RFPP if the problem resumes. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

PROD topic ban proposal for Nfitz

Long story short - Nfitz (talk · contribs) has a long history of removing PRODs from articles which are then subsequently deleted at AFD. Looking at their talk page, this issue was first raised back in July 2008 by Number 57 (talk · contribs). If it was the odd one or two, then fair enough - but we are talking about lots here (by my count 45 between 10 February and 22 March, and plenty more before that) which means it is becoming increasingly disruptive; just have a look at their deleted contribs. By doing so you will also note that a significant number of PRODs were removed en masse on 19 March 2014 with the edit summary of just "no" - simply not good enough. Despite recent attempts to resolve this situation here and here and here, this continues - see Glen Kamara, which was deleted by AFD today. Basically, I simply don't think they fully understand notability.

I know this is a potentially controversial one given the very nature of PRODs, however I propose that Nfitz is topic banned from removing PROD tags from articles. The constant removal of PRODs from heaps of clearly non-notable articles is disruptive and simply has to stop. GiantSnowman 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Has this user make any effort to address the reason why an article was prodded in the first place, e.g. find sources, trim puffery, assert notability, etc...? Tarc (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc:: In most cases yes. The problem here isn't a lack of understanding of the procedural mechanics of proposed deletion. It's more that they either don't understand the notability guidelines, as GiantSnowman suggests above, and more importantly seem unable to learn what they are, or simply do not care, as Number57 suggests below. In any case, Nfitz tends to repeat the same deprod rationales despite seeing them rejected at afd time and again, and in doing so creates a lot of otherwise unnecessary work for the rest of us. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I know, just trying to see if this is a straight "drive-by de-prodding" or if there is effort to rectify the articles. If effort is being put in but the nature of the effort is consistently rejected at AfD, then that may be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, yea. Being wrong isn't a crime; there's Article Rescue Squad members that are wrong...some spectacularly and nastily so...in deletion discussions all the time. It should be a rather high bar to meet for being wrong to be considered disruptive/incompetent. I'll hold off on voting until the subject weighs in. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: Appoligies, I misunderstood your meaning of addressing the reason for PROD'ing. In the sense of substantive improvements to the articles in question, these have been relatively few. I understood the phrase to mean providing a counter-argument to the PROD rationale. I agree that bar needs to be set high, but I think that systemically ignoring or failing to understand a core policy for six years qualifies. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I also support a topic ban, and would like to add a bit of context to some of the numbers GiantSnowman provided. At the time of writing this, the current article alerts archive for the WikiProject Football lists 70 articles deproded by Nfitz since 1 January of this year that were subsequently deleted. By comparison, the number of deleted deprods over the same time period by all other users combined was 30. (This second number also includes any number of procedural deprods where keeping the article was not the intention of the deproder.) Simply put, since the beginning of this year, roughly two-thirds of the PROD related afd work of the WikiProject Football is directly attributable to Nfitz and most of it was unnecessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately it seems that Nfitz is singularly incapable of using the prod/deprod system in a productive manner, and this has been going on for years. I would have no problem if the subjects of the articles he was deprodding met various notability criteria, but they clearly don't. When this was brought up in March, I pointed out that he had already deprodded almost 60 articles in 2014 alone that were subsequently deleted - creating a huge amount of pointless AfDs. I think he he knows full well what the notability criteria are, but overlooks them in favour of claiming just about every footballer ever meets the GNG (which they clearly don't). Only he alone knows why he does this, but a quick scan of his contributions over the last couple of years suggests that deprodding articles is now his major contribution to Wikipedia, and it's verging on SPA territory. Number 57 18:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not just an ignorance of deletion policy, other issues include removing a BLPPROD with a edit summary of "add ref" ... which was someone's blog; deprodding 13 articles in 10 minutes with an argument based on WP:CRYSTAL; removing a BLPPROD on the basis a completely unsourced article had an interwiki link to another language wiki; and deprodding with edit summaries of "per WP:IAR". Not to mention what appears to be deliberately "misunderstanding" FOOTYN and GNG when it suits. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez, BK...based on what you found, a topic ban AND a block for disruption appear appropriate DP 20:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"BLPPROD with a edit summary of "add ref" ... which was someone's blog" - uh what? I've always tried to be careful removing BLPProds, which I do take very seriously. As far as I understand, that is allowed if one adds a proper reference. And I think I almost always have done this. I added someone's blog? This doesn't ring a bell. Can you point it out? It's possibly an error I made. Don't the remaining edits predate my March 24th commitment to be more discerning? Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You removed the BLPPROD on Firmansyah Priatna with the edit summary "add ref" by inserting a reference to http://forzapersija.blogspot.ca. The BLPPPROD was replaced by another editor. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang on @Black Kite:. I didn't think http://forzapersija.blogspot.ca was a blog. It might be hosted on blogspot, but it doesn't look like a blog. It's been used as a reference for other Persija Jakarta players by other editors, without objection. And that player also has a Wikipedia article in Indonesian at id:Firmansyah (pemain sepak bola kelahiran 1995). The Indonesian version uses [7] as a reference, but I had trouble opening it at the time, but it seems to be working now. I had no doubt in my mind that he was a real person, and a player on the team. I was actually unaware until now that the BLPprod had been restored. Reading further, yes it does seem to be a blog. I should have used the [8] as a better reference. A poor edit perhaps; however I don't believe there's a pattern of bad BLPprod removals by myself though. Also, it does seem bad form to BLPprod an article with a reference to a foreign-language version, which IS properly referenced. Why not just add the reference from the foreign language version instead of adding a BLPprod? It's not as if there's concerns that this isn't a real person. Nfitz (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading your original comment further, didn't have time originally. "removing a BLPPROD on the basis a completely unsourced article had an interwiki link to another language wiki" what is this referring to ... is that one where I then added a source in a later edit? "deliberately "misunderstanding" FOOTYN " What? I've never done anything of the kind. Are you violating WP:FAITH? Your comments do seem short on context. Nfitz (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because I think there is a better way to do this than to ban someone from doing something that is not really against any the guideline. Yes its disruptive when someone removes PRODS for no real reason, and yes its even more disruptive when they are removed in mass, but theres nothing in the guideline against removing them so it really wouldn't be fair to ban someone for following the guideline. Despite my recent involvement with an editor who removed a PROD for no real reason on an obviously hoax article, I can't really see anything in the guideline that says that there needs to be a reason. It just "encourages" the person removing them to state a reason. Also there's nothing that says that they can't be removed in mass. I suggest we dictate a section at WP:PROD that not just "encourages" a reason, but "requires" a justified reason why the article should be kept, and not just the "It needs more discussion" argument, because thats a poor reason. That way we are not simply blocking for disruption, but theoretically closing the loop hole that created the disruption in the first place.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The issue is not necessarily that Nfitz does not provide a reason, but that the reason he uses (at least in the AfD arguments) does not stand up to scrutiny in those debates. If this was a recent problem then I could understand your reluctance to support action, but this has been a problem for over half a decade. At what point do you stop assuming good faith and accept that someone is just disruptive? Do we just put up with a stream of completely pointless AfDs just to humour someone whose sole activity on Wikipedia is now deprodding articles and debating the results? Number 57 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not suggesting that its not disruptive, but banning the user would be like continuing to bail the water out of a sinking boat while continuing to ignore and not fix the hole. Lets fix the hole in the boat first before topic banning people for doing something that is, albeit disruptive, not against guidelines. Because of we topic ban for this, where do we draw the line and how do we know its been crossed?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • But tightening up the guideline won't stop what he's doing unless the guideline is specifically edited to say that a prod cannot be removed from an article on a footballer unless they pass WP:NFOOTY - this is the precise problem (he always claims they meet the GNG), and I don't believe changing the guideline is possible solution (it would seem rather odd to include that one specific requirement), unless you have an alternative suggestion? Number 57 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I have to disagree with the assessment that Nfitz's actions do not violate policy. They do not violate PROD policy per se, but disruptive editing of any kind does. If done, as Number57 suggest, in full knowledge of what the notability guidelines are, it qualifies as Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Current PROD policy has it's down side, but works effectively when not abused. When it is, broader guidelines apply. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just oppose, per Jojhutton  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   21:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose given the nature of PRODs.--v/r - TP 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a last resort. I haven't run across this editor before, but sampling a number of the deleted contribs makes it pretty clear that this isn't as simple as explaining to them, and has gone on for a long time. There is a pattern to this, of deep misunderstanding of the deletion process as well as GNG, IAR and other basic policies. If they are not stopped from participating, they are headed down the path of getting a WP:DE block log before too long because these kinds of deletions are disruptive and becoming too frequent. A limited topic ban is the least disruptive way to allow the editor to contribute, while keeping them away from a problem area. If they really feel a PROD needs removing, they can bring it to someone else's attention, who can perhaps act as a filter, and in time they may actually learn what is and isn't an appropriate removal of PROD, by example. If the goal is to remove the disruption and give the editor the change to actually learn, this would appear to be the proper solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Point me to a guideline that says one shouldn't remove a Prod if one has concerns that there should be a wider discussion about it. Point me to any damage done to the project by going to AFD rather than just a PROD. Point me to the evidence of excessive prod removals since I made the agreement to be more discerning on March 24. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not even sure why this has been brought here. As far as I know this was all resolved in the original discussions that User:GiantSnowman referenced here and here. And also in the third discussion on this, that for some reason User:GiantSnowman failed to reference here. I've been open to discussion, I have made concessions, and I have tried to work constructively.

1. During the first discussion, I agreed on the 23rd of March to be more discerning about my prod removals, and provide a summary when I do so. Why then, has in this ANI has User:GiantSnowman chosen to cherry pick the prod removal stats, and only present the stats from before I agreed to this. If this is a case for ANI, shouldn't User:GiantSnowman be looking at the stats from after I made this commitment?
2. Since I made that commitment, the only article that User:GiantSnowman has identified in these discussions is Glen Kamara. This went to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kamara. Given that there is one reference that goes toward establishing notability at [9] and that the article also exists in the Finnish-language Wikipedia at fi:Glen Kamara which also has references [10], [11], and [12], I didn't think it was unreasonable that before we deleted the article, that we shouldn't have had a more complete discussion at AFD.
3. Since I made the commitment to be more discerning, I haven't removed more than a handful of prods (as far as I recall); all in the topic area of Football. This despite there being well over 100 prods currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Article alerts, and probably another 100 or more during the entire 3 weeks since March 23. It's being made out that I've been removing prods without discernment, and this has never been the case.
4. User:GiantSnowman is focussing on articles where I removed a prod that have subsequently been deleted. This ignores the articles which have not been deleted. While I admit that more articles where I have deleted the prod, have ended up being deleted, than not; surely raising debates about other articles, that were prodded in error, and then are not deleted, does have value to the project.
5. Much is made that I deleted several prods with the summary "No" (or something like that, I'm afraid I don't have access to the tools to see). I should have been more detailed, and I already admitted that, but my recollection is that this was just shorthand, and all the prod removals were of a very specific theme, and I felt it unnecessary to go into further detail. I believe the topic area was Irish footballers, who had long playing careers in the top-level of Irish football, some dating back nearly a 100 years. These were mostly articles that had been here for years. I was very uncomfortable seeing the work of so many people over so many years deleted without any discussion.
6. I don't think removing a few prods, does any particular harm. It's not like no one has ever failed to notice! I think a healthy discussion of an article before deletion is not a bad thing. It also eliminates a problem we do see, that articles get resurrected time and time again, with no documentation for users on why they were deleted in the first place.
7. My prod removals have been in very narrow areas. Long-standing articles with many edits over the years. Articles that are well referenced or exist in other wikis. Articles for players that have made the first team and are virtually assured of making a start soon (I've never created one of these articles, but I see little point in deleting them, only to recreate them days, or weeks, later). Yes, I've made some mistakes. Yes, at some point in February I removed some prods in error, as I was unclear on which policy was current; this caused no harm.
8. I've broken no policies. I've been discerning about my prod removals. I've generally documented the reasons for my prod removals (other than the removals of March 19th which we've discussed above, and I've agreed to document in the future). And I've tried to enhance and improve the project.
9. I'm concerned that there is a failure to WP:AGF by User talk:GiantSnowman and some other editors (some of whom have magically appeared here already), when I have only the best interest of the project at heart; it's starting to feel like WP:Harassment. I've been subjected to quite a few harsh and rude comments from several editors that fail to assume good faith.
10. My understanding (or lack of) understanding of GNG has been raised. Which is interesting, given I'm not sure the majority of my prod removals over the years have been on GNG grounds (but then I lack the stats).
11. We all have different understandings and interpretations of WP:GNG. I'll admit my understanding is more liberal than many. However I'm actually concerned that User:GiantSnowman's interpretation of WP:GNG is too narrow. The case I raised in the earlier discussions was the deletion of the article for Jack Wilshere where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Wilshere User talk:GiantSnowman supported deletion, and even recently says that was the right decision. This despite the argument I made at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 9#Jack Wilshere where I documented significant international media coverage and hundreds of media articles, with the examples [13] (which noted "Premier League club Arsenal has included 16-year-old midfielder Jack Wilshere in its first-team squad for the new season", Canadian Press, Setana Sports "one of England’s most talked-about teenagers", the International Herald Tribune where Wegner is quoted as "He looks strong enough and he is not fazed by the big games", and the Daily Mail "rated highly by Sir Trevor Brooking, the FA's director of football development, and a first-team debutant in the Gunners' pre-season games.", the Malaysia Star. Some of these links now no longer function 6 years later. Quite frankly, if these references don't document notability, perhaps then I really don't understand WP:GNG; in this case though I believe that it is actually User:GiantSnowman (and perhaps the closing admin) who have missed the point.
12. I'm concerned that this is a bit of a Wikipedia:Witchhunt based on previous disagreements with some of the involved parties. I'd rather not go into details at this time, though some were discussed in the referenced discussions
13. As I've previously made User:GiantSnowman aware, my avaibility is very constrained on weekdays; I tend to make few, if any edits outside of weekends, these days. I may not be able to respond to any comments or queries until the weekend. Please don't take my silence as agreement, or a lack of interest.

Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That is largely WP:TLDR but to respond to a few of your points following a skim read - yes I have been AGFing; you have removed PRODs from articles that have been barely referenced (all those Irish players, for example); the Jack Wilshere deletion was endorsed at DRV (which means GNG was reviewed twice, and both times it was agreed the article did not meet it); stating your bogus removals "does no harm" is nonsense as it does nothing but create a lot of work for a lot of people. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:TLDR refer to overly long unformatted blocks of text? I tried very hard to format the text for clarity, taking extra time to distill my thoughts into bite size pieces. The unnecessary use of the term 'bogus' is yet another example of User:GiantSnowman frequent violation of WP:FAITH; an examination of his talk page shows frequent complaints about this by many parties. Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You posted an overlong long response that serves no useful purpise (for me, at least) in what is intended to be a constructive discussion. GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My points were clear and concise. Why use a phrase like "overlong long"? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Why misprepresent what WP:TLDR says? Nfitz (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose given the statements above and the nature of prods. If BLPPRODs are being removed inappropriately on an even vaguely regular basis, that might be a real issue. But I'd prefer that be a different discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:WITCHHUNT Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - accusations that this is harassment/a witchhunt are not only false but also extremely bad faith. I'd invite @Lugnuts: and Nfitz to rescind these accusations. Same goes for accusations that I have not been AGFing - given the fact there have been numerous discussions over 6 years, including three started by me, it has to be clear that AN has been a last resort. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Expressing concern that it's a bit WP:Witchhunt and it's starting to feel like WP:Harrassment is surely at worst a bit bad faith, not extremely. Isn't the use of the term extremely unnecessarily dramatic? The use of AN here was entirely unnecessary given that the subject had been discussed at length already, and you'd already obtained the change in my use of Prods as per my March 24th agreement. The sole case you've been highlighting since then based on [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kamara]] is highly debatable given the existence of fi:Glen Kamara (which references [14], [15], [16], and [17]). While the quality and depth of sources might not meet GNG, there is no reason that a more complete discussion does any harm. This was hardly a last resort. Once again, I apologize that I'm not going to have a chance to respond to anything else here until ... well possibly Easter, but certainly not for another 15 hours or so. Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it has already been discussed elsewhere - a number of times, over a 6 year period, and with no real change in behaviour - shows that AN was necessary. If you do not listen to me (because you believe I have some kind of bad-faith agenda against you or whatever) then perhaps you will listen to the other editors who also express concerns about your behaviour. Also please do not ping me, there is no need as I am watching this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you also removed a PROD recently at Andrew Stone (footballer) (now at AFD, likely to be deleted) knowingly violating WP:CRYSTAL. To say your behaviour has changed and you have stopped removing PRODs on genuinely notable articles is simply not true. GiantSnowman 11:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that AFD has also resulted in a delete... GiantSnowman 11:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It might well have been deleted, but if you read the AFD it's not like I was the only person who thought that deleting it was a waste of time. How is this any different than the AFD for one of his teammatesWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland which had a different outcome? I still feel deleting the article for a player, days before the start of the season, is an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. I'm also concerned that what actually happens in cases like this, is that another editor recreates the article, rather than restoring the deleted material, and the edit history is seldom ever restored. I don't believe that it is a WP:CRYSTAL violation, as WP:CRYSTAL doesn't say that something "has taken place", it says "almost certain to take place". And I believe this to be the case. Even if it wasn't, then I think WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:NORUSH, and WP:NORULES trump WP:CRYSTAL. There's no harm to to the project by leaving a harmless, factually correct article in place for a few weeks, rather than starting a deletion process. It doesn't improve Wikipedia. Leaving the article, does ultimately improve Wikipedia, as it almost certainly would be in existence in the future. Nfitz (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Invite to rescind politely declined (of course). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On what basis? GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the lengthy post from Nfitz. Above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Activity by the user in relation to PRODding and AfD has recently become very disruptive. I agree in principle with JOJ, but feel this is an example of a user gaming the system rather than deprodding to raise leginitimate concerns. One of the main points raised by Nfitz above is that he I think a healthy discussion of an article before deletion is not a bad thing. It also eliminates a problem we do see, that articles get resurrected time and time again, with no documentation for users on why they were deleted in the first place. Healthy debate is to be encouraged, and I do agree in principle that PRODs should be removed by anyone if they think there is a chance a !Keep consensus could be reached. However, one only has to look here to see that this user has clear problems understanding current notability consensus. To provide a few examples, beyond the regular dismissal of WP:CRYSTAL highlighted by Black Kite above, of instances where such fundamental WP:COMPETENCY issues have arisen recently:

1. Here a suggestion that it is biased to apply the same notability criteria to people in western and non-western countries, in addition to unfounded and unexplained distasteful accusations of racism.
2. Here the same copy and paste comments in a different article.
3. Here a suggestion that because WP:NFOOTY does not specifically cover semi-professional teams the article should be automatically kept despite not presenting any GNG support.
4. Here one of a number where Nfitz fails to grasp the notion that the fully professional league listing, as a current consensus on initial notability, is an inclusive list, so if a country is noton it the players from those leagues are automaticall deemed non-notable unless GNG can be shown specifically.
5. Here, here and here some of numerous instances where he admist that a player is currently non-notable, but essentially begs for it to be kept for a while to see if the person becomes notable.

Althought this discussion is around a PROD ban, the examples above to me highlight an editor who has significant problems understanding the current consensus around notability within football and continues to fight against this consensus in a manner which is disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In point 1 and 2, I never made an accusation of racism. I made the comment that "To delete articles of top players in such non-western countries would show WP:BIAS and systemic racism." There's a world of difference between making an accusation of racism, and expressing concern about systemic racism. I made this clear whan you comented on the AFD, and you failed to respond. I'd like an apology from you on this. I've never accused anyone of racism. I'm disturbed that you would twist my words to make it look like this. Why would you drop the word "systemic" which completely changes the meaning of what I wrote?

In point 3, I was pointing out that the team plays at 4th tier of football, at a level that does compete in national cups. While this doesn't quite meet the working of WP:NFOOTY, it does meet the spirit. I don't think WP:NFOOTY was written to consider leagues that are international, or countries that are so geographically massive that national cups just don't exist (another example of WP:BIAS. No, I didn't offer any evidence for GNG for Penticton Pinnacles simply because I have never had the chance to look for any. Though looking quickly now, I do see some [18] [19] [20] [21]. Should we reconsider this?

In point 4, hinges on whether Costa Rica has a fully professional league. There's been no clear consensus on this at WP:FPL. You keep insisting that we shouldn't discuss things at AFD. Why not, I don't know ... surely that's the best place to discuss it, given that dicussions at WP:FPL seem to linger forever.

Point 5 - the first 2 examples are similar to Andrew Stone. The third ... what? I argued GNG, with several sources, and even you admitted that one "could form part of a GNG claim"; though that is the only example you have that does partially support the case here. Nfitz (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No apology will be forthcoming whatsoever. Systemic racism, just means lots of people being rcist all the time. I find it inconvcievable that you cannot understand the connection between saying "if this article is deleted it suggests systemic racism" and editors feeling that if they are to suggest an opinion contrary to yours they might well be accused of partaking / supporting such a view, since systemic racism can only occur if individual editors share such opinions whether as a group or acting as individuals. Your Penticton points are irrelevant as you "GNG" is just WP:ROUTINE match reports and very localised news reporting. To be honest, did you even look at this link? I'm not sure what you are rying to achieve, but that link clearly shows you are failing. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Fenix, your statement that "Systemic racism, just means lots of people being rcist all the time" is wrong. Structural racism is about people not "being" racist, but still ending up with a racist effect anyway. The book Racism Without Racists (ISBN 9781442202184) is supposed to be a good explanation, but this simple example might give you the flavor of it: Imagine a world in which many racially disadvantaged people had last names that started with "Weird", because centuries ago, people thought their ancestors looked weird. So instead of "Smith" or "Jones", the descendants would be named "Weirdsmith" or "Weirdjones".

Now imagine that someone is giving away cupcakes to schoolkids. He doesn't know if he has enough to go around, but he'll give away as many as possible. He wants the kids to line up in an orderly way, with no pushing or shoving so he can make sure that nobody takes two. He doesn't know who arrived first. He's sensitive to issues of height and weight, so he doesn't want to ask them to line up according to size. In a panic, he looks around and sees an alphabet poster. This gives him the idea to ask the kids to line up in alphabetical order by last name. Is he being a racist? No, not really: He didn't say or think, "All of you kids with this race, go to the back of the line." It didn't even occur to him that what he chose had any connection to race. But is the outcome racist anyway? Yes, it is: some kids were—however indirectly and unintentionally—given advantages or disadvantages based on their race. Kids in the "advantaged" race, on average, had less anxiety about whether the cupcakes would be gone before they received one. Kids in the "disadvantaged" race, on average, had more anxiety about not getting a cupcake. That's what "systemic" or "structural" racism is about: applying seemingly neutral rules in ways that have strongly biased results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Fenix down says that No apology will be forthcoming whatsoever. Systemic racism, just means lots of people being rcist all the time. An example of systemic racism would be the British Monarchy. With nothing buy white skin as far down the line of succession that I've ever seen, despite the current racial makeup of the UK, and despite the number of recently arrived foreigners marrying in, then there's something odd going on. Does that make the Queen a racist? Not to my knowledge. If one accused the monarchy of being systemically racist, one would not be accusing any particular member of the monarchy of being racist (nor do I think the majority are). (to pick a random example that would surely not offend anyone here). I'm still waiting for the apology ... not so much because of what you said here, but because I've already clarified previously that I'm talking about systemic racism, and not thinking any individual here is racist. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support Do I believe they they're sincerely trying to improve the 'pedia? Yes, and their explanation above makes that clear. However, that same explanation shows that they have an understanding of the de-prodding process that is nearly wholesale against what the process is supposed to be about. We don't de-prod "because in my opinion it should stay". We don't de-prod because "a similar article exists in another language with far more lenient notability requirements". We don't de-prod for WP:CRYSTAL reasons. We don't de-prod and add inappropriate ref's/EL's. We de-prod because we're in the immediate process of completely and directly addressing the reasons behind the prod. Even if only 10% of their de-prodding ran afoul of this (which unfortunately it's a much higher percentage), such de-proddings are wholly disruptive in their nature. For at least the next 6 months, if they come across a PROD, they should a) attempt to fix the issues, b) discuss the changes since the PROD tag was attached on the article talkpage and how they improved it since the PRIOD, but c) leave the damn PROD tag alone ES&L 12:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoping between sock accounts on the same thread? Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying reading WP:SOCK#LEGIT before such accusations of bad faith. The fact that I'm not logged into my admin functions on a non-secure network is not rocket-science. Have I !voted twice? Are my two accounts properly linked according to policy ES&L 13:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's also remember that unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about unsubstantiated? They're two accounts being run by the same person, but I just thought it was worth mentioning for the those not in the know. Pot, kettle, black about accusations of bad faith too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Two accounts being run by the same person" =/= "sockpuppets". Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but if the S-word is tossed out it's automatically an accusation of nefarious doings, whether it's intended that way or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"We de-prod because we're in the immediate process of completely and directly addressing the reasons behind the prod. " Can you point me to this guideline? Can you tell me what's wrong with deprodding a long-standing article because your uncomfortable with deleting it without having a fuller discussion at AFD? Can you tell me how I have harmed the project? I've only ever deprodded a fraction of articles on a very specific topic. Surely discussing 10 articles at AFD, and then deleting 9 of them, is a far better outcome than deleting a single article in error, at Prod, with little paper trail about what happened and why. Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• On the back of ES&L's suggestions about "discuss[ing] the changes" - I am more than happy to volunteer to be a 'mentor' of sorts, should Nfitz be in agreement i.e. if Nfitz wishes to challenge a PROD, I am happy to discuss the notability of the article and/or merits of the PROD tag and we can then decide on next best actions. GiantSnowman 12:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, it's not like he is always wrong in discussions and I do welcome dissenting opinion, however much I disagree with it in the main in this instance. However, I wonder whether it might be better idea to have someone outside WP:FOOTY to avoid and WP:INVOLVED issues. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• That would complete the solution and offer the best chance of getting the topic ban lifted in a reasonable period of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I am deemed too 'INVOLVED' to be a useful mentor in this situation - either by Nfitz or the wider community - then so be it. My offer, however, still stands. GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. GiantSnowman's offer of a mentorship-type situation is the best outcome, but if that does not work out I feel that this situation has gone on too long to remain unresolved. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• If the only outcome is to have a mentor or ban from PRODs, I'd be willing to do the mentoring. Keep in mind, I'm pretty far on the inclusionist side of the spectrum... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• If we have an 'inclusionist' mentor then we should also have a 'deletionist' mentor. GiantSnowman 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, all that is necessary to do is to see that he keeps within the spectrum of reasonable behavior, and Hobit's inclusiveness is not outside of it, certainly not to the degree he would be an inappropriate mentor. . I would be extremely reluctant to accept that a good faith but mistaken de-prodding is disruptive except in the most extreme of cases; forcing things into discussion at AfD is an inherently reasonable way of handling disputes. I point out that the proper relationship of the sports guidelines and the GNG is one of the most perennially disputed areas of WP, and there have been cases in the past of maneuvering people into a situation where they get blocked because of their differing view of notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. PROD is a relatively recent invention, after all, designed merely to lighten the load on AFD. AFD is the default venue for considering deletion of articles. I would counsel the user to explain de-prodding in more detail, to try to resolve the concerns more of the time, but in the end the entire process that set up PROD was designed around precisely this ability for any editor on any grounds, even pure whim, to remove the tag. If it becomes an issue beyond this one user then maybe policy might be revised but right now there is no problem to fix, other than a user who seems to be keener on keeping articles than on improving them. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you DGG. Work kept me from finishing a reply for hours, but this is exactly what I wanted to say. It isn't about "inclusionist" or "deletionist", it is about reasonable standards of when to use PROD, when to dePROD, and when to dePROD and send to AFD. The problem that necessitates a topic ban isn't one of determining where the grey area is, it is about understanding the process on the whole. Unquestionably, I trust Hobit to act as a filter and mentor in that respect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I completely disagree that a topic ban is necessary. I agreed to User:GiantSnowman on March 24th that I would be more discerning, and provide more complete information. And I believe I have done so. This is evidenced by User:GiantSnowman focussing on the pre-March 24th stats here. I don't think either the examples brought here of prod removals since that date are stellar examples of me removing prods for articles that should not be; one is a player who is deemed notable enough by another language Wikipedia to have a referenced article. And the second is I think a justified concern about deleting articles that will very likely be recreated justifiably in the near future - this has created great debate in other recent AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland, so it's hardly an issue where there is a clear consensus. Finally, this entire discussion ignores examples of where I have removed a Prod, that has then got to AfD as keep (or not even gone to AFD at all). Some examples are [22] [23] [24] [25] Nfitz (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we already know that you don't think there's a problem - and that's why the community was FORCED to consider such a topic ban. If you had taken 2 seconds and listened to complaints, we wouldn't have to do it. Now's waaaayyy too late to suggest there's no need for one - you proved that it's a necessity  the panda  ₯’ 00:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hang on. That's my whole point. I did listen to complaints. I agreed on March 23rd to be more discerning. And I have done so. That's why the stats presented here precede that date. I've only deprodded or taken to DRV a prod I'd had removed 5 times since then (well, one a handful of edits before, but I'd already knew I was going to concede), despite there being over 200 prods in that period of time. Of those 5, 3 articles still stand, 1 had significant debate by others at AFD, and the 5th did have some sources that went towards establishing GNG. Also see my response to Giant Snowman below. Don't my actions since March 23rd mean that I had listened to complaints? It doesn't mean I'm infallible, but how am I deleting prods en masse? Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Again, please don't ping me, there is no need. The examples you have stated are (unfortunately) in the minority and I have provided examples of very recent PROD removals that resulted in 'delete' at AFD - Glen Kamara and Andrew Stone (footballer). I cannot provide any more because you do not seem to have removed any more PRODs. So, as far as I can tell, 100% of the PRODs removed after 24 March have had articles deleted... GiantSnowman 07:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't ping you. Hang on, so your case that I ignored our earlier discussion and am deleting prods on mass is entirely predicated on TWO prod removals? One of which at least had some debatable GNG content, and the other was subject to some debate by OTHERS at AFD? Though you are mistakened. You are mistaken though, I have removed other prods since then. I agreed to be a bit more discerning about my prod removals and provide a summary at 14:36 UTC on March 23rd. Shortly beforehand (5 edits) I did remove the prod for Woranat Thongkruea [26]. And what about a week later when I removed the prod for Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) [27] which wasn't deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) where it was closed with the comment by {{ping|Tawker]] that Although CRYSTALBALL likely should apply, I do not see benefit the project to deleting now to re-create within months.. How come when an Admin says stuff like that, nothing happens, but when I say stuff like that, I'm treated like a pariah? I've been very careful and discerning since March 23rd. There have literally been hundreds (over 200 by my reckoning) articles in the topic of football that have been prodded, and I've removed a grand total of 4 prods. 2 of which are still here. 1 was subject to significant debate by others at AFD, and the 4th at least has some material supporting GNG (but probably not enough). I also did go to DRV for an article where I had restored the Prod, and it was restored. Reading through WP:PROD and the discussion behind it, there are no guidelines about this type of prod removal. There's some discussion that sanctions should be sought at WP:ANI for mass deletions of prods, but how is 4 (or 5) out of 200 mass deletions? I conceded the argument over 3 weeks ago. My prod removal since then shows that I took it seriously, and have changed how I am editing. So why are we here? Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• You did - every time you link to a username, it gives that editor a notification. It's annoying. Back on topic - the only 'debate' that was had was a few editor trying to justify speculation and WP:CRYSTALBALLERY, and myself and other editors trying to explain why you were wrong. Guess who the closing admin decided had the stronger argument? So of the 4 PRODs you have removed, 2 have been deleted. Have the other 2 been sent to AFD and kept? If not it's irrelevant, it doesn't necessarily mean they are notable and your PROD removal was correct, it just means someone hasn't noticed. GiantSnowman 09:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stone (footballer) may have been a delete, but how is this any different than the debates for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) which didn't end in delete? The admin's closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) was that Although CRYSTALBALL likely should apply, I do not see benefit the project to deleting now to re-create within months. How is the admin's closing comment in that AFD different than my basis for deprodding Andrew Stone (footballer)? Nfitz (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Both of those were poor closes and would almost certainly have been reversed if anyone could have been bothered to take them to WP:DRV. WP:CRYSTAL is quite clear, and the closing admin should not have used WP:IAR to override consensus. Your point? Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• My point is that if I'm deprodding the occasional article on the same basis that Admin's and other editors are using, that while these handful of prod removals might disagree with some people, they are not that extreme. Your are correct. WP:CRYSTAL is quite clear; and when it's almost certain that we'll be recreating the article in relatively short order, then there's no requirement based on WP:CRYSTAL to delete it. Do you really not think that we'd have to be recreating Andrew Stone (footballer) and Kyle Hyland. I really think we need some new guidelines that meet WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH on how to deal with such articles that frequently get created at the beginning of the season, as players that have never played professionally previously are signed to the first team. Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hyland is now notable - but the AFD close was still poor. However Iheanacho is not notable and the close was AWFUL - I will be taking to DRV. GiantSnowman 09:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose prod ban at present, could be convinced otherwise in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the very concept of PROD. PROD is about uncontested deletions. If this guy contests them, no matter what, then they are no more "uncontested". If he was just mass-removing PRODs as soon as they pop out, for the lulz, then maybe we could have a case. But he seems to give reasons for it: weak reasons, but reasons. We can't just say "I don't like what this guy contests, many of us wouldn't contest them, so ban him from PROD". This is enforcing groupthink. All the guy is doing is forcing us to discuss articles before deleting them; I would say this is a definite improvement for the encyclopedia.--cyclopia^speak! 08:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose AfD has 'original jurisdiction' as it were, over this process, the very nature of the PROD process is a way to lighten the load on AfD not create an ironclad 'CSD lite' category of deletion requests. dePRODing qua dePRODing cannot be disruptive. The disruption then, cannot lie in the action itself (as other disruptive acts, cf. vandalism, can) but only in the intention. I see nothing here that points to malicious intent regarding the dePRODings, so there is nothing actionable here. Crazynas ^t 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose looking at his deleted contributions in the last month he clearly isn't mass deprodding articles at present. Whatever discussions took place after the 19th March they seem to have worked and this attempt to take things further is unnecessary and unhelpful. ϢereSpielChequers 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WereSpielChequers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Been stalking this thread for a while, so I believe I have a handle on the arguments. The issue is not a breach of procedure, but irritation by some in the community. No WP breach has been committed, as far as I can see. Strongly concur with the various arguments encapsulated in the above 4 opposes. Irondome (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is no policy violation whatsoever. If you don't like the reasons for a dePROD, just AFD the article and if your reasons are valid the article will be deleted in a week, I can't see where the issue is. Cavarrone 05:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Curious pattern of very similar edits on Indian villages articles

No idea which noticeboard, if any, is the best for this, so here goes...

Many of you are probably aware of the low quality edits that plague the articles on Indian villages. Looking at a few, I noticed a very strange pattern of the same mistakes being added to different articles by different people. It made me wonder whether this is some translation tool problem, some "template" problem, sockpuppetry, or anything else.

The pattern which I first noticed (there are many other similarities as well) was "is bounded by by" (sic!), like in:

• Kodair, added 9 March 2014 by 96.231.58.45
• Vaikom Taluk, added 16 June 2013 by User:Praanthan
• Zarugumilli, added 15 April 2014 by 106.51.102.78
• Shangus, added 16 January 2014 by User:Sauood07
• Husnabad, added 4 October 2013 by 49.204.91.242
• Tadoor, added 26 August 2013 by User:Vij7411
• Pattan, added 8 February 2014 by User:My231736

This is very similar to many other articles about the same subject where the text "is surrounded by" is used instead of "is bounded by by", but with the same pattern otherwise (e.g. Piprali, Matanhail, Dahina, ...). Looking further back, I find suspicious articles like Gangesvara Siva Temple (20 September 2011, User:Ti era23) and Belesvara Siva Temple (30 August 2011, User:Lord Krsna), Lakhesvara Siva Temple (19 September 2011, User:Rksarangi) where the latter two show all characteristics of a copy-paste from outside Wikipedia gone wrong...

Has anyone any ideas, experience, ... about what is going on here, and whether any action (apart from cleanup of course) needs to be taken? There may be a good explanation, but I fear that we are hosting many copyvios imported through poor translations tools, and the number of editors involved is also very strange... Fram (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it may be worth letting the Indian Wikiproject know; particularly on the Noticeboard for India-related topics. Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, the former functionary (YellowMonkey) who has had the most experience in dealing with socks in this area and who managed these issues well is no longer editing Wikipedia. I think your fears may be justified, and that there is also a lot of original research included in some areas of those articles, but best to await confirmation from another editor to be safe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Fram (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The text for Zarugumilli is copied from [28]. I guess there has been more copying going on. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, thanks, I see that e.g. Vaikom Taluk is also taken from there, and also parts from the orignal version of e.g. Piprali. Tempted to do a massive copyvio deletion of all the similar articles (for those not already cleaned), but I'm bound to get some false positives (and the accompanying flak) probably. Fram (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps those articles can be turned into stubs with just a couple of lines establishing their notability? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

RFPP

There is a huge backlog at WP:RFPP, and users with a mop (AKA admins) are needed there. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been much worse in the past but we could always do with more admins patrolling there, it's like some see it as AIV's far less interesting brother. tutterMouse (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I put a pretty good dent in them, someone else might want to fill in the gaps. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser block of ColonelHenry and socks

This is to advise the community that I am about to block the following accounts indefinitely for sockpuppetry:

• ColonelHenry (talk · contribs)
• Hierophant443 (talk · contribs)
• Raebodep1962 (talk · contribs)

The accounts were brought to my attention by an experienced user with sufficient evidence to run a check and carry out additional investigations. The following findings should be reviewed more closely by the community:

• Five instances where the ColonelHenry and Hierophant443 accounts both participated in the same AFD[29]; administrators encouraged to review the results and determine if consensus would have been altered.
• Edits by Raebodep1962 - a new account created only 4 days ago - required suppression due to severe BLP violations of poorly sourced libellous allegations
• Serious questions about the veracity of the article Order of the Bull's Blood
• ColonelHenry, on creating the account, confirms that he had a prior account. This account has been identified, and was associated in its earliest editing with another hoax article in 2004

Because of this, it is important to review at least all article creations by these editors, as well as edits to BLPs. This is a lot of editing to review, and the community's assistance is really needed here.

Note that I will be going offline shortly; however, my findings have been verified by another checkuser and shared with several others. Risker (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: blocks now complete, I wanted to include the diff of this posting in the block log. The ColonelHenry and Hierophant443 accounts have been advised of the block and instructed to post any statement on their talk page; should they do so, it may be useful to transclude their comments to this section. Risker (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can confirm that there is an unambiguous match between the three accounts, and it is plain to see that ColonelHenry and Hierophant443 have been used contrary to policy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just completed an examination of the article Order of the Bull's Blood. It was entirely composed of misrepresented or completely unverifiable sources. Now reduced to the only directly verifiable sourced information (check the article's history for a step-by-step record), it's only two sentences long and indicates that the "society" was demonstrably a hoax. — Scott • talk 14:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I stopped short of taking the article to AfD as well, but I do think that it should be subject to a deletion discussion. — Scott • talk 16:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have reviewed all the AfDs and decided to restore The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture. Please see the AfD for a (brief) rationale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture. (We'll wait for the next AfD nomination for this article--if you do, please have the courtesy of notifying DGG.) The rest look fine, as in, they'd be concluded the same without the socking. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• While the FAC process involves oftentimes more than a dozen editors and it's unlikely that hoax material or bad sourcing or other issues would have slipped through, ColonelHenry was the nominator of seven FA's and I didn't count the number of GA's....great.--MONGO 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• CH currently has another article posted at FAC, awaiting comments....unless someone wants to grab the helm here it should be withdrawn.--MONGO 16:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC) CH apparently self requested the article be removed from consideration.--MONGO 01:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that he necessarily mixed up hoaxing with article reviewing, but to be honest, I think he was a terrible reviewer, as Talk:Pedra da Gávea#Comments from others and the ANI discussion linked to therein would show. If that was representative of his work, I would certainly suggest that it's re-examined. — Scott • talk 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of self-nominations, articles created and substantively written by him, with many in the field of Rutgers University history (His user name is one of the founders of the university) This one is also open (again, almost solely written by him) and has an unfortunate comment about "promoting an inaccuracy--something I am loathe to do". __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Risker and Scott I have emailed you both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Question: Was the original, pre-ColonelHenry account already indef blocked? If not, should it be? BMK (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO, if it is not blocked, it should be. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Upon reflection, I don't think blocking the old account is necessary. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe Risker did not mention it above because it was an account where RTV was exercised. I'm also not going to link to it directly because I'm uncertain of how to proceed in the case of user abuse following an earlier privacy request, but it's very quickly revealed by looking at the history of the hoax articles. Anyone reading this, remove my comment if you think I've gone too far, but I can't imagine that it's going to stay secret for long. — Scott • talk 16:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

An RTV is not legitimate when the editor returns. Returning to editing abrogates the non-vanished editor's right to privacy, so the vanished user name should be re-named back to what it was. There are also some obvious throw-away accounts connected to the editing of the hoax article. I assume they're all too old to connect to ColonelHenry via CU, unfortunately. BMK (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I've dropped a note at WP:BN asking for some bureaucrat opinions on the topic here. — Scott • talk 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It would nullify his courtesy vanishing. Any crat is welcome to reverse the vanishing. I won't be able to get to it for about 8 hours. (Nihonjoe using his public machine account). Joeatworknotsecure (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be highly appropriate for that to be done. What ColonelHenry did is, by far, the worst thing one can do to damage Wikipedia. Vandals add "penis" and "poop" to articles, and our readers will be annoyed, but they know it's not supposed to be there. However, a hoax article which looks well-documented is a direct stab at our credibility. If I can indulge in a bit of hyperbole, creating well-made hoax articles should be considered to be our equivalent of High treason, and the perpetrator deserves no sympathy or quarter from us. We don't do punishment, but we do protect the project from damage, and tracking what this person did and under what names will certainly help in protecting the project from him in the future. To me, he went away a little too easily to believe that there aren't still other accounts connected to him that are operational, which is good reason to indef block the throwaway accounts from the hoax:

• LoyalSon (talk · contribs · logs) - created 13 May 2007, first edit 13 May 2007, last edit 19 October 2007, all edits related to subject
• Lodge443 (talk · contribs · logs) - created 9 April 2007, first edit 9 April 2007, last edit 21 April 2010, all edits related to subject (in the Daily Princetonian article, "Lodge443" is given as an alias for the supposed secret society)
• ResearchRU (talk · contribs · logs) - created 11 April 2010, first edit 11 April 2010, last edit 14 April 2010, both edits to hoax article (My error - BMK (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
• Anonymous1900 (talk · contribs · logs) - created 14 April 2010, first edit 14 April 2010, last edit 1 July 2010, all edits related

BMK (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree although I wouldn't use the words high treason. But I've believed for a while that there are well-established editors who have socks. It's just so easy to create faux accounts and if an editor with a particular reputation wants to edit without the accompanying baggage, it's likely they will get away with it unless it is editing a high profile or controversial article. Of course, creating hoax articles with false sources goes way beyond creating a sock and merits the highest rebuke.

But, this is not an accusation because CU requires demonstrable proof which I don't have and pursuing sock accounts is not how I want to spend my time here. But thanks to Risker and DoRD for a job well done. I hope you checked for sleeper accounts as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank checkusers Risker and DoRD for the job they've done here, as well as Scott for cleaning up the "Bull's Blood" article. Is there any further investigative work that can be done to uncover the full extent of abuse over the past several years? Kurtis ^(talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry's previous account was ExplorerCDT (talk · contribs · logs) (currently known as Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32 (talk · contribs · logs)). Examining its contributions, both extant and deleted, reveals the additional deleted hoax articles:

• Brotherhood of the Golden Dagger (2004, converted to redirect then deleted in 2005)
• Newcastle Group (2004, AfD 2005)
• Christopher D. Thieme (2005, AfD 2005)

and the probable sockpuppets:

• PtonJew06 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 4.188.213.114 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 66.171.124.70 (talk · contribs · logs)

— Scott • talk 20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC) More:

• 174.57.57.45 (talk · contribs · logs)
• BlackBaron (talk · contribs · logs)
• CDThieme (talk · contribs · logs)

— Scott • talk 18:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think you can add 4.188.213.145 (talk · contribs · logs) who vouched for the existence of the Newcastle Group and Christopher D. Thieme in the AfDs. BMK (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Interestingly, changing a user's name does not change their sigs in previous comments, so in the AfD for Christopher D. Thieme, linked above, you'll find a comment from signed by "ExplorerCDT", who we know to be ColonelHenry, in which he claims to be Christopher D. Thieme, but he also claims that the 4.188 IPs are "stalkers". BMK (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - RTV will remove you from the gaze of search engines, but it provides no barrier to any human - even if the renaming log entries are deleted, prior talk page contributions (and file uploads) permanently record user names. If Flow ever becomes a reality, that'll no longer be the case for discussions; but there are definitely arguments for and against that being a good thing. — Scott • talk 11:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I am loathe to answer this because I really don't understand exactly how the rules about "outing" work. BMK (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. WP:RTV does say that it's not a method to reverse previously made confessions or assertions, or to avoid scrutiny. I thought the problem was only using a couple of sockpuppets to battleground decisions (bad), but if it's multiple hoaxes, multiple fraudulent additions, over multiple linked accounts... WP:RTV is for people who leave, not people who stick around to insert hoaxes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I've been here a pretty long time, and I really, honestly do not understand at all what is and isn't permitted under the outing policy, or at least how it has been enforced. Given that, I've got to be reticent, as I have no desire to take a block for outing. BMK (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Two things; I can confirm what the two checkusers above have already stated. Secondly, can we possibly set up a formal WP:SPI case to track this one. I suspect that rabbit hole goes very deep indeed, so to speak, and that this editor will likely be back again and again. It will be useful to collate and track this stuff, as it clearly goes back almost ten years - Alison ^❤ 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (on my cell here)

(1) agree, (2) facepalm.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I went to check, and found a previous CU request, since deleted. Restoring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColonelHenry for community review. I've not looked at it in detail yet, but there may be previous socks - Alison ^❤ 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I find it interesting (or ironic) that Colonel Henry was working on the article on Robert Clark Young. He noted on his User page that he had an article about himself on Wikipedia (written by others), maybe that could be checked as well although I don't know if that would be considered outing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Are you thinking that ColonelHenry is the return of Qworty? I would be surprised if that was true, since I don't see any connection between Robert Clark Young and Rutgers, which I would expect to be the case. So, "ironic" is probably correct. BMK (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have removed the parts of the Young biography that were of interest to ColonelHenry. I removed the bit about a documentary showing Young caring for his elderly parents, as the sources were all primary and failed to show the documentary was important. I also removed a bunch of arguments against Brad Vice, Young's nemesis, arguments that had nothing to do with Young. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• ColonelHenry appears to have been inserting references into articles to "unpublished works" by either an alias of himself, or a family member: Brau Kettle, Casper Shafer, Lake Owassa, Minisink. This is a continuation of similar behavior as ExplorerCDT, e.g. Sussex County, New Jersey. It seems to me that we're going to have to examine his edits in detail. — Scott • talk 22:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed those insertions from those articles. They may well be legitimate, but since they are all unpublished, there's no easy way to verify them, so removal would seem to be the best action. BMK (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What does the community think about creating a Suspected hoax article tag. "Volunteers are checking it's veracity" type wording. At least it looks better and shows we are on the case as an issue to casual and first time users. There may be a significant number out there. Any work ever been done on hoax article durations before being discovered, frequency, etc? Irondome (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is some discussion in Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly what you're envisioning, but there is a {{hoax}} template. Deor (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• There shall be no gravedancing and all, but isn't it nice that he gets to put "retired" on his talk page as if it were voluntary? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The very first edit summary for ColonelHenry describes him as coming off of a "five-year hiatus", so it's probably well within thematic resonance.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    •  Like
• I also suspect Fran Hetzner. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No surviving contributions of any substance from this account, so probably a moot point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Since nobody else will mention it: it looks as if all this was started by a blog on an external site, which I will not name, or link to, in trembling fear for my wiki-life. ;P I will, however, give my thanks to the "March Hare" for a very interesting blog. Also, according to the comments on that blog, there are several more named socks/IPs. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have some firsthand experience with that. Apparently, it's fine to use a WO blog post to improve or correct a situation in WP as long as you don't actually link to it or even mention it. One of the weird things about the culture of this place. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

List of socks

I agree with Alison above that this likely goes deeper than we think, and so I have created Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColonelHenry and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColonelHenry to aid us. GiantSnowman 09:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don´t think the Fran Hetzner-account is one of his socks. More likely to be some COI editor. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to remove, I only tagged following comments from @Drmies: above. GiantSnowman 10:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra, so de-tagged it. — Scott • talk 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Scott: - see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CDThieme, seems to be a list of socks of a sock account from 2008... GiantSnowman 18:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just found these.

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CDThieme
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive56#CDThieme sockpuppetry

— Scott • talk 18:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to move any from this new (or old...) category to the ColonelHenry one, unless you think it's wise? But I've turned it into a subcat anyway, so it's still linked. GiantSnowman 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That works for me, but I have virtually zilch experience of working in this particular admin area. I'm sure if anyone knows better they can fix it. — Scott • talk 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So, if I have this straight, in terms of primary accounts, we've got:

• ExplorerCDT (now Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32) - from September 2004 to February 2007, who uploaded images as theirs using the RL name
• CDThieme - from April 2005 to October 2006
• (5 year gap - presumably while the RL person was otherwise engaged with the State of New Jersey)
• ColonelHenry - from May 2012 to April 2014

then there are 2 confirmed sockpuppets and 17 about 16 (?) suspected sockpuppets connected to the 3 accounts.

@GiantSnowman: My suggestion would be to do away with the secondary layer and list all the suspected sockpuppets under ColonelHenry. It seems confusing to me as I went through it just now. BMK (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive56#CDThieme sockpuppetry. GiantSnowman 20:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell did I just read? He was proven to have vote stacked, and all he got at the time was a slap on the wrist? Kurtis ^(talk) 12:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

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.

---

Please weigh in below, based on the behavioral evidence presented above, if you believe a community ban is appropriate for the person behind the ColonelHenry account and its socks: Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - certainly not as a "punishment", and not merely because it's appropriate for someone with a decade-long history of abusing this project with untruths, but because it will allow future actions against him to be undertaken with the full authority of a ban. For what it's worth, I believe that he's almost certainly now operating somewhere under another sockpuppet account, and probably reading this discussion as well. — Scott • talk 10:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support a community ban, this person has lost the community's trust and can probably never get it back. They are not welcome here. GiantSnowman 10:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• I was actually going to suggest that we just add the banned template to his userpage and forego the formal proposal. ColonelHenry is already de facto community banned; no administrator in their right mind would undo this block, nor allow any of his subsequent accounts to freely edit this site. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Community bans shouldn't be pushed through in a speedy manner. That would be a dangerous thing. There's no rush. Doc talk 11:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• In principle, I agree. I am very strongly opposed to foregoing discussion in most cases. But in this instance, I could not fathom a proposed site ban receiving anything less than the overwhelming support of the community. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• And with that said, I would have to Support based on the depth of deception and the probability that it will continue. There's no way this user can be trusted after this. Doc talk 11:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I see you've reverted my addition to WP:LOBU, but to be honest I think your comment about "danger" is off the mark. This situation is totally unambiguous, and nobody's suggesting that going straight to a community ban is some kind of binding precedent. — Scott • talk 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Wow! Moved from where you put this on my talk page:

• Do not take it upon yourself to declare a user banned by the community. You have been reverted: and you will wait until it is officially closed by someone other than you. Thanks. Doc talk 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I will thank you not to take that tone with me, especially not on my talk page given that discussion is taking place here, in which I made it completely clear that I was open to discussion of the action. What the actual hell. — Scott • talk 12:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't declare a community ban that quickly, even when the outcome may be obvious. This part isn't even archived, and you added him to the banned user list. I apologize for my tone, if it offends you. Doc talk 12:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Scott to formalise the current situation (Kurtis' comment that this editor is currently de facto banned is obviously correct, but enacting a community ban will hopefully send a message and cut down on some paperwork). Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Based on Kurtis's suggestion above I've done it. If anyone thinks I've jumped the gun, please revert my addition of the banned user template to ColonelHenry; otherwise, as of this point the operator of that account and related sockpuppets is indefinitely community banned. — Scott • talk 11:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban / Endorse Scott's action - BMK (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Realistically, there's no chance he's not getting banned. But "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." We can forgo this for the most egregious criminals? There is no 24 hours, and that's the system. Doc talk 12:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Doc9871,if "realistically, there's no chance he's not getting banned", doesn't carrying on with a ban discussion sound like a waste of resources to you? :/ This seems like a great case for WP:IAR to me. (And while "normally" probably means "sometimes they last longer", it can also mean shorter. The 24 hours is not carved in stone.) I support the ban, and I support implementing it now so that community time can be put to repairing any issues that may be identified instead of discussing a foregone conclusion. I appreciate your instinct not to want bans to be imposed too hastily and would be right there with you if I thought there was any shade of gray here, but I'm inclined to agree with you that "there's no chance" of any other outcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, if y'all can't wait 24 hours for the death chamber: change the language of the policy. Some can be swept away in 12 hours, others get the benefit of 24. Who gets rushed in quicker? Case by case. Sounds good. Doc talk 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• That would be completely unnecessary, as we have a much older mechanism that allows this already. Also, please give the melodramatic language like "death chamber" a break, it doesn't contribute anything useful to this discussion. — Scott • talk 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't care if you like my metaphors or not. Not one little bit. IAR close it in less than 24, and have fun with that. Doc talk 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I already did. The only person that objected was you. I take it, then, that you won't revert me when I do it again. Or if anybody else restores my actions. Right? — Scott • talk 13:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't imagine why there's a "normal" 24 hour thing to begin with when it comes to community bans. 1 hour is even enough, in "special" cases. Hang 'em higher and quicker. Bravo! Eroding the process for IAR is admirable indeed. Cheers Doc talk 13:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc9871, nobody is being hung; it's not a death policy. Being banned from Wikipedia is entirely non-lethal...and reversible. My question to you was sincere - if you have a reason why the conversation should continue in spite of what you even agree is a foregone conclusion, it would probably be a lot easier for others to join you. Otherwise, I really don't see any value at all to spreading this out so others can pile on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

When I say "hung", it's just a metaphor. Here's what I'm saying: everybody gets their fair shake. How hard is it to wait 24 hours? How many cases, in theory, could be closed early because it was so sure that 24 hours weren't even needed? And who gets to decide that? Why not say "0" hours instead of "at least 24"? IAR is great and all. I'd run every stop sign when I drive my car if IAR translated to real life. No cop, no stop! Doc talk 13:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is, the tone of at least some of your responses weren't very helpful to both the discussion, and in explaining/justifying the reversion of the closure of this discussion to other users. Even if some/all other users ultimately disagree(d) with your action or your reasons for it, I don't think the metaphors you used were appropriate either. It makes it seem as if you are taking the criticisms unnecessarily personally when defending your actions which were made in good faith. I think there are many (other) good reasons why a reversion may be appropriate in a number of cases. For example, it would give an opportunity to users in other timezones to oppose if they wish to do so (which is fair). Also, I can recall some occasions in the past where former arbcom members have expressed their disappointment or concerns that more time was needed for community ban discussions before they were archived (as the banned user would go running to them with an appeal). But, unless there was a genuine doubt that an administrator would be prepared to unblock the user in the absence of a formal ban (which there is certainly no evidence of at this point from what I've seen), it's unclear what else could be achieved by leaving this particular discussion open without enacting a formal ban. This is a case where a de facto ban was so recently imposed and following from recent CU blocks too which were reported to the community at large. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as common sense after the truly massive history of abuse. However, can we please avoid the references to capital punishment, as doing nothing to improve the tone of the discussion, or help to resolve the situation? Early closure of this discussion was the right decision, considering only one outcome was remotely plausible. Pakaran 13:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There's no need to drag this out. Per the above, ban restored. — Scott • talk 14:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliant - If 24 hours is not a period that should be waited before enacting any ban, change the danged policy language. This goes far beyond this case. How many hours is enough? 24 is too much, and should no longer be offered. Doc talk 14:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Doc, seriously, please just drop it. GiantSnowman 14:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's only about ~8 hours left to go so I don't really see a pressing need to add the user to the list amid objections. –xeno^talk 15:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• And, conversely, no need not to just go ahead and do it. The ban was a foregone conclusion, we don't have to get all WP:BURO and wait while we watch the clock tick down to zero, we're not about that. BMK (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Too late. It's been re-added. I'll keep my mouth shut from now on ;P Doc talk 15:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please close this section? I would, but I'm probably going to get someone comparing me to Judge Dredd at this rate. — Scott • talk 19:02, 22 April 2014 (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.

Regarding the RL identity of this user

Obviously the contributions of all the accounts need to be reviewed, but can we please avoid undue attention to the RL name of this editor. There are reasons that this would not be desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Strongly support. I think whoever is behind this should be indeffed, but lets shift away from individuals to tracking any crap thats been laid. Thanks NYB and Deor for great feedback. Irondome (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but the RL identity is what brought to light the unpublished refs added by ColonelHenry by someone with the same last name - so it's impossible to avoid altogether (not witstanding that he ID'd himself under his previous account). Still, point taken. BMK (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see a need for some thoughtfulness. So from what I've read so far, posted by others, this person admitted publicly who they are, on Wikipedia and in multiple places on Wikipedia; they asked for a WP:RTV (on the grounds they were leaving forever) while they were concurrently using an undisclosed account (one of multiple ones now directly linked); that fraudulent and project-harming behavior and additions happened in all accounts past and present, and that it took similar forms over a decade. If it's also true that the editor had publicly recorded concerns and interests in the public record, wouldn't it be easier for the community to review if there was vandalism on those articles? This editor, by what I've seen posted so far, had clear connections to other articles that exist now (including BLPs) that nobody's mentioned yet. If we avoid talking about this person's confessed identity, how do we discuss the possible impacts or undisclosed COI he had on those articles?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

RTV seems like a really weak excuse to deal with this. Once it was proven that the community's trust was shattered, there now is all of a sudden an issue with outing? You reap what you sow. Busted. Doc talk 02:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur here: if they didn't want their (apparently self-admitted?) identity to become a concern again, they should have properly executed RTV. They didn't. Yes, we shouldn't grave-dance or excessively use it unnecessarily, but using it as part of the tools we have to fix the damage is, and should be, entirely appropriate. The common sense rule is simple: if you don't want to find yourself in a hole, don't grab a shovel and dig. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a classic case of unnecessary handwringing. Our privacy policies do not extend to people that intentionally damage the site through the creation of hoaxes. Even the WMF privacy policy makes exceptions for people "where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way".—Kww(talk) 03:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The technicalities of our policies are far from the point here. We can clean up the articles we need to without excessively splashing this individual's name around, and there are reasons to do it that way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And those reasons are ...?—Kww(talk) 03:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

... not well suited for discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And we should just take your word for that based on one very vague statement that doesn't even begin to explain why? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. Dpmuk (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Always nice to see a cogent argument so carefully phrased and thoughtfully laid out, NYB.—Kww(talk) 03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Those reasons are that every human being should be treated with dignity and respect, even when they have been found to have behaved outside of the acceptable conventions. The manner in which we treat the least amongst us is the manner in which we treat our community as a whole. And because there is not a single person editing this project who is perfect in every way, who has no chinks in their armour, who has made no mistakes here or elsewhere in life, or whose normal behaviour could not be exaggerated by someone with a different agenda to ridicule and bully us. We do it because schadenfreude is ugly. We do it because it's not about the editors, it's about the encyclopedia.

We have the right to be unhappy that we have been taken advantage of; however, we also could have stopped this years ago with the first account of the user, and even a couple of years ago with the second account(s). There were lots of warning signs along the way, but we ignored them. We must learn from them. What we don't need to learn is how to be bullies ourselves. Risker (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And to a large extent I agree with those reasons. However Newyorkbrad has suggested there's other reasons since there is clearly no harm in discussing reasons like you give. That secrecy, is in my opinion, unacceptable, especially from a sitting arb as that makes it seem almost like a threat, regardless of whether that was the intention or not. Dpmuk (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's assuming that holding people responsible for their own behaviour is somehow stripping them of their dignity or being disrespectful. It's this warped view that people have the right to publicly misbehave while having their identities shielded that causes most of our problems: people don't misbehave to anywhere near the same degree when everyone knows who they are.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."

Were any oversights previously done here? Or is it now time to start, now that the shit has hit the fan? Since people failed to appreciate the "don't confirm or deny" aspects of outing in this very thread: it's time to start the oversighting. Right? Doc talk 04:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: Well now, here's the issue. RTV has been used for years (at least back to 2008, and likely earlier) when users posted information that identified them, and they were allowed to abandon the account at that time, wipe it out to make outing them that much more difficult, hopefully decrease the [risk of] harassment, etc. This was the way to "hide" that information, often given out at an early point in the editing career, in this case before outing and harassment had become commonplace. It was understood that the user might return under those circumstances. This is the norm, whether or not it's written down in policy. At the time that the account was RTV'd, there was no sanction on it in any way and the RTV was correctly carried out according to community norms. It's easy to say that someone shouldn't have said something in 2005, before anyone even bothered with Wikipedia editors, and must now pay the consequences in 2014, but it's also rather silly.

I suggest that the editor review proceed in a manner similar to how we do CCI; perhaps Wizardman or Moonriddengirl can give some pointers. That is how we hold people accountable; in the case of CCI, they're expected to help sort things out, but in this case all accounts are blocked, so that is not possible. This is an open project, the only difference between this and the POV-pushing and other poor editing we see on a daily basis is in the extent of the review needed. It's scut work, but it's scut work we do all the time. Risker (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

RTV has never permitted return. RTV has been abused in the past and likely will be again, but RTV has always been a right to vanish: to go completely away and never be heard from again. The lead in January 2009 read "If you wish to leave permanently, and to remove any association with your past edits, you may exercise your right to vanish." The very first version began with "Users who have stopped editing Wikipedia entirely...". —Kww(talk) 05:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then, there's another process that looks like RTV, involves exactly the same steps as RTV, and has been going on for years and years and years particularly when editors have let loose some personal information about themselves that they didn't realise at the time would have off-wiki implications. So let's call it anti-harassment account renaming and abandonment or something else. But it's been going on for as long as I can remember, it's often done in conjunction with a clean start, and many excellent longterm users have exercised it. There was no reason for the 'crats to say no. Risker (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Took me about ten minutes from a standing start (i.e., not having a clue who they were or their previous vanished usernames) to find posts still on Wikipedia by the person in question revealing their real name. DuncanHill (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Can someone block the above editor for unambiguous outing, please? ;P This entire thread needs a complete oversight. Doc talk 08:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how an editor, found to be fraudulently editing in a specific subject area, can be given more care about their identity than we afford any editor in any other COI editing case. If this person turns out to have had public Rutgers University-specific problems and connections in RL, then we have to talk about it if we're going to review all of their contributions on the subject. If we found out an editor was Donald Trump in real life, we'd talk about it, not bury it, so that the community could evaluate any connected page with some idea of where the problems could lie. If this person is who they said they were, then they have a connected status to a few extant articles. I think a fresh start should be afforded people who need it in good faith, but not to obscure fraud over multiple accounts and fraud in real life that could harm the project if it looks like we're covering it up for self-protection or to avoid embarrassment. I think when an editor demonstrates (even accidentally) that they have a negative connection to articles they've been editing, then we need to talk about that connection. We can't be "Shh, don't mention this new account is the same as the guy found to work for the Coca-Cola PR team, because he said he just wanted to be an unknown concerned citizen editing Coca-Cola articles." If he'd gone away I don't think his identity would be pertinent, but he didn't go away. Excessively obscuring his admitted identity obscures where the damage to the project is, and obscures scrutiny and protection by the community of related articles, including BLPs. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what's being asked here isn't so much "Shh, don't talk about this" as it is "let's not exact retribution by googlebombing this person's name". It's one thing to have to cite an old account name, etc, in the context of "Oh, and we should also check these contribs"; it's another to say "John Doe did this bad thing. Did I mention JOHN DOE did this bad thing? Hey, everyone, the person who did this bad thing is JOHN DOE!" Even in cases where the TOS or privacy policy allow the release of information, that doesn't mean we should excessively publish and re-publish that information just for punishment's (or schadenfreude's) sake, even after the issue is handled. I think that's what NYB and Risker are (preemptively) asking us to make sure we avoid. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very fair assessment. I don't think there's any need to restore the user page from the old account, either, for the same reasoning, and because it wouldn't add anything useful to the cleanup effort. — Scott • talk 14:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit overnight, I agree with Scott. The name is now "out there" for any good reason it may have to be utilized, and, as pointed out by DuncanHill, can easily be found by those who need it, so there's little purpose in being unnecessarily explicit about it in public at this point. BMK (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And I would agree that a person's name shouldn't be linked to Wikipedia behavior or actions if the only purpose is shaming a person in RL. But that's clearly not the only reason to examine a discovered identity. If this person hadn't self-identified themselves and didn't have a public and publicly-documented reputation as a fraud and hoaxster outside of Wikipedia, with connections to articles we haven't examined yet, then I'd leave it right there too. As it stands, anyone looking at ColonelHenry's assertions about his interests and qualifications might assume he was an academic with general integrity who had misstepped somehow in a policy way, instead of someone having a jaw-droppingly bad relationship with the truth. I think knowing where he has misrepresented himself (and to be clear I mean publicly and publicly documented) off-Wikipedia would be essential to confirming he made no COI edits in those controversies he was publicly and notoriously involved with.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, one of the offending diffs given above is this one. So one of the things we're possibly looking for are (unpublished?) books by people named Thieme--I can say that much, I believe, and if not Newyorkbrad can revdel this comment. We're also looking, I imagine, to check for glorification of Rutgers: this guy was a Rutgers man. That's something already. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've done a number of searches of the encyclopedia under the last name, with various versions of the first and middle initial, and I haven't found anything (yet) which hasn't been removed by now. (That's by no means definitive, so I don't want to inhibit anyone else from doing their own searches.) BMK (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ThreeFour clicks from this page to a self-identification still visible to all. DuncanHill (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was only talking about removing references under the real name or variations. Any self-ID should remain in place, IMO. BMK (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• In furtherance of Fluffernutter's light touch rationale to 'alias is real person', there is also the issue of believing a known hoaxer is who they say they are (when one should be skeptical, and rather non-committal, unless there is well reasoned and documented need). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought of this too. There's no proof he necessarily is the person who he claimed to be, but if he is, I would hope we'd also do an integrity check for our articles related to the murder trial that name was connected to. It might turn up some socks.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone over the Melanie McGuire article, but I see no signs of it being tampered with. Others should double-check me. BMK (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential coordination of review/cleanup

• User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup

User:Risker pinged me above. What a horrible situation. :( I've created a list of articles edited by the two content-adding socks first named; it can be expanded as more are confirmed. I could add the original Vanished account, if there are likely to be outstanding concerns. This was done using the contribution survey tool ([30]) we use for conducting WP:CCI. It's been toggled to eliminate reverts & minor edits, but probably there's a long trail of these near the bottom that are less significant concern. The higher up, the more heavily edited the article. If this page isn't useful, I have no objections whatsoever to its deletion, but it could be a helpful way to coordinate "checks" for hoaxing, or even to bot flag the articles for review. (We've been talking recently about whether a bot flag for articles listed in the massive backlog at WP:CCI could facilitate community cleanup, although we haven't pursued it actively.) We did use bot blanking for one massive CCI, and it was helpful, although we found that rather than cleaning up the issues some people simply removed the tags without checking. Human follow-up on the list was necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI I have a tool that can be given a list of user names to generate contributions where successive edits by anyone in the list gives a single diff. In practice that can be unhelpful because the resulting diffs can be huge, but one big diff is sometimes easier to comprehend than several small diffs. Example here. If edits by sockpuppets overlap in time the tool might be helpful as it would lump all the edits into one diff. Johnuniq (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

While for CCI, the individual diffs may work better (since sometimes people modify content incrementally, and it's easier to find the source from the first diff), that sounds like it could be really beneficial in this case! Feel free to overwrite the content in that page, Johnuniq. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. Yes, I do think that the "old" account should be included in the review, if at all possible; it had a lot of edits and some of them have already been spotted as being problematic. Risker (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps reviewing them all would prove that hoax content doesn't extend to every entry he's produced. Why would he take articles to GA/FA if they were hoaxes?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Who knows why he did any of this crazy shit? I don't understand him and I don't want to! Guy (Help!) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at a half a dozen or more articles yesterday, though I wasn't exactly sure what I was looking for--"hoax", sure. I guess I was looking for self-advertising (and found none on the ones I looked at) and (BLP) whitewashing, of which there was plenty in Robert E. Mulcahy III, but I can't pin that on he who shall not be named. I did not see anything that was obviously hoaxy, but in the next batch I look at I suppose I'll look more carefully at the references as well. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we keeping track of who looks at what article somewhere? I am willing to chip in and check a few, however I don't want to look at articles at which others already have looked. Go Phightins! 23:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like folks are posting their comments at User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup BMK (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• For those who are participating in the cleanup review, please ensure that you verify that the reference actually says what is attributed to it. This is a recurring theme, and simply because something "looks" reasonable doesn't mean that it's really right. I had a mostly-retired editor email me last night with evidence that there was significant discrepancy between sources and article. Please really look at the references and be sure. Risker (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would it be best to assume -- for this case only -- that off-line references which are not easily verified are to be suspected? BMK (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that would be a good idea. In a number of cases he appears to have used print copies of books that are verifiable online (e.g. this citation upgrade I just made) and that should probably be the minimum standard. — Scott • talk 15:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Risker, that's asking a lot, esp. since the kinds of problems one may find in sources being not completely correctly cited are a dime a dozen on our project, unfortunately. Again I'd like to ask what exactly we're looking for: hoaxes? hoaxy stuff? BLP violations? Rutgers-plugging? Embellishment? Misrepresentation? Errors? (I'm not really asking that of you, or of you alone.) Drmies (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        • This is exactly why I've been doing the later entries from the list first. If we resolve all the minor changes, then we can have more people simultaneously working on the larger ones that require in-depth examinations and may expose any underlying patterns. Rutgers-plugging is definitely one; I removed his addition of his article Kirkpatrick Chapel to Chapels#Notable chapels because that list is of places like... the Sistine Chapel. Not comparable. — Scott • talk 09:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What should be done if the edit is non-actionable? Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If by that you mean that there are no problems with the edit, you should strike out the title using <s> and </s>, then add a note to the end of the entry about its status, such as "OK", "No problem", "Ref checks out" or whatever, then sign it. BMK (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Alright, thanks. There's a lot of articles to go through, and some of these articles are just tagging for notability/deletion. Epicgenius (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• He seems to have had a bee in his bonnet about linking to Rutgers University with the text "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey". That should be fixed wherever it's seen. — Scott • talk 15:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this: I checked Remember not, Lord, our offences, GA, and translated it to German. I would like more such articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have put some analysis of vanished user's work at my sandbox. It seems basically sound. I can do the same for the other accounts. The software is quite new (written for Jagged 85) and the commonality with current versions is somewhat limited, but if there is commonality it will show the biggest parts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

This doesn't show "soundness" if it's only showing the textual claims removed from the sources. I would assume that any untrue material would look plausible on first glance. It does show that hoax material was being inserted from this earlier account, although that's because we already know that this is fraudulent material. And I wouldn't be surprised if most of it was accurate, excepting the deliberate mistruths. Something that might be useful is showing where the various accounts interacted on the same page, as I've already seen about fifteen places where this editor voted more than once using proxies for various proposals.__ E L A Q U E A T E 08:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This might help. Let me know of any errors or shortcomings. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Comment from ColonelHenry

Forwarding, from his talk page - Alison ^❤ 16:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"I'm entirely o.k. with being banned. I've already stated through email to some admins and other interested parties that I'd gladly help rectify matters, and have explained a few things there, since I will stand behind 99% of my work, and I am confident that work will stand up to the scrutiny. I don't remember much of what I did 10 years ago (who does?--seeing some of my callow-years work provokes a reaction of "I edited that? wow.") but in collaborating with my critics, I can identify or explain a small handful of articles that were problematic in the recent two years of my editing work. Most of the scrutiny has been focused on one article, with minor issues with a few others, but upon scrutiny, my errors are not a massive systemic problem and most of my work would pass muster. - ColonelHenry (talk · contribs)"

• I think we'll cope. — Scott • talk 17:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'll be more serious. I strongly disagree with CDThieme/ExplorerCDT/ColonelHenry having any further involvement of any kind with this project, in any capacity. His history of abusing this community makes him persona non grata. — Scott • talk 18:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If he is genuine about helping clear out any hoaxes I don't see the harm. If nothing more, it might help focus effort. Why cut your nose off to spite your face? WCM_email 17:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"If he is genuine about helping clear out any hoaxes I don't see the harm." - Much like having a serial killer help you find the bodies of your family? Fuck Col. Henry and his token "I want to help" bullshit. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Any hoaxes he wants to identify, well and good. The rest will get checked regardless, it will save some time. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• He could also point to any socks that have been missed. BMK (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• If he has things to confess, that's fine. Everything still needs to be checked regardless. In no way should there be quid pro quo, or a belief that this is a gateway back.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

One might want to read this, though, when evaluating the worth of ColonelHenry's offer of assistance. It's advice he gave - under his original ID - to a friend about editing on Wikipedia:

I know well that you fight passionately for what you believe in, which is a good thing and I never fault that. But here, at Wikipedia, that gets you into trouble. Quite a few liberals and anti-American foreigners around here, in addition to the sensitive types who when they're losing a war of words (and principles) will always go retreat to regroup behind something that makes them feel safe and attack you in ways that even your being right won't work against. [...] So if you go in as you are, you're bound to pick a fight and a fight you will ultimately lose...and a lot of the admins who would decide your fate fit in those categorizations above. I should know, I stirred the shitstorm several times here with my passionately-held beliefs and ways of doing things and almost got banned on several occasions. Remember, as someone whose seen this in the field...the cool and calculated always win...hot and heavy only (and often) get you dead. The only way to win is to think or act like your enemy.

Reading this leads me to ask "What, exactly, does ColonelHenry think he will gain by cooperating in cleaning up his mess? And what is the meaning of the 'cool and calculated' manner in which he accepted being banned?" BMK (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Phew, I'm glad he's "OK" with all this... :/ GiantSnowman 18:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BMB I think this user cannot be used as a reliable source for the reliability of their own edits. I'm sure he's motivated to suggest a few inoffensive contributions (for now) but I don't think allowing him to build up a record of innocent and "good" edits from his talk page will end in anything other than grief for the project.The talk page shouldn't be used as a soapbox for burnishing the editor's reputation. He wasn't banned because he never made a good edit; he was banned because he deliberately snuck in bad edits among the good. I don't see that this user was given a talk page exception in their site ban, and I think the risk of manipulation outweighs the benefit here. The editor seems more likely to explain how their "good" edits were "good" without indicating a single unfound malicious edit or sockpuppet. Again, due to WP:BMB policy, I am uncomfortable with a banned user helping to manage their own "Corrections file". __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, given their track record we cannot be sure that they are not mis-directing us, or slyly causing more problems. If they genuinely feel bad and want to help then they can do so by leaving Wikipedia for good. GiantSnowman 13:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add that the editor seems to believe, from an opinion shared on their talk page, that he is only "blocked" at the moment. Was he given notice of the community site ban?__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, he was not formally notified; Scott added a banned template on his user page and redirected his talk page to his userpage, but the ban-enacting users (@Beyond My Ken and Hahc21:) have not left a notice on his talk page. Rgrds. --64.85.215.151 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Neither Hahc21 nor I "enacted" a ban. I simply closed the discussion and reported the enactment of the ban by Scott, and Hahc21 reinforced my closure as an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the blanking of both the talk page and user page and replacement with a banner outlining the ban should be considered a formal notification. I don't see a scenario where that would not be noticed by the editor. Somebody's changed the redirect and there's no notice of the ban on the talk page now, but I can't see how the banned editor would not have seen it. Thanks for the reply.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential additional accounts

CU at the time revealed nothing so let's move on. — Scott • talk 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we determine whether this sock puppeteer engaged in any of his sockpuppetry in connection with his opposition to the latest Hillary Clinton move discussion? The issue was closely contested, and his activity there might have made the difference. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC) It would seem unlikely - so many people participated in that discussion that it would have taken dozens of socks to sway the result one way or the other. That many sock-like commenters would hardly go unnoticed. BMK (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC) You realise how blinkered that sounds given the above right? This came out after someone shone a great big torch on another editor who was putting rubbish into articles. If there is one thing Wikipedians are not good at, its noticing stuff thats in front of them. Better safe than sorry. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Have you actually looked at the Hillary Clinton RM? BMK (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC) BMK, only about 20 oppose were cast. And that was just enough to hit thirty% of the participation. So if two or three of those were this one person that would make a big difference, as it would be more than ten% of all the opposition. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, you're correct, I wasn't thinking clearly. However, I'm working my way through the "oppose" !votes now (ColonelHenry was an "oppose") and haven't found anything which would make me suspect any participants of being socks. BMK (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Fine then, consider the stick dropped. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC) That's an absurd grasp for straws. If the close did not show you that it was not a vote, I don't know what will. Come on now, you should really drop this line of opposition. Dave Dial (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC) If you are so self-certain that the numbers don't matter than you ought not object to a fair investigation of the possibility of sock puppetry. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC) (Outdent) Risker conducted a detailed checkuser analysis and at least one other CU checked her results. Any detectable socks editing from the same IPs as ColonelHenry during the past several weeks would presumably have been picked up. I can't think of anything further that the checkusers, in that capacity, can do to help in this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Further comment from CH: "Under this account, I have almost 10,000 edits, under two previous accounts from years ago, another 15,000-20,000" (14 October 2013).[31] -- GreenC 20:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the above diff, review Talk:Nathaniel Raymond to see ColonelHenry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arguing with his socks 0Juan234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Blander2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about the notability of Nathaniel Raymond.

• I don't think we'll ever discover all of the ColonelHenry socks.
• Shared interests and writing style makes me suspect that "RETIRED" DavidinNJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet another sock of ColonelHenry

JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe, a checkuser commented specifically on the socking issue during the Nathaniel Raymond DRV, indicating that there was no technical evidence of any socking there. The initiator of the AFD and the DRV was socking, though. Comments about DavidinNJ are on the SPI page, and there is no technical match. I have no issue with the confirmed socks being blocked (heck, I blocked the most recent batch myself, and another CU blocked another group some years ago), but please everyone be cautious about old accounts and really review the *content* of the edits to see if they match the profile. Risker (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'll take a look at the SPI you reference. Another editor noted those socks you mention as being CH socks, which, frankly, was shocking, but led me (from the shared interests of DiNJ and CH) to hear Quack! Based on your comments, however, I'm going to revert my tag to DiNJ. It sounds like the socks from that SPI case may not be properly tagged as being CH's either (although I didn't tag them). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

While DavidinNJ and ColonelHenry had a shared interest in writing about New Jersey and were friendly with each other, David wrote almost entirely on the subject of wineries while CH's dominant interest was in NJ history and educational institutions (Rutgers, Drew, New Brunswick Seminary). Even without the SPI, I'm positive they are two separate individuals. David retired two months ago and I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to return should he desire to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything to strongly suggest one is the other so far, but as a note, User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup shows that he did write a lot about wineries as well. — Scott • talk 09:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that all identified sockpuppets be blocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. BMK (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Guardian article

Probably not a major issue, but a few eyes on the articles mentioned in this national news article might be welcome given their increased visibility at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Picked up by the BBC now as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For info, there's a more detailed discussion at Talk:Hillsborough_disaster#Wikipedia_edits_from_government_IP_addresses WaggersTALK 12:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Could become a little stir up, given the UK EU elections and other reasons. However our usual policies apply and this is historical. There is probably enough eyes on the article, so I appreciate the heads up, but there's no real preventative action to be taken. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear over who sanctioned such edits. Having observed vandalism from school IP addresses, it is possible that such edits may be have been performed by a disgruntled user. --Marianian^(talk) 22:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No-one will have sanctioned the edits, don't be silly. Pretty much all modern public servants have internet-connected desktops and lunch breaks, and some of them use this to post the odd bit of vandalism to Wikipedia. This is an example of that. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious it was a civil servant, given that the vandalism happened both in 2009 and 2012; I doubt that Andy Burnham, as an Everton fan, would've sanctioned it himself. Normally the principle of ministerial responsibility would apply, but I doubt either party would want to get rid of their health secretaries. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As an ex-civil servant with 20 yrs under my belt (to my shame, and esp my mother) you can bet this was the work of a couple of AO's (admin officers) on a 3 or 6 month casual contract. Long gone. But still traceable. I doubt if this was a "regular". Whoever, they would have been out the door within the hour if they had been caught in the act. And prosecution considered and very possibly pressed. Irondome (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you have more than one mother? gd&r ;-) Guy (Help!) 09:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Some people do. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple mater matter managed ;) Irondome (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is in no way a criticism of the editor involved, but can we have some opinions on the decision to remove mention of this from the article itself? Details: Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Removal of the section about the government IP edits 2.25.115.116 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please block and disable my alternative account (for security reasons)

I don't know this is the right noticeboard to submit my request or not. So if I posted on wrong place, please move this request to the related board.

• User:Ethereal Metal is my alternative account and I don't use it anymore. Also, I forgot password. As I remember, that password is weak. I don't need my alternative account. So please block and disable that alternative account with a block summary that shows the block is requested by me. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• This is as good a place as any to request. I blocked the account after verifying the account named you as the parent, plus blocked email/talk page access but not the IP or acct. creation. I also left a note on the talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Thank you very much. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN3 getting stale

Some admin attention is needed at WP:AN3. There are a few outstanding reports that should be acted on. Calidum 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by administrator

I realize that I'm an IP, and as an IP, I'll get no respect here. Nevertheless, Bearian's administrative actions have been so abusive that I felt the need to report them.

• Yesterday I prodded Oakhill Christian School because it's a tiny, unknown school with no notability. In response, Bearian deprodded, then slapped a vandalism template on my talk page. I warned Bearian about misusing templates, and he labeled that warning "vandalism". I asked him again to stop his false "vandalism" claims. He labeled that request "vandalism".
• Bearian added a source to the Oakhill article and I checked it out, only to find that it did not validate the assertion it was supposedly supporting. (It's merely the name of the school in a long list.) I added a tag, which Bearian deleted without fixing the problem.
• Bearian added a completely trivial sentence to the Oakhill article. I added an tag. Bearian immediately reverted, without addressing the issue.
• Bearian finally afd'd the Oakhill article, but his comment there was largely a digression about my "vandalism" and ignorance.

In sum, Bearian has summarily removed tags without addressing the underlying issues, and most importantly, repeatedly hurled the "vandalism" epithet at me for perfectly legitimate edits. This is an abusive violation of WP:AGF.
Please note: I am unable to notify Bearian about this discussion because his talk page is protected. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's your problem: while Wikipedia is not a directory, it is a directory of schools. This is well enough known that it's not too surprising that Bearian considered you are likely to be a user who has logged out in order to make a point. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain how any of the things you said above amount to "abuse of administrator privileges"? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He labeled me a "vandal" four? five? times. When I asked him to stop his attacks, he protected his talk page so I couldn't request that he stop his disruptive behavior again.71.139.142.132 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've notified Bearian for you. Yeah, I'd say that Bearian was wrong to use a template to tell you that he declined your prod, but then again, the uw-test1 template is not usually thought of as an accusation of vandalism, so I think you might've initially overreacted a little bit; it wasn't an accusation of vandalism per se, though Bearian is guilty of not assuming good clue. Labeling your edits to his talk page as vandalism was worse, but it looks like both of y'all were kind of worked up about each other, so I'm not sure there's much else to do other than a troutslap to Bearian. Also, I'd note that it doesn't seem like Bearian used any administrator tools here (aside from semi-ing his talk page, which is not that big a deal and after the fact anyway), so calling this an "abuse of administrative privileges" isn't accurate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This may not technically be "abuse of administrative privileges", but it is abuse, and something that no administrator should be involved in. A slap on the wrists is all I was expecting, but I think that's warranted. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you mean that a slap on the wrists is all you were asking for or if that's all you could cynically expect, but I think that's really all that's called for here (and that it is called for, though I seem to be in a minority?). Anyway, if my opinion matters to anyone (it doesn't), Bearian can consider his wrists slapped. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• No admin tools or "power" were used in this series of transactions. Bearian was simply acting as an editor, and making some "educated guesses" the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

More evidence why a rule of "IP's are not people" should be applied. I find this ANI disruptive, it looks like the IP editor lacks an understanding of notability and this is attempting to attack Bearian on false grounds because of a standard edit conflict (Bearian is correct as well). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So Bearian is perfectly justified in repeatedly calling good faith edits "vandalism"? 71.139.142.132 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I have entered in a call for deletion at that AfD; based upon a little research it appears that this "Oakhill Christian School" shared the same physical address and even phone # as its affiliated church, and it does not appear to be an accredited institution by the state of Wisconsin. Add to that an enrollment of 68 spread across 13 grade levels, it looks like a glorified provate bible study for the churchgoers, thus it seems that this may pass none of our guidelines, not even the currently- (and possibly mis-) cited Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). And even so, that is just an essay, not something set in stone, so while I am generally disdainful of IP editors as a class, this particular one seems to have a better grasp on notability than you, Valoem, and others to boot. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Schools are generally notable, Bearian had tagged his account once, probably because of the same reason regarding school notability. I do not see repeated tagging as the IP claims, on top of that an ANI for this is completely unnecessary. Since the AfD will probably default to keep, perhaps it is you who needs to read the guidelines again. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the original post again. "The IP" did not claim repeated tagging. The aggrieved editor provided solid evidence of repeated labeling of "vandalism". Since when is a good faith edit "vandalism"? 71.139.142.132 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you bothered to read what I actually rote, I rebutted the claim that this institution is actually an accredited or recognized school. If you're going to keep carping on a HS notability guide, it'd help if you actually read it first, y'know. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My response was to your bitey comment at the end. I did read your comment while we agree to disagree, you suggested my defense of this school is a sign of lacking understanding which is simply not true. The notability criteria of schools while not universal is widespread. I do not see repeated accusation of vandalism the first one was probably a misunderstanding, but repeatedly rewarning Bearian on his talk page is intrusive and it looks like that was the vandalism he was referring to. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I did not use any admin tools in this process against the IP editor, nor did I use a bare template, nor did I initially call him/her a vandal, until he/she templated me. Please see WP:DUCK and WP:CHECKUSER. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not true. Bearian placed a level 1 vandalism warning on my page at 22:02, 21 April 2014. I didn't template him for misuse of a warning template until 14:11, 22 April 2014. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. for the record, I found it suspicious that this IP range supposedly never edited until this week, but cites policy. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should we see WP:DUCK and WP:CHECKUSER, Bearian? I can understand that you're a bit frustrated that an unregistered editor has challenged your opinion here, and I do appreciate that you took the time to file an AFD for the article in question. But I'm lost at the implication that there is a sock involved here. I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere that the editor who used these IPs claimed to have never edited before. Risker (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also incidentally, although it is fairly less common, there are a few occasions where users who legitimately start editing Wikipedia in fact already have a fair understanding of several Wikipedia policies prior to editing; it's just they explore the various links on Wikipedia (including history, user contributions, Wikipedia discussions, policies, etc.) and haven't started any actual edits until later. I'm not saying whether this was (necessarily) the case here or not. That said, I am saying that given that there is a risk of attracting this sort of attention, it may be worth spending just a little bit more time (or taking a little bit more care) to avoid prematurely suggesting that such users must be an illegimate sock or engaging in vandalism (or the like). Enough said otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In point of facvt, while schools might generally be considered notable by some Wikipedians, many fail the basic tests that we apply to every other subject, in that the sources used to establish notability are trivial, directory-style or are not independent. That's not the point. The point is that any attempt to delete an article on any school on Wikipedia is inherently disruptive, and anybody who has been here long enough to know how to use the PROD template probably knows it. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would an attempt to apply Wikipedia's standard guidelines and policies to articles about schools be "inherently disruptive"? My god, I hope you're kidding. If not then his place has really turned into a joke. What the hell has happened to this place? 2607:FB90:170E:D60E:CB27:D415:A641:A0B4 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of us remember the schoolwars. Schools are considered "inherently" notable because a cabal of users was utterly determined to oppose the deletion of any article on a school. The Wikipedia community collectively opined: "fuck it". Schools are not deletable via CSD or PROD, and even AFD is pushing it. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's putting it backwards. The cabals were the people determined to keep as many as possible or delete as many as possible. Because of the very large number of divisive and inconsistent AfD discussions on individual schools, a practical compromise was reached by which we accept articles on all high schools and reject articles on primary and intermediate schools unless there is some special notability , instead listing them under the locality a or school district. This should satisfy both the deletionists and the inclusionists on the issue: we keep half. The statistics were 50:50 before also, but the ones we kept and deleted them were essentially random determined by the amount of effort at the individual afds & the idiosyncrasies of the closure; now there is at least a rational basis. And the great virtue is, that it can be done without discussion. Would that many more topics on WP could be dealt with as simply. It's better to have something we can all live with though none of us think ideal, than to argue indefinitely between people inflexibly determined to get it their own way: that's the meaning of consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Heck, if anyone is going take on the notability of secondary schools, could you throw in roads and train stations? I don't understand why every rural route is notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Every rural route" is not notable. Every route that is designated and active (to use the US terms, because they're what I'm familiar with} as an Interstate, U.S. route, or State route, is considered notable because, under the Five Pillars, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's also a gazeteer. This is, presumably, the same reason secondary-level-and-up schools are notable for being what they are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, eight years and I'd never noticed that! Thank you! Guy (Help!) 20:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be better to notice the actual statement, which is "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", and to notice the history of the page: it's a derivative of WP:Trifecta written by an editor in 2005 as a simple introduction for newbies. It's not some sort of eternal or foundational policy page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Umm.... it's on the Five Pillars page, that makes it foundational. BMK (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are foundational, much of the stuff that backs them up (e.g. WP:RS) is not foundational but is considered to be so by extension since these policies describe how we meet the foundational ones. Foundational means a founding principle of Wikipedia: being an encyclopaedia was, being a gazetteer may or may not have been, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"It's on a page boldly created by one person, with no prior discussion, four or five years after Wikipedia was founded, so that makes it foundational"? That doesn't make any sense.

I realize that 5P is popular. Personally, I think it's the best essay for new editors to read. But it's not a founding document. It's not a policy. It's just an extremely well-written summary of the real policies. If you want to see the real founding principles, then look at User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Main page recent deaths

Someone please fix this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: you didn't notify It Is Me Here, who made the edit in question; I have done so for you. IIMH said on their talk page that the removal is because there aren't any recent deaths listed there that aren't stale. This sounds reasonable to me, and doesn't seem like something that needs urgently fixing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point. 1) I did notify that user (look at his talkpage, date/time stamp) and 2) it's the link to recent deaths that was removed. Thankfully someone who grasped that fixed it. Top job. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Facebook Link Question

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.

---

What is the perfered way to link a Facebook page, with or without the https? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a template available for Facebook links: Template:Facebook. It generates a https link. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I can add the "https", no problem, I just wasn't sure if that was the perfered way to link a Facebook article or if Wikipedia perfered the "http" link. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed the facebook altogether per WP:ELOFFICIAL - no need to link all online presences of a subject, and this one if prominently linked from the official homepage (which is in the external links) of the subject already: "Do you have a Facebook? Because we do!". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That works too. I have no qualms with the link not being there or being there. I was just trying to include everything. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this really a matter for the admin noticeboard?! GiantSnowman 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to ask, so I asked here. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say on the talkpage of the External Links guideline, or on it's noticeboard. The right answer, by the way is: //facebook.com (without protocol). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I will bookmark WP:EL and WP:EL/N for next time. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:15, 27 April 2014 (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.

Thanks

I left a message on my user page already, but I'd like to post here to thank the admins and the community general as a whole for all they've done to make me enjoy my experience here. I am sad to go, but I am departing only to make sporadic edits. Thanks and happy editing all! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't be a stranger. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. I will still check in most days, but my content creation will be meager and sporadic until mid-June. Beyond June, we'll see. I can edit a little more, but RL is keeping me busy. I must say that there is sanctioning and drama and what not on this site, but Wikipedians must remember to see the glimmer of light in every situation. Best advice: don't take Wikipedia for granted. It may not be my primary point of reference for research papers right now, but it could be in the future. Keep the content creators interested and try to refocus the drama mongers. Everyone has potential. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sportsguy17: Just an FYI, and something to keep in mind, I've taken wikibreaks at various points (pretty much always unplanned in my case) that have ranged from limited participation to almost no participation. I've found that every time I come back it's not difficult to get back into whatever I was doing before, even though I often have reservations about doing so. Wikipedia is like a bicycle and easy to get back onto even if you've been away for awhile. Hopefully the place won't burn down in the mean time. -- Atama頭 17:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dallas wayne promotional picture

If I check this picture File:Dallas Wayne.jpg, it will be read that this can transfer to Commons, but if I check sourcepage [32] there will be read © 2000-2014 This site is trademarked by DW-Productions. All rights reserved.--Musamies (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the contribution history of the uploader - Aurinkojo, who has only ever made edits about Dallas Wayne, the edit summary for the upload says "N File:Dallas Wayne.jpg ‎ (Dallas Wayne, promotional photo, www.dallaswayne.com)". And the history on the image also says "Dallas Wayne, promotional photo, www.dallaswayne.com". The licensing statement, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License" thus appears to be a false claim by Aurinkojo. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the bogus "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" claim, removed the "Copy to Commons" thing, and nominated the File for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocking User:Zbag27

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.

---

This user has been given three different disruptive editing warnings, and has repeatedly removed or added content without sources or discussion on the matter, no matter how many times I warn him or revert his edits. Since I gave him the final warning for disruptive editing, he has vandalised many more pages with the same habits. Please block this user. MetalicMadness (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2014 (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.

Indefinite softblock on User:Dealignment for testing purposes

Hi. I am testing the functionality of the iOS beta app, and I need to try some things from a blocked account. Can an admin please indefinitely softblock User:Dealignment, my testing account? I am unable to do so myself as the staff global group does not let one block users. Thanks. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

K. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm finished testing. You can unblock at your convenience. Thanks Writ Keeper. In retrospect perhaps a 30 minute block would've done... but I didn't think I'd be finished so quickly! --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done GB fan 00:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

More vandalism reported in the press today

Following on from the Hillsborough article and related vandalism from UK government computers, the BBC reports this today. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Talk:Hillsborough disaster#British media looking at UK government IP addresses editing WP 2.25.112.149 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin backlogs

Of the various admin backlogs, i thought that the Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons was an easy one to clear. But it also has over 200 files. I just thought of bringing it to your notice. Is there a need to organize some competition to boost all admins to get their brooms out? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob Hoskins death

Could an Admin please semi-protect Bob Hoskins, who recently died... a lot of IP vandalism occurring. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:This is not my last name

This is not my last name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just indeffed this account for creating hoaxes, but it looks to my eye (not too experienced in this area) as if the account might be a sock of a known vandal. Any suggestions?  —SMALLJIM  14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dropping here is fine. This might provide clues, as would quote loving here. I'm at work, can't dig deeper right now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I must admit that those clues don't tell me much. Is this worth pursuing?  —SMALLJIM  10:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I followed up a little with it, but it isn't obvious enough for me to be of much help this time. I was hoping a passer by would say "Yes, that looks like $x", but no luck. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was really hoping for too. Never mind - thanks for looking into it.  —SMALLJIM  23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control closed

The above named arbitration case has closed, and final decisions are now available at the link above. The following remedies were passed:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control;
2. AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) reminded that further edit-warring as well as incivility will likely result in serious sanctions;
3. Gaijin42 (talk · contribs), Justanonymous (talk · contribs), and ROG5728 (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control;
4. Goethean (talk · contribs) reminded that further incivility as well as unnecessary antagonism may result in sanctions;
5. North8000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. The twelve-month period of the ban under this remedy is reset if new infringements of the sock puppetry policy occur. In addition, North8000 (talk · contribs) is also indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control. The topic ban that North8000 was subject to due to the Tea Party case remains in force.

The topic-ban remedies passed in this case may not be appealed for at least twelve months, and another twelve months must pass for each subsequent appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Gaming the system

An incident has recently occurred at template:Location map Israel, as user:Sepsis II modified a long-standing version of Israeli map to 1949 borders version without any discussion, suspiciously naming it File:Neutral Israel location map.svg instead of previous File:Israel location map.svg. Further, upon resulting edit-warring, an administrator protected that template, but perhaps mistakenly, without restoring the stable version prior to Sepsis II edits. Interestingly, there has already been a comprehensive discussion at Syrian location map, with an accepted solution regarding Syrian and Israeli map issues, but some editors apparently fail to acknowledge it and continue to attempt and change maps to their POV versions. An administrator user:Number 57 later raised the issue at ANI, but there was not attention and notification to involved parties. There is currently a discussion going on to return to previous status-quo (before alleged system gaming by Sepsis II), but the undiscussed map change in late March 2014 shouldn't have happened in the first place. I'm informing all involved parties this time - this is quiet bad faith situation ongoing here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to note that template:Location map Israel is either under WP:ARBPIA or WP:SCWGS, which both imply harsh sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I can see two three altered. (a) the colouring, changed so that Israel proper is clearly distinguished from the uniformly coloured surrounding countries (b) the title is changed from 'Israel map location' to a 'neutral Israel map'; (c)'Nations and regions occupied by the Israeli army no longer coloured incorrectly'.

Provisorily

• (a) doesn't strike me as problematical. Neither the Golan nor the West Bank form any part of Israel, and colouring them identically to offset Israel from its neighbouring lands seems innocuous. Any criticism of the colour choice would redound with even more force on the previous map, which uncessarily treats the West Bank and the Golan (occupied territories not belonging to Israel) as though they were relevant to a map of Israel. They aren't, and choosing to colour them as though they were not quite part of the general non-Israel nations is subliminally deceptive.
• (b) Adding 'neutral' clearly is inappropriate for a map name on wikipedia. The adjective carries implications that are not necessary for an objective i.e. neutral description.
• (c) Describes what Sepsis did in doing (a). It would be problematical if this were to become the default map for Israel, rather than an alternative to the other map. If so, then the language of the title must be altered, at the least.

I don't see 'bad faith'. But as per (b) and (c) I do not commend the use of that kind of descriptive language for the map. Israel (proper) or something of that would have been adequate. 'Harsh sanctions' or assertions that a difference of opinion constitutes 'gaming the system' are out of the question. Independent review and further discussion certainly obligatory.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Greyshark has already stated that "The issue is not which map is best or correct". He just wants to put EJ back into Israel through "resorting consensus" rather than arguing which map is better as that argument is a lost cause for him. I didn't put any thought into the name as it's kiddy porn commons and the name is never seen on en.wiki, I would change it but that wouldn't stop these AN reports from keep coming up months later. Sepsis II (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's what happened. A long time ago, Sepsis II tried to change File:Israel location map.svg to not color the occupied territories at all, but he was reverted every time because it was a major change without consensus. Instead, he uploaded his own version and called it File:Neutral Israel location map.svg. He then proceeded to replace all uses of the former with the latter, as well as some unrelated images that happened to show the occupied territories in the "wrong" color, such as on [33], claiming NPOV. I then reverted him, he reverted me back, and then another user reverted him again (on that template at least, on most of them his version still stands). This also has the side effect of rendering useless all of the other location maps, since they used different images on purpose so that they could show different parts of Israel in detail, but now all show the same one (his). Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• The original maps are a gross WP:NPOV violation and they need to be remedied. Sepsis II has done a service to the project by highlighting the issue. It seems we now have a centralized discussion where the issue can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I'm really not sure what the point of bringing this here now. Dlv999 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of these things occur below the radar of interested editors. Whatever maps are used should be subject to careful review and wide comment by a larger constituency. The earlier map is not NPOV, for the simple reason that it does not show 'Israel', but comments quite clearly by its shading on two other categories consisting of (a) 'non-Israel' (other countries) sharply distinguished and (b) where Israel has its foreign settlement and occupant military forces, which are by implication not in 'other countries'. Very subtle, and totally unnncessary. Thanks, Sepsis, and yes, we really need to hammer out an agreement on such seminal issues of representation.Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The proper venue to hash this out is actually the talk page of the template, or failing that, WP:DRN. This is an admin board, and admin don't decide content. As long as everyone is acting more or less in good faith, admin don't need to be involved at all. It sounds like a reasonable discussion could take place at those places, so please do have one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could someone who knows how open up the relevant discussion for this, and notify interested editors and the wider community?Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I think Greyshark came here and canvassed many admins as they are the only ones who can revert to the old map. Are the numerous comments by Greyshark such as "Sepsis II attempts to change also regional maps is a very bad faith example of POV-pushing with no WP:BRD process, and everyone knows Sepsis II belongs to Arab nationalists." [34] acceptable? Sepsis II (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider yourself as an Arab nationalist by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The closest this white agnostic scientist has even been to an Arab nation is about 8000km. Nationalism is a very small step from racism. Sepsis II (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The inaccuracy of editor assessments of other editors is one of my favorite aspects of Wikipedia. Comedy gold and a gift that keeps giving. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at the RfC: The WP:BOLD edits that changed all of the detailed templates...from a zoomed view (such as Template:Location map Israel gaza which has since been restored), to instead all use the same File:Neutral Israel location map.svg, at a zoom level showing the entire country, should have been discussed beforehand. The new map imparts much less additional detail to the reader looking at Haifa's location on Template:Location map Israel north haifa for example, than did the old map. I understand the concerns for NPOV, and would support a new set of maps being created through the consensus process, but until new maps have been created for each one (if that is the consensus), the original set of maps should be restored. In fact if such maps could have been made in advance of this change, there would likely have been much less controversy – it was laziness not to have done so. While the one new map may be more politically correct and may be of great importance to Israelis, Palestinians, etc., we need to keep in mind that most readers of the articles likely couldn't give two shits about what colors are/aren't used for any of the occupied territories, if the maps themselves are of much lower quality. Mojoworker (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Zbag27

It appears that the currently blocked user Zbag27 has returned as an IP user, 86.19.151.163, and has made the exact same edit on the Dream Theater article as Zbag. This IP should also be blocked. MetalicMadness (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Weird PRODs

Hi, many PRODs listed at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary are overdue, yet do not exhibit a red notice in the PROD template that the PROD is expired. Some (for example, Dardan Xheladini) even are indicated to be in the Category:Expired proposed deletions, yet that category seems to be empty (and, yes, I have purged my cache). No clue what is going on here, but thought I should mention it. --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just make a 0-edit to the page, and they will appear in the category (like I did with your example). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, at this point, I'm just deleting them. But shouldn't they get into those cats automatically, so that they are easier to find than checking that DumbBot log? --Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Its an issue of caching, they will drop into the category as soon as the pages are reparsed. There is a purge bot around here somewhere that does that for other deletion related categories. You might see if this can be added to its job. Werieth (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a long-term problem, well-known among those of us who work at PROD. If we can get a bot to resolve it then even better. GiantSnowman 17:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In preferences, under gadgets, I enabled the "Add a clock in the personal toolbar" option under Appearance. If you click the little clock it will reload the cache of the page you're at. It's invaluable on a lot of pages but especially handy when a PROD is expired but the template on the page hasn't updated. That's what I do to double-check if I think a PROD should be expired but it's not saying that it was. In my experience, it can take a long time for the cache to purge, sometimes even more than a day. -- Atama頭 17:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Joe Decker: can you chime in? Werieth (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  I will take a look, and respond when I'm home (probably 4-6 hours from now). Sounds like something may need a kick. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is precisely the same sort of problem that the other tasks of User:Joe's Null Bot was designed to handle, unless there are concerns, I'll file the appropriate BRFA. (My bot only runs daily, not constantly, so it'll still happen that some get behind, just not for more than a day.) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Things look much better now. Once a day should indeed be enough. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! The BRFA is filed at Wikipedia:Brfa#Joe.27s_Null_Bot_9, I would guess it is likely it'll be approved in the next week or so, and it will be a very simple addition to existing code. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Pirelli Brasil

User:NaBUru38 made a note on WT:SPI about this unlisted YouTube video, which depicts a campaign by the company to change various images on Wikipedia to prominently feature their brand. I checked en-wiki, pt-wiki, and Commons, and this campaign does not seem to have happened; if it had, I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed by now anyways. I'm assuming it's some fake video made to impress non-tech-savvy corporate bigwigs or something, but just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention in case they made the video before they started (which could also explain why it's unlisted, I guess). Cheers, 206.117.89.4 (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)

New WMF Executive Director

The new WMF ED is to be Lila Tretikov, see announcement. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee voting on procedures is in progress

The Arbitration Committee is voting on changes to ArbCom procedures at:

• Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014)
• Motion: Appeals and modifications
• Motion: DS (2014) housekeeping provisions

This is an informational post, per requirements of Modification of procedures --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Zeitgeist Movement

There seems to be edit warring going on at The Zeitgeist Movement. Can someone lock down the article until a discussion can resolve the issue, and/or block the persons involved, if necessary? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that 107%[1] of all the people in the world whoGAF about the Zeitgeitst bollocks, choose to push it on Wikipedia?

[1] That's all of them plus some sockpuppets.

Guy (Help!) 01:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The situation is a bit more complex that the usual one concerning pro-TZM sock/meatpuppetry - see this WP:AN/EW discussion, [35] which should probably be taking place at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. The "merge to one cesspool" idea has definite merit. We have enough trouble keeping a lid on conspiracisty bollocks as it is, without the Zeitgeist people adding to it. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Brick Like Me

• A request was made to move Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) to replace Brick Like Me. But Brick Like Me is a long orderly succession of edits, and Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) is a disorderly alternation of edit war between text and redirects. Someone reinstated this request as a history-merge, but this history-merge is unsuitable because the two pages are partly WP:Parallel histories. But 2 users keep reinstating this history-merge request. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Brick Like Me, User talk:M(e)ister Eiskalt#Brick Like Me. I would like to make the history-merge and satisfy these desires, but that would make a mess: see WP:Parallel histories. What happened in these two Brick Like Me pages was not a cut-and-paste but a copy-and-paste, creating two parallel histories, and to re-unite one of these two histories I would have to cut the other history (that persistent dilemma when tidying up after a content-fork caused by a copy-and-paste). I put a history note in Talk:Brick Like Me. There may have been two to several complete or partial copy-and-pastes between Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) and Brick Like Me, but the usual history-merge process cannot handle that. This dispute needs to be discussed properly somewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just redirect and protect the redirect? That would leave the messy history in place and the orderly history in place, and would also leave a single article. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to underline the idea of ViperSnake151 that IS the way to do everything right. But the copy of Djole 555 should be delate because it is still NOT his work. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with JzG (Guy). Just fully protect Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) and leave it as a redirect. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 14:54, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
• Make use of the {{copied}} template to document the edit(s) where content was copied from Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) and leave both histories in place. Simple. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support making Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) be a fully protected redirect to the main article. Someone can leave a note on the talk page about where the material came from originally. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, not everyone who takes notes about the view history takes notes about the talk page. Either it is mentioned in the edit summary of the copy OR you make the way of ViperSnake151. The other points are still copyright infringement even if it was copied from a Wikipedia page. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  You are mistaken - the use of the {{copied}} template fulfills the requirements of the CC-BY-SA/GFDL. A history merge is not required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just so. A simple fix that seems to resolve the stated issue. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock block check please

I've just blocked Robopsychologist (talk · contribs · logs) as a suspected sock puppet of CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · logs), on the basis of the sudden appearance to add "X in fiction" categories [36] and stuff about "ancient astronauts" and algae [37] - compare the latter to CensoredScribe's user page content. The writing style also appears to match. I think it's pretty obvious that it's the same person. Could I get some opinions please as to whether I was right? If I've screwed up, I will offer a full and very public apology to the user in question. Thanks. — Scott • talk 17:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed this is likely to be CensoredScribe, and if not then the chances of it being a genuinely new user are close to zero. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The "goodbye" to Drmies is particularly telling. BMK (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Null edits

Could someone make null edits to the pages in Category:Wikipedia XHTML tag replacing templates? They are all full- or template-protected. After this the category should be deleted by using the "click here to delete" link on the page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Zeitgeist Movement

There seems to be edit warring going on at The Zeitgeist Movement. Can someone lock down the article until a discussion can resolve the issue, and/or block the persons involved, if necessary? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that 107%[1] of all the people in the world whoGAF about the Zeitgeitst bollocks, choose to push it on Wikipedia?

[1] That's all of them plus some sockpuppets.

Guy (Help!) 01:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The situation is a bit more complex that the usual one concerning pro-TZM sock/meatpuppetry - see this WP:AN/EW discussion, [38] which should probably be taking place at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. The "merge to one cesspool" idea has definite merit. We have enough trouble keeping a lid on conspiracisty bollocks as it is, without the Zeitgeist people adding to it. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Brick Like Me

• A request was made to move Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) to replace Brick Like Me. But Brick Like Me is a long orderly succession of edits, and Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) is a disorderly alternation of edit war between text and redirects. Someone reinstated this request as a history-merge, but this history-merge is unsuitable because the two pages are partly WP:Parallel histories. But 2 users keep reinstating this history-merge request. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Brick Like Me, User talk:M(e)ister Eiskalt#Brick Like Me. I would like to make the history-merge and satisfy these desires, but that would make a mess: see WP:Parallel histories. What happened in these two Brick Like Me pages was not a cut-and-paste but a copy-and-paste, creating two parallel histories, and to re-unite one of these two histories I would have to cut the other history (that persistent dilemma when tidying up after a content-fork caused by a copy-and-paste). I put a history note in Talk:Brick Like Me. There may have been two to several complete or partial copy-and-pastes between Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) and Brick Like Me, but the usual history-merge process cannot handle that. This dispute needs to be discussed properly somewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just redirect and protect the redirect? That would leave the messy history in place and the orderly history in place, and would also leave a single article. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to underline the idea of ViperSnake151 that IS the way to do everything right. But the copy of Djole 555 should be delate because it is still NOT his work. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with JzG (Guy). Just fully protect Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) and leave it as a redirect. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 14:54, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
• Make use of the {{copied}} template to document the edit(s) where content was copied from Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) and leave both histories in place. Simple. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support making Brick Like Me (The Simpsons) be a fully protected redirect to the main article. Someone can leave a note on the talk page about where the material came from originally. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, not everyone who takes notes about the view history takes notes about the talk page. Either it is mentioned in the edit summary of the copy OR you make the way of ViperSnake151. The other points are still copyright infringement even if it was copied from a Wikipedia page. --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  You are mistaken - the use of the {{copied}} template fulfills the requirements of the CC-BY-SA/GFDL. A history merge is not required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just so. A simple fix that seems to resolve the stated issue. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock block check please

I've just blocked Robopsychologist (talk · contribs · logs) as a suspected sock puppet of CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · logs), on the basis of the sudden appearance to add "X in fiction" categories [39] and stuff about "ancient astronauts" and algae [40] - compare the latter to CensoredScribe's user page content. The writing style also appears to match. I think it's pretty obvious that it's the same person. Could I get some opinions please as to whether I was right? If I've screwed up, I will offer a full and very public apology to the user in question. Thanks. — Scott • talk 17:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed this is likely to be CensoredScribe, and if not then the chances of it being a genuinely new user are close to zero. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The "goodbye" to Drmies is particularly telling. BMK (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Null edits

Could someone make null edits to the pages in Category:Wikipedia XHTML tag replacing templates? They are all full- or template-protected. After this the category should be deleted by using the "click here to delete" link on the page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Move request moratorium at Genesis creation narrative

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.

---

I have just closed a requested move discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Suggested_move. It was the 12th move discussion on this page since January 2010 (which may be some sort of a record), and the second move discussion in 3 months. I have therefore imposed a 12-month moratorium on further move requests.

I don't recall doing this before, so I am unsure if I should log this somewhere ... which is why I have left a note here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You did well IMO. Irondome (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Good call. I don't think there's a log for this, but am not positive. Miniapolis 01:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. Right or wrong, the clear fact is that there is no consensus to move, and there probably never will be. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

When administrator rights are granted like this by administrators to other administrators, could you guys at least indicate that somewhere? I don't see any place where it says that administrators are allowed to impose a moratorium on conversations on talkpages. This is a wholly new right for the sainted class.

Alternatively, you could have done this as a part of discretionary sanctions, but what are the discretionary sanctions? I have no doubt that administrators like to give themselves new rights to control the community like this, but as long as it's not in WP:ADMIN, I think you guys shouldn't be doing this sort of thing.

If this becomes a thing you guys feel empowered to do, it's invariably going to end up in arbitration. The whole point of Wikipedia's consensus model is to encourage discussion. So if discussion is now to be discouraged, then what is there to be done? Note that the discussion was closed "no consensus" which necessarily defaults to the wrong version. You are basically declaring winners by default whether you like it or not. In contrast, WP:RPP protections for one whole year are extremely rare things. Why should a move moratorium be so cavalierly entered?

jps (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No new powers are involved. All we would be doing is clarifying a behaviour that will be judged to be disruptive, namely a request for a move of this article. I don't agree with the title any more than you do (and probably for similar reasons), this has absolutely nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the title, and everything to do with the futility of the debate that has raged for a very long time and in the process demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that no consensus exists for a move. It's not going to happen and nobody wants to police the warring parties any longer. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think this conversation has ended as I don't think a coherent voice has been heard yet and that's why I'm not convinced that closing the discussion makes any sense. Keep it open for one year, if you like, and then have someone evaluate what happens. But by closing like this, you are just asking for people to stop until May 2, 2014 when they will just pick up where they left off. Why not let the conversation continue. What's the WP:NOTPAPER harm? I think you admins may not like reading such conversations to try to figure out who is right and who is wrong, but that's not a good reason to stop a conversation. It's just not. jps (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those who have a view different from the status quo will see the close and moratorium as a "win" granted to the other side, when clearly there was no consensus. That's not "no consensus to change". There was very strong argument in favour of change. It's just "no consensus". It's an unfortunate quirk of our policies that will now allow those who have "won" to say "You tried to change this and failed", implying that they are right. And that's not at all what has been demonstrated. A brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument and make a ruling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The ruling would be that there is no consensus to change. The current title does not provably violate policy. Sure, it's asserted to violate policy, but that's just an opinion and it's not held by people like Jimbo, according to his stated opinion on the matter, so arguing that it is, is futile. I say this as one who strongly prefers the "myth" title. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48 It's a bit tedious to spend time weighing a discussion in accordance with WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus, and then be told that "a brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument". AGF, please. I am quite willing to go against the numbers where the circumstances justify it. (See for example crowned crane, Chipewyan people, and Hillary Clinton).

I did weigh the arguments, discarded those which were not founded in policy, and was left with a set of good policy-based arguments on both sides. Having judged that both sides had well-founded arguments, the job of a closing admin is explicitly not to make a WP:SUPERVOTE and decide which set of arguments she prefers. The admin's job is to weigh strength of policy-based argument and strength of support for them. In a case such as this, where there are broadly similar levels of support for well-founded policy-based arguments, it would be entirely wrong for an admin to impose their own choice between the two sides, and closures such as that are rightly and properly overturned at move review.

Where there is no consensus, policy is maintain the status quo. In situations such as this, where there is a persistent failure to reach consensus on a choice between two sides, that confers a first-mover advantage. The community may want to consider the notion that in cases such as this of long-term lack of consensus between 2 options, pages could be cycled between the two alternatives; but no such policy exists for now, and WP:TITLECHANGES prioritises stability.

I think that a better way forward would be for the two sides to prepare for the end of the moratorium by planning a structured decision-making process, such as has been used for pending changes (e.g. the 2014 RFC). Breaking the question down and separately assessing consensus on various propositions would be much more informative for all involved, and it is more likely to produce a clear outcome than yet another round of free-form discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your motivation, but there is no indication that drive-by closure and a rude "work it out yourselves, but don't bother me for a year" is the right direction here. I'm happy to start a structured conversation that would not have an outcome, but I'll note that I tried to do just this without a WP:RM and instead others took it upon themselves to claim a WP:RM. So if I wanted to start a discussion about how to start a structured discussion, am I banned from doing that on the talkpage? jps (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

jps, a little more AGF please. This wasn't a "drive-by-closure", and I didn't say "don't bother me for a year". My concern is not for myself, but for the editors who have been dragged into rehashing the same round-in-circles freeform discussion a dozen times in 4 years.

There isn't going to be another discussion for 12 months, so best to leave it for a while. But as you get towards the end of the moratorium, you could start seeking out the editors with whom you most strongly disagree, and start a discussion with them about identifying the issues at stake on both and starting a discussion on how to address those questions, separately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl, you didn't address my question. Am I banned from discussing how to start a structured discussion on the talkpage? jps (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

jps Hmm, "best to leave it for a while" was my attempt to answer your question, but you seem to want it spelled out in very precise terms, so I will try to make it as clear as I can be.

You are banned from starting a substantive discussion for another 12 months. There is no point in dragging editors into a 12-month meta-discussion about what to do next year, so don't start the talks-about-talks now. I was trying not to be too prescriptive about when it might be appropriate to start talks about talks, but if you want a precise time ... I'd say that 1 months before the expiry of the moratorium would be quite enough. That's 2nd April 2015. Is that clear enough? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that's quite clear. Just so I am 100% understanding, no one is allowed to discuss moving or renaming that particular article until 2 May 2015 or have meta-discussions about moving or renaming that particular article until 2 April 2015. And how is this to be enforced? Should we come to you every time we see an infraction or report it to this noticeboard? Or should we simply remove the talkpage comment? Or should we archive it with a collapse box? What are the parameters by which the enforcement will occur? jps (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

jps, please relax a little. Honestly, all this is about is simply that repeated discussions are going nowhere and wasting editorial time and effort ... so please everybody, just drop the issue for a while and get on with other stuff.

If anyone starts down that path in the meantime, any other editor can close the discussion by noting the moratorium and hatting it with {{subst:archive top}}/{{subst:archive bottom}} ... and if anyone wants to contest that, ask for assistance at WP:ANI. There is no need for any enforcement to involve me rather than any other admin.

Hope this helps!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• In practice such moratoriums - 3 months, 6 months, 12 months (most usually 6 months) - are not uncommon in RM closers' instructions. However they are not always of the high quality of BrownHairedGirl's moratorium here. An informal log somewhere would be helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall I fix this? Can you identify any other RM moratoria in place? jps (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to have a hunt, a quick request at Talk:RM would probably yield up to a dozen examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the need for a centralized log - what would it be used for? In each case the RM moratorium is noted on the article talk page, where any admin about to make a change, or user about to request a change, can see it. Why would someone need to see it elsewise? I think WP:BURO applies here. BMK (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Logging is a good idea because it guarantees transparency in what are often contentious decisions. It encourages a kind of institutional memory which is important when looking at longterm development of a situation. That's why it is done for discretionary sanctions, for example. jps (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if Wikipedia can ever find a solution to problems like this where a decision that there is no consensus to change, plus a moratorium on future attempts to change, delivers precisely the result sought by those wanting no change, and is seen by both sides as a win for them? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I also endorse BrownHairedGirl's handling of this issue. Cutting down the pointless move discussions (which are doomed to end as "no consensus," since it always seems to be the same alternate title that's suggested) to once a year is a good idea. May I also add that this talk of "winning" and "losing" has an unfortunate taste of WP:BATTLEGROUND about it. -- 101.117.2.111 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.2.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps, but that's just dismissing a real view obviously held by many. Labelling it doesn't change that view. And maybe that repeated alternative is a bloody good one. That it's the same each time probably points to that, rather than it being wrong. Any objective observer would have to admit that those seeking change aren't a bunch of irrational bigots. Dismissing their request because it's the same each time is not helpful. The arguments against are also the same each time. Will you similarly dismiss them? HiLo48 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As closer, I do not see either side of the discussion is irrational or bigoted. Nor do I see any such suggestion from the IP above. Sure, there was some ILIKEIT/IDONTLKEIT commentary on both sides, but there were also a lot of well-reasoned, policy-based arguments. However, endlessly discussing the same thing without ever reaching a consensus is not a productive use of anyone's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, hence my post beginning "I wonder..." above. Even if arguments are evenly balanced on both sides, what we get from this is a status quo result. That might sound fair, but in fact it's simply one that reflects the thoughts of the side that got in first, and is diametrically opposed to that preferred by a lot of editors with well reasoned arguments. We ARE declaring an absolute winner, when in fact it's been a pretty even fight. The well regraded views of half our editors are now being suppressed by the other half. I wish there was a more even solution. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48 When there is a lack of consensus (as is repeatedly the case here), any choice of title will be unfair on half the editors who expressed a view.

The question of what to do has been answered in policy. See WP:No consensus: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. In this case we have an unusual situation, where the title has been broadly stable, but only due to a lack of consensus. There is a case for arguing that this extraordinarily oft-repeated evidence of a lack of consensus is a form of instability, but that has not been how I have seen the policy interpreted before. If you wanted to make the case that this long-term-no-consensus amounts to instability and therefore justfies a move to "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" ... then feel free to open a move review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No BHG, your close certainly fits with policy. It cannot be criticised on that front. But I'd say that the multiple move requests clearly do demonstrate instability. Especially since there is so much drama every time a discussion arises. And it's virtually impossible to see any form of compromise that ever would please both sides. The positions seem so diametrically opposed. I just wish there was a way of demonstrating to our readers at article level that, while the current article title is the one reached according to our policies, a very significant number of editors think it's a very poor title. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, there have been very few attempts at an actual compromise, in the form of something that was not perfect but maybe acceptable to both sides. Trying compromise language—language that is neither narrative nor myth—would work better than repeating exactly the same proposal six times (so far). Perhaps something like Genesis creation story (I'm sure someone could do better) would be a more acceptable alternative than the oft-misunderstood "myth" language. You have a whole year in which to think up a compromise. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What we need is a discussion committee with nominees from all sides. I know exactly who I would nominate to be on it, but Wikipedia doesn't like such things. jps (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Thanks for confirming that my close fits policy, tho I wasn't actually fishing for that support!

My suggestion related to the narrower question of what to with this persistent lack of consensus. The reason I suggested move review was purely that within the context of persistent no-consensus, I think there is a case for treating it as unstable title and threrefore reverting to the title of the first non-stub. I don't want to set to create any precedent myself, but I think that a move review on that narrow point could be interesting. Or maybe it would be better approached as an RFC on the principle? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Creation accounts in Genesis? StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I think now that attempts at compromise are misguided. A primary argument of many of those seeking change is that all religions should be treated the same. That such stories should all be called myths. (Even if that's not the case now.) That position will never be satisfied by a solution that doesn't treat the Christian story the same as other religions. It's pretty hard to compromise on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you're not interested in compromise. That goes a long why to explaining why we get all these pointless repeated move requests, and shows the necessity for the moratorium. And you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension -- in fact, where other religions have a written creation narrative, the Wikipedia article typically uses the title of the narrative, without the word "myth." For example: Diné Bahaneʼ, Sureq Galigo, Enûma Eliš, Barton Cylinder, Gudea cylinders, K.3364, Debate between sheep and grain. It seems that what you really want is to treat Christianity differently from other religions. If the moratorium doesn't calm things down, it may be necessary to take this to ArbCom, since ArbCom is empowered to determine facts, which discussion-closers are not. -- 101.117.110.223 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom is not empowered to determine facts, although it can create its own ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been writing in the third person, and not mentioning the thoughts of specific editors. I have been trying to describe the broader problems with this debate. You wrote about me, rudely. Fuck off. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous user, your examples imply that equal treatment for the Christian creation myth would be to name it after a myth's title. However, that would not work since Book of Genesis already exists (Genesis alone is a disambig), with this particular article referring specially to the creation myth in its first couple chapters. Creation myths without titles have names like Islamic creation myth, Japanese creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Mandé creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Serer creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Mesoamerican creation myths, and so on from Ainu creation myth to Zuni creation myth. Those are the articles which proponents of Genesis creation myth wish to be consistent with. Though since their form specifically is [region or people] creation myth, an argument might be made that Judeochristian creation myth or Abrahamic creation myth is more in line with them. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not start debating the title again here. This discussion is just about the moratorium. StAnselm (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...brown haired girl 'impossed' a moratorium? She can't do that. Seriously, this is bull(self edited).--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have imposed moratoriums in move request closes on occasion, most famously after the first major Chelsea Manning move discussion. I was asked at that time how much authority I had to do so, and I replied then (as I would contend now) that any administrator has as much authority to take such an action as the community is willing to recognize. This is informed by the reasoning behind the decision to impose one. I'm sure that an administrator who imposed, for example, a ten year moratorium on future discussion of a proposal would not be taken very seriously. A year-long moratorium is probably on the outside of what is feasible, but is entirely understandable given exceptional circumstances. I would imagine that such an imposition, like any other part of the close, is subject to consideration in a move review. I would definitely support having a single centralized page listing all move moratoriums in place at any given time. bd2412 T 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If any editor wants to open a move review, then the moratorium would of course be up for review too. If the community chooses to overturn it or alter it's length or whatever, that's fine by me.

My concern was simply to break the extraordinarily cycle of rapidly-repeated inconclusive discussions which rehash the same arguments at enormous length. If the community wants that cycle to continue, so be it; or if it wants to find some completely different way of resolving this dispute, that's even better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Had I known you imposed a moratorium with the Manning case I would never have accepted/supported you to be a part of the Clinton closure. This isn't an abuse of tools since you didn't use any, but no one has to recognize anything just because..."you say so". And I do not. This is not a consensus discussion. Any such discussion would take place on the article talk page. Unless arbcom has decided to make such a moratorium as part of official sanctions this is little more than bullying others and using your position as an admin to take advantage of a situation. there is no policy or guideline that allows this. Seriously.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mark Miller, I think you have misunderstood me. BrownHairedGirl did not impose a moratorium at Chelsea Manning; I did. She was not involved in that closure (and I was not involved in this one, or in the HRC closure). bd2412 T 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow...that was really hard to find this post after opening the editing window. Thanks for explaining that and sorry for the mix up. keeping who said what straight is becoming something of a headache now.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Endorse BrownHairedGirl's action per DISRUPT - always the same apples-to-oranges argument, nothing new the last several go's. We need to put apples (significantly widely held beliefs with extensive cited controversy about the genre) into the same labeling with oranges (nearly extinct beliefs with hardly any cited controversy about the genre), all for the sake of "consistency" - a slippery slope. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• comment if we are considering some sort of moratorium, then the debate should have been more structured and the close some more detailed discussion of numbers and policy rather than just "close as no consensus", which the last two do - this just emphasises a first move advantage in these type of situations. I'd suggest a more detailed rationale and structured discussion with broader input like some other closes - 12 Requested Moves suggests it is a topic which deserves a more detailed and structured close and then a moratorium. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree. Like: All such discussions on this page are temporarily suspended until further notice. Interested parties are to repair to WP:Mediation to in good faith explore compromises or the basis and wording (with respect to background of the dispute, counterpoints, policy and sources) for a fully laid out community wide RfC to be held on a neutral page and widely advertised." Or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the simple "close as no consensus" and the first move advantage. In something like this we need a much more detailed analysis. "No consensus" often seems like an easy out to me and can allow a minority to always have their way. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is a huge waste of time for the community to debate these things over and over. The Arbcom does similar, see for example the Infobox case. This used to be a standard type of closing comment for repetitious RMs, I don't know why BrownHairedGirl is suddenly get so much flack for it. If someone has a burning desire to discuss this yet again, or has new reasons to request a move, they can always bring their reasons to the talk page or WP:Move Review. —Neotarf (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: A separate discussion of the validity of the moratorium is being held at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Should we impose a community moratorium on moving this page title. It doesn't seem to be helpful to have two discussions at the same time, especially if they are surveys gauging community support. StAnselm (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a discussion specific to that article. What I'd like to see here is someone pointing to a policy or discussion that gives any single user (with the possible exception of Jimbo) the right to unilaterally declare any discussion closed for 12 months. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this discussion is also specific to that article. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong endorse. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings, this issue has not been settled and we're here to build an encyclopedia, not fight for our personal viewpoints. These discussions that have been closed for a year have not been resolved in the previous 4 years and previous 12 discussions; it's time to move on. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• I can't actually endorse, as I clearly object to anyone imposing sanctions on their own, but now that the discussion on the article talk page has been closed by an uninvolved admin and this is now the centralized discussion (if this is actually where all these moratorium discussions take place we may need to move the Hillary discussion if it is still open) I would certainly !vote (as I did in the other discussion) to Support a moratorium. This is not about beliefs, at least it shouldn't be. It is about whether or not the community feels that there is enough consensus to ask that no further move requests be made for a period of time. I generally feel 6 months is a good period, but if 6 months...why not a year. I do, however hope this will be added as a dislaimer on the talk page so that other users not seeing this discussion or not around at this time will have the proper notifications to not start another move discussion.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse the actions by BHG and the moratorium itself. I strongly support a move to creation myth, but that's not the issue here. The issue is disruption of Wikipedia with continual going-in-circles move request which we can do without. The question whether an admin can/may unilaterally impose a moratorium are understandable, but in the end just rule-wonkery. If there were significant dispute over the moratorium itself (but there isn't) we would be in a different situation, but we aren't, which renders the meta-issue moot. Spare the discussion for when there is actually something to discuss. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. I noted on Jimbo's talk page that perhaps things like an RM moratorium should be discussed and allowed to gain consensus prior to implementation, but putting the cart before the horse in this case won't change the end result. The RMs have obviously long since stopped being productive, and it is time that the involved editors spend some time on other things. They can always reconvene in a year for another round of "all talk, no action". Resolute 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse At some point, enough is enough. BHG did the right thing. Reopening the same move proposal just 3 months after it had failed for the 11th time fits under the broad definition of disruptive editing, and fashioning a reasonable remedy for disruption should be within an uninvolved admins discretion. Maybe people could constructively spend the next 12 months trying to find a process that could lead to a compromise.--agr (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It seems seriously odd that an admin can impose a moratorium on the justification of "enough already" and then get community consensus. Not to mention that this basically kills off all chance of compromise for twelve months, since it can't even be discussed in any way until that time.Rwenonah (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently quite a few people would agree with you. One could look at it that way, or perhaps the alternative is to view it as a SNOW issue, especially in light of the overwhelming consensus we have here to create a moratorium. Perhaps outcomes so severe (don't even talk about it for a year) ought to be discussed first in any case, but at that point the only question is should that have happened first. I see very few people questioning if it (the moratorium) should have happened at all. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It sets a strange precedent. Could an administrator shut down this discussion on the basis that they felt it had gone on long enough and preclude all discussion of the topic for a year? I should hope not. Rwenonah (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I should hope not as well -- the first time. But we're not talking about the first time. We're talking about an argument that has gone on a dozen times, each time lasting weeks or months, over the course of the last 4 years. "No consensus" has been reached, nor is consensus likely to be reached in the near future without some form of structure being imposed on the discussion other than the freeform course that it always takes.

The same people who are voting "Oppose" for the moratorium would be the first people to vote to shutter a discussion per SNOW were someone to restart it, mere days after its unresolved closure. All the moratorium does is saves a step in that process: any such discussion has been preemptively SNOWed until it expires. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would just add that BHG promptly brought her moratorium here for review. Since, as you say, it would be completely inappropriate to restart the discussion this soon, were the moratorium to be rejected, no one would be inconvenienced in the slightest.--02:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I have previously seen admins who included such moratoriums in their closes say that they were advisory, rather than binding. That seems to me the correct understanding. There is nothing in the policy on Requested Moves or elsewhere, as far as I can see, that gives admins the power to unilaterally ban RMs for a specified. I would agree that people should take a break here before recurring to the issue, but a year seems an unreasonably long time to me - six months might be a reasonable suggestion. Neljack (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Regardless of the merits of the arguments to be made on either side, the behavior of repeatedly nominating something for a move request over and over becomes problematic. Such a moratorium frees up editors to use their skills improving other articles rather than rehashing the exact same stale arguments with the exact same group of combatants over and over again. This moratorium is a good idea. --Jayron32 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While I don't disagree with the moratorium itself, the principles behind it and the precedents set by it are seriously flawed. Rwenonah (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse 12 move requests since 2010 is far too many. After reading the discussions, it seems to me that editors involved have better places to devote their time. So in place of topic bans, blocks or whatever for being disruptive, a moratorium is probably the best course. Moratoriums are placed by closers in various circumstances, and this one clearly fits the criteria. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. A dozen move requests since 2010 is disruptive, as is making the exact same request just three months after the previous one failed. BHG was correct in placing the moratorium and made the correct call to seek approval here. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse By bringing the matter here BHG is making it clear that the moratorium is community supported (if this discussion so chooses; otherwise there is no moratorium). Accordingly, objections based on the horror of an admin imposing a solution do not apply. Time spent debating whether BHG filled in the correct forms is time wasted—what counts is whether it would be desirable for move requests to be debated every few weeks until eternity (no, it wouldn't—any decision would be better than that). Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Perpetual debate tries one's patience. It drags people into a debate almost unwillingly. This becomes a matter of endurance. I agree that someone should put the brakes on the reopening of this debate with a frequency that seems unreasonable to me. I guess I endorse. Disclosure: I am one who opposes the proposed move. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse I recently closed one RfC endorsing a moratorium because it was clear that the same old arguments had been repeated ad infinitum, & nothing would be accomplished by hashing them over & again except to exhaust one or the other party & achieve a change as if the discussion were a competition. (I set it indefinite on the basis that if someone had a point or argument that hadn't been expressed, then the discussion could be reopened; so the moratorium could be permanent -- or a few days.) Yes, consensus does change -- sometimes for the better, sometimes the worse -- but repeated restating of the same points only serves to harden opposing viewpoints, not to create a new consensus. People need to remember that silence & reflection are also part of the process. -- llywrch (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - It may be uncertain whether individual admins can impose moratoria but a decision at WP:AN certainly can do so and that's where we are at now. A dozen move requests since 2010 certainly passes the barrier on whether a moratorium is reasonable. Would it seriously be beneficial to the encyclopedia to look forward to a new move proposal every three months from now on? There is some history of moratoria being imposed at WP:AE in contentious article naming disputes, for instance here though that was under Arbcom authority which is different from a community decision. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - No point in debating this over and over. Moratorium might be a good idea at Sarah Jane Brown as an alternative to arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - too much time is wasted on repeating the same request over and over. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - This does not set a precedent. Admins have often laid down conditions on articles. And there are a small number of articles that seem to have endless and unproductive move discussions. I support a 12-month ban on moves on this article, and a more general (but shorter) one on initiating repeated requests on all articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong endorse - Neither editors nor admins on this project are robots, and I thoroughly appreciate it when an admin takes what could be a controversial action in order to do the right thing and quell the problem. Sure, they take a risk when they do so, and since we're quick to jump on them when their judgment seems wrong, we should be equally quick to stand behind them and thank them when they are right. BMK (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question This will sweep a difficult issue under the carpet nicely, for a while, and please those who support the status quo. But what will be different next time, whenever it happens? HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A convincing new argument, which gains community consensus should do it. A massive infusion of Non-involved input would be good. Both sides need time and space to muster new sources and approaches to argue this to a decisive conclusion. This is just attrition at the moment. A moratorium system would dovetail into this method. I do see a way through. Just not every 3 months or so. Its just groundhog day. Irondome (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • How about coming up with a different proposed name the next time a move is requested? Perhaps begin with a discussion of possible alternatives?--agr (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I can't see how that can be a solution. One of the arguments of those who want change is that all religious creation stories should be treated the same. (I know some will want to argue against that, but this isn't the place to do it. I am not presenting the argument. I am describing it.) There's no point asking someone who thinks that it should be called a myth, because other articles are, to propose a different name. That's not asking them to compromise. that's asking them to drop their case completely. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I have no doubt that many who support the move are so uncompromising, but perhaps some supporters might accept a different approach, and thereby build more of a consensus, rather than the present standoff. If it really is all or nothing, then perhaps a one year moratorium isn't long enough.--agr (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
          • This is not the place to discuss the content dispute. BMK (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (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.

RFPP is once more flooded, mops to hand

Another week, another "oh right, RFPP is a thing" reminder. Currently we're at 52 requests pending so we're in need of a little attention over there and probably something else so we don't have to post something at AN every few weeks it happens. tutterMouse (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I took care of a bunch of them. FYI, admins being in short supply is hardly a problem unique to RFPP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The rest have also been taken care of so thanks to those mucking in. I know admins being in short supply isn't unique to RFPP but would be nice if we could get some admins who'd have a regular look see every 24 hours or so to prevent backlogs of requests for something I see as fairly crucial to the wiki. tutterMouse (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It [was|is|is going to be] finals week for most university students. I would expect some delay in admin tasks until mid-may. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done some - more to do. Gotta do stuff elsewhere so anyone wanna do a few..is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc

I would like an uninvolved admin to notify Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per WP:ARBPSCI. The user was minimallty active for some time then returned in 2013, since when they have been showing obsessive support of the agendas of Rupert Sheldrake and his supporter/apologist Deepak Chopra. The views of both are way out in the long grass. This user now purports to mediate in the "dispute" between SAS81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an openly declared media representative for Chopra) and world+dog. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive is interesting too. This user appears to have lost interest in Wikipedia then returned after a hiatus to right great wrongs.

SAS81 has engaged in forum shopping because he does not like the sound of the word "no". This is expected and normal under the circumstances. Several users in good standing are counselling him on the Wikipedia way of doing things, and this is ongoing. I mention this user only for completeness: I do not, at this time, advocate sanctions against him. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc has already been notified of discretionary sanctions, and indeed has already been sanctioned for harassing users from behind a sockpuppet and for wasting the community's time.[41]

There is a tabled request on him at AE, with "a low bar for reporting newer disruption". JzG, AE is likely a better place for this. I have evidence to submit about the recent continuation of his attacks against me (I was the one who exposed his sockpuppeting/harassing activities). vzaak 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the cause of this notification. I've been intermittently active (including long hiatuses during the discussion over Sheldrake) for many years and have always tried to keep a neutral, reasonable tone to my contributions. I've never shown support for the agenda of Rupert Sheldrake (I was arguing against the incivility of editors on the page, not for Sheldrake's views) or Deepak Chopra. If you disagree, please show a diff.

I have edited numerous other pages besides Sheldrake (which I haven't touched in months) and Chopra, and was introduced to the Chopra issue independently via the BLP board, where I'd offered to other editors the exact same referencing help as I did for user:SAS81. On Chopra I've been trying to work with other editors to establish a best practice to determine which sources would be most valid and applicable, namely focusing on independent secondary sources. Far from endorsing his agenda, I have argued that many of SAS81's sources should not take priority over existing secondaries. I have been mediating with editors from very different view points and we've been making excellent progress. All of my suggestions have been for a stronger emphasis on reliable sources, not a relaxing of WP:FRINGE.

I know we've had minor misunderstandings in the past, Guy, but I honestly don't see the issue here. Also, what do the SPI's Vzaak keeps pushing against me have to do with this? He got me warned once, then tried it again and was told by an admin that there was absolutely no connection. It's frustrating to try to contribute in good faith and be called "obsessed" over something I've never once spoken in favor of, let alone have editors repeatedly bring up this SPI issue. The Cap'n (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@user:Vzaak, see above about bringing up the SPI (over and over again), but otherwise what "continuing attacks" are you referring to? I've done nothing against you since bringing up my issues about you continually bringing cases against me (1, 2, 3) at AR. I honestly would like nothing more than to leave you alone and vice-versa. Voluntary IBAN?

And yet again, what disruption? I'm mediating a discussion on citing secondary sources, how is that disruptive in any way? Let it go, Vzaak, I don't want to fight with you. The Cap'n (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about what is happening here. What is the problem actually? All I can add is that the Capn came into help on the BLP noticeboard and chimed in on my COI noticeboard and offered to help mediate. I also do not agree with Guy's assesment that I have a hard time being told 'no'. I was not aware he was in charge I was under the impression that Wikipedia is collaborative and Capn appears like a collaborative editor while Guy seems very angry that I am here. Capn has been very helpful in a very difficult situation, I wish there were a few more like him. SAS81 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Askahrc responded to a request on the BLP notice board and has attempted to mediate what had become a contentious article. His actions and behaviour have been appropriate and neutral, and he has provided a somewhat even tone to a sometimes less than pleasant environment. I see no reason to have brought him here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

@Vzaak: I agree, but I am involved so someone else needs to do it.

@Littleolive oil: No they have not, because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area. Whoever should mediate (and actually mediation is not necessary, the iussue is just that the Chjopra media machine is trying to buff up the article), it should not and cannot be Askahrc. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that Askahrc (talk · contribs) has the basic level of WP:COMPETENCE required to mediate. This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Either way, a bizarre and ineffective mediation attempt that will inevitably follow unless he is stopped is just going to create WP:DRAMA for the sake of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: Like anyone, you can submit a case to AE if there is sufficient disruption, with the "low bar" in mind. I haven't followed the recent Chopra events enough to address that. I was alarmed, however, to see Askahrc casting an aspersion on the Chopra talk page. If someone submits an AE I will add to it, otherwise we give WP:ROPE.

However the issue with WP:ROPE is it is already getting long. Askahrc uses a sockpuppet to bully users, then brings an arbcom case about bullying. Askahrc promulgates battleground polemics on-wiki and off-wiki, then brings an arbcom case about battleground behavior. After being sanctioned for wasting the community's time with the first arbcom request, Askahrc submits a second time-wasting arbcom request. After arbitrators tell him to use AE in the first arbcom request, Askahrc brings another arbcom request without using AE (perhaps because there is a tabled AE request on him with a "low bar" for reporting future disruptions). After being caught harassing users with a sockpuppet, Askahrc uses AE and a formal arbcom request as a platform to cast evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS against the person who caught him, and now after a hiatus Askahrc resumes it on the Chopra talk page. vzaak 14:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Guy. Askahrc had edited the Deepak Chopra article before he responded at the BLP NB? I don't believe so. I have no comment on what is happening on the Chopra article at this time but, I think we can agree to disagree.

I am differentiating between an editor who comes into an article as either an informal mediator or formal mediator per our DR system and one who is attempting to steer to a neutral ground, (Askharc) maintains civility and so far is not pushing an agenda on to the other editors. As an aside, I am always put off and become suspicious when an editor's past is dragged up in a dispute as is happening here as a means to support an attack on that editor. Such an action intended or not dirties the water so we can't see what if any the real issues are at this point in time, on this article. Whether the editor is successful at mediating a situation is not the issue. Mediation with even the most experienced mediators is often unsuccessful in my experience. What is at issue are the allegations made which I believe are unfounded.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Thank you, littleolive oil, I appreciate you weighing in. I've shown numerous diffs documenting what we're working on in Chopra, while I still haven't seen any showing supposed disruption. A few rejoinders:

• @vzaak I cast no aspersions on Chopra, I clarified an editors incongruous mention of SPI, and have backed it up with diffs. Speaking of aspersions, you are repeatedly misrepresenting events to suit your audience (and I think you could fit in your failed AE's "low bar for future disruptions" quote a few dozen more times, but be careful not to bring up "I'm interested in dated diffs of recent misconduct. No such diffs have been submitted here, and as such, I'd decline to act on the request as submitted."). You contradict yourself by saying that when the first arbreq was tabled I never sought the requested AE, then mention me harassing people with an an evidence-free AE. The truth is that I did file an AE as requested, it was filled with diffs of evidence and the admins agreed that the people it was brought against were acting inappropriately and needed to be sanctioned. Finally, you admit that you haven't actually read the progress on the Chopra page, but are apparently just endorsing this AN out of an assumption that anything I'm working on must be disruptive. You got me with one SPI and have been gunning for me since, even arguing with an admin when your second SPI got rejected. Please back off, Vzaak, this is inappropriate behavior.
• @Barney the barney barney, claiming that I have a mental disorder that is typified by gross incompetence, extreme ignorance and even brain damage is a clear violation of WP:NPA, something you've been sanctioned for before. Again, you claim that mediation will inevitably become "bizarre and ineffective" unless I am stopped, without showing any diffs, examples or evidence of my supposedly outlandish behavior, nor of being familiar with the Chopra talk page.
• @JzG, you said "because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area," which is factually incorrect. I've never worked on the Chopra page before the BLP, I've never been sanctioned for POV-pushing and despite people like Barney (who has misled you before) asserting otherwise, I have never seen a single diff showing any POV-pushing on my part. I chimed in briefly on the Sheldrake page, but pretty much all of my effort there was insisting editors needed to be more civil and stop issuing AN's, AE's and SPI's against the people who disagreed with them. The result was that I've been since hit with AN's, AE's and SPI's. Take what you will from that, but my participation on WP has always been to increase neutrality and sourcing, NOT to push a POV that I don't even agree with.

Basically, I feel like I'm being presented as the boogeyman, but no one has actually presented any evidence of these grave disruptions I'm supposedly involved in. Instead I'm looking at assertions, personal attacks and more assertions. I'm getting really tired of logging in to pursue a hobby and dealing with senseless hostility from the same exact people over and over again. With all due respect to those involved, spend your time making WP better instead of following people around and trying to get them banned. The Cap'n (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The only drama I see being caused is by a number of the editors commenting here who keep on pushing this battleground mentality and don't want to drop it. In my COIN, an uninvolved admin even weighed in on the activity of 'skeptics' on the page and mentioning directly that it makes the community look bad. Capn agreed to help mediate in that COI because this admin was asking if there was any uninvolved editors who could help bring a balance. Capn offered. Other editors have PM'd me telling me they don't want to get too involved because of this harassment. In the meantime I'm still getting pinged and one of the editors here (vzaak) who is not even involved in editing the article is bringing up some conspiracy plot they believe either I or capn is involved in. I'd like to offer a solution to this rather bizarre environment. Let's just focus on content. If we do that then problem is solved. SAS81 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I simply asked why you brought me into it, and the answer you proffered didn't make sense. I had a right to ask. I didn't say you were part of a conspiracy.

Regarding your concern about "skeptics" looking bad, the issue is that Askahrc had previously been sockpuppeting in the role of a "skeptic" harassing users and issuing threats in an effort to make "skeptics" look bad.[42] On the Deepak Chopra page, he has continued his effort to discredit me as retribution for catching him sockpuppeting. This behavior is not acceptable.

Incidentally, I have never called myself a "skeptic" and I don't associate with any such groups. The primary problem I see with the "Guerrilla Skeptics" is their stupid name. If a group of regular, non-misbehaving Wikipedia editors call themselves "The Misbehaving Wikipedia Editors", and then they roll their eyes when people accuse them of misbehaving, that is stupid. vzaak 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Barney's statement suggesting Askhahrc is suffering from a mental disorder is unacceptable and unconscionable and most especially in the context of this discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) has apparently taken askahrc (talk · contribs)'s bizarre accusations at face value without clearly reading what I originally wrote. To clarify, I have not, never have, and never will accuse anyone, especially askahrc (talk · contribs), of being mentally ill. I do not really care what illnesses askahrc (talk · contribs) has. What I do accuse askahrc (talk · contribs) of is rank incompetence, contrary to WP:COMPETENCE, and lacking even the basic competence to understand that he's not competent. This is what Dunning–Kruger effect says - read the article here!). This is with great justification as outlined by Vzaak (talk · contribs).

Actually, I believe I was being extremely generous in accusing askahrc (talk · contribs), and assuming good faith that he's not just a thoroughbred troll, just completely incompetent.

I believe this is the worst case I have ever seen of a user falsely whining "personal attacks" when confronted with basic damning evidence against his anti-consensus behaviour. In this I assume that in good faith Askahrc (talk · contribs) is not deliberately lying, but just not competent enough to distinguish fair commentary on his capabilities from personal attacks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm familiar with both the condition and what you wrote. You suggested here an editor may be suffering from what is a mental illness, "This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect." I assume now you did not mean to suggest mental illness. You might consider retracting the comment. I might add that suggesting another Wikipedia editor is completely incompetent is a lot to take on oneself. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Since no uninvolved admins have weighed in and this has become yet another tit-for-tat squabble among the usual suspects, I suggest this be closed. If there is evidence of misconduct, present the diffs at AN/I, I'm not sure why this dispute was brought to AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Little olive oil (talk · contribs) - the Dunning–Kruger effect is not a mental illness. Please stop displaying your ignorance by claiming that it is or might be construed as such.

It is also usually considered best if a "mediator" in a dispute has the confidence of all parties involved. Since Askahrc (talk · contribs) clearly doesn't have the confidence of those broadly as "sceptics", it is clear that he can't and shouldn't be getting involved. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Barney: Dunning-Kruger can overlap in some with or as anosognosia which can in turn overlap with psychosis. At any rate although I guess its better not to comment on the editor but stick to the edits. Askahrc has the right to be involved as any of us do. As I said above. I did not see him as a mediator (and I have struck the word since it was causing confusion) per our DR but simply as a neutral-toned editor. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Apparently Askahrc claims to be "uninvolved" because he has not edited the Chopra article. He has, however, been involved with the parallel article on Rupert Sheldrake: Sheldrake has been prominently supported by Chopra and the two reference each other, Chopra holding up Sheldrake as an example of trying to "bridge the gap between science and religion" (a little like trying to bridge the gap between Sakatchewan and sasquatch: a futile and meaningless exercise). The two are inextricably linked, and the common thread is extremely relevant in that in both cases the problem is the rejection of the subject's conjectures by the reality-based community. That plus a prior ArbCom sanction indicate that Askahrc is absolutely not a proper person to even offer to mediate, and definitely will not be accepted by a number of those with whom the purported mediation is required. In fact, no mediation is required, only patient explanation of why Wikipedia will never portray Chopra as a medical visionary until credible scientific evidence is produced to support his beliefs. It's taken medical science a century to slay the ghost of superstition, vitalism and magical thinking, Chopra basically represents the undead corpse of this unlamented triumvirate. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, beautifully written, but an opinion. While we can respect the opinion we don't have to base an article on it. You are right though in that Saskatchewan and Sasguatch are not related although there may be Sasquatch in Saskatchewan. They'd have to fight off the grizzlies, though.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Correction, Barney the barney barney, I don't have your confidence, the discussion on Chopra (of which I'm just one member) is progressing nicely toward a reasoned consensus. There have been no problems there, but you wouldn't know since you haven't been involved in the discussion. Do you have anything productive to add besides insults and calling users ignorant and incompetent?

And Guy, I've never tried to assert that Sheldrake or Chopra (btw, one mention of Sheldrake by Chopra does not make the two inextricably linked) are medical visionaries, medically mainstream or anything related to the unlamented ghosts of superstition you brought up in your WP:RGW speech. Also, the ArbCom you reference sanctioned me on the first round of SPI's vzaak brought against me, not on POV issues (he brought that too, but it was tabled for a complete lack of evidence).

I'm so tired of this nonsensical-talking-in-circles, I don't come on here to fight. You keep claiming I'm POV-pushing, then I ask for POV diffs, and then you bring up something completely unrelated, then I ask for POV diffs, then you go on about the grand scheme of things, then I ask for POV diffs, then your associates pop in with PA's, then I ask for POV diffs, then you claiming I'm POV-pushing again... For crying out loud, take a breath and look around! I've been working civilly and productively with editors who share our perspective (yes, ours, if you'd take a second to read my posts) to find consensus in organizing secondary sources by reliability in an objective method. It's preposterous that this is contentious! The Cap'n (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Askahrc (talk · contribs) - I don't present myself as some kind of spokesman, but I'm confident that most of the WP:FRINGE-fighters from WP:FRINGE/N basically agree with me that you shouldn't get involved in this. I don't want to name drop, it's terribly unbecoming. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! This is so juvenile and childish and disappointing to see Wikipedia operate this way. It's not hard to see what is going on here. If I never came to Dr. Chopra's article, I don't think anyone would be going after the capn. Considering that Guy, Barney the Barney and Vzaak all seem to want him to go once he started to help. Yet neither Guy, Barney or Vzaak are making any contributions in the discussion other than accusations, soapbox speeches and aspersions, they are simply NOT HERE to contribute!

Vzaak why you're involving yourself here when you claim to be so uninvolved is rather unscrupulous. No one mentioned anything about any skeptical groups, and I find the claim that you do not consider yourself a sceptic to be a very dubious considering your contribution history. At least Guy and Barney are upfront, I know where they stand. And I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting our discussion, you did accuse me on my talk page of withholding information which by definition would make me apart of this conspiracy your so convinced and excited about. Also, since you decided to single yourself out and bring your own actions to my attention, this conspiracy theory trip your on about Dr Chopra is over the top and bordering on something I would rather not mention. I noticed that you recently accused the capn somehow of being in cahoots with Dr Chopra regarding the Ralph Abrams issue???? are you serious? And I see you have a hard time letting that conspiracy theory go as well, plastering Wikipedia with this gibberish.ex1, ex 2 ex 3.

PLEASE STOP THIS ALL OF YOU! I am here to help diffuse a situation, I'm not naive to the environment here. When I see editors gang up on the one or two editors from the outside that are trying to help and the levels of effort they make to harm them sends chills up my spine and makes me question how Wikipedia could ever operate this way. Very sad to see this! SAS81 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin(s), please either weigh in or close this case. Otherwise, the bickering will continue which is not a profitable use of this space or your time. Accusations without evidence are just that, accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: This is off the rails. Stop accusing me of this "conspiracy" stuff. You have seemingly misinterpreted effectively all of what I have said recently and in the past. You are linking to things that are manifestly not conspiracies, like the WMF server cache bug issue. It is not some "wild idea" that Askahrc engaged in deception by using a sockpuppet to harass editors. That is a formal finding logged at the arbcom page on pseudoscience.[43] vzaak 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81 I appreciate your support, but I'd recommend you keep your distance from this debacle. I'm happy to help you (or anyone who asks) with sourcing, but as a COI you're probably going to be held to a different standard and I'd feel bad if you got roped in and started getting slammed with vague accusations like I've been recently. They've repeatedly gotten hostile against Liz and all she did was comment that they were being uncivil.

I urge you to not give up on WP policies and continue operating openly and honestly. Be careful of getting involved in third party disputes like this as it will not help your case, even if what you read is outlandish. As a COI, it may not be helpful to my case, either. I have faith in WP procedures; this trio have no evidence, argument or position other than their personal dislike of me and I trust any given admin (aside from Guy, of course) to see that.

@Vzaak you aren't addressing the fact that after the SPI (which concluded with just "Fairly Convincing") you kept accusing me of socking, even accusing me of committing crimes until an admin told you to stop. Nor that your associate Barney was sanctioned on that board for WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I'm through contributing to this meaningless wall of back & forth. I've tried to answer questions, be civil and explain the situation, but it appears useless. If someone has a question, please ask me, otherwise I'll spend my time doing something useful. The Cap'n (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, it is not right for you to continue to cast evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS. If you wish to disentangle yourself, stop casting aspersions. I never simply "accuse" anyone of socking, as you suggest. Rather, when there is evidence of socking, I file an SPI. Two administrators concluded that you were socking because of the evidence showing that you were socking. Regarding the second SPI, there was ample evidence for a checkuser request, and indeed a checkuser was run. You now claim that an admin told me to "stop". No administrator said any such thing (stop what?). You have been given many warnings: cease casting evidence-free aspersions. By contrast, the SPIs I have filed are backed up by solid evidence. If you have evidence of misconduct on my part, take it to WP:AE immediately. vzaak 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if it would be considered relevant, but a note on my talk page indicates that Askahrc is collaborating with Tunmbleman and suggest that this campaign is intentionally disruptive. Make of it what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Reluctantly poking my head back in... @Guy, that note was left by an editor who was warned and sanctioned for misrepresentation, incivility and PA's about the very issue they're bringing up again. The Cap'n (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That conversation on Guy's talk page called "Cap’n McDouche" is disturbing as editor 76.107.171.90 is seeking collaborators and ideas for ways to get The Cap'n kicked off Wikipedia and s/he also badmouths Olive and myself. Publicly conspiring to drive editors one has differences with off Wikipedia is hounding and disruptive and should be discouraged. It also confirms what The Cap'n has been saying about a small group of editors persistently seeking ways to get him blocked for no other reason than they disagree with him. @76 has already received one block for his behavior towards The Cap'n but admins should be aware of this plotting. They admittedly want to get The Cap'n blocked, they are just looking for a reason...they have tried several times but have not succeeded. I don't think any editor should have to put up with this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but there is also an external problem related to Tumbleman and Askahrc's rather openly stated agenda to achieve more sympathetic coverage of Sheldrake (which of course relates directly to Chopra). I think we are seen on-wiki facets of an off-wiki dispute, which is further complicated by the existence of a long-term on-wiki dispute, use of sockpuppets (including by Askahrc) and meatpuppetry. In short, the whole thing is a hideous mess. Normally I'd just have nuked the anon comment but it does set the spidey-sense tingling. That siad, you are right, it is blatant trolling and I have now removed it. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ARE#76.107.171.90 and Barney the barney barney, 76.107.171.90 received a two week block and there is now a two month interaction ban between Barney the barney barney and Askahrc. I realize that it doesn't look like this post will lead to any admin action against any editor but I thought it should be updated to reflect the result of the related ARE case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed at Microsoft Windows

 Done The article is supposed to be about MS Windows, but the whole thing is currently reading (at least on my machine) as a thing related to WP:HATNOTE. Not sure what happened there, but it definitely needs a looksee, and one form an admin because the page is protected at the moment. 24.92.104.80 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks normal to me. Please try refreshing your cache or purging the page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That was because of an edit to Template:Rellink, now fixed. As Diannaa says, purging should fix any articles that are still using the broken version. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Alexa Olvera

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. This article has been speedy delete in es-wiki and fr-wiki, as encyclopedic irrelevant and hoax. I notice that here was placed a template proposing deletion, but instead an IP replace it with a reference template. In my home wiki it´s not allowed to do that, but I'm not familiar with the processes in the english wiki, so I prefer to inform about here. Regards, —Frei sein (Talk to me!) 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) PS: Looking more close at the revision history, the page has already been propose several times for deletion and every time the template has been change or eliminated by the user who created the article or an IP. Please, an admin need to look at the article.

It is permitted to remove a BLP-prod template if a reference is provided that verifies what the article says. The reference added here does not. Rather than simply replace the BLP-prod, I will nominate this at WP:Articles for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexa Olvera. Thank you, Frei sein. JohnCD (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said there, this is borderline CSD#G3. Not sure what that says about the editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I reckon, let sleeping hoaxers lie, unless he makes a nuisance of himself by removing the AfD template or vandalising the discussion; then block as WP:NOTHERE. His Spanish block is a username block: Viola la política de nombres de usuario. His first name may be related to pedo = a fart, pedorrero = one given to farting, which my dictionary marks as tabu, but I can't make anything of his second. My wife thinks it may mean something rude in Basque. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (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.

Skookum1 again again

I've reverted the collapse at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Skookum1 again; closure may be appropriate, as we weren't getting anywhere, but the closure header is not a possible interpretation of what needs to be done, even by Skookum1, himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not often I find myself agreeing with Arthur Rubin. I have stricken the last part of the NAC closure. The admins in question were acting in their admin capacity and on the request of other users. They are to be commended for attempting to take on this messy and thankless chore. —Neotarf (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Point of Order: It is undesirable to alter the archived version of the discussion. Best practices would suggest unarchiving the discussion with a new subsection at the bottom of it disputing the closure. But if the thread is to remain in the archives, it is best to leave it in an unaltered state. Rgrds. --64.85.217.100 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is undesirable for such an absurd comment close a discussion, indicating there may be some support for it. If you want to reopen it, that's fine, although the probable consequence would be for Skookum1 to be banned, which I do not want. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgeten vandalism

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.

---

• I found forgeten vandalism on this article. Some vandal with username Feezo removed category, links to other articles and he deleted part of article with informations about new series. I cannot edit this page because it protected.--Lisa Shertoon :-P (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandal? You're sure? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 4 May 2014 (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.

Anjaan333

Hi, I'm reporting this user to ANI because they continue to be disruptive. I previously reported Anjaan333 for edit warring here. User kept trying to edit Drishyam to his/her preferred vision, failed to participate in discussions, failed to respond to warnings, failed to properly explain their edits, and was ultimately blocked for long-term edit warring. I also opened an SPI report after noting a suspicious new account Sajay the future of india, which was created 2 hours after Anjaan received his 48 block, making the same fundamental edits. Anjaan's block expired, and he's again submitted disputed content at Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). In this edit the user again submits their version of the article, which they had submitted multiple times before their block.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. From what I can tell, the user is randomly reordering names, changing references, making assertions about box office gross that isn't supported by the source (User asserts 50 crore total, source says "close to 49", and the community apparently disputes the reliability of the sources used), Anjaan333 fails to actually DISCUSS the edits per WP:BRD (see this deleted warning/note I placed on his talk page asking him to do just that) and his edit summaries are insufficient, tending to comprise confusing statements like "if you are a mohanlal fan then saw his films not distroy wiki", "Ok sir", "Sir", "Sock", "Socker", "Sorry", "Where is unsourced". Since there seems to be no getting through to this editor, I think this goes beyond edit-warring, and is just straight-up disruptive editing. User also didn't respond when he was notified of the edit warring report I filed, so I doubt he's going to let us reason with him. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The user's unwillingness or inability to use talk pages [52] [53] is troublesome and either a symptom of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:NOTHERE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's a sign that we really do need a discussion system that inexperienced people can navigate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Amen. The instructions on how to use talk pages sent out by OTRS result in a response of utter bafflement about half the time. And they are pretty clear. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Go to the article in question
2. Click "talk" at the top
3. Click "New section"
4. Enter a heading in the first box,and your message in the second. Put ~~~~ at the end to sign your message.
5. Click the "save page" button at the bottom.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

This is a good proof of the problem: You have provided instructions on how to start a new discussion section, and the complaint is that the user is not replying to existing comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, he blanks his own user talk page, and makes only one (in section) comment on article talk pages. And that's not what I was replying to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

Contested renaming of Đeneral Janković

Đeneral Janković article is renamed, contrary to the outcome of the last RM discussion. Will somebody restore its name prior to contested renaming. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back with a note that, as a controversial (to say the least) subject area, any renaming must be done through the WP:RM process. I'm about to drop a note on the mover's talk page pointing out the same thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI

WP:SPI has an enormous backlog with at least one case listed 9 days ago awaiting action. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The people that you should speak to about that are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Scratching my head

Ive come across a page that Im really not sure whats happening. User:Djgriffin7/Mark G. Frank has ~17+ editors editing it, most of these users its their only activity. Im not sure exactly what is going on. Is this some kind of sock issue or what? Werieth (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

School project? GiantSnowman 15:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my first guess, too. Note that Djgriffin7 previously did a lot of work on Steven A. Beebe (formerly a page in Djgriffin7's userspace), who like Frank is a communications professor. Also, a lot of the usernames editing this page end in "93" or "94", which would suggest a class of college students who are 20 or 21 years old. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A bunch of students working on their professor's article would be my random guess, but surely the easiest way to find out is probably to ask one of them on their talk page? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

...or to be more efficient ask @Djgriffin7: as he is likely the co-ordinator. GiantSnowman 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the IPs that have edited the page, I would say it is a project from State University of New York at Buffalo. GB fan 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely a class project at SUNY Buffalo. See [54]. Re Steven A. Beebe, see User talk:Djgriffin7/Steven A. Beebe. It would also be helpful to put him in touch with Wikipedia:Education program. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello - yes - these two pages are class projects for students who are enrolled in Communication Theory courses. Out of the approximately 75 students across two classes at two schools not one of them had ever edited Wikipedia in any fashion (until now). I hope that our activity was not too troublesome and was not so erratic or error filled as to cause any problems. I of course am a new Wikipedia editor and am open and welcome any tips or advice. Graciously. Djgriffin7 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Djgriffin7, we have a School and University Projects area that you would usually contact in advance of the project in order to help alleviate concerns like this, and coordinate the types of learning that are conducive to Wikipedia. This will help you to ensure your student success! the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for guiding me in this direction. I am dying to know what a "sock issue" is as referenced by User:Werieth above. I couldn't find it on Google or via Wikipedia. Can someone explain? Djgriffin7 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet. And for similar policy, see WP:Meatpuppet. Sperril (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Offensive rhetoric

IP user:24.135.50.156 comment, labeled Wikipedia all-time low, at Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, labels unspecified WP contributors as "neo-nazis." We don't need such invective in connection with such a potentially fraught topic. [55] Sca (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You can place a warning on their talk page. That's a start. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone (not I) already removed it. Sca (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ds/sanction move request

I have initiated a move request to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction. The template has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community Sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for Community Sanctions. The move request is at Template talk:Ds. —Neotarf (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality of article creations

As most of you are probably aware, I have a long-standing history with User:Rich Farmbrough. Some of you feel that I should leave him alone, either because my complaints are meritless (which is contradicted by the results of these discussions), or because there is no need in a wiki-environment for one person to follow the edits of another, no matter how many times they have found problems in them; the theory is that if it is bad enough, someone else will notice it. In reality, this make take quite a while though; once editors are established, their edits get very little scrutiny, as evidenced by the below.

In an effort to reduce the number of complaints and errors, Rich Farmbrough has received three editing restrictions, basically an attempt to improve the quality of his editing by reducing the quantity and repetitiveness of them. While the restrictions seem to be followed now, the wanted results are lacking. I have focused on the articles he created since his return, the ones listed here between George T. Lanigan and Aux Raus, i.e. (not counting the disambiguation pages) some 43 articles. I have not focused on his many redirect creations, although they have some of the same characteristics, like the self-referencing Template:South-Sudan-politician-stub or the dubious value of P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso, which seems to be a novel invention, not something really ever used by Picasso or in any serious work about him.

Not mentioning simply unsourced articles or articles with serious typos, and skipping those I was not able to quickly research (e.g. biographies of Japanese military personnel), I noticed among these 43 new, often very short articles the following problems (in reverse chronological order):

• George T. Lanigan
  • Wrong year of birth and death (article gives (1815-1874), correct would be either 1845 (10 December) or 1846 as year of birth, and 1886 as year of death, e.g. [56]
  • Wrong business (politician? Can't find any evidence for it)
  • Lanigan or Lannigan? Article was moved, but lead not corrected
  • No references
• St George Henry Rathbone
  • Merged an existing article with the right name to his newly created one with the wrong name (original was St George Rathborne, note the extra "R" in borne)
• Peter Irving
  • Only claim to fame is a book he wrote, Giovanni Sbogarro: A Venetian Tale. In reality, he didn’t write that book, but translated it from the French (original by Charles Nodier, Jean Sbogar, Histoire d’un Bandit Illyrien), which leaves us with a distinct lack of any notability in the article.
  • Originally claimed that the book was written in 1920 instead of 1820, corrected by someone else
• Josias von Rantzou
  • Title and first line don’t match; title is wrong, should be at Rantzau, not Rantzou
  • Unsourced
• John Russell (1838-1956)
  • 1838-1956: really? That’s quite a feat
  • We already had the article John Russell (screenwriter) on the same person…
  • Image is probably still copyrighted (uploaded to Commons as PD by Rich Farmbrough, but artist died in 1945, so not dead for 70 years yet)
• Olga de Kireef Novikoff
  • Born in 1842? No, born in 1840 (some sources give 1848, but none seem to give 1842)
  • Better known as Olga Novikoff or Olga Novikova, or especially Olga Alekseevna Novikova, but very rarely, if ever, as Olga de Kireef Novikoff (no Google books or regular google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors)
• Anne Lattin
  • Her real name is not "Louis Dwight Cole" but "Lois Dwight Cole", much better known than the rarely used pseudonym Anne Lattin. Important for playing a crucial role in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor, not for her few books, but that can't be learned from the article
  • Born c. 1910? Well, actually, born 1903, died 20 July 1979
• Custódio José de Melo
  • Almirante de Melo was a sailor? Well, yes, "almirante" is the Portuguese for "admiral", so he was an admiral, as someone else helpfully added as a category afterwards… Perhaps technically not wrong, but not helpful for our readers at all.
• José de León y Echales
  • Taking three days to die? No, some Sergeant-Major, the only one to survive the massacre and reach camp, survived for three days: the Governor was probably instantly dead. This can be seen here, the source used by Rich Farmbrough.

So, of these 43 articles, at least 9 have serious problems (certainly when taking into account the stubbiness of many of them), some more major than others of course. Many of the others are probably factually correct, and some errors undoubtedly escaped me, but is it really acceptable that an experienced editor (not some clueless newbie) is filling Wikipedia with this amount (or percentage) of really incorrect information? Creating duplicate articles, merging a correctly titled one to an incorrect title, getting dates of birth and death wrong, missing the important facts of someone's live completely, ...

All advice on how this can be prevented is welcome. Sofixit is a short term solution, but hardly something that one can expectr to be a continuous state for any editor. While we need prolific and enthusiastic editors in general, we don't need them no matter what, and at some point one has to consider whether many contributions outweigh this many errors. Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you and Rich Farmbrough make a great team - he tees up rough and stubby articles and you do the detail work. A tremendous amount of Wikipedia content is created through exactly such steps. bd2412 T 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind rough and stubby, I mind wrong (and unsourced as well, since that makes it much harder to check everything). I don't mind correcting someones errors, if it is a rare occurrence or if there is improvement. But neither applies here, and at some point enough is enough. The very least is requesting that all his articles (and major edits) are properly sourced, so that we don't get edit summaries like "Well I think he was on a council, possibly somewhere beginning with B."). Fram (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• ...An edit in which he removed the reference to being a politician. He was fixing what you found him at fault for and you still find him at fault while fixing it. By the way, there was in fact a George T. Lanigan who served on a council in Boston, just not THIS Lanigan. Rich's edit summary is a mea culpa, nothing more, nothing less. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am not complaining about the edit, I am remarking on the edit summary, which is not a "mea culpa" at all, no matter how you read it. A mea culpa is "my mistake" (e.g. the copyright status I questioned above was my mistake), not "I'll remove it even though I think I was right". Your years-long defense of Rich's edits is admirable, but it would ne helpful if it was a bit more realistic sometimes. Fram (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sofixit is how Wikipedia works. Every single one of us makes errors. It's the body as a whole that works. WP:PERFECTION (which states that perfection is not required) is policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sofoxit is nice, but that doesn't mean that substandard editors are allowed free rein. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is the guideline that applies here (e.g. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #2, but also WP:IDHT: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.". Fram (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Fram, really, most of these are not "serious problems". They are minor, and easily rectified. Just a cursory review of the 9 you selected shows errors on your part. Examples; Peter Irving was a member of the New York State Assembly. It took me just a few seconds in a Google search to find that. Sufficient for notability (see WP:NPOL). You claim that File:Greattrainrobbery.jpg is "probably still copyrighted". You are wrong. The work was published in 1912 (which is noted in the article), making it clear of copyright as it was published prior to 1923 (See [57]). You claim Ms. Cole is famous for her role in "in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor". Well, since you attack Rich for copyediting errors, you should have typed "Gone with the Wind". Yes, almirantes are sailors, and the article was in need of improvement, a fact that Rich noted himself on the article. I also note that several of the issues that you raise have already been corrected by Rich. Perhaps you should have raised this at his talk page first? "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution" (WP:DR). Since you are making so many errors in posting to WP:AN, should we disallow such "substandard editors" the "free rein" to post here? You're focusing on 21% of the articles he created, finding problems that do not exist, and failing to recognize the 79% where you didn't find error. You failed to raise these issues to Rich to give him an opportunity to fix them (which he is now doing). This is agitating. Go back to Rich's talk page and work it out. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
      • None of the issues that I raised were corrected by Rich Farmbrough before I raised them. None of these were minor either (three of the nine articles are or were at the wrong title, one is a duplicate of an existing article, and so on). Easily rectified? Yes, of course, once someone points out the problem and the solution, they are easily rectified. Until then, they remain for months or years. The problem is not that he didn't have an opportunity to fix them, the problem is that he created these errors, even though they were apparently "easily rectified". I don't blame him for copyediting errors (like writing Gorges for Georges, or itialicizing a title instead of bolding it in the first line of an article), that's the kind of thing that always happens and is indeed easily rectified by passing contributors; but I blame him for basic factual errors. The difference should be quite obvious. As for "go back to his talk page and work it out", earlier problems took years to work out and were only resolved by ArbCom. He is not some newbie who needs some initial guidance, these are basic errors that no experienced editor should be making with such a frequency. Fram (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
        • So instead just ramp it up and bring it here for sanctions against him? Much (all?) of this has been corrected since you started this thread. Had you given him the opportunity on his talk page, it's obvious he would have corrected it. Next time, don't assume bad faith. Give the man the benefit of a chance to fix it. So what's your end game here Fram? What's your ultimate goal with regards to Rich? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Much remains uncorrected, as can be easily seen by comparing the above comments with the actual articles. It's obvious he would have corrected it? That's not what happened some of the previous times, when I listed the problems and he halfheartedly corrected some of them, disregarding the others for no obvious reasons. Furthermore, like I said already a few times, the problem here is not "will he correct them or not", the problem is someone creating this many factual errors. Of course, some people will never agree that X is many (apparently more than 20% is not "many" for some). There is no ABF involved, he created these errors, I didn't assume he did. My end game? To have an editor with a basic sense of quality and fact checking. If you want to add facts to an encyclopedia, we should be reasonably sure that they will be correct. Not perfect, not typofree, not complete, that's not what anyone is asking; but normally, your edits should be factually correct (or at least backed up by a reliable source). Fram (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
            • But since you've already concluded that talking with him on his talk page is useless, then it would seem obvious your intention is having him banned from the project, no? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
              • No. I've concluded (rightly or wrongly) that it is useless for me to talk to him on his user talk page. My intention is to seriously reduce the number of errors he introduces into the mainspace. Any method that can achieve that is fine by me. For someone so concerned about ABF, you seem to be very quick at doing the same. Fram (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong agreement with bd2412 here. WP does not (rightly or wrongly, but that's how it is) have a minimum quality standard. WP:CSD is as close as it gets.

WP used to have a practice of collaborative editing, per IMPERFECT and SOFIXIT. This has been increasingly eroded recently, a development that does nothing to improve quality and even less for breadth of coverage. The deletionist logjam that nothing can be created unless perfect in all aspects from the start is one of the most harmful problems today. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes there are issues, a lot of articles have issues. Thousands and thousands of articles are blatantly wrong on some level. Rich does need to be more careful, many seem to be simple typos at really key points, but he has come back to fix them when the error was pointed out.[58] Rich should develop some content to GA and FA standards, but that's a journey and I hope he'll make the jump to it. Rich, you should not be egging it on with edit summaries about "automation" and such. Though it seems bizarre that someone should have to worry about the Proveit citation template maker or something... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The argument from WP:SOFIXIT is incorrect. Yes, Wikipedia does indeed grow and get better by editors fixing other editors' mistakes, but that does not negate the obvious, that an editor who creates articles with many mistakes in them is a problem. When we fix problems in an article, we AGF that the problems got there accidentally, but if an editor is having a lot of accidents, it points to a lack of care, and that hurts Wikipedia. For the time before a mistake is fixed, our accuracy is less than it should be, and out credibility (such as it is) is reduced. For these reasons, an editor who habitually makes content mistake needs to be dealt with. Fram is right to bring this to our attention - although Fram should also have fixed the problems they found and not left them in the articles. BMK (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Normally, I would have fixed them. But in this case, I prefer to stay away from his articles, as fixing all his problems may be seen as harassment by some as well (and would be a nearly full-time job anyway). And the claims (not by BMK, by others here) that the problems are fixed after they have been pointed out is not really correct as well, many of the issues raised above still remain. The case remains that no experienced editor should be needing a nanny. Fram (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Note that I have corrected hundreds of errors he created in the past. I have little interest in repeating that experience, or in delegating it to someone else. My aim is to prevent more problems. Fram (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
        • The only way you're going to prevent him from making errors is to ban him from the project. Is that your goal? You made several errors in bringing this complaint here. Should we ban you? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Several errors? I said that a picture was probably still copyrighted, your link seems to indicate that it isn't. Fine, that's one worry less, talk page used like it should be. I believe that when people make too many factual errors in their article editing (not just typos and the like, but getting basic facts wrong), action should be taken. Mentoring, restrictions, whatever, up to and including bans when necessary. For most editors here, this will never be a problem, since their error rate is considerably lower. But some editors, who continue to be problematic in their main space editing (like Rich Farmbrough, but there are other examples like LauraHale and so on), will need to change if they want to stay around. Fram (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, several errors were made by you. That was just in a cursory review. If that many came out in a cursory review, I'm sure you've committed many more errors. So what should we do about all the errors you are committing? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Feel free to list the other factual errors I made. Then again, if they are of the same level as your "oh, you wrote Gone with the wind instead of Gone with the Wind" example, don't bother. Either you can't see the difference between the kind of errors I listed (and the namespace they were made) and the things you are complaining about, or you are deliberately trying to disrupt the discussion, but neither is helpful. If you don't produce anything new or more substantial, then I'll let you have the final word if you want it, and am done replying to you here. Fram (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The initial creation of George T. Lanigan seems to have been copied from Hugh Graham, 1st Baron Atholstan without attribution, which is also potentially a problem. Choess (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is easily fixed using the "copied" template and putting on the talk page of both articles. BMK (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia, the edit summary link is required, and {{Copied}}s are optional. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution mentions using dummy edits. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fram found 9 of 43 articles created by Rich to have "serious problems" (debatable; some of them are simply copyedit issues). I.e, 21%. I took at look at Fram's 10 most recent article creations. Of those, I found 4 with various issues:

1. Isabelle Errera was created by Fram with various categories commented out, thus no categorization.
2. Kilsyth Curling Club; created with part of edit summary reading "Create short article", yet Fram failed to add stub templates {{Scotland-sport-club-stub}} and {{curling-stub}}, which are present on 2 of 6 of the articles in the category he placed this article in. Also failed to use {{Infobox curling club}}, which is recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Curling/Article_Guidelines#Other.
3. Gruuthusemuseum created by Fram with commonscat and section title issues that had to be fixed by another editor [59].
4. Lepus cornutus was created by Fram with one of the categories being Category:Mammals of Europe ([60]). Fram knew the animal was fictional, but placed it in this category anyway. The category was later removed by another editor.

Granted, a small sample, but it appears 40% of Fram's article creations have issues. This is about twice as bad as Rich. Fram has been editing since 2005. He is a very experienced editor. He should know better, right? Should be invoke sanctions on Fram? Of course not. The point here is nobody is perfect, and being perfect is not expected. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you are comparing formatting issues with factual errors. I could have listed many formatting issues from Rich Farmbroughs creations, if I wanted to get a higher percentage, but then you would have (correctly) complained about me including all kinds of minor issues which have no impact on the correctness of the encyclopedia. Not using stub categories, infoboxes, and so on has no impact on the correctness of the article. The Gruuthusemuseum diff you give is one typo ("Links" instead of "links") and then some AWB replacements where the original is also accepted, these aren't errors. If you can't see the difference between those and e.g. having the wrong name, wrong dates of birth and death, and so on, then you have no business in this discussion. If you do see the difference, but choose to ignore it for the sake of making a ridiculous WP:POINT, then you have no business here at all, as you are simply being disruptive. Fram (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, it appears that Rich Farmbrough has been informed about this thread. He appears to be staying out this discussion, which -- from what I've read up to this point -- appears to be the wisest thing to do. -- llywrch (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have history with both editors, and it should be noted that Rich's alleged errors are mostly errors of fact or of copyright violation, while Fram's are errors of formatting. Not at all similar. And I would say that someone who makes errors of fact in even 5% of article creations would be a problem. (I say that as someone who has not created articles, because I know I would make too many errors.) Still, I don't see quite enough here for Rich to be censured for it. If Fram finds more errors in the future, now that Rich has been informed, this is the place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin's point about the quality of the errors seen being just as important -- if not more so -- than the quantity is an important one. Factual errors and copyright violations are serious problems that need to be eliminated as much as possible, and do not compare with errors of formatting or other picayune mistakes.

  I believe that Fram's point is that RF's history is rife with making errors. Previously, his use of automation frequently resulted in formatting errors, and he is now banned from using automation. Now, the point is being made that his non-automated work may have errors as well, and of a wholly different and more serious kind. I'm not quite sure that the evidence here is conclusive, but it is worrisome, nonetheless, and should serve as a wake-up call to RF to be more careful in the future, or to have other editors vet his work whenever possible. BMK (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I doubt much has changed though. He hasn't created more articles, but yesterday, i.e. after this discussion had been going on for a while, he made his first edit to Heinrich Rantzau, but the information he added was wrong (and unsourced). I reverted[61] and explained why on his talk page, after which he added the probably correct but still unsourced information[62]. Similarly, he moved Olga de Kireef Novikoff to Olga Novikoff, but then changed her full name in the article to Olga Kireef de Novikoff. When challenged about this on his talk page, he pointed to a Spanish (or Portuguese?) translation of an old book on Madame Blavatsky; the original book did not contain the supposed full name (it mentioned once "Olga Novikoff, née Kiréef"), but somehow the web-only translation of this book[63] changed this to Olga Kireef de Novikoff, and that lonely and utterly unreliable source is the basis for Rich Farmbrough to determine the full name of this Russian lady in England, for whom there are plenty of fully reliable English language sources. It doesn't look like this thread has (so far) made any difference in his approach to fact checking. Fram (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

An informal RfC at Talk:Celibacy needs attention

• Talk:Celibacy#Requests for comment

Would like someone like to take a look at the discussion above and see what should be done. This originated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) which closed a few months ago as a merge to Celibacy, but what does one do when editors at the target do not want it? There seems to be a rough consensus to not include said material, but as it was never a formally-posted/templated RfC, not sure if we advertise for a wider audience or just run with what's there. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review of EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22

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.

---

I would like the community's input on two matters:

1. Specifically, EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22
2. Generally, what are admins obligated to consider when blocking for edit-warring when two or three reverts have been made.

The article in question is Human sexuality history. Diffs supplied upon request but I don't think anyone is disputing the actual edits.

Flyer22 reverted twice in the span of five minutes this morning. After the second revert, she was warned by the other editor for edit warring. No more reverts occurred on her part and talk was ongoing [64]. After about forty minutes after her last revert, EatsShootsAndLeaves blocked her and the other editor (who had three reverts) for edit warring. There is some history between Flyer22 and EatsShootsAndLeaves as Alison will attest to [65]. Other editors including myself got involved on both talk pages [66], [67]. Rather than discussing lifting the block, EatsShootsAndLeaves chose to characterize my comments as "atrocious and incendiary" [68]

Whether he agrees or not, EatsShootsAndLeaves' actions gives the appearance he will impose WP:1RR as he sees fit. As I said on Alison's page, I'm just flabbergasted that an editor in good standing can be blocked for two reverts with no warning. Looking over the edit histories of the 20,000+ articles I have watchlisted, hundreds of veteran editors would have lengthy block records if this was applied across the board. There needs to be some other justification for blocking other than "two reverts". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the most disgusting show of ABF I've seen in ages. I'm currently in discussion with Writ Keeper on my talkpage regarding this issue, and have already advised that I would review. NeilN's incendiary and non-AGF comments so far today have been unfortunate, just like this filing - it's phrased as a question, but is instead an accusation. I will, however, make nomore comments here - and will continue the discussion on my talkpage where it's already underway the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that the word "incendiary" applies to both ESL and NeilN here. Rage and accusations aren't going to help outsiders understand what happened here, or decide what should happen going forward.

  It appears that ESL has said he's going to re-review the basis for the block; how about we give him a little time to do that and then see what might or might not need doing? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware, there are no discretionary sanctions on 'Human Sexuality' although there are on some specific areas that fall under it, so there is no real reason for any admin to start imposing a 1rr restriction without some form of discussion. While edit warring can be done with less than 3rr, if someone makes 2 reverts, is warned about edit warring, and starts discussing on the talk page. That is how editing is supposed to work. Any block at that point is just punitive and petty. So since EatsShootsAndLeaves wants a question, here is one - "What about your block was preventative?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very premature. I do see that User:NeilN is discussing with ESL, as we like to see, but while that discussion may not become a case study for how disputes ought to be discussed, it looks to me like it was abandoned a bit early. I'm sympathetic to the point that the block appears a bit hasty, but talk about it and come back here if that fails.(in other words agreeing with the sandwich)S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If a veteran editor labels your point of view "atrocious and incendiary" then that's a sign for me to break off and get other opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• For convenience, I've assembled a list of the relevant diffs, sorted by time made: User:Writ Keeper/FM-Interleaved edit history Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper, as you know, topics surrounding human sexuality are the primary areas where Flyer22 tends to edit. They do a lot of good work there, across a swath of topics I wouldn't even begin to touch. However, human sexuality topics are also those that have gotten many editors in a lot of trouble - having just search ANI for both "Flyer22" and "human sexuality", you can see a lot of issues raised across the board - including a rather nasty situation between Flyer and a transgender editor that I believe ended horribly. It's an often poisonous set of topics where ownership has often been accused, and tempers have flared...often with very little provocation.

Flyer22 is a long-time editor, and while they have been knee-deep in some of these situations, have been provoked, and have also done some of the provoking. As a long-term editor, they also understand EW, its difference from 3RR, and the appearances. They know WP:BRD like the back of their hand.

From what I see of your list, it was almost 30 minutes between Flyer22's last revert on Human sexuality and when I blocked both editors. This delay is not at all questionable - after all, WP:AN/3RR reports often go hours without being touched, and blocks that come from those delayed reviews are not considered punitive.

Also, if one considered only those edits from today, then you're right, my actions might appear odd. Taking the poisonous history of that article into account, it does place the entire situation into a much wider context - a context that cannot be ignored - those 4 reverts cannot be taken in isolation.

Discussing on the article talkpage is also not a vaccination against being blocked for edit-warring or 3RR - discussion is vital to the project moving forward, after all, it's how we gain WP:CONSENSUS.

The edits being made by the other blocked party were perhaps inappropriate, but did not violate wP:BLP, WP:COPYRIGHT, nor any of the common exceptions to edit-warring. Following WP:BRD, or at least letting the discussion on the article talkpage continue instead of immediately reverting would have done no harm to the project or the subject.

As has already been said elsewhere and many many times, nobody is guaranteed 3 reverts - that's merely a bright line.

Flyer22 themself has admitted to having performed the second revert, and IIRC they acknowledged that it could be perceived as problematic. From what I recall from their talkpage this morning, they have not doubted the technicality of this block, but have merely expressed that I should not have been the one to perform it. I have not been to their talkpage in hours, and have already advised that I will not return - not even to re-read.

Based on the potential for escalation as per history on this article and with other editors on this and related articles, I perceived an extremely short edit-warring block as an immediate resolution to what I viewed as a rapidly-going-to-hell situation. Both parties were equally at fault, and as such, I issued 12hr blocks to both parties (even though Flyer22's past block history might have called for something longer, it was my clear desire to prevent what I perceived to be immediate issues, and most certainly not to punish anyone).

What was I to do instead?

Block neither and allow the possible escalation? No - not knowing the history of the wars on that and similar articles.

Block only Flyer? Hell no - they were equally at fault with the reverts.

Block only the other editor? I considered it - briefly. But then I considered the ethical dilemma with leaving one editor with the ability to keep control of the article, or to have the appearance of being favoured over the other.

It was a catch-22 situation, so I made the decision to make short, equal, project-protecting blocks. After all, both were warned, and both were very aware of the issues the panda ₯’ 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You didn't even consider placing a note on the article's talk page stating any further reverts would result in a block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would I do that - both editors were obviously aware of edit-warring; after all, ONE of the editors was throwing warnings around everywhere the panda ₯’ 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And again, Flyer22 had no more reverts after the other editor gave her a warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean the edit-war had stopped? Do you guarantee that? There's a reason that even WP:3RR is over 24 hours - nobody watches their keyboard 24/7, and for all anyone - including you - knows is that they might have gone back to make their next revert (note also the definition of WP:REVERT does not mean simply clicking UNDO) the panda ₯’ 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been quite loudly banging WP:AGF around my head today. Shouldn't you do the same? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm the only one who is :-) There's a reason I chose 12hrs, isn't there. the panda ₯’ 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll also notice no one else has said "Good block" or "Endorse block". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, and in the long run untrue. the panda ₯’ 22:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So feedback is irrelevant and you can see into the future. Okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Flyer22 after taking into account the relevant edit histories and EatsShootsAndLeaves's admission that he blocked without investigating all of the relevant facts fully ascertaining the entire timeline. Block logs are permanent things, people. We should not be blocking until we are absolutely, 100% certain we need to do so. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I made no such admission the panda ₯’ 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you only stated that "I can state without a doubt that the alignment is very different from what I reviewed this morning" when presented with a chronological list of the edits that you blocked Flyer for. I'm not even taking any alleged previous history with the editor into account. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, "the alignment is very different" is obviously NOT the same as not "investigating all the facts" - as you can read above, it was extensively investigated. the panda ₯’ 20:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You and I are reading that very differently then. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how. English might not be my first language, but there's no other possible way to have read my statement...and have you corrected your incorrect statement after having seen the truth above? There seems to be a disconnect now...oh, and now there's the matter of the ethical dilemma about the other editor remaining blocked because of a rash unblock of one of the parties the panda ₯’ 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no ethical dilemma here because the situation is not symmetric. Mdthree gave Flyer22 a warning before making another revert himself, which violates WP:GAME. Flyer22 did no such thing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

^What the king said. This wasn't a 'rash unblock' of only one party. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you'll still be correcting your wording, right User:The ed17? Bizarrely stating above and elsewhere that I said that I admitted that I had not investigated is false ... and I would normally expect better of you that to leave statements like that hanging around. You're a fan of the truth. the panda ₯’ 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've given a slight correction, though I'm not sure how 'bizarre' it was. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That one's even more false. Hell, did you even read my extensive analysis? WTF is this, "fuck the Panda over day"? I didn't get a card for that in the mail. C'mon Ed, everything I typed today is in English the panda ₯’ 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

On point 1: so even though WP:CONSENSUS was to wait until I had re-analyzed, one of my colleagues went ahead and unblocked one of the 2 editors without waiting. Of course, they did that without having read my analysis - and their unblock reasoning now doesn't stand up to my extensive statement. They have no desire to correct, and the block would have been almost over by now anyway, so meh. Oddly, there's been no useful comments since I showed the degree of analysis I went to. So, I'll consider mys statement to have been sufficient under WP:ADMINACCT, and therefore this situation closed.

On point 2, this isn't the place for philosophy, but I have shown all the things I took into account in instituting an edit-warring block before reaching 3RR, again, as per WP:ADMINACCT - there's been no statement that I missed any steps, so again, closed

Gonna take my kids to a movie the panda ₯’ 23:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree; it is not symmetric. I have been represented unfairly. I would appreciate an unblock as well. (1)User talk:NeilN makes the claim I made three reverts; I did not. (2) User: EatsShootsAndLeaves claims that because I know the rules about 3RR, I would have violated them. I would not, I know the rules. (3) User:King of Hearts said I was gaming the system; however the system advantages the first editor. The rule is structured that way and it is not gaming the system to follow the rules. As for symmetry, I think content needs to be considered. I was not asking for something inflammatory. The Human Sexuality opening paragraphs make no mention of the sexes either male, female, man, or woman. Its not possible to define sexuality without referencing sex; take a biologists point of view for a moment and look at the opening paragraph. Mrdthree (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrdthree, your comments about content are irrelevant. You made an edit and Flyer22 reverted it. As per WP:BRD, you should never re-add it until you have reached consensus to do so via discussion. However, you DID re-revert, and provoked another editor into an edit-war, while at the same time warning THEM for edit-warring. Obviously, if you knew EW/3RR well-enough to actually warn someone else about it, you knew it well-enough that you were also subject to it. Whether you hold the WP:TRUTH or not, you are still subject to the same article and editing rules as everyone else, and we're not going to discuss content here the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You attempted to game the system by inappropriately slapping me with a WP:3RR warning and telling me not to revert again so that you could then revert. You hardly waited for a reply before reverting. Also read WP:Don't template the regulars; never do I need such a template slapped on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've stated enough on this matter at my talk page. With regard to a few of Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's comments about me above: No, I did not acknowledge that my two reverts could be perceived as problematic; as the aforementioned discussion on my talk page shows, I was referring to my block log; I stated, "As far as I can see, you've screwed up my block log even further than it was already screwed up, even with all of clarifications that are in it, knowing very well that many editors here look at the block log and see 'problematic editor' when it has as many blocks/block descriptions as I now have...no matter what is clarified in the blocks." As for my not having doubted the technicality of this block, I have, which is also made clear in the aforementioned talk page discussion; I did not object solely because Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves was the one who blocked me. As for the transgender editor Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves is referring to, anyone can look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for details on that; that editor was topic-banned from human sexuality articles for very good reasons; I was not topic-banned. Nor will I ever be, and that's for very good reasons. As for Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's characterization of me, it leaves much to be desired. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Recall petition

Based on some of the comments, not just here but over the totality of User:DangerousPanda's admin career, I think that it'd be fruitful to have discussion of his status, and that an RfA (a "reconfirmation RfA" or "recall RfA") would be the best venue for this, mainly because that's a place where an actual decision one way or the other may be effected.

In this, I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on User:DangerousPanda's suitability as an admin, just that it may be something that people may wish to discuss. To that end I've initiated a recall petition (six signatures would be required) here: User talk:Herostratus#Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda (because a user talk page is the specified venue for such petitions).

Questions such as "how is it legitimate, or even allowed, to post a recall position on an editor who's not a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and who is not cooperating?" are best asked and answered there IMO (or here, whatever you like).

I assume that of course the following isn't necessary, but just to cover all my bases:

• If anyone feels the petition is not legitimate, please don't erase it (and please restore it someone does, thanks). The correct procedure would be to initiate a WP:MFD request on that section of my talk page. (Yes you can run an MfD on sections of pages.) I'd rather you didn't but it's your right.
• If anyone feels I'm out of line here, please don't block me (and please reinstate me if someone does, thanks). The correct procedure here would be to open an ANI thread, or an RFC:USER, or something along those lines. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Herostratus, what kind of request are you saying would be correct procedure for an opponent? WP:MFD? Our WP:MFA page is a redirect to Wikipedia:Your first article. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I restored Nyttend's comment after what seemed to be an accidental removal of the comment by Herostratus when tweaking his wording. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no, heaven forbid that your opening a recall attempt should be interpreted as expressing an opinion, no, you're just an innocent bystander here with no feelings one way or the other about the admin.

Yeah, I believe that.

Really

Here's what I think, innocent bystander-person: there really should be a community admin-recall procedure, but as of this time there isn't, which means that the only currently legitimate way to get an admin desysopped is to open a case at ArbCom, and make a case for removing the admin bit. So why don't you stop stirring unnecessary and unproductive drama at AN, and head on over to ArbCom. I'm sure they'll be receptive to your argument that an admin should be desysopped because he's been a bit cranky lately. Yeah, that'll really go over really well. BMK (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that seems a little uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, I can understand if you disagree with Herostratus, but does he really deserve to be castigated in such a vicious and sarcastic manner?

My interactions with DangerousPanda have been relatively limited, and the last time we spoke was sometime in 2013. He means well and does a lot of great work, but there have been a number of longstanding concerns about his temperament and judgment going back several years. If Herostratus feels that it is enough to petition for an administrator recall, then he can go ahead and initiate one. At the very least, it will help gauge whether or not he currently enjoys the support of the community, which is unclear at this point. I've called him an "admin's admin" on one occasion; I've also openly criticized several of his decisions in the past. I'll abstain from participation and leave it to the rest of the community to decide where to go from here. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? DangerousPanda isn't even open to recall? That changes things somewhat. Recall is not a standard community process, nor is it even binding — it's a prerogative espoused by certain administrators to uphold personal accountability for themselves. I'll second what Beyond My Ken wrote regarding the proper venue being ArbCom. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't the proper venue either - ArbCom only deals with cases of repeated abuse of admin tools specific egregious behaviour. There is actually no proper place for a general "Has this admin lost the confidence of the community?" process - and that's one of the big problems with Wikipedia governance. To have the bit forcibly removed, an admin must commit multiple specific and egregious offences, but there is no remedy for long-term passive-aggression. (Note these are general comments - I offer no opinion on this specific case) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (Corrected my "repeated abuse of admin tools" mistake -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

You're confusing the eventual success of the complaint with the proper venue for it to take place in. ArbCom is the only proper venue for desysopping DP, and that is true regardless of whether the complaint is viable or not, which this one isan't. BMK (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing anything of the sort. I agree that currently ArbCom is the only proper venue. But my view is that that is insufficient, as it does not encompass "loss of confidence" motions - for those, there is no proper venue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And, yes, that is why you are confusing results with venues. If the proper venue is ArbCom. which you agree, then it is irrelevant whether the appeal will be successful or not. The appeal can be "insufficient" or misstated or malformed or idiotic or stupid or half-bakaed, but ArbCom is still the proper venue for it. BMK (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, I think we actually agree on this - the proper venue is indeed ArbCom, purely because there's no other venue - but I don't see how ArbCom could (or even should) judge "loss of confidence" cases - and they won't. So yes, there is a designated venue - even if that venue won't get any results. (And in a practical sense, there's no useful venue). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been a couple of statements on this matter around and about which appear to be incorrect. As ArbCom is the only place that administrators can have their tools removed, misuse of the tools should result in cases taken to ArbCom. It's likely to be dismissed if it's a one off, but if there's a pattern which might lead to "loss of confidence", then that should be raised. There are times that an RfC/U are appropriate for an admin and times when they are not, it's certainly not a requirement to happen before an ArbCom case. At any rate, Herostratus' petition is not the way forward. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Boing, that's not entirely accurate. Removal of tools is not necessarily conditional on their abuse. Repeated misuse has historically been deemed enough to desysop an administrator; also, considering that admins are held to higher standards of conduct, a history of questionable conduct may warrant a desysopping as well – though this is uncharted territory, as far as I know. As said by others, if Herostatus thinks DangerousPanda's behaviour has been consistently poor, he should either open an RFC or bring a case to ArbCom. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC is almost entirely useless for removal of the admin bit (When was the last time an admin had his bit removed as a result of an RfC? I'm willing to bet the answer is "never".) If Herostratus thinks that DP has abused the bit - and I don't believe for a second remonstrations that HS is just am neutral independent operator - he needs to present a case to ArbCom, which I'm willing to bet he never will, since this appears to be pure propaganda and nothing else. Put your money where your mouth is, Herostratus, and file an ArbCom case and see how quickly it's rejected. BMK (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity, Salvio, but history supports me. ArbCom does nothing about long-term low-level problems with admins - those who the community would not now support, but who have not committed sufficiently egregious misuse of tools. (I'd love to be proved wrong - but by actions not words). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I don't mean this as a criticism of ArbCom, just as a criticism of the governance structure itself. I don't think ArbCom should be expected to judge loss-of-confidence cases - the Community should be able to decide them, but currently cannot. RFC is not the venue, as it is not binding. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. There should be a community-based desysop procedure, but at the moment there ain't, so we've got what we've got.BMK (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sad, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Herostratus' page now violates WP:POLEMIC - interesting that he made it on his takpage directly where a) all his talkpage watchers could participate simply by seeing their watchlist changes, and b) it now cannot be properly MFD'd. the panda ₯’ 09:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not WP:AGF again, Panda. Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• • While I oppose this recall attempt, I don't see how it violates WP:POLEMIC, as it is explicitly used in a (flawed) attempt at dispute resolution. As for the "talkpage watchers" comment; he openly announced this at WP:AN, so the influence of his talk page watchers doesn't seem to be a genuine concern. Fram (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what is said above, it isn't necessary for an admin to abuse his tools before ArbCom can decide to desysop them. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Proposed decision is a relatively recent example: Ironholds was desysopped for his comments and incivility, not for any abuse of the tools (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds was desysopped for "conduct unbecoming an adminstrator" fot having "a history of making highly inappropriate remarks both on-wiki and off-wiki on the various IRC channels, where he has often used violent and sexual language (evidence for this has been submitted and discussed in private). Moreover, on at least two occasions, he also logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects." You see some sort of parallel here with DP's behavior? 10:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You're quire right, Fram. I don't know why I didn't think of that case – and I was one of the drafters... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• No. DPanda can be abrasive, a bit of a bull in a china shop at times, but that is very different than what Ironholds did, by a mile. I don't see the self serving element at all. I don't question DPanda's faith in his actions, although I do have to admit wincing from time to time by his words or approach. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of RFC/U, but maybe that is the best venue as the problem appears to be one of communications and style more than anything else. Knowing when to accept community opinion even if you strongly disagree with it, that kind of stuff. He is not the only admin around here that fits that description, he is just the target of the day. Arb is the wrong venue, and won't get any results: RFC/U just might. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No. As far as I have seen, DP has done nothing as outrageous as the things Ironholds was desysopped for. I didn't claim or imply this either. My post was a reply to the discussion above, where it was basically said that ArbCom would only desysop for tools abuse, which is not correct. If someone wants to make the case that DP has a history of "conduct unbecoming an admin" which is sufficient to warrant desysoping (or admonoishing or whatever), then it would be incorrect to claim that such a casse doesn't belong at ArbCom a priori. This has nothing to do with whether such a case would eventually result in any actions, or with whether there are in this case enough arguments to start such a case. Pointing out that the process allows this, and that there is precedent, doesn't mean that this case is truly comparable or would have any chance of success (with "success" defined as an action against the admin). Fram (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming Arbcom agrees there is some sort of issue, there are other outcomes that a case could have, including admonishment and reminders - which would carry more weight if similar behaviour were to re-occur. That then leaves the question of "do we want to improve the situation or do we want blood". This is where RfC/U also comes in - if people genuinely have an issue and want to see change, RfC/U is a useful tool - if they just want a desysop, the question would be "why didn't you do something sooner". Worm^TT(talk) 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well of course I have an opinion. I'm just not expressing it since my role here is just to facilitate the process and so that wouldn't be helpful.

Here's what going on here: I'm making a stab at seeing if the community wants make a new thing, that being "recall of admins who are not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall". This is a test case. If you think that initiating recall of admins who are not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall is a bad idea generally, you probably don't want to sign the petition. If you think it's a good idea and you think that this case warrants one, you might want to consider signing. (Note that signing the petition is in no way a indication that you think the person shouldn't be an admin, just that you think that community ought to consider it.)

There's no question that this a stab at an organizational reform, I'm not being coy about that. Obviously if this were to go through, it would be a new thing. Since it' be a new thing, objections in the manner of "we haven't done this before" are not very germane. And objections in the manner of "this is not allowed" are not particularly satisfying. It's a wiki and community members are allowed to do whatever the community says they can, including make new things. We are not entirely bound to past procedures I hope, and that kind of thinking makes it hard for us to change and grow going forward.

My personal opinion is that recall of admins who are not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall might very well be a good thing (of course I don't know this for sure), some of the reasons being:

• If there is going to be admin recall all, it seems silly to limit it to admins willing to place themselves in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, since it's possible that the admins who don't are exactly the ones that we are most likely to want to recall.
• It's much simpler and easier than going to ArbCom, when all you want is to consider adminship rather than bans and topic bans and so forth.
• It'd devolve some decisions down to the community rather than an elected board. All thing equal devolvement of decision-making downward is often functional.
• It allows the format of the conversations and procedures for recalling an admin to parallel the the format of the conversations and procedures for appointing an admin, which makes sense to me. (If ArbCom is much better than RfA at concluding who should or should be an admin, then probably ArbCom should appoint as well remove admins.)
• Might make the whole RfA thing less of a fraught thing and such a big deal -- easier out, easier in. Maybe. Not sure if this is true or would be a good thing though.
• And so forth. I'll bet you can come up with other reasons. Herostratus (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't create a new process by strongarming through a "test case" - especially one which has a direct effect on another editor. You propose it, perhaps by way of an RFC at the Village Pump, you allow discussion around the topic, and you abide by the community's decision on its validity or otherwise. You don't get to unilaterally decide that Wikipedia now has a brand-new admin recall system of your own devising and expect to try it out on the first admin unfortunate enough to get dragged to ANI. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what's really up?

Let's back the truck up here. Now, before I posted the analysis that led to the block above, there were some backroom discussions not only about the block, but discussions where some of my colleague admins (I won't say who) called me "a fucking prick". Some people - admins included - seemed to believe I'd gone completely off-the-rails or something over some isolated 4-edit sequence that on a normal day would lead to warnings and no more.

Oddly enough, after I posted the long thought process that went into the blocks, not a single admin has said "I disagree". In fact, it's been strangely quiet. Not a single admin has said "yeah, but...". Not a single admin has said anything about that because surprise, surprise, Brad did think before clicking on a tool. Brad did end up doing what was in his judgement the protection of a dangerous corner of the project. Brad did try to balance the needs of 2 editors and the project. Indeed, Brad did ask himself a whackload of pertinent questions before clicking on that tool. Brad did do exactly what the project expects an admin to do before acting. Nobody since my post has said "Brad, that was a bad block based on your explanation". Yeah, I made a difficult judgement call based on months of watchlisting an hazardous, contentious article. People sure seemed to question the judgement without knowing the full details - someone even unblocked without knwoing them, but not a peep since - and that's because we've all been hanging on that balance at one point or another - hell, there's 1 or 2 ANI reports yesterday alone that showed less-complex thought processes that spiralled out of control.

So what's the real issue here? Me? The fact that I blocked someone who claims I know everything about them (I'm sorry, my memory doesn't work that way)?

I may be a lot of things, but the one thing that EVERYONE on this project knows about me is that I tell the truth, AND that when I say I'm sincere, I'm sincere.

Yesterday was a painful day not because of this AN, but because I did some very deep soul-searching, and then painfully bared my soul on another editor's page. What makes it worse is that due to my promise to them, I will not revisit their talkpage to see if they replied. It just so happens that the editor in question is one of the 2 editors I blocked yesterday.

Indeed, I tried to go back and find out just why Flyer22 is so damned pissed off at me, and yeah, apparently it DOES go back a long time when I personally failed to AGF - I made a statement based on all the available evidence presented to me at the time. It was the only statement supported by the available evidence at the time - although I did take it one step too far. Turns out that there was more unknown evidence that turned the tables not long after. If that evidence was available at the time, I sure would have made a different statement - but I sure should not have made the level of non-AGF statement I made anyway - that was a long time ago, and it took a lot of digging to find it. I cannot go back and right my personal great wrongs. I have apologized, more than once to Flyer22. I have sincerely stated my regret to them. And no, I didn't recognize that one of the people was blocking yesterday just happened to be the one person who I feel I had truly wronged years ago.

So what, are we complaining about the block now? Are we complaining about my thought process/judgement in yesterdays blocks? Are we complaining that I'm an emotional, rational human? Or are we just throwing random "let's play shotgun with some shit and see what sticks"? After all, I would LOVE to see where my REAL analysis failed - but in >12hrs, nobody has shown that at all - they've simply tossed shit. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to avoid making personal attacks here, so let me just say that the thing everyone on this project supposedly knows about you is something I don't agree with. Apart from that, the posting of the long thought process was your 20:33, 6 May 2014 post? The one that was followed by an unblock which basically boiled down to "DP was wrong here"? A later statement by admin User:King of Hearts seems to agree. You then, on 23:18, 6 May 2014, posted a further "but I was right" reply, and now this. You may not agree with their analysis, but claiming that "Not a single admin has said anything about that" is rather strange and doesn't seem to match the above discussion. Fram (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed had something to say too. And I offered you an option you could have taken after your analysis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ed and KoH's comments were not related to my analysis - they were related to my question about unblocking the other party. Neil's opinion was noted, thanks. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My comments are not related to the block. I've not commented on it, nor do I have any desire to. I've never questioned your faith, honesty or sincerity. In fact, I've spoken out for them previously. Still, if people have a problem with your methods, the backwaters of RFC/U is the right venue, not Arb nor the drama pits of ANI/AN. If it isn't worth filing an RFC/U over, then dropping it would be the best solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, bad block, whatever. I don't care about rubbish like my reputation's been tarnished or "block log is permanent omg what will people think?". (Redacted) — lfdder 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to consider striking your comment, which is clearly in breach of WP:NPA. There just isn't any need for that and it isn't serving any higher purpose here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to consider blocking me for it. — lfdder 14:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Acting childish with me isn't solving anything. Acting dickish isn't either. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm done here anyway. — lfdder 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As the opener of this thread, I had two questions and none of them involved desysopping. Restated, they were if Flyer22's block was a good one and what admins should consider when the bright line of WP:3RR hasn't been breached. I think an RFC/U is premature but hope that DP keeps other alternatives to blocking in mind when faced with a similar situation in the future. Taking an extra step before blocking, however fruitless it may seem (or turn out to be), is not always a bad thing. That's all I want to say about the RFC/U matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Neil, that's exactly my point: you opened a thread with 2 key questions. Of course, it would have been ridiculous for anyone to comment on the first prior to seeing what analysis I went through to got to the 2 block blocks. So, last night, I posted the thought process that went behind them. Your second question is philosophical, and AN is really not the right place for that type of question. Through my thorough analysis, I provided very good reason why alternative methods were not possible at that time, at least in my judgement. However, nobody else seems to be responding to your questions - well, one person did unblock. That was your sole response. Torches and pitchforks were optional. Welcome to the world of AN/ANI :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So we're supposed to wait around while an editor is under what seems to be a bad block for you to chime in? No, sorry. Other editors can look at the exact same situation you did and give their independent opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually the consensus from the beginning of the thread was exactly that wait 'til Panda re-reviews. The clear point here is that what appeared on the surface to be a "possibly bad block" actually wasn't necessarily a clearly bad block once the explanation was given. Funny how the heat:light ratio could have been avoided if the conversation had merely continued on my talkpage, eh? the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I read consensus as Flyer22 should not have been blocked. Something you still seem to disagree with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Re-read the first few comments. Again, the consensus that you're talking about came before anyone knew the rationale behind the blocks. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I think this is probably not the best place to be seeking clarification of the feedback (and/or the issues or supposed issues which are apparently being raised) in relation to your adminship as it is not a single action or comment or incident which has motivated this; I'm sure you realise that. I expect a lot of useful feedback and perspective can emerge from another venue (such as a RfC if its structured properly and the requirements are complied with); it's always better to take that type of option than to wait for a time when there are a greater number of "pitchforks", but ultimately it's your call if you choose to self-initiate an RfC/U or not, or consent to an RfC/U or not. It will depend on whether or not you're ready and willing to hear others thoughts on both the good bits and the bits which you could consider handling differently or improve on. On another note, there are a number of admins who jump into contentious issues, but not all of them feel this sort of backlash. I can even point to some, if they would let me, whom after taking up an RfC or similar route, modified just a few features of their approach and encounter this sort of trouble/outrage/scrutiny on a much smaller scale despite continuing to address those problems for the Community on an ongoing basis. To me, it shows they work even more effectively now handling the worst kind of editing or problems than if they did not heed the advice given to them or if they weren't ready to even consider acting carefully with another approach. That's my suggestion, but I realise that each person is different and it might equally be be something that you're not ready to do too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ding ding ding, you win! This thread is supposed to discuss the block. It's supposed to discuss my analysis that led to the block. Somebody else turned it personal. ALl attempts to steer it back on track so that I can potentially learn what was wrong with my analysis that led to this specific pair of blocks has failed miserably. My sole conclusion from that is therefore: nothing was actually wrong, now that we understand it. Which oddly enough, makes the whole "desysop" thing rather moot now...doesn't it. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that a winner has been declared, perhaps an uninvolved admin wouldn't mind closing this more-heat-than-light thread... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of your analysis is half the issue. Discussion of the actions you took after your analysis is the other half. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What actions were those? Please feel free to point them out. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

At the conclusion of your analysis the action you took was blocking. Your analysis told you there was edit-warring going on. There were a variety of actions you could have taken to stop it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly there were other possible solutions. But I made a judgement call based on the intelligence I had gathered that was well-within the realm of admin responsibility, and provided the rationale when requested untik WP:ADMINACCT. There are always multiple ways to resolve something - I chose one valid path, and other people would have taken other paths. That's both a good thing and bad thing. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:EatsShootsAndLeaves - Blocking the users was disruptive to the wikia (and not at all needed within wikia rules), as this chat and others such as on your chat page and the blocked users chat page clearly indicates and your actions continues to be disruptive due to your refusal to accept the obvious and walk away. Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mosfetfaser: Wikia? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:43, 7 May 2014 (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.

10.68.16.31

10.68.16.31 is apparently User:ClueBot III editing logged out again. I informed Jayron32 (the admin that blocked it last time in April), and they told me to come here. Here are some diffs: [69] [70] [71]. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the bot has logged back in. I unblocked the IP after realizing the block could cause misdirected XFF blocks. However, what seems concerning is how the bot is still editing after the emergency shutoff has been activated. I'm not the most experienced with bots and would welcome the input of others. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After a quick chat with Deskana, I've blocked the bot. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the bot making bad edits? If not then it seems churlish to block it simply because the stop button doesn't work - especially as that stops it working logged in and not logged out - precisely the reverse of what we want. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Agreed - Is the bot making bad edits ? Then it should be blocked, but if it's doing what it's supposed to do, then there's no problem (even if it's logged out ) KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 10:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is twofold. First, the bot was performing edits while logged out. It's my understanding from the bot policy that this should not occur and that the use of extensions such as AssertEdit should be implemented. Second, the bot was performing edits logged in while the shut off was in place, which makes it noncompliant with its own emergency protocol. There's even a message on the bot's page that encourages admins to block it if it is malfunctioning. I'm not trying to be churlish or pedantic. It's simply a case of the bot not functioning as it is intended. Mike V • Talk 15:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the latter (emergency shutoff not working) would justify blocking the bot; however, the first wouldn't - if the only malfunction in the bot is that it would edit when not logged in, then blocking it would do no good to stop the trouble. Even in the case of bots, blocks should only be used to prevent malfunctionm edits or unapproved tasks - and merely editing while logged out some of the time doesn't constitute either of these the rest of the time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In short, if we can't trust that it will stop editing when told to, we can't trust that it will follow other instructions properly as well. The operators are good and reliable, so of course we're not accusing them of bad faith, but they've apparently made some mistake that temporarily makes the bot undependable. Nobody's going to object to an unblock once the operators say that the coding problems are fixed. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I take the reverse view, if anything. Editing logged out is bad, because 1. it gives the impression that we allow bot edits from IPs, 2. the edits are not accountable which bot edits should be. OK in this case we know it's CB III so we could let it slide if we thought that the downside from having it not functioning outweighs point 1.

But bots are not like HAL or te computer in the Forbin Project, they do not become "untrustworthy", if the "emergency stop" (which in many bots redirects to the admin block function anyway) doesn't work, the bot is not going to start trying to take over the encyclopaedia - it left this thread after all. (Or is it trying to lull us into a false sense of security?) The admin block is still there for a real malfunction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Untrustworthy in the sense that we can't trust the code. Someone accidentally removed from the bot's code the instruction (or part of the instruction) to stop editing when the shutoff is activated. Since we know that they made that mistake, we can't trust that they made no other mistakes, and we can't trust that this mistake won't have other unexpected effects. With that in mind, we can't let the bot edit until someone's confirmed that the mistake is resolved. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

When an editor is as prolific as Cluebot, its activity is meaningful not only at the level of individual edits but also statistically. Letting it edit logged out results in a distorted picture of what's happening on the entire wiki. So it should be blocked until it logs back in. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem: As I understand it (which is doubtless an oversimplification), 10.68.xx.xx is the internal network, and therefore blocking anything in 10.68 risks collateral damage, possibly including break-the-whole-site network damage. It's not some IP from halfway across the globe that you're blocking from Wikipedia's servers; you'd be blocking the system from itself. Blocking the account is useless, because it's not using the account.

What we need is for people to figure out how this is happening and fix it, not to block stuff without regard for either the possible consequences of the block or the effectiveness of the block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any legitimate reason to allow anonymous editing from private IP addresses? What would be the downside to soft-blocking all of them indefinitely? Same question applies to the external IPs of toolservers. Bovlb (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:Anomie/Archives/2013#10.111.0.0.2F16. 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for forgiveness

More than a year has passed since I was blocked for stupidily threatening User:Jayron32. I'm from Argentina and after an edit-war, I said the following: "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." or so I said. I well-deserved to be blocked because I was beyond immature and stupid. Then, I created another account to start anew as a respected user. Well, the sock-puppetry accusations began and I couldn't ever again work on Wikipedia. I deny sock-puppetry since I don't, I can't use blocked accounts and I'm not interested in having more than one account. So, I'm now asking to be forgiven and allowed to create another account and start anew. Thank you indeed. --190.178.156.205 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't even remember it, but if you're here to do good work, go do that. --Jayron32 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, I would support the editor coming back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron for giving me a second and last opportunity!, I've been working in the shadows and doing well with User:Japanesehelper but I'm afraid of going public (i.e. nominating candidates for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates) and getting blocked for the alleged "sock-puppetry" that never occurred since I never used two accounts at the same time. Who can guarantee me that "Japanesehelper", my only account, will not be blocked? Thank you.--190.178.183.38 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No one can guarantee anything, but the person you attacked has given his blessing for you to be back, one other person thinks that is the best unbureaucratic way to deal with the problem (me), and assuming you just edit and stay out of trouble and not war or get into fights, I don't see a problem. Assuming others don't argue against this solution, you could just point to this discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. You can see my record with "Japanesehelper", it's cleaner than a brand new t-shirt. I was immature when that happened. Promise it won't happen ever again. --Japanesehelper (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesnt sockpuppetry include using new accounts to evade blocks? Howunusual (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. We're not here to mete out perpetual punishment, we're here to build an encyclopedia. This isn't a game. If Japanesehelper wished to be helpful, I am not going to get in their way. --Jayron32 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a legitimate question, but again I agree with Jayron. When someone appears to be very sincere, apologetic and sets a clear future path for their behavior, and the person who was on the receiving end last time (Jayron) gives their blessing, I think we owe it to ourselves and them to take a chance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Let's not prevent good work from being done. Probably a bad use of clean start, but WP:IAR - a productive editor need not be a perfect editor, both in content or character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably worth verifying whether this is an IP sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive, a racist ultranationalist extremist and sociopathic liar who in the spare time off wiki writes things like "fucking mohammedan apes and baby-killers", "Fuck you !! stupid Islamofascist terrorist ape dressed in rags. I hope you and all your family of monkeys shall receive what you deserve when Israel kick your coward ass. Asshole! ISRAEL WIN", "Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim", "¡¡¡God bless Nakba!!! (Jewish victory over the war of extermination that the Arabs brought upon them 65 years ago). Never in history was a "catastrophe" so well deserved! God bless Israel. Keep strong, united, prepared and brave.", ""palestine" does not exist, never did and never will", "Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM ISRAEL WIN". Sean.hoyland - talk 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that Japanesehelper does not look like AndresHerutJaim, but AndresHerutJaim's persistent socking via both accounts and Argentina based IPs has been such a major problem over the past few years in the WP:ARBPIA topic area and its suburbs that experienced editors will assume that any Buenos Aires based IP active in the ARBPIA topic area that appears to be advocating for Israel or against Palestine or Iran is a sock. Is there a diff for the comment "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree some idea of who this editor actually is would be helpful, at least if we are going to give any indication they may be allowed to stick around.

I don't know much about the editor Sean.hoyland mentions above, but Special:Contributions/Japanesehelper is looking a lot like Special:Contributions/Timothyhere who abused many sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Timothyhere + Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothyhere + many which were either blocked per WP:DENY or which unblocked but had their contributions deleted). While obviously it was never confirmed by a CU, they did sometimes edit under an Argentinian IP. Particularly in their later stages, they seemed to mostly troll the Reference Desk, Help Desk and Teahouse. But they did hang around ITN at various stages. Beyond simple trolling, they did seem to have a particular interest in Nazi Germany and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer similar to Japanesehelper.

They also claimed to be Japanese at least once Special:Contributions/Kotjap with a corresponding interest in Japanese related topics although I think they showed the same interest even with other identities. Kotjaps claims to be Japanese weren't particularly believable. IIRC they claimed to be living in Japan with some elaborate back story like being a 55 year old former hikikomori who's father beat them [72] yet never showed any actual evidence of understanding Japanese. (I can't recall if they ever explicitly said they spoke Japanese but I think they did repeatedly saying they were not a native English speaker, which may be true regardless, which combined with their claims about their identity lead to an obvious conclusion. And even IIRC when Japanese editors suggested they ask their question in Japanese they never said they didn't actually speak Japanese.) Or really any evidence of knowing that much about Japan you would expect from someone who lived there. (And of course, it's very likely they were editing from an Argentinian IP.)

As stated above, it seemed clear they were trolling. Over time, it became fairly obvious they already knew the answer to many of their 'questions' or otherwise didn't care. Furthermore, beyond the Japanese identity, they pretended to be from all over the world usually mentioning stuff in 'my country' or similar. In particular, in many of their later identities, they claimed to be from tiny island/s nations, or at least small poor places you wouldn't generally expect many wikipedians from.

I don't know if they ever said the stuff about "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian" to Jayron32, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't the reason why the Timothyhere round of socks was blocked. It could be that the AndresHerutJaim and Timothyhere group are the same editor and no one noticed before. I would also note that if it's either editor, their indication their disruption stopped over a year ago isn't particularly believable. (I believe there were more recent Timothyhere socks than the late June ones but I'm lazy to look for them.)

I'm not suggesting an immediate block since I'm not seeing an obvious signs of disruption under the new account. And if it is Timothyhere they seem to have given up on pretending to be from places they clearly aren't. But if it's either or both editor/s, lying about their history and why they were blocked is not a good sign. And they should expect to be on a short leash not because of anything to do with forgiveness but because we have good reason to think they can't be trusted to continue to edit.

Edit: The most recent probably trolling from Timothyhere I can find is Special:Contributions/190.178.141.180. It's nothing particularly wrong but given the history it was hard to believe their claim they were "working for a psychology project on the case regarding Kato". Also looking a bit more, I think Timothyhere had an interest in terrorism and in particular Al Qaeda under their many identities, in particular in relation to Canada. But I don't recall much interest in the Israel-Palestinian issue or Iran.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct process for requesting an unblock. The editor says their account was blocked 1 year ago and they apparently set up a sock account to continue editing shortly afterwards. They have not even told us what the original account was, or how they were blocked. Furthermore, if they continue editing, they are not normally allowed to make a clean start but must keep the old account after it has been unblocked. My suggestion is to close this discussion thread, block the IP and Japanesehelper, and ask them to make the request on their talk page or, if that is blocked, through email. At that time, a CU can be conducted. TFD (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• • In a nutshell, it is easier to watch someone when they are in the open, and the liklihood of them becoming productive is higher as well. My opinion hasn't changed. I won't block and would oppose anyone else at this juncture. Wait and see, monitor, hope for the best. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Redlink category adder

I don't want to make a big deal about this, and I would take it somewhere else if I knew where that place was, but the user CmdrDan appears to believe that simply adding a category to an article creates the category, so he's added a number of redlinked categories to articles. Can someone who's more familiar with categories than I am have a talk with him? Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Left a note, HTH. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Arbitration motion regarding Falun Gong 2 (User:Ohconfucius)

The Arbitration Committee has superseded the topic ban imposed on Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) in the Falun Gong 2 case by motion:

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Psst, bit of a backlog at WP:UAA

Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey admins, come on

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.

---

...and help a brother/sister out nextdoor, at WP:ANI, section "Undue retaliation, provocation and/or vandalism on Mitsubishi Magna article by User:OSX". You need to help me figure out what to do with these two editors, one of whom was at 27R, while the other kept their count low by way of sockage. I already did the heavy lifting. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (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.

Archive.is headache

Archive.is URLs were blacklisted. But the task was not properly done. As a result, it has become a big headache. Someone makes non-constructive edits/vandalism in an article, you try to revert it and find you can not do it, as the article contains archive.is URL.

I reported it here, where it was observed only "rollback" option is working here. But, we can not use rollback always.

This has become a big headache. I just had to manually remove 6-7 archive.is URLs just to make a reversion with an edit summary. Tito☸Dutta 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to remove them from the blacklist? The concern was that archive.is might (horror) use adverts, and might spam archive links to WP. The admin of archive.is replied that we could, if we wished, make archive.org backups of archive.is and use those. They do not appear to be out to take advantage of Wikipedia, and indeed are providing a valuable service. If their site became unacceptable to link to in the future we could remove the links very rapidly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

I have no idea why its on the blacklist and it seems to be shooting us in the foot. One bad person should not equate to wholesale blacklisting of a valid and important archival service. It seems like a knee-jerk decision was made and the damage done is creating quite a fuss and hurting our articles. I've seen plenty of issues with Archival services not picking up or losing access to Gamespot's new robots.txt (Archive.org in this case). I also note that a while back there was some discussion about funding and acquiring such a service - but I'm a bit out of the loop on that. We can very easily control our links at will from such sites, I don't see the need to have an entire beneficial service blacklisted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, part of the blacklisting was the archive.is folks using an unapproved bot account which was blocked (for being an unapproved bot). Then evading that block with IP addresses. Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive sites are akin to redirectors, though. Is there any content that is on archive.is and not archive.org? If not, we probably don't need it. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That kind of statement reduces a valid option and Archive.org has missed many key sources to 404 that I wish I could selectively archive. Now, an unapproved bot and socking is one thing, but it seems knee-jerk reaction to a problem. Would you do the same if and blacklist all of Archive.org because someone used an authorized bot to mass add links? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict Plenty, I'm afraid. We should discourage people from removing the links without replacement, as the archice.is URL is vital to being able to determine what the original was, and therefore finding a replacement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several differences between archive.is and archive.org. Archive.org is a crawler and gets everything when it visits a page but it does follow robots.txt. Archive.is claims they only archives pages they are told to archive but ignores robots.txt. Webcite is closer in functionality to archive.is, but they do follow robots.txt. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is is currently the best and seemingly only option for GameSpot archives at this time. They regularly 404 and are altered and now have Robots.txt which makes Archive.org not serve the page even if they HAD the archive previous. See discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned here, I haven't found any good alternatives to archive.is yet. For example, web.archive.org and webcitation.org failed to archive beyonce.com/credits properly – only archive.is renders the page's content correctly. Mayast (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Hawkeye7, what do you suggest to do if you want to revert a non-constructive edit, and want to add an edit summary too. Please see this edit. The editor, being a film production house member, was removing "negative reviews, reception" from the article.
  Either remove them from blacklist, if that is not possible, okay, I have not problem, then appoint a bot to remove all archive.is URLs from Wikipedia. Currently it is a big trouble.Tito☸Dutta 23:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• The reason archive.is was blacklisted was because the people running archive.is utterly destroyed any possible sense of good faith with their actions (spamming links, unapproved bot, block evasion, etc.) - the links were being added in a blatantly promotional fashion, instead of simply correcting broken links that were easily findable and fixable. It was indistinguishable from spam, and it was treated as such, and frankly after their display I, personally, cannot consider any archive.is link trustworthy - after the display of what they did here, who knows what they have on their site that might be lurking to infect my computer? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow:. Carefully parsing the above and rewriting for provable truth, we have: Someone acting on Archive.is's behalf employed block-evasion techniques to flood-add both Archive.is and Archive.org archive links preemptive to link failures (read: many, but not all, of the edits were needed yet). Optimistically, it was a technological partial proof-of-concept. Pessimistically, it was (weakly) promotional, and (strongly) unapproved behavior per our bot consensus guidelines. I found the edits to be 100% accurate, overall helpful though sometimes unnecessary, and in every case unharmful, though technically against bot policy and procedure. There's a tendency to throw the baby (bot-added edits which are helpful-but-against-procedure) right out with the bathwater, and I strongly object to this (insert religion-based decision process epithet here) bullshit. However, and be very clear about this: Archive.is was blacklisted because a narrow majority of easily-frightened RFC participants were led witless down a banhammer garden path by a couple of admins who scaremongered and nerdraged about a couple of hundred IP edits. Tempest, meet teapot. Seriously, this wasn't as bad as The Bushranger and Kww would have you all believe. That said, I support blocking addition of archive.is links by new editors, but I support allowing such links when added by editors with high edit counts and low deleted-edit counts in good standing (meaning: responsible, accountable additions). I have NO fear of archive.is or the site owners, anything The Bushranger says notwithstanding. --Lexein (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

...all I can say is "wow". (Well, I can also say I find your accusations of bad faith disturbing.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, pshaw. That's not counterargument, that's just garbage, and not appropriate admin behavior. You exaggerated the seriousness of the situation in order to get the zero-sum "win", with the actual effect of yeah, you "won", but Wikipedia lost, and archive.is was totally unaffected. Great job hurting Wikipedia worse than any possible spam did. I think it's called "friendly fire." The only (quite narrowminded and blinkered, in my opinion) reason which remains for blacklisting is the purely petty bureaucratic-minded outcry of "It was unapproved! He didn't follow procedure! We cannot allow that to stand, even if the links are valid!" I've always disliked this bent logic, but have extremely noisily begrudged its applicability in cases of causing other editors extra work, which is not the case here. Each and every one of those archive.org and archive.is links would have been allowed to stand if added slowly by editors in good standing. --Lexein (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is all from memory of reading about it after the fact, so I could be mistaken: The only things I saw indicating that the WP account, User:Rotlink, was actually controlled by the owner of archive.is were statements made by that account on a couple of talk pages. I did not see anything that indicated there was outside confirmation of ownership, nor that there was a statement like: I'm going to make changes X to archive.is and then changes X happened. I only saw statements similar to: I have made changes (i.e. mentioning them after the fact). To me there is no indication that the accounts User:Rotlink and User:RotlinkBot were, in fact, owned by the person running archive.is. It was certain that the person controlling the account wanted it to be believed that User:Rotlink was controlled by the owner of archive.is.

On the other hand there was no statement by owner of either archive.is denying ownership of those accounts. In addition, there was no statement by the owner of archive.is nor those accounts as to explaining the issues brought up at the Archive.is RFC.

The RfC proceeded on the assumption that the owner of archive.is was the person controlling the bot and the actions of whatever was making the similar edits from multiple IPs.

The owner of the account, with respect to the bot, went out of their way to perform actions which were significant violations of policy when easy alternatives were available within policy to accomplish nearly the identical goals, but with something of a delay. Specifically, the whole issue developed out of the use use of an unapproved bot which was in the approvals process and likely to be approved and its edits welcomed, if the process had been followed.

After the bot was blocked there was then the issue of the apparent use of a large number of IPs from multiple countries to run the unapproved and account-blocked bot. It was considered by many to very likely that the use of the IPs was not authorized by the owners of the IPs and probably illegal. — Makyen (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow... this is a bit stunning. I see allegations thrown around left and right and a single user making very broad legal allegations without substantiating them or providing evidence. This is all heresay and the situation is completely without merit. The issue has long been "resolved". First of all, the edit filter is hidden, but why? Secondly and more important, the edit filter has long not worked on the ".today" links. Example If there was any valid attack or ongoing need for this filter it would have been apparent. By all means, it is time to get rid of this edit filter. We are damaging our own articles and I see absolutely no threat from the site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what's "stunning" here. There's no doubt that there was an attack, and no doubt that someone was using techniques that violated both Wikipedia policy and actual law to insert the links. Thank you for pointing out that people have been bypassing the blocklist with an alternate id: it no longer works.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I do, however, agree that we do need to run a bot that removes the links. I keep trying to find the time to do so, but the task of remaining employed keeps interfering.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

But the attack has long since halted and its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability and not to mention thousands of articles actually being used. There seems to be a growing consensus here that this matter needs to be revisited and I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles, including ones that are already Good or Featured content. This applies greatly to the WP:VG project and at least many other news sites. As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Wikipedia just in the daily operation of this blacklist that should have been revisited months ago. I'm all for defending against malicious attacks, but it seems its outlived its usefulness and is purely punitive. You closed a hole on something that was already known, but unexploited. Since the "attack" has stopped, the blacklist's continued implementation provides no demonstrable benefit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It stopped because it was blacklisted. its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability...I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles...As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Wikipedia. How? In what way is it causing "degration to article verifiability"? How is it "damaging Wikipedia"? If archive.is didn't exist, would there be any problem with following WP:DEADLINK/WP:V: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online"? So why is there a problem now? Why is there a "growing consensus" that we should reward someone who attempted to use Wikipedia to promote their archive service, then used a bot attack to push it when caught, by promoting the use of said service? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that it stopped because of the blacklist, but can you provide a timeline of when you feel the attack stopped? The blacklist rule wasn't put in place until mid-March 2014, but the "attack" seems to have stopped by December 2013. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing, Chris, is that having tens of thousands of links to a site operated by someone that uses botnets leaves us open to further trouble. Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?—Kww(talk) 06:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it stopped back in November because it was blacklisted, but the identity of the attacker doesn't seem to have been proven. I'm sure someone can check Archive.is and see its malwarefree and that is more than I can say for some other references. I've seen many a reference be turned to hardcore pornography and/or go to a site filled with malicious scripts. Unless proven otherwise, the issue with Archive.is is non-existent. Also, a demonstrable workaround has been present for nearly two months (at least April 14, 2014) and all without "attack". The circumstances merit a revisiting and perhaps even a lifting of the blacklist, and it would be trivial to reinstate if such an attack was done. The Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC was controversial and not a clear consensus, but I also think its too late to decide to remove 20,000+ valid working archival links now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that, to date, only the English Wikipedia gives a damn about archive.is shenanigans. No other Wikipedia project blacklists archive.is, or finds any fault with it. These archives are used throughout the Chinese and Russian Wikipedias, as an alternative to WebCite and Wayback. In fact, I literally just posted an archive.is link on zhwiki just to check whether it was blacklisted or not. If other projects don't find problems with archive.is, then why are we? --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, so you're saying that Albanaian Wikimedia (with more than 10,000 articles) doesn't blacklist it, nor does Icelandic Wikpedia or Old Church Slavonic Wikipedia? Well, then certainly we should follow suit.

Despite this specious argument (we are English Wikipedia, and are sui generis), I do think that archive.is should probably be unblacklisted, despite their earlier misbehavior. We don't want to hurt the encyclopedia just because some outsiders have acted like assholes. BMK (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You just made an informal fallacy there - nowhere did I mention any sub-10,000 Wikipedia projects, you made that implication on your own. I pointed out that multiple Wikipedia projects of significant size didn't have any qualms with archive.is, and even still to this day allow links to it - this probably suggests that here on enwiki, we think too much about morality instead of actually getting the job done. As has been mentioned above, "Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?" - I assure you that nobody would even think about asking such a question on zhwiki; if the tool gets the job done, it doesn't matter if a murderer or a saint created the tool. At least, that's the sentiment that exists outside of enwiki.

Just because Hans Reiser murdered his wife, that doesn't make ReiserFS a bad file system (in fact, in theory it works much better than NTFS), but it's often the case that people make such arguments, and this archive.is case is quite similar. Look at archive.is as a tool to get things done, and not the creation of someone who did bad things in the past. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not use a bot to remove links. Per Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC: the removal of Archive.is links be done with care and clear explanation. The only way we have of replacing links is to examine the ones that are there. The title of the page and the publisher allows us to use a search engine to find if the page has moved elsewhere. The text of the page can also be used in this way. Given the original URL, it may be possible to find the site on archive using the accessdate. It is very, very difficult to repair references without the original. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I can not always manually clean-up archive.is links just to revert vandalism. If I see I can not revert edits because of archive.is URLs, I'll leave it, unless the article is very important to me. Tito☸Dutta 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Just a note. As closer, it wasn't my intent to prevent bots from removing the links. I did suggest that any removal should be explained--ideally including a link in the edit summary. But that can be done automatically. Also, I've certainly no objection to seeing if consensus has changed on this. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nor was it my intent to say that a bot could not be used. If you had one that replaced the links with ones from another archive, that would be okay. I only meant one that removed links without replacement, which I would treat as a rogue bot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll disagree here. The intent was to remove the links--there was no requirement that they be replaced (though I agree it would be ideal). Hobit (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have a question about the ignoring of robots.txt files. Is this in any way equivalent to a copyvio? Perhaps not if the archiving is always in response to a specific request, but an authoritative answer here to that effect would be helpful. Perhaps User:Moonriddengirl could comment? --Mirokado (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is an authoritative answer. It's the lawyer/legal-opinion problem. There are other problems. Robots.txt has no defined purpose. Oh, it has a use, and an effect when applied, but the reason for using it is not required to be stated, so the reason is never stated. Helpful stated reasons might include: "Original author-publisher contract did not include archives", "Publication rights to article content expired", "Owner wishes to monetize archives", "New domain owner does not wish his new brand to be associated with the old domain's content", "New domain-squatting owner wishes to extort money from prior domain owners to lift robots.txt". Two of these are arguably copyright related with a corresponding best-practice Wikipedia answer, three are definitely not. --Lexein (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's right; there are many reasons why Robots.txt is used. The most common is on archive sites themselves, to prevent recursive archiving. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I will say that all the protestations that "it must have been somebody else, you can't prove it was the site owner" are nothing but hopeful nonsense. The edits matched Rotlink's. They came from a swarm of international IPs at a speed and breadth that couldn't have been anything but a botnet of compromised computers. Lexein, an editor that was fighting desperately to keep the archive.is links, communicated with the site owner and received nothing but evasiveness: never a denial. Whatever the utility of the site may be, it's run by someone that has no qualms about invading computers that belong to other people. That's not a place to link to, because clicking the link provides a known bad actor access to the client machine. As for benlisquare's argument: no, murdering your wife doesn't make you a bad filesystem designer or compromise the quality of your filesystem. It does mean that only a foolish woman would marry you.—Kww(talk) 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that first of all, Wikipedia should have it's own archive like Archive.is. Archive.is is much much better than WebCite or Archive.org - first of all because it automatically archives all the articles the Wikipedia is quoting. Secondly - because it's versatile and has an easy interface. So, Archive.is should be set the standard for such an archiving website. From a previous conversation I understood that Archive.is storage capacity will be exceeded in maximum two years, and then - no more free archiving for Wikipedia. Verifiability of Wikipedia's articles is quite important for humanity, it might sound inflated to some, but I think it's a safety net against re-writing history, against becoming a dystopian world. How much it costs for Wikipedia to have it's own archive by the way? Maybe we can raise funds, or we should start a Kickstarter project for it. I am ready to offer some support, maybe there are others like me too. Or maybe Wikipedia can pay to Archive.is (or to some other company) for keeping the archive, maybe it will cost less than Wikipedia having it's own archiving servers to take care of - in other words, to outsource the job. To this is such an important matter that, if I would be the head of Wikipedia, I would try to convince masons (I understand they rule the world and they are shaping the world's future) to finance such an important task - money are not a problem for them :). I really hope Wikipedia will have it's own archive but until that happens, Wikipedia should take advantage of such a great and free offer like Archive.is. I am ready to be part of a future lobby group for solving the archiving issue on Wikipedia. There can't be copyright problems, since Wikipedia is not trying to make profit from this, but it's just trying to preserve history, I think any judge with minimum common sense would understand that. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kww your argument and stance are not being dismissed, but it is unproven and condemning an entire resource because of some past circumstance. There is no threat and that past issue is resolved, but what would it take for you (personally) to allow Archive.is links again? Until Wikipedia has its own archival system, we should not be cutting off a key site (which is irreplaceable at this point) simply because of an unauthorized bot that "spammed" links on a bunch of open proxies. And I keep seeing that if the bot was approved, and it likely would have been, would have been a non-issue. The blacklist can be reinstated easily, but I see more users making compelling arguments to lift it and see what happens. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kww's argument is, however, compelling. We have been here before. I am surprised this is not blacklisted at Meta, actually. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a malicious botnet and there is no evidence any illegal act has been committed, these are extremely serious allegations and the issue should have been passed immediately to the foundation's team if there was evidence otherwise. By absolutely no measurement can I attribute the word "botnet" to this action, by volume or action, and I must dismiss it as just plain alarmist. And still, that portion of the debate is irrelevant to lifting the blacklist now that the "attack" has stopped. There is no threat, so why are discussing it like it is ongoing and that it was "malicious" in nature. The claims are unsubstantiated and are a gross exaggeration of the incident. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of an illegal botnet? Are you serious? And no, discussion of the fact that botnets were used to push links into Wikipedia is not irrelevant and will never be irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at the massive list of IP's used to push these links in to Wikipedia after the unauthorized bot was blocked? They're from all over the place! Yeah, no evidence of a botnet. Sorry, there is absolutely no reason to trust the people behind archive.is. They don't care or respect others. There are copyright issues when they archive material blocked by a robots.txt file. Ravensfire (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting beyond the point, but the use of proxies and such are not "botnets". This alarmist stance has no concrete evidence to connect it to the owners of Archive.is, its conjecture and heresay. Secondly, you are making personal attacks on the site owners and pile on accusations of copyright infringement and such when Wikipedia has no control or interest in it. We gladly and willingly supply links to an illicit drug marketplace and link to 4chan which is just as notorious. The issue is months old and there has been no threat or continued attack - by all means, we should consider the issue resolved and lift the blacklist. Objectively - upon what grounds would you agree to lift the blacklist? Let's try to come to some common ground to resolve this issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Without taking any stance on this subject, no WP:AN discussion is going to affect current policy. Your arguments might have merit, Chris, but this is a larger discussion that has to occur elsewhere, say in an RfC or at the Village Pump, not here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We gladly and willingly supply links to an illicit drug marketplace and link to 4chan which is just as notorious - If you believe this WP:OTHERSTUFF should be blacklisted, then propose that they be added to the blacklist. accusations of copyright infringement and such when Wikipedia has no control or interest in it. - We do, for the same reason we don't use blatant copyvio websites for references: contributory copyright infringement. While assuming good faith on the part of the site's operators is all well and good, AGF is not a suicide pact, and the behavior of the people representing the site utterly destroyed any and all good faith the community had regarding archive.is; the reason "there is no threat or continued attack" is because the site was blacklisted. We cannot, based on their past behavior, assume that lifing the blacklist will not result in a resumption of the spamming. It's as simple as that, I'm afraid; after the display that led to the blacklisting, I cannot trust any link to archive.is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference between using a botnet to spam links, and the use of proxies to evade blocks in order to spam links, is a difference without a distinction. The main argument for use of archive.is appears to be that it did not honour robots.txt so archived many pages that legitimate archives did not. Anyone else see the issue here? From my experience as a spam blacklist regular here and on meta in the past, much much less blatant spamming has resulted in global blacklisting before now. This is really very simple: someone came to Wikipedia to drive traffic to their ad-supported site, and continued to do this after it was made clear to them that it was inappropriate, including using an unapproved bot. Ideally we need a bot run to clean up their droppings, there are over 22,000 links at present. But if we have to clean them up by hand, then so be it. I just removed a couple of dozen from one article. Nuke 'em as you find 'em I reckon. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that everyone should peaceably engage in discussion and civilly discuss it without all the rhetoric. The claims over "ads" and "malware" are utterly baseless and unsubstantiated. There is surprisingly bad faith expressed here and the owner has never stated it was his own doing, but was aware that it was blocked.[73] Above, it was stated that no mass-purging should be done. Revisiting an issue half a year later is by all means warranted, and without labeling some unknown person an international criminal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We have been discussing this peacfully. You have provided no plausible non-criminal explanation that would explain a network that included residential IP addresses in third-world countries. Trying to conflate that with a legitimate proxy network is simply wishful thinking, and trying to describe people's well-founded suspicions as "baseless" is (dare I say it?) rhetoric, as is your apparent claim that people have to confess to misbehaviour before people can recognize it as misbehaviour.—Kww(talk) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you tell that an IP is a "residential IP address" as opposed to a commercial one? I can't tell you that for this country. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I said the claims over some ads and malware were baseless and unsubstantiated. There has not been any mass-hijacking, malware or any ad issue to speak of - in the past and now. Much of your argument hinged on the site possibly being used to openly attack users with an active bot net and such. That's a big if. A more mundane explanation than an "illicit botnet" exists in the form of archival requests served via a proxy or script. A few of your RFC "problem IPs" even in the first post did not even make an edit either. Why did you repeatedly name many of these non-editors as "evidence" and from how did they identify with this "bot net"? Examples: 117.223.161.182 - 188.251.236.114 - 85.66.241.59 - 89.228.46.37 - 60.50.51.210 - 122.178.159.163 - 109.175.88.133 You are sticking to the vast unknowns and possibilities some 6 months later. It seems more obvious that these archival requests were being fed (albeit improperly) via some script and accessed by "people" on demand. The whole "botnet" attack thing doesn't seem plausible given the jumps in time and topic as a breaching move. Despite the whole Archive.is blacklist not working for months and the multitude of ways around it, are you still going to say that its because of your blacklist that the problem is resolved? Given all the information we should be able to come to a de-escalation of the blacklist or a temporary lifting and see how this goes. I don't fault you for being cautious, but I do have big concerns about the thousands of articles which are being impacted by this blacklist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, by examining the DNS records and routing groups associated with the IP address. ChrisGualtieri, several of the IP addresses were prevented from making the edits by filters, so the contributions do not show in the contribution history. For example

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/9321724 (India)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/9205305 (Hungary)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=94.155.181.118 (Bulgaria)

IP addresses in multiple countries making exactly the same edit, hammering away on one article day after day. It was the repeated attempts to insert the link in Empire State of Mind that first drew my attention.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Like the others commenting above, I frequently come across changes I cannot revert because there exists links that I cannot resave, and I'm sure others may be frustrated if they came across it and could not understand why. I dealt with the one archive.is link I came across yesterday by commenting it out without the "http://" – not the best or a long-term solution, but I felt it would do the least damage. I felt that removing it outright would be to damage the project. We really ought not to get too overcome by continued paranoia and metaphysical angst. It was a very little but great man who said it matters not that the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. Damage is being done to this encyclopaedia every day this blacklisting is in place, so we need to be a much stronger dose of pragmatism. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that the same people who claim the blacklisting was some sort of hysterical knee-jerk are the ones saying things like "damage is being done to Wikipedia every day the blacklist is in place". It's not. We have a procedure for dealing with dead URLs. And if you're concerned about a link with a robots.txt strangling the Internet Archive's archive, there's WebCite for that. I frankly find it downright disturbing that there are so many people who are urging we reward the bad behavior of the people who spammed and, when caught spamming, attacked Wikipedia to push their website. Yes, "the crisis has passed and the attacks are not continuing". The reason for this is because the site was blacklisted. IF someone is willing to make contact with the people who run archive.is, if they are willing to accept and apologise for their prior conduct, if they are willing to provide a good-faith assurance that they have changed so that such conduct will not occur again, and if we can be certain that their running an end-around sites' robots.txt files would not make Wikipedia a party to contributory copyright infringement, then we can open a RfC on removing archive.is from the blacklist (and, heck, in that case I'd support it). Otherwise, just as a blocked editor who is unrepentant stays blocked, a website that engaged in decidedly shady practices to push themselves on Wikipedia stays blacklisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This can be summed up simply as: Webcite doesn't work with it - Archive.is is the only known one that properly captures pages and avoids robots.txt. And you are demanding that someone, who may not have anything to do with it, take the blame and apologize for it and act as some legal shield. We link to some of the worst sites in the internet, prominently, but the matter of Archive.is "copyright infringement" status would be for Foundation's legal team - not us. I understand that at the time there was a real and pressing need for it, given the circumstances, but that's past now and real editors are being affected. This is far from punishing one bad editor - its punishing everyone long after the problem stopped. Its easy to be a naysayer, but if everyone is so confident in their claims, surely WP:ROPE would be appropriate. And that's all I ask. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger:You say all we need to do is follow procedure to replace duff links. It's fine if it's one or two links, but it isn't always possible if the link is already dead. I'd just ask you to please be a part of the solution instead of part of the continuing problem – the easiest would be removing archive.is from the blacklist and see if the problem re-emerges. If it doesn't, we need to look no further, and are able to get on with normal life. Alternatively, someone can set up a bot to systematically replace existing archive.is urls with valid webcitation or wayback captures. Would you be prepared to undertake either?? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So your solution would be to have hundreds of thousands of links to someone that abuses people's computers and then apologize afterwards if those connections are used illicitly? And no, WP:ROPE isn't appropriate: it's reasonable to take a risk when all we have to do is clean up this site, because that's well within our power. It's irresponsible to put others at risk.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Show us proof that the Archive.is website is a malicious attack website. There is no concrete proof that the owner of the website conducted any attack against Wikipedia - its all conjecture. I support what was done at the time, but there has been no evidence raised to support the continuation of the blacklist. Serious allegations call for serious evidence and I am not convinced that Archive.is conducted a massive "illicit botnet" to attack Wikipedia with malware and trojans, especially since there has never been any malware associated with the site - or ads. I'm left to the conclusion that someone did something wrong, but that party is unknown, and the Archive.is website never has been a threat to Wikipedia or our users. If you can show proof that the owner was behind it few people would question the continuation of the blacklist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Very few people question the evidence or the continuance of the blacklist today, nor is concrete proof required before taking defensive steps.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Should we not replace the (potential copyright violation) archive.is links by a link to the original (dead) web site and an archive date? Does that not preserve all the relevant information against the possibility that (1) archive.is might be unblacklisted or (2) a legitimate archive or personal copy can be found? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There are over 20,000 links (in itself circumstantial evidence of systemic abuse), so I think we need to find a botmaster to strip them. Most are additive, not replacements. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say that 20,000 links to an archiving site is "evidence of systemic abuse". How many links are there to WebCite, or archive.org? — Makyen (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember this well because of the backdrop. With the perennial scary donation request at the top with donation totals that never changed, Webcite made it look like it was about to close down, and the options for similar features to it were few if you want pre-emptive archiving. Fearing its demise, I myself added probably in excess of a hundred archive links to archive.is instead of webcitation, and this was before the alleged spamming incident. The Icelandic site is well thought out, user-friendly, with a one-click tool to archive a page from the toolbar of the browser. Beats Webcite by more than a short head, because with the latter you are still wondering if it is still working 3 minutes and three archive screens later. This advanced functionality is what I believe contributed to the large number of links to that archive and not the spamming, as I believe most of those were blocked and reversed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Just FYI: I created/modified a few bookmarklets to make archiving easier. Bookmarklets for one click archiving to WebCite and archive.org of a page you are viewing are listed at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Archiving bookmarklets. [NOTE: the WebCite one has to be changed to reflect your email address as WebCite does require an email address be sent with the request.]

Bookmarklets for one click searching for archives of a page which you have found to be dead are available at WP:LINKROT#Internet archives for archive.org, WebCite and Mementos.

All of the bookmarklets will open in new tabs instead of disturbing the tab you are wanting to archive or for which you want to find archives. — Makyen (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, this is not the appropriate forum to have a discussion about implementing the removal of archive.is from the blacklist. There was a consensus formed that archive.is should be blacklisted with the knowledge that it would cause the issues which are being experienced now. Administrators are implementing that consensus. It would be inappropriate for them to decide here to go against that consensus by removing archive.is from the blacklist. If it is desired that archive.is be removed from the blacklist then a new RfC needs to be held with at least as wide participation as the last one to demonstrate a consensus for removal. — Makyen (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The administrators are not bound to a flawed consensus, one resulting from an RFC that was neither promoted to the wider community nor neutrally opened. As a wide user of archive.is I didn't know about the discussion until I found I could no longer add links. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconding the above. If I had known about the RfC, I would have participated in it. Only a close circle of participants were aware of it, and got involved in it, and these people happened to be those who already had prior knowledge about the issue, and thus already had an opinion over it. The RfC was conducted without the overall community being informed, despite being an important decision which covers many, many articles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

By "without the overall community being informed", do you mean "listed for more than a month on centralized discussions"? T. Canens (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, looks like I missed that. My mistake, carry on. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• 2 and a half possibilities and a question: Considering those bot/accounts were manage by Archive.is owners (yes, I have read, it has not been proven still), I thought there might be three possibilities of their arhive.is link flooding, 1) Web Archive clearly states that they will not use ad unless it is absolutely necessary (ref: latest Meta discussion), but I have not seen any such claim or commercial scope details for Archive.is. Who may say, they may start adding Adsense ads in their pages. 2) the second possibility— they were unaware that wikipedia uses "nowfollow" links for external links, most probably they were trying to get thousands of "dofollow" links or they were trying to improve their page ranks. This way or that so many links from Wikipedia SURELY makes BIG impact on both Alexa rank and Google PR, and if they start using ads, there will be $$$$. 3) the third reason, they were actually trying to help Wikipedia, but I don't think it is a valid reason, so, it is a "half" reason, "Two and a half possibilities" in total.
  Although in the main post of this thread, I mentioned only "reversion problem" we have been facing, if I see suggestion to unblacklist Archive.is, the first thing I would like to know, "Why?" "Why were they doing so?" — it is still not clear to me. Tito☸Dutta 07:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I also would have participated in the RfC, had I known about it. I only found out about it months later. After the fact, there appeared to be little or no information anywhere other than at the RfC itself that there was a problem with archive.is, or that archive.is was not permitted to be used on enwiki. There was nothing that I saw at any of the help pages dealing with citations and archiving until mid/late March. I know this because I added most of the brief mentions of the situation after I found out about it in this thread on VPPT.

There appears to be a significant disconnect between the level of concern that people are expressing here and how slowly action occurred after the RfC was closed. The RfC was closed at the end of October.

• No large scale effort has yet occurred to remove links from articles. Yes, individual editors have removed them, but nothing on the order that is needed to get 20,000 links.
• Until 10 February 2014 archive.is was listed as one of the services to use for preemptive archiving (although not highly recommended).
• Archive.is was not blacklisted until 4.5 months after the RfC was closed.

• As best I can tell blacklisting was sometime between 18 March 2014 and 20 March 2014. It was not blacklisted at the start of this thread on VPPT and I encountered the new blacklisting of archive.is with these two edits.
• There appears to be a bit of a problem with confused semantics here. It is not possible that it was the blacklisting of archive.is that stopped the editing by the IPs. The IPs stopped (early October) 5.5 months prior to archive.is being blacklisted (late March). It was the blocking of the IPs that stopped them from editing, not the blacklisting of archive.is.

I don't have a problem with there being a significant delay between the RfC closure and actions. I am not trying to take anyone to task for not moving forward. I'm just trying to say that the sky did not fall down during the 4.5 months between the close of the RfC and putting archive.is on the blacklist. It is probably not falling down now. We can remain calm and talk this out, even have another RfC, if that is warranted.

If I had been aware of the RfC, I honestly don't know how I would have voted at the time. I'm not certain how I would vote now, as I want more information prior to deciding. The actions that were performed were definitely ones which lead to grave concerns about continued dealings with the responsible party. The fact that it has been reported the owner of archive.is did not deny he controlled the bot nor that he was responsible for the anonymous IP edits is of great concern. However, I do believe there are questions which remain unanswered.

@Titodutta: As to why they continued to press on once the bot was initially blocked: I have no idea and I can't come up with a good reason that takes into account the response from WP (blocking/removal) which was obvious and expected in advance of the precipitating actions. With the assumption that the desire was to have more links on Wikipedia for a longer time, I see no good reason for acting the way the person controlling the bot did. What it appears they wanted to accomplish (having the bot add links) could have been accomplished, even then, by coming back, taking responsibility, taking some lumps and finishing the approvals process. The links would have been welcomed and in 10x larger quantities which would have stayed for years. Proceeding in the way they did was near certain to result in a much worse outcome with respect to the number and longevity of the links. The fact that this is the case, and that it was easily foreseeable, leads me to wonder about other possible motives rather than the obvious ones (adding links).

If adding links was the real goal, only someone very short-sighted, or self-oriented in perspective would have continued the way that it happened. Continuing at that point to add links via anonymous IPs, etc. has clear and obvious consequences that should have been able to be seen by the person doing it. Only someone who did not believe the consequences would happen to them, could not or did not see the high probability consequences, or wanted the consequences would have continued. — Makyen (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Its clear the edit filter was not working, nor had it been, for quite some time, but I cannot actually view the history because it is hidden. As a result, it seems that there is far more to this blacklist issue because Kww seems to have hinted to reinstated the blacklist in February in what seems to be an apparent admission of wheel warring.Diff Again... I can't see it, so someone needs to look into this. Kww may not have made a neutral RFC, but there is no question that Wikipedia had a clear problem with this bot - but it seems that this issue will need either a community RFC or Arbitration if this is to be resolved. I well understand and appreciate the work done by those who work in this technical area, but this thread continues to bring up more questions than answers... In short, the argument that the attack was/is halted by the blacklist seems to be unsupported. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2013#archive.is shows that the blacklist was not in place by December - long after the supposed close and without further attack. Hobit, the non-admin closer stated, "Per the RFC, the blacklist shouldn't be implemented until most/all of those links are removed. Doing so would, as I understand it, make it nearly impossible to edit these articles. I've not been tracking bot issue, but I think User:Kww is on it." And issues with it were raised by @Wbm1058: and @Lukeno94:, but again the blacklist post removal was affirmed as that was not the place to fight it. However, I think its fairly clear that the blacklist was not done on schedule and that the closer's request was not followed. Surely, if the "attack" was halted by the blacklist and not the blocks, it would have been apparent. I think we need transparency - can someone please provide the history of that edit filter? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What edit filter are you talking about? I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but the only edit filter I've seen anyone mention is 526, which is already public. You're not mistaking the spam blacklist for an edit filter, are you? They're two different things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion Special:AbuseFilter/559 is referred to via Special:AbuseFilter/593 to prevent Archive.is links, but Archive.is was said still not to be on a blacklist in this discussion: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Now_what_to_do.3F. According to the RFC, a blacklist was supposed to be made following the removal of the links - this was never done and I can't view the edit filter or see the "blacklisting". Why is filter 559 private anyways? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, several weekends later, Kww, the initiator of that RfC, has finally filed a bot request for approval. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a really disappointing comment in that bot request. "and its alias, archive.today, which was put in place to bypass the blacklist" really drives home that archive.is doesn't give a damn about anyone else and will not work with Wikipedia. Until that attitude changes, archive.is (and any other alias they come up with) should not be welcomed on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the alias was put in place to bypass the blacklist? Did you confirm with the webmaster? Let's not jump to conclusions here: as of present, all archive.is URLs redirect to archive.today, they might have just had a domain name problem or something. "archive.today" is not an alias, it is the actual domain where the site is hosted, since archive.is is no longer the main domain. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How you know it wasn't? There is zero AGF left related to archive.is. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The accusation that Archive.today is to bypass the edit filter - and coincidentally without any attack or mass additions - is disgraceful and naked fearmongering. Its been redirecting for weeks all without a single attack and the edit filter is still by-passable and ineffective in the face of a minimally competent spammer. If there was any threat, it would have been apparent in the last half year. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the webmaster himself (see http://blog.archive.today/): "ISNIC (the .is domains registry) is being attacked by social hackers so I am about to lose the domain archive.is". --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And there we have it, the owner gave a reason three weeks ago. The mundane explanation over the fanciful is usually the correct one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative

After seeing, and agreeing with Ark25's comment that there should be an archiving tool more closely tied to wikipedia. I created a small hack, http://archive.grok.se - anyone interested in giving it a try? Sample output: http://archive.grok.se/G-3dP4Gc-NQmeZ4JSnCzuVZkdB6pBUSKPS2Xh_lvP_M. One key point is that it should not be possible to alter the contents of an archived link without it being detectable. It's only about 24 hours old at this point, so there's bound to be a few rough edges. henrik•talk 10:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliant work User:Henrik, Looks like it is taking snapshot of the webpage and dividing it into pages, even if the actual article do not have pages. The text is unclear as well, most probably for the snapshot image resolution.
  Good or bad, a work has been started at least to create an archiving system.
  I strongly recommend to take this initiative forward, "our Wikipedia, our archiving system" Do you mean it can't be used in WP articles now? --Tito☸Dutta 11:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Instead of just saving the source of web pages as archive.org does, this tool pretty much prints it - hence the pages. So the output is close to what you get if you hit the print button in your browser (some good sites will have print css that help this). This has some good and some bad aspects; the good is that dynamic content is stored without any dependencies and that it, akin to the low resolution images we store under fair use, is created in such a manner that is not likely to replace the market role of the original copyrighted material. It is also why links and text selection doesn't work - it's meant to be a viewer of a snapshot and not a replacement for the original site. The same things also make it not very useful as a proxy or to browse anonymously. Most pages can be somewhat reasonably printed, even though the formatting often leaves something to be desired the contents is nearly always readable. Which I personally think is good enough for a tool such as this.

A hint: I think the text will be more clear if you open the pdf file (the download link under archival date) in a separate pdf viewer. It will also allow you to select/copy text. PDF.js is still a bit rough, but hopefully it will improve over time. I can always add better navigation, zoom tools and look into the text rendering if people find http://archive.grok.se interesting and start using it :) henrik•talk 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi User:Henrik I did not try the PDF link, I just checked the webpage and that's what we'll need here. Devanagari script (Devanagari script is a kind of Indian script used for Hindi, Sanskrit etc) is not being displayed properly, if you see my link above, you'll find boxes.
  Has WMF given any indication that they'll start their own web page archiving service? I mean WMF's official webpage archiving service? If not, then, a user initiative will be superb.
  I am not sure, for a large project you may need finance, I am not much experienced, but you may keep meta:Grants:IEG in mind. Tito☸Dutta 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, good of you to spot that! I didn't have very many fonts installed on the machine it runs on. I installed Devanagari fonts - tried with your example, and it appears to render correctly now: http://archive.grok.se/OhhlFC8pbJ_O-OZObkjGz5_4w_oJMBSm17H1yXPt9Vo. The latin glyphs should also be a little bit less ugly. My view is that if and when it turns out to be a large enough project that it needs funding, we'll cross that bridge then. Hopefully it can run on spare cycles and storage for a while. I've gotten help from the WMF to run my other Wikipedia related service, http://stats.grok.se, so it's not inconceivable they would be willing to help out with this as well. :) henrik•talk 12:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should start a project for promoting the idea of Wikipedia having it's own archive. It will take some time until it will take off, but we should provide a location for people who want to support the idea. In time, we'll find out how much it costs and other important details, and in the end, one day we'll probably make it happen. —  Ark25  (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I repeated myself in the message above. We need a page like Project:Wikipedia's own news archive. Thanks Henrik for the good job! Such works should be part of the project. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Immediate alternative?

Well, I can't find one. BTW, I am chronically ill, so I probably won't be able to follow up on this, but FWIW, here's my experience today that brought me here.

1. Found dead link. 2. Used the Firefox extension Resurrect Pages to look for page's contents in 8 repositories: nothing found. 3. Searched Google for unusual phrases in the page's contents. 4. Found it on archive.today!!! 5. Fixed the WP article and, with relief & anticipation of sleep, clicked Save page!!! 6. Wha? Wha' happen'? Why is it blocked? What's all this discussion? 7. Looked at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_considerations. 8. Couldn't find anything helpful there, but to be fair, my eyes are getting blurry by this point. Might have missed something. 9. Tried saving the archive.today page on archive.org, and unsurprisingly it didn't work. 10. Took a deep sigh (is that even English? Oh, whatever...) and removed the offending URL before posting the revised article.

I post this here as a disabled user so that somebody might be inspired to post an accessible, case-by-case workaround that picks up at my step 9 (hopefully removing my step 6). If so, please put it in the block notice, too? Or some other obvious place? Being sent to GIANT WALL OF TEXT here is literally in mid-process of knocking me out of commission for a while. (Just saying. It's my responsibility to not push myself too far, and, well, I failed tonight, but if someone can improve something from all this then it's all good.) Joint-creakingly yours, --Geekdiva (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bulk removals without replacement

See these too: User_talk:Werieth#Joker, User_talk:Werieth#archive.is_in_Tintin_article Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not just bulk removing, in most cases I'm replacing with either an archive.org or webcite replacement. --Werieth (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

On one article alone you left 20 references without an archive, just one article of the many you've changed. When this has been brought to your attention you deleted the comments and made clear you would delete any further communication. So you're not really playing by the rules and saying that you are replacing MOST of them with an alternative is like saying you're only going to stab someone a LITTLE bit. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:LCcritic

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.

---

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

This editor has made clear that they are solely here to promote a fringe theory regarding the theory of relativity, and in over half a year they have made no edits outside of this topic area. Jason Quinn, among several other editors, has asked them to stop using their talk page as a forum to promote their theories. In response, LCcritic has made clear that they have no intention of stopping voluntarily.

Beyond their user talk page, LCcritic has attempted to promote their views at VP/P, in three different help desk requests in which they argued against the mainstream answers provided, and in an extended discussion at Talk:Length contraction.

I suggest that this editor has drawn enough community resources, and propose a one year topic ban from discussion related to relativity, broadly construed, including their user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support User talk:LCcritic is an affirmation of WP:NOTHERE and stuff like this WP:VPP archive is just wasting community energy. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) Wow! That contribution list is pure unadulterated monomania! The editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to push one very particular and specific WP:Fringe theory. He or she is very clearly the type of editor the loss of which would not damage the project in the least, and would, in fact, improve things a tiny bit, so I would go farther than VQ and suggest that the correct response here is not a topic ban, but an indef block. BMK (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So, my first choice is Support indef block, but if other members of the community are less bloodthirsty than I am (they usually are), then I also Support topic ban if that's want people want. I still feel it's a mistake to take half-measures, but something is better than nothing. BMK (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I did a little searching (forgive me if I've missed anything) and found that LCcritic has never been taken to ANI, AN, or Arb and has no previous blocks. I checked the talk page and saw someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given. I haven't checked all the edits to articles, but I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template. I didn't check all his edits, although I noticed that a large share were on his talk page and Wiki related, where we normally give editors a lot of leeway. He has 8 article contribs and no edit warring, and he is responsive when asked questions. I'm open minded but not entirely convinced that all other options have been exhausted, as this is the first formal complaint ever filed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say "devil's advocate" is a misnomer here, Dennis Brown. Everyone deserves due consideration when a ban has been proposed and I appreciate your open mindedness. To address your point, though - I do see a number of Twinkle warnings that are at least peripherally relevant to WP:FORUM here. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• LCcritic has provided abundant evidence that there is no hope of getting any positive contribution despite having been repeatedly told that her/his behavior is inappropriate, and not just by me. I'm all for editor retention when there is hope, but this is an utterly lost cause. Paradoctor (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given.... I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template.
  Um, hooray? We shouldn't be "warning" people about the consequences of past problems, since those past problems aren't their fault; we should just be "telling" them. We have some evidence that canned warnings are less effective at creating good editors than personalized messages. The situation you describe is a cause for rejoicing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, we are not LCcritic's first choice of forum. Paradoctor (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't an administrative board. This is the first time someone has asked for sanctions against them formally, and the sanctions they are asking for is an indef block, for all intent and purposes (as topic bans for SPAs have the same result). Before blocking someone, I need to be sure that it really is the only option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The diff is intended to show that LCcritic already had a history of spamming this "theory" outside of Wikipedia: "Wherever I raise the question" [...] "I am either called a crank (and banned from science forums) or told that challenging mainstream length contraction is inappropriate" (my emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, I can't really use offwiki information as evidence, as I don't have a way to verify it, and because we hold people responsible only for what they do here, with exceptions only for when those actions affect Wikipedia. Just like SPhilbrick, I don't hold a lot of faith that this won't eventually end up badly, but I think this might be just a little premature. If he had a week or two of mentoring on POLICY (without debating the merits of his edits), then it would be an easier sell to just indef block him. IMHO, a topic ban is a bit passive aggressive when dealing with an SPA, and being an SPA isn't against policy. What I don't want to see is someone get indef blocked purely out of convenience, particularly when most of his edits are to his easy to avoid talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"offwiki information" Those are LCcritic's words, not mine or anybody else's.

"mentoring" I think I speak pretty much for everyone acquainted with LCcritic when I say that he had more than his fair share of being pointed out relevant policy. OTOH, if that is what it takes to convince you, I'm all for it.

"SPA" I have no problem with SPAs, I have a problem with disruptive editors.

"easy to avoid talk page" We're not a web host, there is tons of free webspace out there. Paradoctor (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, talk page stuff doesn't bother me as long as it is related to articles in some way. Many admin are that way. That said, I do see the problem, and I agree something needs to be done. I just think we need at least one solid effort to rehabilitate before we banish someone. I'm not sure what that one effort should be, but under no circumstance am I recommending doing nothing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support (I am an involved editor, not an admin.) LCcritic keeps returning to arguments which have long since been addressed, instead of countering the points raised against them. It's like talking to a deaf brick. While I don't expect LCcritic to beat any live horses in the future, his style of debate is an argument for an indef block. If LCcritic ever feels like contributing constructively, the burden of proof should be on him/her. I don't want to see another saga like this on a psychological topic. Paradoctor (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support (involved editor) — User had 4 formal warnings for addition of unsourced content in articles: 1st for this on Tests of special relativity, 2nd for this on Philosophy of science, 3rd for this on Criticism of the theory of relativity, 4th for this on Length contraction.
  In addition they had 3 formal warnings for article talk page abuse: 1st for this and 2nd for this at Talk:Length contraction, 3rd for this at Talk:Relativity of simultaneity.
  A little overview of (not already mentioned) shopped forums and user talk pages where informal warnings about reliable sources, fringe, consensus, and failing to get the point, have been given:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Non-mainstream views of relativity.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Criticism of relativity not allowed.
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#No_evidence_for_length_contraction
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 85#Criticisms of the theory of relativity. Entry was closed by as failed WP:SYN by user Mdann52.
• Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#Critics of relativity... "viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community.", dismissed as wp:FRINGE by 11 contributors. Finally closed as wrong forum by Jayron32
• User talk:LCcritic (removed)
• User talk:WikiDan61 User talk:WikiDan61#DVdm's removal of my "talk" comments on length contraction
• User talk:WikiDan61#no access to message DVdm
• User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013#Removal of content at Talk:Length contraction
• User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013#I am very lame navigating
• User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013#Article leads allowed philosophical bias
• User talk:Modocc/Archive 1
• User talk:Modocc#Contractions
• User talk:Robert McClenon#Content issue; criticisms of relativity; dispute resolution: "...though Paradoctor and DVdm insisted on making it about me, as a full-on ad hominem attack full of insults about my supposed ignorance." and reply

- DVdm (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (largely epr Dennis) I've read enough to predict that this editor will not be a productive contributor, but I see a clean block log. I see some warnings about sources, but I see active engagement on the user talk page. What I do not see is an RfC on the user. My guess is that the editor realizes that the views are not gaining traction, but where is the clear statement that editing style must change or the editor will be banned? I can easily imagine a magazine interview where LCcritic agrees there was some pushback on views, but believes the ban request came from nowhere. We can point to warnings that certain action could lead to a block, but if there is a warning that LCcritic could be banned, I do not see it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Provisional Oppose (uninvolved). I think this is a bit of a dilemma either way. On the one hand, I agree with Sphilbrick and Dennis Brown, but on the other, I think doing nothing can also be taken to implicitly encourage this for as long as possible, and in the absence of seeing how the user reacts to even a shorter block, an RfC/U has a chance of killing more contributor time than anything. I think the only real option is for an administrator to attempt to engage with the user, and if that fails to produce results, go to the short block stage first. If there is some joy from that route, then RfC/U is the way to go. If nothing changes, then progressive blocks. Need more evidence of dispute resolution to support a topic ban - if that is what is being sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) I modified my opposition to provisional, pending what he does now having received the DS alert. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  Having reviewed his responses so far ([74] [75]) to the alert and warning, and given that I also largely agree with Fut.Perf. below, I'm no longer formally opposing any measure which can possibly emerge from this discussion. For the same reason, I have also struck my comment about progressive/escalating blocks. That said, if he still doesn't get it when he comments next, I continue to prefer a short block of no less than 48 hours and no more than 1 week under the DS regime in the first instance, as it may lead to him disengaging or acting in a fashion which would be sufficient to shortcircuit the need for this. But if after the short block he returns without heeding what he has been told or reconsidering what he is doing here, I would be prepared to formally support a ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm also not an admin but I, too, believe in escalating blocks for editors seen as disruptive to see if a warning or short-duration block can affect their behavior and move them in a more constructive, collaborative direction. This view applies to disputes over content, if this was a conduct dispute (like socking, vandalism, outing, etc.), I can see moving swiftly but not in this case. But then, I believe that editors should only be disciplined for their behavior, not for their beliefs or ideas. As long as an editor abides by Wikipedia policies and guidelines (like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV), I don't see disagreement over content as inherently destructive or damaging to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. Everything proposed by LCcritic has been unanimously rejected by every single involved editor, and LCcritic has been repeatedly given the reasons and pointed to applicable policy and guidelines. There has not been a single voice in support of his edits and edit proposals, and all pertaining arguments have concluded months ago. This is about an editor who is simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Paradoctor (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I don't see Dennis' argument as compelling – it doesn't matter if he has been at administrative boards before; he clearly has been told sufficiently often, by multiple parties, that what he's doing is disruptive; he's deliberately and systematically refused to take that on board. I also don't see the benefit of first handing out shorter blocks – his sanctions can be lifted any time if and when he changes his mind about why he thinks he's here, but there is nothing that would make me expect he'd do that specifically in, say, one week, or two weeks, or a month. Finally, as for Sphilbrick's point about bans versus warnings, I don't really see the difference. A warning would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else [you will be banned]". A topic ban would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else [you will be blocked]". They boil down to the same thing, because there is only one single thing he has ever done on this project, and that is the very thing we want him to stop doing. Finally, I also don't see the benefit of a user RfC. User RfCs are for unclear or disputed situations, where community consensus about how to judge a pattern of behaviour needs to be gauged. There is no such need here. Where things are obvious, RfCs are a waste of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Meh. I completely agree that any attempt to steer this user towards productive engagement, is almost certainly futile. However, there were no formal warnings (until I added a DS alert forWP:FRINGE just now). I suggest a short leash: pointed comments on talk, and if he continues advocating this twaddle anywhere else then a block. I am undecided on the merit of topic-banning a WP:SPA, per some perceptive comments made hereabouts in recent weeks. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I have to admit being very underwhelmed by his attitude and understanding since posting my first reservations. Not sure if it is willful ignorance or what. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per original sense of Dennis Brown. Wikipedia is profoundly uncivil too quickly too often too pervasively to too many. --doncram 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like you want to discuss it at WP:VP/P. LCcritic has been given much more than due consideration. Paradoctor (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, which, as noted, amounts to a ban, because the user is a single-purpose account. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (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.

Blocked editor's subpage

Can they edit it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If they're blocked, their own user talkpage is generally the only page they can edit. I've known of clever filtering processes that have been used in the past to allow blocked users to edit other pages, but generally their userpage and subpages are out-of-bounds. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I learned something new today. Thank you kindly, Yunshui. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Panel to close CFD on Category:Pseudoscientists

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists has now been open for more than the minimum 7 days, and is eligible for closure.

The debate has been lengthy and involved, with a lot of policies at play. (Disclosure: I have taken a strong stand one side).

It seems to me that this discussion would benefit from a 3-admin panel of closers, to help give confidence that the closure has been fully-weighed by non-partisans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. There is no obvious single result, but a consensus may be teased out of the comments, and whatever the result there may well be rucktions. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The main thing about a discussion such as this is that it shouldn't simply be closed as a count of heads. It does require an analysis of how well-founded the arguments are in policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and there are decent policy argument for each of the three possible outcomes (delete, rename and keep), which are themselves independent of the merits of the template's use in any particular article. Also remember that BLP, one policy cited for delete, does not cover Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, who can be legitimately and unambiguously characterised as a pseudoscientist - but is this more or less useful than characterising him as an advocate of pseudoscience? And is that helpful at all in the first place? Guy (Help!) 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it is going to be hard for an individual to sort through this alone. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if it were procedurally closed now? I'm imagining someone closing it with the rationale of "A group of administrators will be assessing consensus; in the mean time, please don't add anything". It's complex enough now, and it will be a lot more complex if the closers have to account for things added during the closing process. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Nyttend. There are already plenty of comments to sort through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone object if I do it? I participated in it (at least twice, if I remember rightly), but it doesn't seem like a WP:INVOLVED violation, since I'm not attempting to assess consensus one bit, and everybody's equally affected (and nobody really loses) if we end discussion in order to simplify consensus-determination by people who haven't participated. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, fine with that. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Regards Gaba ^(talk) 22:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Done; sorry for the delay, but I was on the road all day. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Nyttend. Discussion had mostly stalled anyway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Who chooses the panel? Cardamon (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest conscriptingvolunteering User:BD2412, an uninvolved admin whose work on the closure of the first Chelsea Manning RM discussion earned a lot of respect. Any more suggestions for admins who might be volunteered? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Challenge accepted. I'll be glad to help. bd2412 T 14:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Having briefly reviewed the discussion, I believe that it will take several days to write the close in collaboration with other admins. I don't want to set about suggesting other panel members, to avoid any appearance of bias in the close, but it would be helpful if two more uninvolved admins would step forward fairly quickly. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have wikitime to unravel this myself per WP:SOFIXIT (I'm not particularly category savvy), but when James Randi, Joe Nickell, and Benjamin Radford et. al. are listed in the Category:Pseudoscientists subcategory Category:Paranormal investigators -- which makes them allegedly "Pseudoscientists," right? -- we have a some significant WP:BLP issues going on. NE Ent 11:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's more of a "WTF?" issue. There should probably be separate categories for paranormal investigators and paranormalists. Dean Radin and Joe Nickell might both call themselves paranormal investigators, but they embody two completely different fields of investigation, one seeks to describe and support claims of paranormal activity, the other seeks to test whether a more parsimonious explanation exists. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I will volunteer to help close the discussion, if desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @ThaddeusB: Thanks, please ping me when we have a third closer, and please do not hesitate to recruit any admin you trust to be impartial. I have begun to assemble my thoughts at User:BD2412/Pseudoscience category discussion notes. bd2412 T 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

    Given that your rough count of supporters and opposers doesn't indicate that there is a numerical consensus, perhaps following the model of WP:Requested moves this should be relisted. Your preliminary analysis might make for good "relister's comments" that could help steer the discussion towards more of a consensus. I just became aware of this and would like the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Please also consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pseudoscientists, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 28#Category:Pseudoscientists and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 12#Category:Pseudoscientists. There was never a consensus for creation of this category, and it has remained in place over the years only because there was no consensus to delete it either. Seems that the ability to create a category without consensus has given the "creationists" the upper hand here. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

    • If numbers of voters were all that mattered, these discussions could be closed by a bot. Policies also matter, particularly policies like WP:BLP and WP:V. bd2412 T 12:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

      • There is also a significant NPOV issue in that debate, particularly around WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And for categories, WP:OC#SUJECTIVE is important, with many precedents.
        No bot could weigh all that! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the one point of agreement is that there were plenty of comments. I don't think relisting the CFD and soliciting more feedback would clarify matters. The closers are just going to have to weigh the merits of the arguments put forward. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there have been plenty of comments, but this was held open for just 10 days, and there were still new opinions coming in from editors who had not previously commented just hours before the discussion was shut down. I think that the defenders of this category are more likely to watch it and be prompt in defending it. Note the ID of the first to comment, "QuackGuru" – that ID screams of an editor with an agenda: to label certain people as "quacks". You even said: "It's like a mini-reunion of regulars at the Fringe noticeboard." Having put that on my watchlist, I see how much chatter goes on at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, although I rarely bother to read it. Keeping this open might allow more time for more disinterested editors to bring some common sense to the matter. But perhaps that's not necessary. I think the preliminary closing analysis is good. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the regulars at the Fringe noticeboard are united in their attitude regarding pseudoscience and there was a notice about this CfD posted there so I'm not surprised to see all of their names, coming over to CFD and supporting this category. They are openly hostile towards anything they believe is pseudoscience and they see themselves as protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. So, this category is useful and valid for them.

But I believe a panel of three uninvolved admins can weigh all of the arguments and come to a fair decision with the comments that have been posted. Whichever side of this discussion you are on, it's important to remember that consensus can change over time and every article, category and page can come up for review periodically. Category:Pseudoscientists has been up for deletion before and, if it is retained, it can be proposed for renaming or deletion in the future. There have been categories that have been created, later deleted and then recreated. Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, that's why there will always be a need for these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I would like to add another point for consideration that doesn't seem to have been fully developed in the debate before it was closed. My argument is based on my experience with defending a category I created, Category:Facebook groups from deletion. Per the {{category explanation}}:
  This category is for organizations which are defined by their use of Facebook. Note: this should not be used for organizations that just happen to have a Facebook group.

So this category is limited to a very small number of members by WP:DEFINING. Picking a member of category:Pseudoscientists at random, Heinz Kurschildgen (a man I had never heard of before), and searching the article for the term "pseudoscientist", I find the only use of this word in the article is in the categorization itself. Therefore this article should be removed from the category. To be included, we should see a lead sentence such as, "Heinz Kurschildgen was a pseudoscientist...", and this should be backed up by a reliable source saying that Heinz Kurschildgen was a pseudoscientist. If such articles can be found, then perhaps this category could be kept, albeit with a very limited number of members. Thanks for your consideration. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: That example is a straightforward WP:V issue. If the categorisation is not supported by a referenced assertion in the article, then the page should be removed from the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Heinz Kurschildgen was a person who fraudulently claimed to have scientific processes for turning water into gasoline, etc. His promotion of fraudulent non-science is the sole reason he is notable. He is a poster child "advocate of pseudoscience" with defining and sourced notoriety for the practice. In the lead, he is called a charlatan regarding his non-scientific, pretending-to-be-scientific, claims. The article is completely about the times he pretended to be a scientist, and the consequent legal problems from being found a scientific fraud. I don't think this is the forum to further discuss the merits of the category, but this example is so far from being borderline that I thought something could be said, as this subject matches every definition of pseudoscientist offered by any side of the debate.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make him a pseudo-scientist (someone pretending to be a scientist) as opposed to a pseudoscience-ist (one who argues for pseudoscience)? I mean he was a straight-up fraud, right, not someone trying to use invalid science to argue for something... The inability to distinguish between the two was one of the minor points of discussion on the CSD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: From my brief look at the article, you are probably right that he deserves the label. But the article doesn't use the word in body text let alone provide a ref, and per WP:V, it needs a source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think asking for strict letter-by-letter identical phrasing is a great ideal, but we don't insist on it in other categories, even the most sensitive ones. Nando Parrado and others are in the horror show categories of Category:Cannibals without a mention of the exact word "cannibal" but with sources that say it in other words, and there are multiple subjects in criminal categories where reasonable editors know that "Embezzling" is a type of theft, "Serial killing" is a type of murder, etc. Yucky examples, (maybe we have bird articles that fail to mention the word "bird") but we don't currently enforce a strict "use the exact same word as the category name in body text" rule. Articles should still be sourced enough that a reasonable editor wouldn't contest the description even where synonyms are used. The rule shouldn't be robotic, and, in practice, it isn't. (I'm responding to your ping, but I don't think I'll comment more than this here as this isn't the forum to hash this out)__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I know this isn't the forum, but I noticed the discussion too late. The problem is that charlatan and pseudoscientist are not synonyms. I have no problem with creating Category:Charlatans for people like Heinz Kurschildgen who have been convicted and sent to prison. They shouldn't be lumped into the same cat with people who are practicing good-faith, albeit "alternative" or non-mainstream science, and have not been convicted of anything by a court. Usually these alternative theories are incorrect, but occasionally they might actually turn out to have at least some merit. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fraudsters exists, and would probably be appropriate for anyone convicted of fraud. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, we need a third admin to volunteer for the closing panel, if we are to get this closed by a panel. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I am willing to join the panel, or as a tiebreaker or something, if no admins step up. I am not involved in the discussion or generally in that topic area. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since we have two admins on the panel, I have no objection to a non-admin third panel member, particularly a longstanding editor with a significant body of contributions such as Gaijin42. Unless there is some objection to this, I'll ping @ThaddeusB: and we can discuss the consensus in whatever forum the other closers prefer. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No objection from me, but let's allow a day or two for the community to respond. --ThaddeusB (talk)

No disresect to Gaijin42, but I think it would be better if the third party was an admin, and much better if they were not WP:INVOLVED. Given the topic, I would hope that an editor who had been a participant at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would recuse themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I nominate BDD or BOZ as univolved admins that have experience closing contentious discussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Only Chelsea Manning (yikes!) so far, although I will say it was a pleasure to work with User:BD2412 on that one. If no one else steps up I will volunteer. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Compared to Chelsea Manning, this should be rather painless. bd2412 T 17:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that either BDD or BOZ would do a great job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to be thought of here, but my contributions may be sporadic until Monday. Since we probably want a decision sooner, it may be best for someone else to handle this, but if not, I'm happy to do it. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I think we are fine with ThaddeusB and BOZ. I'll note the panel on the discussion page. bd2412 T 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I will be busy on and off myself for the next few days, but I will check out BD2412's summary. BOZ (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• BD2412 Please set up a discussion page to share our thoughts. Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we can start a new section at User talk:BD2412/Pseudoscience category discussion notes, unless there is a better venue. bd2412 T 01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: The panel has now closed the discussion. Implementing the close is another matter, since this will require editing the articles now in the category. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply. @BD2412: @ThaddeusB: @BOZ: The effect of your decision appears to be to create a new {{container category}} called Category:Advocates of pseudoscience; a container categ contains only sub-categories. Can you confirm that is your intent? If so, I will implement it, but I want to make sure that I understand your intentions correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly our intent. bd2412 T 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: @ThaddeusB: @BOZ: OK, I will create Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, populate it with the rrelevant subcats, and then set the bots to work to delete Category:Pseudoscientists.
Please would you be kind enough to note at the closure that you specifically intend this to be a {{container category}}? Spelling that out will avoid any disputes in future about the meaning of the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the category change, my intention was to use the category renaming feature once that goes live. Not that it's necessary, but I'm itching to try it out. I have no objection to doing this the old-fashioned way, and I have no problem noting in the close that this is a {{container category}}, although I do think that it is abundantly clear from the close that this is to be a category that contains only subcategories, and no articles. bd2412 T 22:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it by seconds! bd2412 T 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Block review

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.

---

I just blocked Adikhajuria (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for advertising. Looking closer, it looks like part of a Wikimania thing, but I'm not sure how to handle it. I'm fine with whatever the community decides, but I can't help but to think that the types of edits that this editor is doing is, well, spam. I had started reverted them but stopped after a few and decided that I needed to bring it here instead. Spam or not, this seems very inappropriate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This is part of an outreach effort for Wikimania. It's not spam - We're looking for people from Wikimedia Projects who are interested in trying to recruit new contributors. EdSaperia (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To absolutely remove any doubt: we are not selling anything here. We're offering to create marketing materials FOR projects, for free, so that they can be more visible at Wikimania, which has an outreach component this year. EdSaperia (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More information about creating flyers for WikiProjects for distribution at Wikimania can be found at here at WikiMedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is notifications for something for the WMF is doing so I wouldn't call it spam at all. Notifying WikiProjects of something that may be beneficial to them isn't wrong when it is something that is part of a WMF initiative. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably the message should have some kind of method of opting out of future messages. –xeno^talk 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked. This is basically someone notifying Wikiprojects of a potentially useful free resource they can use at Wikimania, which is completely different from spam. I'm not completely sure it is the best way to approach WikiProjects but banning without warning seems a bit heavy-handed!

I would definitely recommend that Adikhajuria fill in their userpage and mention their connection to Wikimania in the talk page notices though, to avoid confusion. The Land (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(And for clarity, I'm also somewhat involved in Wikimania!) The Land (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

They weren't banned, they were blocked as a preventative to what looked like spam. The name gave no indication, they were an SPA, redlink user page, the actual post looked spammy with no opt out and didn't indicate it was "official" in any way. They didn't even know to post at the bottom of the page, and were posting at the top before being told otherwise. No price for the service was given. Link was off enwp etc etc. The combination of all this looked very fishy and similar to some other spammers we have had. Anyway, glad that is cleared up, sorry about the confusion but that is why I brought it here, as I would any block where I have any doubts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries - I'll get him to fill out his profile a bit more and be more verbose in the offer. EdSaperia (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand why he looked fishy! And thanks for thinking and posting here. :) The Land (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (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.

Block, please watch

I blocked McTimoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one of at least half a dozen possible reasons. This user is trying to whitewash McTimoney College of Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a questionable institution that trains "straight" chiropractors in the UK. I suspect that this will not go away. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello,

There is some sort of problem at The Teahouse that is hiding recent threads. Can someone with better programming skills than mine (in other words, almost anyone) try to fix it? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fixed. Thanks! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD needs closing

Due to an inappropriate re-listing, and then a mistake in the un-re-listing, the Afd for "Kenneth Brander" is still open. Could someone take a look and close? BMK (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, by TParis. BMK (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock-plagued Afd needing close

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akinwunmi_Ambode has been open for eght days now, with only delete !votes left after a whole farm full of confirmed socks have been struck. So could we please have an uninvolved admin close the AfD and delete and salt (see !votes and comment on the AfD) the article? He has been using WP as free advertising/promotion space long enough. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 12:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the sockpuppets in the debacle explicitly said that they were using Wikipedia as free advertising or some sort of means to legitimize the subject to the people of Lagos in what appears to be an upcoming gubernatorial election.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like promoting Ambode on WP is part of the build-up for his election campaign, which is one of the reasons I want the purely promotional article off the air. Thomas.W ^talk 13:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by the panda. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Help would be useful

• Please, is there any chance of help with about 65 bird species name decapitalization move requests which have been dumped in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Some of these requests have been obeyed by someone else but not deleted by him from the list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Now all  Done and deleted by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems with a user.

I am having some problems with User:Beyond My Ken and would like some help calming the issue down. I was editing on The Rules of the Game and found this users edits and reverts of my edits to be unreasonable and rude. Eventually this user became abusive in their language and refuses to apologize: [76]. Normally I would just ignore this type of thing but I am planning to do a lot of editing on this particular page in the near future and, in my opinion, this editor is attempting to claim ownership of this page. So, I simply want to calm this situation down and know that I can edit on this page without bruising this users ego and causing a headache for myself.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor was working on The Rules of the Game with no {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} tag on it. I jumped in to fix the mistakes, and was told (in an edit summary) "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear". I don't take that kind of condescending bullshit from anyone, but I continued editing the article until I got another condescending note on my talk page: "Does somebody need a wikihug". Posted the editor's talk page, told the editor to learn how to use the proper tags, called them a "condecending asshole" and banned them from my talk page. Minutes later the editor posted to my talk page, demanding an apology. There will be no apology. Next thing I know is this (which should be on AN/I and not here, BTW).

I don't "own" The Rules of the Game, I don't even have much invested in it. I fixed the mistakes the editor made, added an English translation to the French quotation, cleaned up the refs and some of the formatting, and that's it. The claim that I want to "own" it is bullshit, as is the condescension I don't need and don't deserve.

This is my comment on this matter, and there will be no other. Don't post on my talk page about it unless you're an admin giving me a formal warning or block, because I'm not interested in your opinion. BMK (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC

When did it become a policy requirement that we don't edit articles without first tagging them as "in use"?

We don't do this, or need to. because there is generally some recognition that overlaps happen, occasionally the forethought to see that sizable edits might not stop in moments after the last one that's visible, and (most importantly) the recognition that if you do overlap with another editor in action, then an appropriate action is to back off and let them get on with it. This isn't about ownership, it's about basic politeness on a shared project. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's also not a requirement to wait until someone is done to start editing, especially if one is not actually reverting them. BMK's edits were not commented, which isn't awesome, but it's not against any rules, and Deoliveirafan's weren't, either. To respond to someone else editing the same article with an edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear" here, which really is condescending, and follow it up with this post--the first two actual communications of any type between the two--is just not cool, and while BMK overreacted, he overreacted to actual provocation. So yeah, I'm not sure either editor is better than the other in this situation; both could've handled things much, much better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair I was also provoked into being condescending (reverting perfectly acceptable edits within minutes does not seem reasonable to me), nevertheless will acknowledge that I was indeed being condescending (in response to rudeness) and will be the bigger user and apologize to Beyond my Ken here and now. However to be condescending is to be humorous, and so I will not apologize for the act of combating hostility with humor. It would be a sad day for the world if that became outlawed. I admit that I do not know the official rules (if there are any), but I would request that in the future if I or any user are clearly working on a specific page and have several edits within minutes of each other, it would be courteous to not immediately revert them, especially since the only justification seems to be "I don't like". I assure you that I have already taken pages and pages of handwritten notes for this page (that's just how I edit) and would like to see it improved. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that that is what actually matters.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, ok now that I've actually read some other posts by both Beyond my Ken AND Writ Keeper, it seems I'm being dragged into some completely different issues that have nothing at all to do with me and that I am not at all the problem here. Beyond My Ken, your language was unacceptable, please apologize right now. Writ Keeper, if you clearly have a conflict of interest please do not comment.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider myself to have a conflict of interest whith respect to BMK. I've interacted with BMK a lot, but always in an administrative role (which isn't usually thought to create a COI, as far as WP:INVOLVED is concerned), and not always in the way BMK would've liked. There are some other issues that got dragged into the conversation on my talk page, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't think it has affected anything I've said here. Certainly I need to avoid even the appearance of being involved, and so I certainly wouldn't act as an admin in this situation, but I don't think there's anything that would prevent me from simply commenting. Nevertheless, to avoid all doubt, I won't comment further about this issue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on the validity of any of the edits made to the actual article, I think Writ Keeper's initial appraisal of the system is spot-on. Deo, you have to remember that humor doesn't translate well without visual and tone cues (basically, doesn't translate well on the internet). I ripped this quote, without associated links, from WP:HUMOR: Humor tends to be very subjective. One should remain aware that what one finds hilarious, another may be offended by. The use of humor does not override such core policies as Civility and No Personal Attacks. Learn this lesson: humor rarely works in response to online arguments. There will always be someone who takes your words at face value, or worse. And besides, I don't know why you think condescension is funny in the first place, from wiktionary condescending is awfully close to patronizing, which is defined as "offensively condescending"...well, thanks, wiktionary, that helped a lot...anyways, I'd say a vast majority of people would consider a "condescending" comment insulting, not funny. In any case, good on you for apologizing, though hopefully that was a sincere apology. I personally think BMK should offer up an equally sincere apology, as what they did was a severe and rather uncivil overreaction, but I don't know if that'll ever get across to that one. Hope it all ends well, 206.117.89.5 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (Former User:Ansh666 - oh, and, just so you know, I don't think I've had any interaction with either user before, either on the account or IPs)

Category:Mechanical reproductions of original works in need of additional detail

Some effort to reduce the backlog and hopefully get most of these to an 'acceptable' standard for Commons would be appreciated.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what is wanted for the images in this category. Some of them already have high resolution and reasonable or good quality. Presumably you can use help from non-admins in technical work or finding better source images. Is there some project page or similar that provides additional information? --Amble (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Like Amble, I'm confused what you would like others to do. How are we to get them to an "acceptable" standard for Commons, for example? Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:24.185.206.250

This IP has been going around to various New Jersey road articles and making poor formatting changes and reducing the accuracy of mileposts. The NJDOT SLDs give the mileposts out to 2 decimal places but the IP changes them to one decimal place. For example [77]. The IP has been warned [78] but continues to make the edits. Dough4872 01:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record User:69.125.102.140 has similar edits. Dough4872 01:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Hi. There is currently a backlog at the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've actionned a whackload of them one way or another. What's left is primarily AFC G13's, with a mere handful of others the panda ₯’ 12:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

G13's what? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the usage was in the sense of "a contested form of the English plural ending, written after single letters and in some other instances". Once again, just the Panda being controversial and trying to push the envelope. I suggest insist upon desysopping. Rgrds. --72.251.77.231 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your comment is highly inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it was just tongue in cheek sarcasm, just friendly poking at Lugnut for his poking at Panda, but maybe I just read it differently. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts: When I finished going through what was then all of the entries in the CSD category, I had pretty much taken care of all of them except the ones that had been nominated under WP:CSD#G13 - those that were abandoned Articles for Creation. There were about 25 of them, and were easy-peasy for any admin to handle as they were uncontroversial. In other words, I handled most of the tough ones, leaving the easy ones for someone else the panda ₯’ 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Farah Pahlavi

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.

---

Hi, User:Diako1971 say Azerbaijani is somebody, who was born and raised in Azerbaijan means (Iranian Azerbaijan or Republic of Azerbaijan) and his/her first language is turkish. because Farah Pahlavi was born in Tehran, He says so she isnot Azerbaijani people[79]. In the event that his father is Azerbaijani ethnicity and Tehran have 25% to 1/3 Azerbaijani people– So Azerbaijanis in Tehran due to being born in Tehran, arenot Azeris? Plz see Revision history Iranian Azerbaijanis and List of Iranian Azerbaijanis--Serzhik (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to raise the dispute. First, try discussing the matter on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, try another venue like WP:DRN. This board does not solve your disputes for you. --Jayron32 00:49, 13 May 2014 (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.

Copyright problems

Is this edit legal per Wikipedia:Plagiarism? It looks like a direct translation of a copyrighted text.

PS I hope this is the right noticeboard for this kind of issues. Avpop (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You might get a good response here, but you can also try posting the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which is specifically tailored to deal with copyright things. --Jayron32 14:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Avpop. I agree with Jayron, but since I saw this, and would answer the same thing Wikipedia:Copyright problems... It's not plagiarism, because the source is credited and the quotes are clearly marked. But it is still a copyright infringement. The amount of copyright text quoted far exceeds what is acceptable per Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The quoted segments need to be shortened to at most one or two sentences, and the rest of the content should be appropriately summarised. See also this section of Wikipedia:Quotations. Voceditenore (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore I see. Maybe you could send a message to User:Maghasito to instruct him what to do. Avpop (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Avpop, I've left message about this issue at Talk:Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867#Excessive quotation/copyright infringement and directed the editor to that talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OTRS issue

Moving to the OTRS noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks from JzG and DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves

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.

---

JzG's response to this request. In its entirety. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already attempted to discuss the situation with JzG (first attempt, first refusal, second attempt, second refusal), but he has refused to do so, contrary to WP:ADMINACCT. Because of the strong wording of DangerousPanda's attack (including comments made as EatsShootsAndLeaves) and his or her subsequent messages after being questioned by another user, I believed it would not have been productive to respond to the attack through full conversation.

Here are a selection of upsetting personal attacks made against me and my edits: diff, diff, diff. The contents of these attacks are completely untrue, including the unfounded accusations of 'endless querulous demands', 'abusing process and people' and 'trolling'. I am more than happy to address any aspect of my previous editing history to convince you of this. There are still, of course, the stronger accusations of being 'sexist', 'abusive' and 'on a single-minded crusade', to give just a few examples of the comments made.

The issue from which this has arisen is rather complicated, so I shall condense it into just a few sentences. I am more than happy to explain any aspect of it in as much detail as required, if necessary. I saw a discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown and believed there to be a reasonable possibility for a successful move request based on the existing comments of editors. I consulted guidelines and found that the move request was also supported there. The problem, however, is that some users disagreed with the request, some very strongly, in an 'ignore all rules' kind of way. This meant that there were some strong feelings, especially aimed towards me, the user who made the request. Without any warning or discussion, I was blocked by JzG for one week. The personal attacks were made on various Wikipedia pages during this week.

I fully admit I made two mistakes during the move request, albeit where I had good intentions. I have included an explanation below should it be relevant. As far as I am concerned, it is the only aspect of my editing that has been problematic and, even then, it could have been resolved immediately by a simple notification from any other user.

Explanation

JzG closed the request prematurely based on incorrect information, showing he had misinterpreted the situation. I left a note on his talk page for discussion (he later told me to 'talk to the hand') and reverted the close. Not long later, Drmies closed the request again. I was not aware Drmies was an administrator; I believed he was an ordinary user who closed the discussion because of his own feelings about the request. I maintain this was a reasonable assumption given the strong personal feelings that were present, how the close seemed contrary to WP:RMCI (it was 'ignore all rules' with no clear consensus) and how Tarc blanked a discussion on the page he or she did not like a few days earlier. I reverted the close and was blocked by JzG, without explanation or discussion, before I had any chance to communicate with Drmies. My mistake was that I thought I was entitled to make a revert three times, especially when reverting what was an apparent mistake or non-neutral and unsupported close. Now that I have been directed to more accurate guidelines, I recognise that I should not have reverted, even had my intuition been correct. I have already apologised for this and stated that I would not have reverted had I known the relevant guidance, no matter what I thought of the edits.

At least three other experienced users, including an arbitrator, have raised concerns at the conduct of JzG and DangerousPanda (Salvio giuliano, Obiwankenobi, Arkon, Arkon). I do not know where it can be addressed, though. I thought WP:ARBCOM would be appropriate because it concerns the actions of administrators, but the request was declined. The committee seemed to suggest that I should post here, even though some of the attacks made by JzG were made to this page. Ultimately, I would like to know whether administrators are entitled to make these attacks against editors with whom they disagree or whether this behaviour is entirely acceptable. As always, if there is anything that needs explaining, let me know and I shall do so. I want to help. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is not aware of this, This same user recent made an ArbCom case request for these same issues which was declined, so the user is trying to forum shop for some double jeopardy trials imo. I suggest this be speedily closed and if the ip persists in his disruptive accusations he should be blocked. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote about the WP:ARBCOM case above and why I have made a post it here. The arbitrators who declined it suggested that it was not serious enough for arbitration and that it should resolved elsewhere, such as here. Gaijin42, are you trying to say that complaining about these attacks constitutes making dusruptive accusations and that I could be blocked for making such complaints? If you have not done so already, please look through what I wrote above. I can promise you that I am anything but a disruptive user and you will see this if you look carefully. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

131, the Brown issue is closed, so you are not going to get any traction on that point. If people were uncivil or even if they made personal attacks, it is now quite stale with many of your diffs being from almost a month ago and the most recent from quite a ways back. Any action here is to be preventative, not punitive and AN has been notoriously reluctant to address incivility, especially in a case where there is disruptive action on the other side of the coin. So yes, continuing to try and press for some kind of sanction, when there is no ongoing dispute, is disruptive. You have been warned and guided by many many users now to drop the stick. I join in that suggestion. When everything is going against you, sometimes you are actually the one going in the wrong direction. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't see my involvement here. My statement to 131.x well over a week ago was clearly not a personal attack - stating it to ArbCom does not make it so. Nobody at the attempted ArbCom case even mentioned it. On top of that, 131.x has by their own admission refused to attempt to clarify my meaning directly with me, but instead is acting in a very disingenuous manner by trying to link 2 things that clearly don't belong together, hoping to make something stick. The three big U's are at play here: untrue, unethical, and unacceptable the panda ₯’ 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• One can only maintain so much cheek-turning in the face of this IP editor's continued disruption and refusal-to-drop-the-stick, I don't fault anyone for giving a "talk to the hand" response in this situation. Both the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Jane Brown articles have been disrupted for several years now by IP editors trying to ram in their preferred, idiosyncratic article title, and have run into opposition again and again and again. We're at the point with both these articles that the trite "consensus can change" has to be set aside in the best interests of the project. Continuously proposing title changes that have no chance of being adopted has to be stopped, and if an admin stops it with some terse language, then that's an acceptable payment. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my response up there ↑ Guy (Help!) 22:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending the OP but it's inaccurate to lump all IP editors together as if they are a loosely coordinated group of vandals. I edited as an IP editor for a lot longer than I've edited as a registered account. His status as an IP editor shouldn't affect the outcome of this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, there's nobody above lumping all IP editors together. Tarc's saying the articles in question have been full of issue-laden IP's, and this one simply picked up the mantle - nobody suggests there any loose alliance of vandals. Hell, I don't even think this one is a "vandal", and to prove it I worked darned hard to show them what they needed to address in their unblock request ... and the above is simply more proof that no good deed goes unpunished :-) the panda ₯’ 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The last 2 RMs for Sarah Brown and the last 4 for HRC have all been initiated by IP editors. Are they the same person or related persons? My Jethroian gut says it is quite likely, but even if they are 100% separate persons, the repeated nominate-and-lie-low-for-a-time is extremely disruptive. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Collaborative editing is sometimes ugly. We sometimes get a bit rude or question each other's motives. As long as it isn't a pattern, I've always been a fan of "let boys be boys" (pardon my sexism, I don't know a gender neutral version). Warnings are fine for singular comments, but admin action seldom is. Some of our best work is forged from sweat, arguments and some spirited debate, so it is and should be tolerated in small doses. What is unhelpful is spending more time on process than on content. While JzG and Panda can both be rather blunt at times, so can I, and the IP, and just about everyone else who actually cares enough to have an opinion. Escalating these little things to Arb then WP:AN is a tremendous waste of time and resources. While I personally strive to make Wikipedia a nicer place, I would warn anyone that if you can't take a low blow every now and then, editing at Wikipedia isn't for you. With that in mind, I find little merit in the case. Tying up the time of so many people with unnecessary process is disruptive, so I strongly suggest the IP pick his battles more carefully as not to develop a reputation for disruption through gaming. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• comment Panda's comments to the IP which were cynically couched in the language of 'I'm trying to help you' were offensive personal attacks -he accused the IP of making sexist and misogynist statements (no diffs of such statements provided, obviously, since they didn't exist) being a troll and having 1930s thinking. This is ridiculous, and both myself and the IP were offended by these comments but panda continues to believe he was just doing his utmost to help. If one of our admin corp helps by calling someone a misogynist then thanks but no thanks. Guy's block was completely unjustified and would never have been accepted if done against an established editor, the move request for which the IP was blocked was incredibly well formed, policy based and completely innocent - indeed so innocent that 4 years of previous move requests had agreed with the title the IP was proposing, and within 2 hours 6 other editors had agreed with the proposed title! now maybe CCC, but CCC again!! That said it's highly unlikely anything will be done as it's water under the bridge but I personally give a citizen trout to both guy and panda for conduct unbecoming an admin, so enjoy the fish gentlemen. I recall First they came ... here. Guy gets an additional side of fries for threatening good faith editors with blocks for brainstorming on possible compromise titles after the SJB move discussion was forcibly shut down per 'admins are righter than others' - even though no consensus for such had formed and the oppose side in the move request had a strong serving of JDLi and nothing else to base their opposition on. The discussion Guy continually threatened was one that Our god-king Jimbo actually complimented, but permission to discuss had not been granted to the populace so Guy brought out his stick and threatened blocks. Enjoy the fries. Otherwise I agree with DB above, let's move on, nothing will be done here, obviously.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • And thus is Godwin's Law invoked, time since OP: 6.5 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Those were not threats but warnings. Move request 8 was started two minutes after move request 7 closed as no consensus. Bear in mind that most articles are still at their original title. When move request 8 was closed after discussion here, with agreement that there should be a moratorium on further requests for at least a month, the small group of users obsessed with moving the article immediately started debating what title their next request should be, a clear end-run around that. So you and a coupe of others got warned that this behaviour is disruptive, and disruptive behaviour can and does lead to blocks.

As to "good faith editors", that wears thin when one of the things you have become known for is obsessing over moving an article from a title Jimbo says is "neutral and uncontroversial" to one which is likely to be assessed by other editors, on past evidence, as neither, simply because (horror!) it does not have parentheses. This is not just disruptive, it's downright bizarre. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, Guy, as suggested by one of the admins who closed the response early, a number of editors, not just myself, continued to brainstorm alternative titles, a discussion that Jimbo complimented while you were issuing 'warnings'... You are the only one who didn't like it since it seemed we were defying your authority, which I reject, especially since you were WP:Involved. I'm not obsessed either, I have filed no RM requests and have participated in only 3 move requests at that article, fewer than several other editors. If anyone is obsessed it is you, who can't fathom that editors decline to obey your directives, which have no merit and were rejected by all other editors at that discussion, indeed your actions were the very definition of disruptive in that you impeded useful brainstorming by good faith editors. The first move to Sarah Brown, which I voted for per IAR wasn't likely to gain consensus so it was closed by the IP early- a move no-one opposed, thus that close had consensus - and a new request started, there's no problem with that a priori. You keep forgetting that the current title was the result of many years of failed move requests by an 'obsessed' crew of editors who see sexism in a title that the Guardian, BBc, nytimes, and hundreds of other reliable sources use regularly. on the other hand, attempts to close the second move discussion early were resisted by several different editors, but you edit-warred nonetheless to get your way - even though several editors has opposed early closure at the page and at ANI. Thus, you earned a healthy serving of trout for conduct unbecoming. To bushranger, I didn't intend a direct comparison with the nazis and I'm sorry if it came off that way, I don't think anyone here is being nazi-like, rather I intended to state that no-one was defending the IP so I felt I had to stand up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So why are you still posting long comments about it? Do you want the article title to be Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)? Do you think further discussions on that topic would help the encyclopedia? What benefit might follow from prolonging this discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

the title of the article is irrelevant here, we're talking about admin behavior, and I'm far from the only one who complained about Guy's bullying on this matter- just go to the SJB page to see other editors complaining about his actions. Nothing will happen here but people should not gang up on the IP without knowing the context and the other side of the story. And Pandas comments, diffed above, were a clear personal attack. Maybe not worthy of an arbcom case but inappropriate nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can parse the English gramatical structure, you'll know they are not a personal attack. You continually rearranging the words to make it look like I said something 180 degrees different than what I said is not convincing to me. I don't stoop to personal attacks, and I find your continual fucking with my words to make it suit your needs to be more of an attack, so stop. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's try some analysis, I've put some excerpts of Panda's statement here for all to see: I hate to say it, but everything you have done related to that article meets the definition of a WP:TROLL, and that's not a good thing. - so here, you accuse the IP of being a troll. For what? For creating a single well formed, detailed, meticulously argued move request based on application to policy. If only all of our trolls behaved like this one! Then we have You're on a one-IP single-minded crusade, and abusing process and people in the process. Accusing the IP of being on a crusade for what, exactly? Oh, right, nominating a page to be moved, once. For this the IP is accused of "abusing people." - which people, exactly? Finally, Yes, your statements were indeed sexist, misogynist (yeah, pretty much synonyms), pointy, and yanking our collective chain. I personally couldn't believe in 2014 that there were still people with 1930's-type thinking. Now the IP is accused of making sexist, misogynist, pointy statements, yanking-of-collective-chains, and of having 1930's thinking - yet Panda declines to even provide diffs of such "sexist" statements! Did the IP say "Sarah Brown is the property of her husband"? No, the IP simply formulated a move request to a title that had long standing consensus behind it, with years of previous move requests agreeing with it, and a great number of editors in good standing who also saw NO PROBLEM with said title,a title which was only recently overturned. Panda thinks we're all misinterpreting this - maybe the claim is "I didn't call the IP sexist, I said the IP made sexist statements" - Panda, where I come from, it's basically the same thing, and you're trying to weasel your way out of it instead of simply apologizing. Otherwise, we could sneakily couch all personal attacks like that, and say things like "Bill made racist comments" and "Bill's last post was blatantly homophobic" or "Bill's move request was sexist", "Bill's thinking is from the 1930s" etc. WP:NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.", and Panda's statements were both insulting and were disparaging of the editor's person, motives, and behavior on wiki. Panda, if you actually want to be helpful next time, here is a tip - don't call someone's statements "sexist" as if you hold the truth of "sexism" and everyone else who disagrees is simply wrong, instead try it like this: "While I assume good faith and you clearly spent time in framing a very reasonable and policy based move request, SOME people here now believe that the proposed title is sexist, so it may be better to brainstorm other options rather than pursuing this one"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

One further point - I really wonder if Panda knows what misogynist means (he apparently thinks it's a synonym of sexist). In my dictionary, misogyny is hatred of women. Let that sink in. HATRED OF WOMEN. The Independent ran an article 18 months ago whose title was "Sarah Brown, wife of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, appointed director of Harrods" [80]. I did a further search of around 35 reliable sources, all from the past 3 years, and at least 17 described or disambiguated her in EXACTLY the same way - e.g. as the wife of Gordon Brown - either in the title or the lede. We have here an IP who simply proposed the title be Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and this is equated with hatred of women. How is that is perfectly acceptable, not even commented upon, usage in dozens of reliable source that demonstrates how Sarah Brown is disambiguated - see Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#Reliable_source_mentions_of_Sarah_Brown_-_how_do_they_describe_her.3F, becomes "misogyny" here? I think the abuse of this word misogyny itself is the real problem, as it trivializes REAL misogyny, including misogyny that can be found right here on the wiki. I'm not trying to argue the move here, I'm simply pointing out that especially admins should know better than to throw around hateful, insulting words without thinking about the reaction that might cause.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, the old "pull it out of context to make it read the way I want". Anyone who reads the entire exchange in its entirety will see exactly what was said and meant. I was clearly advising him of how his edits came across, and how to amend his unblock request to match them because he clearly was not putting 1+1 together. The core concept of WP:CIVIL is to discuss the edits not the editor - and I discussed the appearance of the edits. Your efforts to pull new meaning from what I said is appalling the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Panda, I simply focused on the most offensive parts of your statement, which can be read in its entirety here: [81]. No context was lost in the quotes I pulled above, and those are your exact words. You didn't discuss "appearance" of edits, you said the edits were sexist and misogynist, tout court. You also accused the IP of being a troll, of being on crusade, of abusing people, and of having 1930s thinking. You're just trying to wikilawyer your way out of it. A simpler path would be to say "I could have framed those comments in a more appropriate manner, and I'm sorry". Also to be clear, I'm perfectly willing to accept per AGF that you DONT believe those were personal attacks, and that you HONESTLY believe you were trying to be helpful. However, they were seen as personal attacks by both the recipient and myself as an observer, so that may cause you to question whether you were really able to skate around the icy lake of NPA, or perhaps you dipped your toe in a wee bit. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Small Comment: It's funny to see you here defending somebody from accusations of misogyny after our recent discussions --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"I simply focused on the most offensive parts of your statement" kinda means "I cherry-picked the part I didn't like and made a big deal about it" to most of the rest of us, I'd wager. Your observations regarding the IP and its interactions are not exactly unbiased either, as you share the same point-of-view on the naming matter. This "I'm just an observer" stuff is bupkis. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Obi-Wan, I realize that you are defending @131 who you believe was treated unfairly. But no sanctions will result from this complaint, it clearly has no support from admins here at WP:AN. Also, repeating your arguments about the RM will not affect the title of Sarah Jane Brown, that subject is, for the moment, closed. I think you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK here because nothing positive will come from this discussion which has become the airing of grievances which has already occurred in the ARBCOM request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I never believed any sanctions would result from this thread. I just didn't think it fair to present only one side of the story. Anyway I've presented my case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The OP didn't present even 1 side of a story, but combined 2 unrelated stories. You dropped by and presented your partially complete side of one of the 2 stories, including your own spin. 2 incomplete stories does not a story make. The reality is and always has been that my comments on their talkpage were INTENDED to help them to address their unblock comments. They were not framed as a violation of WP:NPA - they were framed as a guide to help them meet WP:GAB. I appreciate your defense of them, but your defense was an attack on an ally in that case, and you've simply continued the attacks above. IMHO, that's never been helpful to the OP, but merely gave them tools to go down the wrong path...which is actually what has happened, as is evidenced by this thread and others. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Pointy and inappropriate forum-shopping at its best: the IP user's jump from the admin noticeboards to its request for arbitration, which was declined, then back to the admin noticeboards. It needs to cease attempting to game the system, as does the apparent continued battleground behaviour by a small handful of users also heavily involved in the move discussion around the title of one article. No admin was prepared to lift the 1 week block previously imposed on the IP user by JzG, and as I said during the block review at the same admin noticeboard discussion, the block is entirely reasonable. In fact, the phenomemon I described in my first sentence merely justifies some of the comments made about the IP and reinforces why they are not untrue. I fail to see how the IP user can reasonably believe that it will not be blocked again if it doesn't find a more useful way to contribute to the project. I propose the thread be closed and the IP is given a final warning that it will be blocked for a much longer term if it continues on this path. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2014 (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.

Long term disruption of physics articles by IP

3 months ago, I came to Firewall (physics) via an ANRFC request that I closed Talk:Firewall_(physics)#RfC:_What_mention.2C_if_any.2C_should_be_made_of_Friedwardt_Winterberg.27s_2001_paper.3F

That RFC was plagued by a good deal of CU confirmed socking [82] and COI involvement. Since that time IP editors claiming to be Friedwardt Winterberg have repeatedly been re-inserting the disputed content into various articles [83] [84] [85] (Black hole information paradox [86]) , and making repeated WP:POLEMICs on the talk pages - including comparing wikipedia and various editors to Nazis [87] [88] [89] (humorously, this one accuses me of being a sock of Jimbo Wales) because we won't let him claim credit for this idea). The articles are now medium term semi protected, and the talk pages have been short term protected multiple times, but each time it expires, the IPs come back.

The polemics also accuse various people of being politically involved in the Physics community which is why we won't let him claim credit. It may be that there is politics preventing Winterberg from getting credit for an idea, but that is not a problem for Wikipedia to solve. There are not reliable sources saying that he discovered the idea.

unrelated to actual disruption, but background may be helpful to understand why Winterberg might not be getting credit in the physics community

The Nazi and Einstein references are especially ironic since Winterberg accused Einstein of plagiarism of relativity, and has come to the defense of multiple alleged Nazis. Friedwardt_Winterberg#Nazi_Controversies [90] [91][92] Friedwardt_Winterberg#Einstein-Hilbert_disputeRelativity_priority_dispute#Cory.2FRenn.2FStachel_and_Friedwardt_Winterberg_.281997.2F2003.29 This rather blunt irony could indicate someone attempting to impersonate Winterberg, or he is just very tone deaf.

This has now resulted in significant time wasting by myself Paradoctor, rolf h nelson, multiple admins Callanecc Ohnoitsjamie Drmies. If you look at the history page of the articles or their talk history, there is basically no activity that isn't related to this dispute in the last 3 months. [93] Can something more permanent be done? The range of IPs involved is not very large, can we get a rangeblock? Or permanent protection of these articles/talk pages? (Diff of most recent polemic yesterday, repeated above [94]) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm pretty sure that this editor is not Winterberg. On least one occasion, the editor referred to Winterberg in the third person. Paradoctor (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This will probably be one of his students. Neither they nor he seem able to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

On multiple occasions the IP has claimed to be winterberg either in their prose, or in their "signing", but of course that does not prove anything it could well be impersonation or proxying [95] [96] [97] (edit summary on this last one) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not surprising that a warring editor would claim to be Winterberg because, to those not familiar with Wikipedia's policy on WP:COI, they assume it would give their arguments in editing disputes more weight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFP backlog

Please could someone look at the Requests for Page Protection.. there are requests there from 02:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC). Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I've done a few. If someone could do some that'd be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING and the education program

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#About_outing_students relating to WP:OUTTING of editors involved in the WP:Education Program that may be of interest to admins. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Weird glitches

Every link is underlined. Is this is a glitch? Please remove it, you're ruining Wikipedia. The links don't need to be underlined.--109.78.212.92 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is funded by donations and does not display advertisements on articles. If you see advertisements, or links that aren't in the source code, then something at your end must be placing them. Some browser extensions or plugins may do it. A plugin called Codec-C is known to do it although it is marketed as needed to play videos. Your computer may be infected with malware - consider using anti-malware software. You may be using an Internet access point (such as public Wi-Fi networks at some hotels or cafes) which injects ads into all kinds of web pages. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And before you do anything else, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and make sure "always underline links" is unchecked... Mogism (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This person isn't logged in, so s/he can't set preferences. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This may have something to do with the problems that are being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and that I'm experiencing. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin admin bit

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.

---

How is Arthur Rubin still an admin? I've never seen an admin with a longer block log, who is subject to an ArbCom topic ban, and who has VIOLATED that ArbCom topic ban resulting in a week-long block. I would like to open a discussion on the fitness of Mr. Rubin as an admin. Thank you. 134.241.58.172 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That discussion cannot be held here. RFC/U/Admin the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't WP:BITE the newbies, Panda. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, cause newbies come to AN asking why X is still an admin... IP adresses are not necessary newbies, Lugnuts, and this one probably isn't. Fram (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Read it. You too, Panda. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

DP is basically correct. WP:RFC/U is the proper venue for this. The latest block was five months ago, and I'm not aware of any recent activity that would require urgent action regarding his administrator privileges. This page has help on starting the RFC/U process. If there are some recent problems that require attention, then that should be brought up (though WP:ANI may be a better place for that than here). And yes, chances are that the IP is an experienced editor (who may or may not have a registered account) who is posting anonymously in complaining about an administrator. Which shouldn't be prejudicial, I understand wanting anonymity in this situation. -- Atama頭 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the IP is basically admitting to evading a block. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

JzG! How dare you bite the newbies!!! Have you looked at the IP editing history???? You need to AGF!--MONGO 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because an IP is aware of how Wikipedia functions doesn't mean that they are evading a block. I also don't read a thing in their post that would suggest they are admitting to anything. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please read Eduard Khil. Jehochman ^Talk 19:17, 16 May 2014 (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.

See User:Jayron32/Wikipedia translator#Admin abuse. I can't find the Wikipedia-space essay which includes something like. "If an editor claims admin abuse, then the admin is almost certainly being abused." (And it would have been nice if I were informed of this thread.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWB #37 (credit to Antandrus. Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Find a conversation

Placed at wrong noticeboard; please see the "Find a conversation" section of WP:HD. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping for a quick answer. I guess one isn't forthcoming. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed and unconstructive move needs to be reverted

Now indefinitely blocked user Mercedes-Benz Today moved Fiat Automobiles and Talk:Fiat Automobiles to Fiat (automobiles) and Talk:Fiat (automobiles) over redirects, a move that hasn't been discussed, and that I see as unconstructive. So could some admin please delete the redirects and move the article and talk page back to where they were before "Mercedes-Benz today" started playing with them? Thomas.W ^talk 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I believe this did not require the admin bit, though, since the target redirect to be overwritten had no history. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to make the move myself, but the system wouldn't let me do it. Thomas.W ^talk 16:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion regarding Fæ

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion:

Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, Fæ is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposed topic ban for 2 editors

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.

---

The article Jews and Communism is currently going through a second nomination for deletion. After several ANI incidents and lots of discussion, two editors stand out as being extremely disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Instead of rehashing the arguments here, I would like to nominate two editors for a topic ban. WP:TBAN I'm asking for community consensus from involved editors to determine whether a topic ban for one or both editors is appropriate action. Comments from the community are welcome. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Background. Recent threads at AN/I: [98] and [99]. Discussion at Jimbo: [100].

• More examples: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#General disruption, personal attacks, and sock puppet accusations
• Ownership issues [101]

Proposed bans for topics on Jews and Communism

First nominee

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.

---

User:Potočnik - Previously named Producer. Original creator of the article Jews and Communism

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support for the decision to reproduce a vitriolic article on Wikipedia, and for the disruptive protection of it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support (Judaism solely) for creating an antisemitic article that relies heavily on Neo-Nazi sources [102], such an editor should be prevented in any way possible from editing further articles relating to Judaism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support based on the fact that this editor copied over to Wikipedia[103], in substantial part, an article that ran on a notorious anti-Semitic website. See analysis at [104]. There may well be other reasons to topic-ban this editor, but this is enough. No, more than enough, to topic-ban this editor from any subject even remotely related to Judaism or Communism. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a block for Potočnik if it can be established that he copied non-free content into the project. This is sufficient reason for an indefinite general block, in my opinion, actually, given the context. However, if it cannot be established that non-free content was copied, then the case is a bit muddier. Certainly Producer showed tendentious behaviour at many points during the discussion, but whether it raises to the level of a topic ban, especially given that he has been quiet for some time now, is uncertain. I'd certainly like to see him blocked for bringing this garbage into the project, but having an objectionable stance on an issue is not sufficient policy reason, so I think this all hinges on the nature of the content copied (in terms of ownership, not odiousness) and how close the material added conformed to it. Snow talk 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Creating an article that presented an anti-Semitic view is disruptive. Even if the article itself was justified, beginning it in such a POV tone makes it much harder to improve it, thereby wasting the time of dozens of editors at various noticeboards, including an RfC and two AfDs. TFD (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Not only was the article creation immensely disruptive, but the persistent, unrelenting and determined defense of that article against any change or improvement, or any lessening of its anti-Semitism or attempt to balance its neutrality, was terrible damaging to the project. Indefinite site ban. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

He was warned on his talk page with examples of diffs [105][106][107][108][109][110] USchick (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and block if this is shown to be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence that Potočnik plagiarised an antisemitic source without attribution is indisputable. This is about as gross a violation of WP:NPOV policy as one could imagine, and I find it difficult to believe that Potočnik could do so without being aware that it would be seen as such. Frankly, I am having difficulty understanding why this was done in the first place, given that the article was plainly going to be controversial, and accordingly subject to close scrutiny. One has to conclude that Potočnik either lacks the competence and understanding of elementary policy required to edit in such sensitive areas, or understands policy full well, but chooses to ignore it. Either way, we can manage well enough without such 'contributions' on these topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support an indefinite block for from editing altogether, copying content from extremist websites without attribution should not be tolerated.Smeat75 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support -(of a topic ban, for Producer only). This user CREATED the article, an embarrassment to wikipedia, and has demonstrated a heavy ownership of it since. For him to claim that he had no knowledge of the content of the article's origins is outrageous. He refused to listen to any and all outside criticism of an obviously troubled article. He obviously is incapable of providing NPOV on any subjects related to Judaism.. he (supposedly) copied content from a strictly anti-Semitic website, and then continued to edit war and initiate massive conflicts when editors tried to neutralize or, god forbid, actually remove the inaccurate content, as proven per what USchick provided above. Even if he didn't copy the content (I'm at odds as to who would have, if not), his ignorance of the concepts of consensus and the 3RR demonstrate the need for a topic ban. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. [111].--Atlantictire (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There's already been an SPI filed concerning the pair, deriving from problematic editing on an older article; the conclusion was that they are not the same person. Meatpuppetry remains a strong possibility, of course, but having reviewed the evidence, I'm doubtful of the strength of the case to be made, beyond suspicion. Snow talk 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Snow, I'd really appreciate your participation in the discussion of this.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support for POV-pushing, pure and simple. Miniapolis 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Given his almost certain knowing creation of an article based on anti-Jewish sources, and consistent intellectual dishonesty, I cannot see any future edits by him edits in these areas that would be productive. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. POV pushing, tendentious editing, dishonesty about sources, and other disruptive behavior. He would be lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. A block or site ban would also be appropriate for someone with this history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - the formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"spat" ?? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per warnings by User Jehochman (talk · contribs) [112] [113] [114] to PRODUCER (as he was known at that time)/Potocnik: 1 "Do you have a connection with User:DIREKTOR? I find it odd that both of you show up with the same Jews and Communism dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" [115]; 2 "In any case, your account is blocked indefinitely, not for the sock or meat puppetry which is a strong possibility and also good grounds to block, but for tendentious POV pushing. The account will remain blocked until there is a discussion about how to prevent further recurrences...Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" [116]; 3 "...The following diffs show inappropriate editing. [117][118][119][120][121][122] Should you accumulate more examples of a similar nature, you may be subject to a sanction...Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" [123]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a ban on anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or anti-semitism for reasons given by many editors above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. The admin Jehochman acted prematurely and excessively, and their conduct should be examined closely to determine whether they should continue to wield the mop. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support As per obvious anti-semitic POV, evident on the creation of a WP:FRINGE article copied from an anti-semitic source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally as one-sided. There has been ugly, nasty behavior around this article and related AfDs over the months and it would take the Arbitration Committee to look into everyones behavior to determine who is at fault and who needs to be pried out of the topic area. Atlantictire "I will continue to be so and have no interest in being polite or editing Wikipedia until the community figures out how to deal with editors like Director who abuse Wikietiquette in order to advance a racist agenda", is one from the "other side" that come to mind. This is not the type of thing where one's wiki-enemies should be able to propose and vote on topic bans. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tarc is a great ally to Potočnik and Director. I would encourage him to read the essay on User:MarkBernstein's page. I don't have a problem saying things that are true, and this positively nails Tarc and his kind.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire, I am an ally to no one, other than to those who may be railroaded by blood-boiling hysterics and lynch mob mentalities. If either of these editors, or others, have run afoul of this project's policies, then the project has the means to determine this and act accordingly. At no time, throughout any of this, have your screaming "eat my fuck" antics produced anything but disruption and distraction. If the article is to be deleted and/or if editors are to be sanctioned, it will be due to the diligence of sane heads and sound minds taking the lead. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tarc—I responded to you here on the Talk page of Jimbo Wales. This was on April 29, 2014. You are saying there "…too many editors playing up the victim card just as they do in real life. None of this is genuine encyclopedic editing, it is just another front in their war". I am assuming those thoughts represent your true feelings, that editors are "playing up the victim card" and that this is a "front in their war". Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Intersting. Tarc, who are "they," and what do you mean by them playing up the victim card "in real life"? What "victim card" are you talking about? Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Per request of Jehochman (User talk:Tarc#Over the top), I retracted & redacted that comment, as can be verified by how the thread appeared when it was archived. It was a heat-of-the-moment thing that added no value to the discussion. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well OK, but what did you mean? You're sorta begging the question. I take it you understand the kind of implication of the word "they" in this context? Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am well-aware of what you are implying . "They" is a 3rd-person personal pronoun, and it was used by me as such. Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor is considerate enough to strike something, please don't bring it up again. We want people to recognize if they "go over the top" and back down. If they do, that is good, and the matter should not be raised again. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh brother. OK, that's fine. I think people know what he meant. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC

Coretheapple, Jehochman, I think Tarc has mistaken you for people who confuse Wikininnying about Wikietiquette with having principles. I'm sure all of you agree that Wikininnying that sanctions and enables antisemitism and allows racists to manipulate the whole project can eat our collective fucks. Now good day to you fine sirs (or madams as the case may be) .--Atlantictire (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support as POV pushing & in general disruptive editing. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for both Judaism and Communism. This has been an exercise in blatant POV-pushing, and a topic ban is the bare minimum action needed. I would also support a site ban, because I don't think that an editor who been POV-pushing so hard in one topic is going to be editing constructively elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) --15:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support - There is no way you can convince me the the original version of the "Jews and Communism" article was not an attempt to legitimize the Antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism. I mean, does the editor want us to believe that they just had all of those sources lined up, many of which are lined up elsewhere, by the Holocaust denial Institute for Historical Review, with no intent? I support a site ban, or at the very least a ban on all topics related to Judaism, Jewish People and Communism. Dave Dial (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - the article has been blanked by an admin as "substantial plagiarism (and therefore copyright violation) going back to its creation".[124] Producer, the creator of the article, says he has retired but I think he should be given an indefinite site ban in case he changes his mind.Smeat75 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support Been staliking and reading up on this. Would advocate site ban. We are here to create articles, not shit-pits of racist POV. Irondome (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a ban on Jews and Judaism, but oppose a ban on Communism. The editor has been contributing in the highest quality there for years. Regarding myself, I already said I have no intention of entangling myself in this ugly business again, and do self-ban myself from any topics relating to Judaism. But honestly I don't know why a ban on Communism is being proposed at all, it seems a very simplistic copy-pasting of the article's title. -- Director (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the admission found at the post by Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC), in the discussion below. No user should think stringing articles together from an (uncited, mis-cited, masked) antisemitic source on these topics is not prohibited. How is one to trust anything this User has written, if that is his method. Site ban would be reasonable for this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they only get handed a topic ban. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose Little evidence presented. Verycarefully (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC) -This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet - Smeat75 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• — Verycarefully (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (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.

Second nominee

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.

---

User:Director - Blindly supported Producer and now changed his mind. Has a history of disruptive editing.

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on subjects related to Judaism or Communism. While it may be true that he was not aware of the origins of this article, the fact is that he blindly and unreasonably supported the article after it was created by Producer. That is evident by simply reviewing his actions after the article was created. See[125] and in particular his rollback of 14:01, 3 March 2014‎[126] with the edit summary "standard USChick nonsense.." Eh, no. It was not USChick's nonsense or anyone's nonsense. It was an effort to reverse some of the damage that Producer was causing to the project by copying over text from an anti-Semitic website and creating an article that quickly passed muster with Metapedia and was reproduced there. Producer put in motion this effort to make Wikipedia a part of this daisy chain of drivel-producers, and Director became his right-hand man, fighting alongside him in the article and, on the talk page. But you don't have to wade through all the verbiage on the talk page, all the nastiness, all the threats, all the boorish behavior, all the saber-rattling. This is enough. I appreciate that he now favors deletion of the article, but his behavior in this article is such that it cannot be ignored, and a topic ban is necessary to protect the project from further such behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The case is presently unclear for Director as well. More so than anyone, Producer included, his behaviour reflected battleground mentality and a lack of appreciation for our non-negotiable civility policies and had I been asked to respond to this proposal a few days ago, I would have given unequivocal support for not just a topic ban, but probably a general block. However, I question the wisdom of blocking a user just as they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter (albeit only by a lightning bolt revelation), and have backed off from their combative behaviour some, even expressing mortification over the whole affair. I know it's a risk, given past patterns of behaviour, but I wonder that maybe the best approach, and the one suggested to us by policy, is to give this user a chance to assimilate the obvious lesson here, rather than assuming he can't, given his change in position. I said it in the AfD already, but it bears repeating here: it's easier to change a person's approach to a situation than it is their motive and while Director exhibited considerable problems in his approach, it is clear his motive was not antisemitism. I think I (narrowly) support leaving Director's editing privileges intact, as per WP:Rope; if he exhibits the same problematic approach to contentious issues in the future as he did in the present article (and apparently in the past on others) then I would whole-heartedly support a general and indefinite block and will participate with vigor in the process to see it done. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support at least a broad topic ban. Director's dropping of his determined opposition in the face of conclusive evidence of the article's toxic sourcing is commendable, but comes after months of vitriolic posts and even more vitriolic disputation and incessant edit-warring. If Director and Producer were not in fact sock puppets, observers may be forgiven the assumption for they frequently acted in close concert, dominating the page and effectively shutting out alternative voices while threatening to "report" almost everyone who ventured the slightest disagreement. Even after his recantation, for example, Director asserts on the AfD page that my own précis of WP:FRINGE makes it impossible for him to WP:AGF [127]. Director has burnt countless hours of time and irreplaceable reservoirs of good will; had this received broader publicity, the damage could well have been much worse.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Also, accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many diffs are posted if no one is interested in looking at them. At one point, he was blocked indefinitely. USchick (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, no, the position expressed in that latter statement is not at all reflected in policy, that I know of anyway; failure to provide a diff is at most an inadvisable oversight. Knowingly constructing a specious claim for which absolutely no evidence exists at all could arguably be considered a personal attack, but even then, it would be be better described as just general bad-faith behaviour. Let's be careful about misrepresentation of policy to suggest inappropriate behaviour here, in a situation which already has enough fuel. Regardless of how each of us feels about the advisability of the posting, and regardless of how many diffs USChick put into her initial comments, there is a significant issue of ongoing disruption being discussed here that has been agreed to be an issue by dozens of involved editors. Suggesting that there is bad-faith at work in attempting review of the issues is not going to help. Snow talk 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is considered to be a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I have yet to see any evidence. Diffs or otherwise. It is a personal attack without evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, accusations that lack evidence altogether, not accusations for which the evidence was not immediately proffered at the arbitrary point at which you happened to enter the discussion. In order for it to be a personal attack, the claim has to have no basis in fact and be made as part of bad-faith activity. Failing to provide that evidence is an oversight, one that can be (and should, and has been) corrected, but it is not a personal attack if it was based on an informed perspective of the matter, least of all when there is massive support for the position amongst involved editors also familiar with the circumstances. You specifically implied that failing to provide diffs made any comment they would have supported a personal attack, and that is simply not true. Besides, it's not just diffs alone which make that case, but, as the very section you quoted shows, and linking to relevant discussion. There are a variety of links and diffs in this thread which direct to voluminous discussion across a variety of venues. These are not spurious claims being made by parties on a whim and without any substantial reason for concern, which is the only situation in which the policy you quote would apply. There is no bad-faith activity at work amongst those who brought this topic for discussion - your argument in that direction has no merit. Snow talk 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not what the policy says. You could make an argument not providing evidence at the point of asking for the ban was an oversight, but that is not an excuse given it was three hours before I asked for it and multiple people had voted support already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way does my interpretation depart from policy? Please be specific. You made the very precise claim that "accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack." and I called you on that. No one is saying either A) that diffs and other solid evidence aren't recommended if you want your claims of bad-faith behaviour on the part of another contributor to be taken seriously, nor B) that it wouldn't be a personal attack if one manufactured non-existent complaints for which they never will be capable of giving evidence. But you've synthesized these two principles into one notion that if an editor makes an accusation of impropriety and they don't immediately make their case with evidence, that is a personal attack, regardless of whether they are in fact correct about the purported behaviour and acting in good faith. That idea is just not supported in policy. Anywhere. But to an extent it's a moot point, since this diff demonstrates there were in fact a dozen-plus diffs and links in this thread supplied as evidence of the behaviour and circumstances being discussed supplied by parties to the discussion, previous to your first post. Mind you, I don't want to get into an endlessly recursive discussion here with you, as it would serve little use to the broader issues here. And I have misgivings about how things have been handled too. But the statement you made was categorically false, and not in a trivial way, since through it you implied that another contributor was engaged in personal attacks. I didn't see that as particularly helpful to the current circumstances, whatever your feelings about whether or not the instigation of this process was well-advised. Snow talk 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, Director's behaviour was very bad, however he has apologised. I would suggest keeping tabs on his activities in related articles and putting him "on probation", as it were, rather than a ban right now.Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I partially agree with Smeat75's proposal. Director has apologized and admitted his fault in the article. Support (for Director only) the figurative "probation", if not that, then a temporary Topic Ban.. oppose anything else as Director's involvement is unclear at the moment, it seems as if all he did was behave in a slightly unorthodox way whilst defending the article from the likes of Atlanticire, and that doesn't warrant a topic ban. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Snow Rise wrote "they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter". I can't agree. Director collaborated on this polemic before Producer uploaded it.[128][129] The lede was not the beginning of a neutral encylopedic article; it was recognisably hate literature. It began "A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions", the entire lede continued that litany, and the rest of the article followed in that vein.[130] In discussion, he insisted it was neutral, that it was American bias against communism that rendered his opponents unable to see the true neutrality of the piece. He insisted that oppression of Jews under communism was outside the scope of an article called "Jews and Communism", but would not describe the scope except as "an article that lays out the association between "Jews and Communism""[131]. He only recoiled when he was busted, and not from the language, not from the framing, not from the purpose, not from the sourcing even now, just from it becoming publicly known that the creators of the Wikipedia article - Producer and Director together, that we know of - had taken this polemic from an article written by a known Holocaust denier and defended it to the hilt. Is it "clear his motive was not antisemitism" because he expressed mortification for being deceived, mortification that's already been succeeded by resentment at being taken to task for fighting so bitterly for such malicious trash? No, it's not clear. NebY (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director doesn't strike me as the type of contributor who changes his perspective based upon the general community consensus of his character and behaviour, no matter how overwhelming. Of course, if your assertion that he and Producer collaborated on the page before it was introduced into article space, or more specifically, that he knew the material was being plagiarized from the source from which it came, can be supported with evidence, that would be a different situation entirely and would generate an instant change in position on my part. However, the diffs you provide are only for a previous implication of this fact on your part and his denial of said claim, which is not really evidence of any sort either way. On a side note, though, I never saw a version the article that far back until now; I had thought the current version was problematic, but that version is truly hideous. As if the obviously fringe and distasteful wording of the prose aside, the use of images to create the implication of a rogue's gallery is itself unsettling, as if meant to say "Look how Jewish all of these communists are." Still, nothing I see screams out as proof that Director wasn't just blind to rampant synthesis at work. While it may seem inconceivable to you or I to not be able to appreciate the hate-mongering that must have been at work in the ultimate source of those claims, it's entirely feasible Director did not. My view of him is that he is simply a problematic editor in general who does not like be disagreed with, and once the situation on the page reached a certain level of heatedness, he was lost to discussion on the matter and inclined to view opposing views as nonsense by default, until incontrovetable evidence as the source of the content snapped him out of it. That's a serious issue in itself, but one not well addressed by a topic ban. Which is why I've advocated giving him a chance to learn a lesson here, but with very little tolerance for anything approaching that kind of behaviour again, which should be met by a general indefinite ban from the project. Snow talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What would your opinion be if it was proven that Director knowingly added a source from an anti-semitic "hate group" onto the article (not that I suggest he has, I only mirror what previous editors have said). Would you support a topic ban then? My position of current, based upon the evidence provided, is that Director is just adamant and stubborn, and perhaps a bit offensive in general. I haven't seen any specific links to a personal attack he made, or to unacceptable contents/sources he uploaded.. although I highly suspect he has done one of the two, that's just speculation.. as much as I would like him to be blocked, and as much as I disagree with his ethics, we're not in a position to do much yet.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, my perspective on that matter would depend highly upon the nature of the source and the manner in which it was added. After-all, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that a source used in some context by a hate group could be used for quite a different purpose as a reliable source on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if Director quoted a source from the same hate group from which Producer plagiarized his content, then it would suggest he was fully aware of Producer's activities, but I've yet to see any evidence of such. If the source came from a different locale entirely, but was not an appropriate source, then that would also raise the spectre of his inability to edit in the topic area in a way consistent with NPOV; but once again, I must stress this is a response to the hypothetical -- all evidence suggests to me that, as you said, he is simply stubborn and determined to get his own way, once he's determined that it's the way. Though I would add "arrogant, dismissive, and combative" to the list of applicable descriptors. Snow talk 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just briefly, because it's late: I found Director's "to all intents and purposes" phrasing curious and so I tried to make my question precise, asking "whether you were involved in writing or reviewing any of this material before it appeared as an article in mainspace on the English-language Wikipedia?". He didn't say if he reviewed it but he did say that "I think I maybe wrote one sentence, and added three or four images." so yes, Director worked on it before Producer uploaded it. We now know that much was adapted from the original Weber piece or some intermediate version. I can't tell you if Director was slyly alluding to that when he said he maybe wrote one sentence, whether Producer prepared the adaptation and hid its origins from Director (which I don't think Director has offered as an explanation), or whether they collaborated in the adaptation just as they collaborated in the defence (which seems the simplest explanation). As for the images, that collection was not the synthesis of another hand. There are just five in the article, of which Director admits to "three or four" - most of the work. He also says the sources "checked out"; someone did put in the effort of adding ISBNs as the references in Weber's piece don't have them.[132] NebY (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, it does seem to raise the question of how much they collaborate which is germane to other areas of this discussion, but still is not a smoking gun as regards Director knowing the work was plagiarized from an antisemitic source. And lack of foreknowledge of this aspect would explain why he would later say he felt like he needed to take a shower when he learned the true source of the material; that is, he lent his support and collaboration to Producer from the start without knowing of this fact and was disturbed to learn he had been used to further an antisemitic agenda. Snow talk 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to say I didn't "write a word of it", but then I remembered I added some images and introduced a brief sentence to the lede, and I didn't want to turn out dishonest. So I said "to all intents and purposes". The edits I referred to were done well after the article was created. I can't believe all the nonsense that's being drawn from that.. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I for one am inclined to believe you on this point and I think this line of discussion should be shut down unless more than speculation can be offered. At the same time, it's not exactly "nonsense" for the question to have been raised to begin with, given the circumstances. Honestly, I don't know what to think about your relationship with Producer, but if you two do have an off-wiki friendship, I imagine you have some choice words to share with him over this whole affair. Snow talk 00:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. [133].--Atlantictire (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support (Judaism solely) After reading through both the Jews and Communism talk page [134] and its archives [135], [136], [137], [138] and [139] I have changed my mind on the matter. The users attitude was incessant and unwavering. It definitely constitutes disruptive editing. That said, I don't think a topic ban on Communism would be helpful here, as the issue largely relates to the antisemitic content that was defended for so long, and the users lack of comprehension as to what the articles greater message was --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support While I commend Director for his change in view on the article, bans are meant to be preventive. There is nothing that he has to offer to this subject area and his track record shows that disruption could continue. This is certainly a more favorable decision for him than a block, which is probably warranted by his comments on other editors which he continues in this discussion. TFD (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose How did he "blindly" follow the other editor when he even reversed his position completely? Please, provide diffs for comments that you feel were inappropriate and worthy of a topic ban. There just isn't any evidence here. Just because you disagreed with him in the AfD is not a reason for a topic ban. The discussion at the talk page and the first AfD did become lousier at points, but especially with this dicussion the blame could be equally put upon this ANI topic ban nominator USchick who kept insisting communism doesn't have anything to do with socialism or the Soviet Union with some no-true-scotsman argument that became very tedious. Director kept replying and atleast that following conversation was rather low-quality. Actually, in every "bad" discussion I can find from the archives Drowninglimbo linked above USchick is the other party, both engage with similar style. And USchick is the one suggesting a topic ban for Director? Objectionable. --Pudeo' 01:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

He blindly followed the other editor by not having his own opinion about the content as POV, FRINGE and SYNTH. To the point that no one was allowed to fix a math error except Producer. No one else can count? [140] Then he cried crocodile tears when he was exposed. Read through other people's comments please and feel free to nominate me for a topic ban as well if you feel it's warranted. USchick (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I don't think you should get a topic ban. I just think that the most disruptive process in this, if any, was discussion between you and Director. --Pudeo' 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I was stooping to his level in order to even have a discussion with him at all. I was reprimanded by an admin for doing that. Neither one of us took it personally and we continue to joke around about that. Like we do here for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)#Proposed sanctions USchick (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keep an eye on him, as Smeat said above: "probation". I'm sure he knows what's happened, and he has even evidenced disgust on the matter. Let him start fresh, and if problems arise, then action should be taken. At yet, I think he deserves the chance to make a fresh start. I think I can tell, personally, that he knows what happened, and how he got caught up in it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Note that an old version of his user page had the text: This user is not a racist, but does support James D. Watson's statement on racial scientific facts. This user does not believe scientific facts can be "improper", or "morally unacceptable" Agreeing with scientific racism or being a racist is not a reason to topic ban someone. But when they have a history of tendentious editing in articles based on racist sources, this is a good reason for a topic ban. I don't think we can trust this user to edit articles that are sensitive to race issues without POV pushing and other disruptive behaviors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I repeat the comment I made about the proposed ban on PRODUCER. The formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per User Jehochman (talk · contribs)'s prior warning to Director [141]: "I am alarmed by this edit [142]. You should never reference another editor's religion, race or nationality to challenge their edits or worse to suggest excluding them. This diff is ground to ban you from Wikipedia. Please remove it swiftly. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban for any content relating to Jews, Judaism and anti-semitism, user contributed to and supported the initial wildly anti-semitic article as documented by NebY above, then defended it at all costs. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TAGTEAM also seem relevant. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support because of the user having defended anti-semitic content for so long and so fiercely, that it's impossible to believe that there is no personal POV involved, even after the user claimed to have changed his mind. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Director's primary mistake was really a matter of WP:AGF, by trusting that the primary source was legitimate. Everything else was based on an attempt to enforce policy and find appropriate resources for the subject. And once the WP:BATTLEFIELD broke out, it's not unnatural to feel backed into a corner and have a few choice words. When the actual source of the work came out, Director apologized and agreed to deletion. That's not the action of an unreasonable editor, and I don't see anything to be gained by sanctioning him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per comment in section 1. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - He has apologized which is better than nothing, but anyway we should just keep on eye out for now. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no question the editor was disruptive on the article, but that in itself does not rise to the level of a topic or site ban. Most especially the latter. I choose to assume good faith that this editor is just passionate about the topic of Communism and has no interest in trying to legitimize antisemitic canards. I think many well intentioned supporters of this should rethink their support and try to put themselves in the position of having to defend something you believe is being wrongs associated with. I think we would all feel attacked. And even though the editor was wrong, they apologized when the origins of the article were revealed and reversed themselves. That should be good enough. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking a bit about how to assume good faith in this situation and what the consequences of that assumption are. IMO the bias in the article (primarily cherry-picking and weight) was so self-evident to a reasonable person that, assuming the editor was engaged in a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, the issues raised in COMPETENCE#Bias-based come into play. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Because Wikipedia errs on the side of assuming good faith, the chorus of people opposing a topic ban for Director will probably prevail. In any case, I encourage you to read User:MarkBernstein's essay on his user page. That someone would spend weeks, day in day out, aggressively defending Producer's anti-Semitic POV without recognizing it for what it is seems highly improbable. If you operate on the principle of "do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," then you're counting on people to mistake deviousness for contrition.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support six month site ban and subsequent topic banning for a period to be decided to community consensus. I find the editor's epithiny unconvincing. Irondome (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• oppose User has now realised the questionable sources involved and has apologised. Nothing to be gained by any ban/blocks. The agenda now appears to be driven by a group of editors using Foxmanesque smear tactics. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe when someone makes a full time job of defending blatantly racist content we ought to stop "assuming good faith" with this person. Maybe consider the possibility that they're a, I dunno, manipulative bigot with an agenda and their apology is probably not sincere. Maybe take a look at the Stormfront links posted to Jim Wales' talk page asking like-minded individuals to edit Wikipedia, consider the possibility that they're here, and think about the extent to which you want to allow them to subvert a process such as this one. --Atlantictire (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, long on fantasy..short on facts. Who knows, maybe they are even participating in a secret email campaign against Wikipedia to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception? As I said, Foxmanesque. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Except that it's not...

• [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t993499/ I just found out that you really are not free to edit Wikipedia pages]
• [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t225536/ Group of jews taking over Wikipedia]
• [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t187311/ Edit Wikipedia articles (or anything else on the Internet) anonymously!]
• [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t888431/ Wikipedia Founder Mocks "Neo-Nazis"]
• [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t273483/ HELP: Wikipedia EDIT Billy Bragg!]

... you get the idea.

Sorry, what are you implying here? Care to explain what you think this CAMERA project you linked to has to do with the current discussion?--Atlantictire (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As this is a section concerning User:Director I naturally assume that all your frothings are accusations against him personally. Have you evidence that those posts are by him? As for the link to CAMERA's attempts to subvert wikipedia, that was alluding to user:MarkBernsteins handwaving a few paras down. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear, 94.195.46.205 . Are you suggesting that user:MarkBernstein is in any way associated to CAMERA, or is WP:NOTHERE to benefit the project? What are you suggesting? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Along with agreeing with TFD about disruption and knowledge issues, I find remarks like [143] - really malevolent, nasty- and the POV complaint is 'projecting', in Jungian terms imo Sayerslle (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they only get handed a topic ban. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose Little actual evidence based on user behavior. Verycarefully (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC) -This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet-Smeat75 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• — Verycarefully (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).

• "This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 20:57, 15 May 2014 Timotheus Canens blocked Verycarefully with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled)" (Special:Contributions/Verycarefully) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2014 (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.

Additional discussion

First, I think you should be looking for feedback from uninvolved editors. Secondly, if you want to hear from the Wikipedia community, WP:AN/I is a better forum for this than WP:AN. You will also need to present diffs outlining specific acts of disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for ban proposals. ANI is for specific incidents. This proposal spans lots of incidents over a long period of time. USchick (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, it's patently obvious that Director and Producer need to be banned, and maybe not just from this article. But they're really symptoms of a bigger issue: how admins enforce the rules. Both Director and Producer are counting on admins who don't really investigate an issue before acting, and who become indignant at suggestions that they've made an ill-informed decision or acted defensively/impulsively.

I'd be in favor of a checklist of inquiries that ought to be made before punishing someone in response to a complaint. Maybe blocking shouldn't be at the discretion of just one admin.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Either is allowable (to be fair to both of you, the guidelines in the headers have a bit of an identity crisis, between the version on the viewable page and the one on edit page), but I daresay you'd get more involvement if this were on ANI. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note for admins: An in depth discussion of the behaviour of these two has already been discussed at a controversial afD page in which these two were VERY involved (and, in my opinion, overly controlling of). The discussion led to a near-consensus there calling for a topic ban to be made on Director and Producer/Potocnik. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary: Jews and Communism was adapted in late February 2014 by User:Potočnik, then known as Producer, from an article found on the site of a Holocaust denier. Producer and Director worked tirelessly and in concert to avoid changes to the article, almost invariably adopting a combative and threatening tone in Talk and edit comments. Despite its very evident problems, its rancid anti-Semitism, and the discussion at Jimbo, the article survived a March 2014 AfD as No Consensus. The article is again at AfD, where many thousands of words have been expended and where the article has attracted negligible support after the revelation of its roots. Director changed his position from Strong Keep to Delete; Potocnik has been silent.

The Problem: Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of volunteer hours have been spent, and tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of thousands of words have been written, in order to keep a vitriolically anti-Semitic attack page off Wikipedia, or at least to reduce the worst aspects of that page. This is a terrible waste. It is clear that two or three dedicated and sophisticated editors, working together and cooperating closely, can tie the project in knots. This page would have been terribly embarrassing to the project if it had received wider media attention but it was also a comparatively easy call; we may not be as lucky in the future. The community needs a forum to consider and address the problems this episode so clearly presents. There will always be anti-Semites and zealots and conspiracy theorists and fanatics eager to spread The Word and capable of "following the sources" to cram racism, anti-semitism, fringe science, and fanaticism into Wikipedia, and where just two or three are gathered together they are extremely difficult or impossible to oppose. We have strong policies against socks, but two or three coordinated ideologues can assume ownership of a page and do nearly anything provided they take care to cherry-pick sources and avoid concerted opposition. If Wikipedia does not address this problem, it will have no future. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, let's not panic here. Wikipedia does have processes for handling these situations, processes that have not even been exhausted in this case; ArbCom, for example, was never brought in on matters though I think a number of us anticipated it heading in that direction. For that matter, no manner of formal mediation was requested, though postings were made to ANI. It strikes me as a bit histrionic to prophesy the doom of the project over this scenario. You're of course more than welcome (encouraged even) to take any proposals or discussion about new guidelines to WP:Village Pump (policy), but I suspect you'll get mostly comments along the lines of what I have to say here -- that is to say, this situation is well-covered in existing policy and this situation became the chore that it did because those policies were not applied as elegantly as they could have been (venues that could have been explored weren't and administrator involvement was not what it could have been, both of which happen from time to time). Let's also remember that, meatpuppetry (for which we also have policies) aside, two or three editors working ardently against prevailing consensus is not in and of itself problem behaviour -- it's just the reality of Wikipedia and something we depend upon really. That said, clearly there was problematic behaviour involved here, but again, that can all be addressed through existing process (as is being done in this very thread for example), and it makes little sense to me to try to reinvent the wheel when only a portion of the possible solutions we have at our disposal have been tapped. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I personally think that article is appalling, as was the behavior of these two editors. During the brief time I was involved in that article, I was attacked by the two of them, and threatened by one. I didn't like some of the talk page comments I saw; I felt that some of them were ugly, raising, in one instance, the religious background of an editor in a gratuitous fashion. Even so, I'd like to see some diffs. Who did what. There is new evidence that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Whoever did the copying should be topic-banned. Whoever abetted that action, ditto. Other specific evidence of bad behavior should also be introduced. Similarly, I'm not sure the timing is correct, though I admit that it is easier to engage in this discussion now, while the article and its talk page still exist. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The demonstration of the original version's reliance on an article from the Institute for Historical Research is [144]. The talk page's numerous archives -- all since February 2014 -- speak for themselves, as does the outcry at AfD. I'm very concerned by the amount of volunteer time and energy this is requiring, with seemingly unbounded demands for further demonstrations of diffs, evidence, argumentation, surely to come. What is to be done? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of diffs listed in the ANI examples. For anyone interested, they can see them there. My concern is with the attitude of the two editors and their tag team effort to shut down any discussion on the talk page and block other editors from participating. This is also documented in the archived talk pages of Jews and Communism and Jewish Bolshevism. USchick (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It didn't require that much of a deep-dive into the evidence to see the justification for topic bans for both editors. See my comments above. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, can you elaborate? Was it producer or director that threatened you? Also, can you provide diffs to the talk page comments you speak of? My current opinion is that of a topic ban for Producer, and a 'temporary topic ban' for the likes of Director, but I could easily have their roles the wrong way around.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director. See the repeated "warnings" and threats to "report" me at [145], especially the "Please consider yourself formally warned" at 07:27, 27 April 2014. These are the kind of bullying tactics that I found especially dismaying from Director. I don't recall if they came from the other chap too, but to be frank I found their tactics interchangeable. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I could write an entire essay here about the highly inappropriate behavior of a large number of editors on that article, the flaming, the accusations of antisemitism, the incessant use of edit-warring as a substitute for discussion, the accusations of sockpuppetry, etc, etc.. But I won't. #1 because the article is being deleted and this is a dead issue, #2 because I just now went away on business and hace nothing but my phone, and #3 because I don't care, tbh. To single out Producer and me for sanctions, imo, defies all logic. The article did turn out to be based in part on some IHR essay - but nobody knew that at that time. I didn't; and the sources checked out. When the IHR thing was revealed, I immediately supported deletion and repeatedly apologized to everyone. If someone wishes to "take revenge" for my defending the article, fine, I won't offer any kind of detailed defense. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I respect that you may not have known but it is highly unlikely that the Producer, who created the article, did not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, I deeply appreciate your change of heart on the article. But the fact remains that the article that Producer created was, on its face, an act of anti-Semitic propaganda. One did not have to know chapter and verse or its precise origins to see that. But you dove right in and acted as his trusty right hand, Robin to his Batman, or perhaps the second Batman. I don't think that you should be punished. But I do think that you need to be separated from articles on this subject for the good of the project. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, and this is why we're here, it is not a dead issue. If indeed this article is deleted, as is entirely possible as it seems to be a WP:SNOW situation, I am sure Son of Jews and Communism will rear its ugly head in the blink of an eye. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, has it not occurred to you that the recurrent suggestion of antisemitism at work in the motives of those defending the content might be related to the fact that the content itself was perceived to be indicative of the type of synthesis of facts consistent with an antisemitic view, a fact that was borne out once we discovered the origins of the content? Other contributors saw that at once. You interpreted the content differently and did not detect that underlying motive at work. That's fine, and nobody expects every editor to catch something along those lines, and I for one take it on faith you were operating as to what you thought was the approrpiate approach to the content. But is unreasonable in this context to not understand the suspicion of others, when there was promotion of obviously antisemitic material at work and when you would like, presumably, for others to be understanding of your good faith support of that material. You may notice that, despite having considerable reservations about your behaviour on that article and it's talk page, I've gone out of my way to advise restraint in regards to sanctions against you, on the hope that your change of position reflects that you're capable of reforming your approach a little. But you're not helping the case for that approach when you don't own up to how you contributed to the mess that became of that situation. And here I'm not longer talking about the antisemitic issue at all, but rather your tendency to see everyone else as the problem and you as the besieged party. You went into full-on battle-mode on that page. You were unreceptive to opposing arguments and frequently uncivil, both in terms of denigrating your opposition's perspectives and, most especially, ignoring WP:AGF, the very principle to which you would now like to appeal, constantly. Having seen this situation play out many, many times on the noticeboards, I'm telling you that you have a very limited window here to get out ahead of things, but it requires owning up to your mistakes in full (that is, not just as regards being duped by material), and commiting to another approach. If editing on Wikipedia and in these areas is important to you, I'd do it fast, before the votes stack, even if your circumstances allow only a small message. Snow talk 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To justify a topic ban from 'Jews' and 'Communism' evidence needs to be presented of significant disruption in the topic area. One spat over a single contentious article is not enough to justify a topic ban from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruption spans across Jews and Communism, Jewish Bolshevism, and Leon Trotsky with many discussions about What is Communism, [146] Who killed the tzar [147], Who is a Jew [148]. I would say a broad range of topics has already been covered. USchick (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that, while Only in Death's perspective (that disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban) is valid personal position on what is appropriate here, it is not a bar which is required by policy or the block process itself; many topic bans have been instituted for editors whose contentious behaviour was linked to a particular inflexible perspective deemed likely to spill over into other articles. I will say though that OiD's point as to the breadth of topics that would be banned is worth taking under advisement; between those two topics, a significant number of articles would be barred to the editors. That's part of the reason I have reservations in Director's case. With regard to Producer, I dare say it's obvious his issues with NPOV on the Jewish people are problematic beyond repair. Director, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have come into conflict with other editors because of a devotion to the subject matter; rather that conflict stemmed from what he perceived as a matter of editing principle. His issues are more with general civility and the ability to collaborate harmoniously with other editor's and are not tied up with any one particular topic. Which makes a topic ban a dubious solution for dealing with him. I think what is called for in his case is outreach as regards general behaviour and, if that fails in the long-run, a more general sanction/block. Snow talk 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Precisely for this reason I nominated them separately, for individual consideration. Thank your for putting it so eloquently. USchick (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Snow, my opinion is practically a mirror of yours. I concur with Snow's stance on Director precisely. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything in Director's editing history that makes you believe that his future contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the risk episodes like this one pose to the project? Yes, Director was staunch in defending policy and standing by his sources -- but only his sources were permitted throughout the article's regrettable life. Only two days ago, he prepared a spirited defense of the page, stating that the entire nomination was deceitful: "Folks, you're being lied to regarding what the article is and what its about. The deletion rationale is an appeal to emotion, and is aimed to gather WP:VOTES on such a basis. Nothing in it is accurate nor factual…. Furthermore: such ridiculous accusations push forward a right-wing, practically Reaganite political agenda.[149]. I particularly draw attention to the dog-whistle allegation about vote-gathering, but more generally to the tone and incivility. This is not the language of an editor who is working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, the problem I have with the whole situation is that it IS largely unclear who did what. I'm not saying I agree with Director's ethic, but he has a right to say what he said on the afD discussion (no matter how mislead it may be) - we can't punish him in that regard. It's his opinion, and it may be blunt, but it isn't so far as being a personal attack. If you were to provide diffs and references proving that only his sources were permitted through the article's agreeably regrettable life, my opinion could easily sway.. but from an NPOV, I don't think we can judge his behaviour unless more raw proof is provided. Then again, if Director had been making these edits behind an IP rather than a fancy account, he may well already have been banned entirely by now.. all in all, I just don't want to judge pre-emptively.Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And, much as I like to avoid using an essay in circumstances where a very fine policy determination needs to be made, it's rather hard to imagine a situation to which WP:Rope would better apply. I'll be clear on this -- I stuck to the ANI discussion and avoided the talk page and even a firm position in the AfD outside of behavioural arguments until the eleventh hour for the very specific reason that I was more concerned with the constant breaks with general civility than anything else and I anticipated that an uninvolved editor would be required to take the matter before another administrator or even ArbCom. I fully expected to have to take that action within a few days. Director's reversal in the AfD backed me away from that perspective, ever so slightly -- just enough that I felt it warranted to give him another opportunity to digest the situation and learn better of boring full steam ahead, deflecting the concerns of large numbers of editors and viewing such contributors as obstinate obstacles rather than collaborators with whom he must work. I am not in any way yet convinced he has taken that lesson to heart, but I think policy and the circumstances compel us to give him one very limited opportunity to prove that he can before we condemn him outright. If he can't do that, then the topic ban proposed here in insufficient and not well-targeted at his style of disruption, and a general block of at least six months to a year, if not indefinite, is what I would view as the recommendable course of action, though course, if it comes to that, the exact sanction will be at the discretion of the reviewing admin or committee. Snow talk 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All I saw was "sources - reliable - attacked - defend!", and by an editor I've known for years to be highly careful about sourcing and very neutral in his approach (not just me either, see Peacemaker's input) - and the topic was one that could only be expected to draw emotional reaponses no matter how reliable and thorough the sourcing. There really was no evidence for SYNTH, or any kind of serious wrongdoing - until months have past and some really impressive detective work uncovered the collection of sources to have been those cherry-picked by a racist essay. At that point I actually felt physically ill, not only at discovering the source, but also at having wasted so much effort at being so utterly wrong. I had previously said I'd move for deletion myself if something like that turned out to be the case (I checked the sources, found them to be reliable, and was confident), so when it did turn out that way, I did a 180.

I still think I acted correctly given the information I had, but I nevertheless apologize for the sheer gravity of the error. I am always annoyed, perhaps to an undue degree, by arguments that I perceive to be borne out of prejudice or bias, hence my strong defense of the sources. It felt weird to me to, but ignoring my gut and going with cold principles, following protocol, its a big part of what I do in real life. And for that I don't apologize, that's how science works, that's how medicine works, that's how Wiki works.

At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as "disruption". I shall not grovel, nor will I now attack my fellow Wikipedian of many years, regardless of what he put me (and others) through. I find kicking one when he's down distasteful, regardless of whether he deserves to be down. -- Director (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you like to present yourself as a scientific kind of guy. But then you let slip something like this: IZAK is a religious Jewish person with an agenda to disassociate Jews and Communism to the best of his POV-pushing ability. That's a fact. He should leave. Yeah, I know, you deleted it, you hoped people would forget you ever said it. But you did, and I have to tell you frankly that your entire approach seemed to reflect the kind of viewpoint that is reflected there. I.e., that your "opponents" were "religious Jews" and "emotional" and ought to get the hell out of the article. That's not what you said, except in this instance, but it was your attitude. It's not a very nice viewpoint, and in fact, I think it's downright ugly. Scientific? A product of "cold principles"? Eh, not exactly. I would feel a lot better if you were a little bit more upfront about your actual attitudes. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yah. If you're a member of a group, any group, and if you're religious, you're likely to be offended by your group being connected to Communism - completely regardless of whether that's actually warranted or not. That's an objective fact, "scientific", if you will. And the comment was posted in light of yet another of IZAK's edit wars to introduce changes without consensus, or even proper talkpage discussion. Introducing lists of his favorite religious leaders and whatnot. I said he should leave because he just stopped discussing and simply reverted to edit war. Religious bias is not new as a problem this project has to face. Note also that I have not infrequently called out my own countrymen for nationalist bias when I see it blatantly raise its ugly head. The lesson there is: "science" (or rather objective observations) by no means need be pretty. -- Director (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, editing on Wikipedia requires more than just a nominal dislike of bias; it requires genuine patience with views you don't ascribe much value to. This need for tolerance of opposing perspectives is not just a matter of maintaining civility and keeping discussions from blowing up as they did in this case, though that role is crucial to our work here; it's also useful because sometimes you're really, really sure that you right about something...when in fact you aren't. You've just described the sources that informed upon the article as "cherry-picked" - that is in fact the precise argument that a number of involved editors used to call the article into question, suggesting that selective sourcing of trivial facts were being used to formulate a notion not supported by legitimate sourcing on the topic. High as your regard is for your approach as scientific, your empirical nose failed to detect the odor rising from these claims, whereas some of your fellow editors did sense it, many of whom you actively derided for the position. So it doesn't really serve to excuse your excesses in terms of defense against bias, especially given the level of virulence involved, when it seems that you were applying the most bias yourself, albeit partially as a result of an exercise in trust.

I come from a background in science myself, and I know of no academic or research institution, not any organization devoted to a genuinely "scientific" approach to tackling problems, that would have allowed you to try to make your arguments the way that you did in this case -- that is, in such an obstinate and uncivil manner; those kinds of attitudes are viewed very dimly in scientific literature, in lecture halls, at conferences, in debates, and anywhere else where scientific consensus is typically formulated. I wish I could say such attitudes and personal arrogance were absent entirely from the process of contemporary scientific process -- they certainly aren't -- but they aren't typically tolerated as appropriate to public discourse at least. And, thankfully, neither are they welcome on Wikipedia. Anybody can state that they have depersonalized "scientific" way of approaching problems, but the mere proclamation doesn't necessarily make them a particularly good standard-bearers for those ideals in reality, and I've often observed that those who make such announcements outside of context of actual science often have the most tenuous grasp of such notions.

And on the topic of empirical validation, I don't really have enough prior experience with you to know if this is an isolated incident or typical of your approach to discussion, but I do think that your perspective as voiced here...

"At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as 'disruption'."

...is really at the crux of the matter. You should be writing every single posting in a Wikipedia discussion, every last one, so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude. Because if it's rude when you're in the wrong about the matter being discussed, it's almost certainly still rude if you're in the right; rudeness is not really directly correlated to the strength of your factual or policy argument -- it's about respect and how you make your argument. And if your comments aren't composed to avoid incivility, regardless of the strength of your positions, the behaviour is disruptive, by default. It's not really my place to lecture you sanctimoniously as to what lesson you should learn here, but if there is one I would hope you should learn from this fiasco, it's that. I certainly can't think of a better general piece of advice to give any contributor. Snow talk 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd put it this way. I find that Director's continued ignorance of the ugliness and unacceptable character of his words, his utter absence of respect for other editors, his judging of them on the basis of their religion, his stratospheric arrogance, to be nothing less than chilling. I must say that I am starting to have a lot of trouble accepting the sincerity of his mea culpa. It strikes me as being purely expedient and not in any way reassuring that he won't "objectively" decide someday to go on the offensive in an article like this again. Coretheapple (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, only time will tell. Snow talk 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@"You should be writing every single posting in a Wikipedia discussion, every last one, so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude." - That would be the ideal, and I did apologize for the conduct you refer to. However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light.

@Coretheapple, I think I have explained exactly and honestly what I'm sorry for, and what I'm not. I don't see what there is for you to speculate about. I'm not sorry for calling on an edit warrior to spare us his disruption, or to stop pushing a POV. You can perceive that as whatever you like, I can't alter your preconceptions. What I am sorry for is wherever I was unduly zealous in defending the cherry-picked sources, as well as for the error itself. -- Director (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of "sorry" as much as it is one of whether there will be problems in the future. As I keep saying, the aim of a topic ban is preventive, not punitive. I think your declaration on your talk page [150] and above [151] that you're "self-banning" from topics relating to Jews is a positive step. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much said so from the start.. Didn't I say I had no intention of restarting all this? -- Director (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Spat" - seriously? You're characterising antisemitism as "a quarrel about an unimportant matter"? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Two editors who edited wikipedia for many years are faced with very serious accusations for travelling circus and all kind of disruptive behavior. Editors who made such accusations (and maybe administrator (Jehochman) who indeffed them) should present evidence (in form of diffs) for their accusations within reasonable period of time.
  1. I agree with opinion that "disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban". That is why it would be good, if accusations would be proven, to check if there are more members of their travelling circus (this should not be difficult because there are efficient tools for interaction analysis) and to define what topic areas they covered. Based on this it would be possible to determine who should be banned and from what topic areas.
  2. If accusations remain unjustified within reasonable period of time, something should be done to prevent unjustified accusations against those two editors in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional examples:

• In this lively debate [152] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion.
• In a discussion about Secret Police there was a math error. [153] Director claimed that no one was allowed to make any edits until Producer showed up. Like no one else can count?
• Atlantictire was blocked over a dispute that was content related. And then he lost it. I tried to console him and Producer took me to ANI over this statement on his talk page [154]. I don't know how to find the ANI discussion. Really, there are plenty of diffs linked in this discussion already if anyone is interested in following them. USchick (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Trotsky poster discussion [155] went to ANI [156] and showed up again in an unrelated article. [157].

Director had a right to disagree with the AfD nomination, but he did not have a right to call it a lie. It was not. He did not have a right to claim that nothing in the nomination was accurate or factual; that claim was untrue. He did not have a right to call them ridiculous, or to characterize them as a right-wing; that's both untrue and a personal attack. Read the whole sorry talk page -- it's only two or three months, and you can read it all in a few hours. Director and Producer are counting on you not to bother. They can and will issue, just as they have repeatedly issued, personal attacks without sanction against any and all editors trying to improve their articles, and it seems people will continue to ask for more evidence and more WP:ROPE. Please turn out the lights when you leave, OK? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ROPE can be better applied in case of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If your accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally believe such a cabal of editors exists. Frankly, I think that the collaboration between Director and Producer alone has been overemphasized, a determination I make from my own observations of the present article as well as procedural discussion of their past behaviours. An SPI failed to find an geolocative link between them, and though this does not rule out meatpuppetry, neither have we firm evidence along these lines that I have been able to turn up. There's also this discussion, in which the link is explored and users DeCausa and TParis imply that the two have frequently been at eachother's throats in other discussions pertaining to Eastern European articles. There were past issues referenced by FkpCascais concerning Director and Producer in this discussion on Jimbo's page, surrounding a past discussion surrounding Chetniks and collaborative behaviour between the two, but he references no other parties and I never dug up the discussion to observe the nature of their interaction there.. I don't know what to make of the ultimate likelihood that meatpuppetry is at work here. I rather get the feeling that what we are talking about is two very tenacious and combative editors who work in similar areas and that sometimes butt heads, but when their interests converge, they have no qualms with combining their considerably dogged (and frequently vitriolic) efforts to try to tear down any dissent to their preferred approach. They could be collaborating off-wiki, or these combined efforts could be the result of entirely incidental cross over in interests, but I think their motives at the very least could be said to be very different in most cases. In any event, I don't think a link needs to be established to prove that their behaviour has been collectively disruptive and generally inappropriate, but their violations of policy are not identical in form or context, so I'm doubtful of the "traveling circus" hypothesis or that it can inform significantly on how to deal with them. Snow talk 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Many, maybe most, of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans I have never seen at AN befroe, which worries me. How did they get here? Were they canvassed? Was the canvassing of all' participants in the various discussions, or only those on one side? If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court? BMK (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The only place this discussion was announced is here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)#Proposed sanctions. Everyone commenting was personally involved in some way. USchick (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that almost everyone -- or let's says a large percentage of everyone -- who has commented here is on the opposite side of the issue from Producer and Direktor. yes? Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic? BMK (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To make matters worse, they are proposed for topic ban from Jews and Communism although the most important point at related AfD was that it is wrong to connect Jews and Communism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors. USchick (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I had no association with Director or Producer before the AfD. Most people who have voted thus far first met the likes of Director and Producer at the AfD page, with a few exceptions. After making judgement there, as seen on the AfD page, we decided the best thing to do next was to pursue a topic ban. No "personal biases" against Producer nor Director existed for the vast majority of us, as most of us (I'd think) stumbled upon this whole fiasco via the Articles for Deletion page.. our initial judgement was made there and then was carried here. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, but I see a lot of personal animosity and groupthink in your statement above ("the likes of...", "we decided", "our initial judgment"). I agree with Liz that we need the opinions of uninvolved editors in this matter. BMK (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

By "we", and "our", I meant those who came here from the AfD page by the means of consensus, not the entire group, although I do recognize your point.. from your perspective it's understandable. As you can see by the intense debate above, there isn't really any 'groupthink' amongst those who came here from AfD. I'm relatively uninvolved in the whole fiasco, and in fact I came in to contribute to the AfD as someone who was precisely that; uninvolved. Obviously, it would be better for more uninvolved users to come and contribute.. but just because a user has contributed to a discussion on an AfD page doesn't render them illegitimate in the regard of offering their opinion about related topic bans.. my choice of the word "we" held the meaning of "those who came from the AfD page", not "We, the group of collaborators". Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Animosities are not valid arguments for a ban. Not all editors here agree about the ban. At least not such widely defined, unless evidence is presented about members of the circus and all topic areas they covered. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, "the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are" certainly not "those who strongly disagree with them on that topic". That's not how Wikipedia works and I suspect everyone here knows that - yourself included. NebY (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you be clearer? BMK (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try. You asked "If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court?" and "Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic?" I'm answering that your premise is wrong: the editors who are making a case for bans or other measures know full well that they will not get to decide, that they will not have the opportunity to be the judges in a kangaroo court. They are making a case - or rather several cases, as usual - and discussing the matter. This is normal, this is how the process works. You've been around a long time and I think I've seen you participating in ban discussions before, so you know this already. Or am I wrong? NebY (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Ah - I see I was. One editor didn't quite grasp the need for uninvolved editors to participate. Sorry. NebY (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What bothers me is that Director emphatically stated that the article was neutral and impugned the motives of editors who said it was anti-Semitic. Even now he suggests that there was no way of knowing this without seeing the comparison with the IHR article, and that editors who recognized this weakness in the article before the comparison was presented were acting in bad faith. He stubbornly defended the article instead of doing basic research to see whether this presentation was consistent with academic literature. I commend him for finally backing down in the second AfD.

But I think a break from this topic is in order. If any editors plan to revisit the topic and create new articles, I think his participation would continue to be disruptive. Furthermore, he has no particular expertise in the area and has not done any in-depth research. His participation was mostly fighting to maintain the status quo in the article.

TFD (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused - what is being asked for here, a topic ban from the intersection of the subjects "Jews" and "Communism", i.e. everything to do with the relationship between Jews and Communism; or a ban from the combination of those two subjects, i.e. everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism? BMK (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Both subjects. Everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism. As stated in the original proposal. USchick (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't submit the report, but I think a topic ban for Judaism is more appropriate than Judaism and Communism, due to the main issue being the promotion of antisemitic views on the website --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that antisemitism is a problem in this case. Just like not everyone here agrees on the topic of Jews and Communism. However, everyone agrees that Director and Producer should be banned form these topics (Director to a lesser extent). USchick (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Everyone agrees" - So, you're ignoring the one oppose !vote? BMK (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The one "oppose" vote is a non involved party. As the nominator, i specifically asked for involved parties on both sides of the Jewish/Communist argument (yes there are both sides) to comment. Maybe that's the wrong approach? Maybe only non involved parties should comment? The problem with that, is Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation. Some people have been banned and are not here. My intention is to see if there is any community consensus for a topic ban and to do it while the evidence is still here. (Pending AfD) What's funny, is that early on, people were worried that no one would find this discussion to participate in it. USchick (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you've just proved me wrong - I told BMK everyone here seemed to understand the process. Everyone can comment but no decision to ban will be made without the participation of uninvolved members of the community. NebY (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Non involved members voted here as well. But the one "oppose" vote is from a non involved party. To see who is involved or not is very easy. Anyone not voting on the AfD is not involved in any way. Here's a link of people voting in the AfD [158] USchick (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be massively oversimplifying if I said that the closing administrator will look for consensus among the uninvolved editors and ignore the involved ones. But you might do well to continue as if that was true. NebY (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I made the nomination, but I honestly didn't expect this much support. I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do. USchick (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a number of editors who responded to the AfD had no previous involvement in the article or the caustic situation on its talk page. Still others came to be involved through the ANI postings and did not contribute opinions to the content of the article itself so much as the behaviour of certain parties already operating there. A look at the talk page suggests that involvement in the discussion here does not seem to rely exclusively upon those who were already in conflict over the article, though of course those parties are welcome to have their say and their knowledge of specific incidents of disruption is necessary to make heads or tails of this situation. Snow talk 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that with a topic ban discussion which appears, from the nominator's comments here, to have been set up in a deliberately partisan fashion, it's likely that the closing admin will note the lack of !votes from uninvolved editors and close it without action -- especially when there's a distinct lack of evidence presented. BMK (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate. Instructions at WP:TBAN don't explain that only non involved editors are allowed to comment. No where does it say how to nominate someone for a topic ban or what will be considered, only that it takes community consensus. So basically, you have to be an experienced admin to understand the process. Producer and Director are allowed to get away with terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies. I don't know how many more diffs I could possibly provide as examples because no one seems to care about the examples already provided. I hope admins will consider the volumes already written in previous ANI complaints and the time required to babysit these 2 editors on complaint boards, not to mention wasted electricity by the combined effort of all involved. This is a recurring complaint, and if I knew how to link to all the other similar complaints, I would, but seriously, unlike the 2 editors nominated, who have lots and lots of Wikipedia edits, I have a life. Unless questions are directed at me personally, I don't plan to contribute anything else to this discussion. I trust that the Wikipedia community will do the right thing, whatever you decide that to be. I hope by bringing this to light, enough people are aware now of the Producer/Director duo. Save this link, because someone will want to link to it again in the near future. USchick (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Some of the complaints can't be found because they happened at The Jewish Bolshevism article which has since been deleted along with the edit history. This is why this nomination is taking place now, before the AfD for Jews and Communism is finished. USchick (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that in my decade on Wikipedia, I've rarely or never seen any discussion which was primarily lead by "uninvolved" editors, at least not if one uses such a narrow definition of "involved" as "voted a particular way on deletion of an article". I've been at the article in question since April 28th, in response to an ANI discussion asking for more eyes back then. I've seen Director (mostly) and Producer (a little) in action, and that enables me to have an informed opinion about their behaviour in this topic. Does that make me "involved" or merely "informed"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the nom's original posting may not have made the case it might have, lacking diffs, but there are now dozens of diffs and links to discussions above which supply a pretty cohesive picture of the behaviours being weighed here; I'd say there's as much evidence as you're ever likely to find for such a proposal, whatever one's disposition to that evidence. Mind you, I'm one of the few editors who has commented so far who doesn't feel that the case is an open-and-shut one for both editors, but even I don't contest that the behaviours of both have been disruptive in the extreme -- one need only look at the one talk page to establish that much. I'm simply uncertain as to whether the solution being proposed here is the ideal one under the circumstances. With regard to Producer, my hesitation hinges on the fact that I have not seen the side-by-side of the source which the article was apparently lifted from and the article itself, but if blatant plagiarism is involved (from an antisemitic fringe source, no less) then it's unlikely the responding administrator will find reason to stop and count !votes as they aren't particularly necessary or relevant in that context. Director is a more nuanced case, and though I would have preferred to have waited to see whether he would continue to operate in the same manner as he has before launching such a discussion as this with regard to him, it's hard to fault those who wanted to curtail his combative behaviour.

In any event, I must, with respect, also disagree with your characterization that there is a dearth of uninvolved editors voting, as a number of those who have commented here were not involved in any form of content dispute with either editor, and commented here seemingly as a result of coming to a dim view, through the prism of one of the ANIs or AfDs, of the pair's tactics. Editors who were not involved in said content disputes, or who gave only an opinion within the narrow context of the most recent AfD without having had any opportunity to come into conflict with either party, can generally be said to be about as uninvolved as anyone who came across this matter just by checking the noticeboards. Administrators operating in this venue are familiar enough with this song and dance to know how to review the pertinent discussions in enough detail to see which editors have a truly neutral disposition to the matter, and which might have been biased by the ongoing arguments surrounding the article, and weight their perspectives accordingly in determining the broader consensus. Unless unduly influenced by our very conversation here on the matter, this is not an example of a situation where I anticipate the responding editor would be likely to dismiss the concerns raised as not backed by sufficient neutral voices or as generally lacking in evidence. I still don't favour a topic ban for Director at this time, not under the circumstances, but at the same time, I hope your concerns as to the prospect of a non-committal close prove unfounded, as process has already failed to arrest this situation at several points where it might have and I am concerned the situation will only renew itself without some form of finding, whatever the sanctions or lack there-of. Snow talk 06:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I find the call for involved editors to reach a determination on this strange and unusual. A TBAN needs to be determined by the community at large whether involved or univolved. Sure, AN discussions are typically led by the involved, but that's something different. I tend to agree with BMK that it sounds like a partisan call to their enemies at the AfD. I doubt it's so bad that it invalidates the apparent consensus - most likely, in this case, uninvolved would have appeared here as much if the involved call had not been made - but, IMO, any closing admin should make it clear it was incorrect to launch the discussion in that way. DeCausa (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am highly suspicious given I have looked over the diffs that have been presented as evidence. At the worst they consist of multiple people edit-warring to add/remove reliably-sourced information. The repeated bandying about of that ridiculous indef block is certainly interesting given the strong consensus it was ill-thought out in the first place (see why it was removed), but also in the sheer amount of editing that went on while it was in place. Unsurprisingly more than a few of the support voters above are represented there. A good sign of tendentious editing is seeing what happens when one party to a dispute is unable to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to think the same. I've just been looking through many of the diffs, having not been involved before, and a big "so what?" is growing in my mind. I've had tangles with Direktor before (not on this) and yes he can be dogmatic and a pain in the rear sometimes, but frankly in the diffs presented I'm seeing similar from his opponents. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A few points. I am uninvolved in this case, but have edited alongside both editors for over two years in the Yugoslavia in WWII space. They are neither socks nor meat, they regularly disagree, sometimes vehemently (as do I with them on occasion). I recently watchlisted PRODUCER's talk page because I had left a comment there about an unrelated issue, and that is how I come to be here. I have made a comment above on my view about the scope of the proposed bans. IMO there is insufficient basis for a ban on the topic of communism, regardless of the success or otherwise of a push for a ban on the subject of Jews. This is a similar concern to that expressed by Drowninginlimbo above.

• I note that Antidiskriminator pops in now and again to try to get some interest in other areas that these editors edit in the apparent hope of expanding any bans to other topics and other editors. So far, unsuccessfully, although I note that he has now opposed a ban unless his "travelling circus" allegation is properly explored. All I will say is that this is a blatant attempt to "pile on" and stick the boot in to two editors he has sparred with over a number of years, and the attempt does not paint him in a good light. His allusions to a "travelling circus" is an allegation he has made in the past when disputes have arisen. He has significant history with both editors, and his comments about them should be assessed with that in mind.
• I have edited alongside both of these editors in the Yugoslavia in WWII space, and while I occasionally find Director's approach to certain matters frustrating, I have found PRODUCER and Director to be meticulous about using reliable sources, and was very surprised to read the allegation that PRODUCER had used an unreliable source and that Director had defended it (at least until he became aware of its origin).
• PRODUCER and I have collaborated on several FAs and MILHIST A-Class articles, and he has always been a stickler for reliable sources in what is also a controversial area.
• I agree with many of the comments made by Liz, Snow Rise, Flipandflopped, DeCausa and BMK, and urge caution here. I will observe that USchick comes across (rightly or wrongly) as harbouring quite a bit of personal animosity, despite saying that "I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do". Descriptions like "terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies", "Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation" and "Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors". There is a level of personal attack that I consider unwarranted, and it was continued with dubious accusations about Director's apparent admiration for Watson and "scientific racism".
• I am also very concerned that the only place this ban proposal was advertised (by the nominator, I understand) was on the talk page of the article about which the dispute arose. This was problematic, because it drew editors that were already involved, with the fairly predictable result above. There do not seem to be many really uninvolved editors here, to me at least. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that last bullet point - and have struck my comment that the call for "involved editors" wouldn't affect the outcome. The avalanche of "supports" is, I think, the grinding of axe's from that article talk page. (Btw, I too have seen Producer and Direktor squabble - I assumed that sock/meat allegation had been burried. If not, it is ridiculous to anyone who's been around Eastern european articles for the last few years.) DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That comes close to dismissing everyone who's contributed to the article or discussions on it as axe-grinders, bearers of long-standing grudges and the like. I only came to the article a week ago and the last time I looked at contribution histories I was struck by how many had also arrived quite recently - long after the first AfD and the ANI discussions and so on. Again without running checks with wikitools, I think I've never interacted with Director or Producer before and I suspect that's true of others here. (I had seen the names on the drama-boards before, true, and had a vague impression that they often squabbled.) NebY (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to long-standing grudges (although that may be present in some cases) but to the preponderance of opponents of Direktor and Producer on the article talk page appearing here and the lack of signifificant univolved comment, until recently. In other words, the axe to be ground originated at that article. That's not to say that every post in support is grinding an axe, but, taken overall, this AN thread supposedly about behaviour is largely (but not entirely) a mirror of the content dispute with the content majority on one side and the content minority (a very small minority) on the other. There are editors within the content majority whose behaviour at the article talk page is at least as problematic as the content minority's behaviour, but there appears no interest in holding that up to scrutiny. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that Director expressed below far more succinctly what I meant by axe grinding: "The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute". DeCausa (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that USchick's involvement is problematic. One of the relatively few diffs prsented by them is this: "In this lively debate [159] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion." But I would characterise that diff as Direktor rightly ddismissing an off-point and tendentious response to him by USchick. In fact, much of the disruption around this article seems to be generated by USchicj - see this. DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, Thank you for pointing to the collaboration between you, Director and Potočnik in ARBMAC topic area which paint all of you in a good light. You somehow overlooked to say that you were blocked at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (link to your block log). Three of you are top three active contributors of this article (link) whose title remained unchanged because three of you opposed on the talkpage, where you and Director alone made 1649 comments.link. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is barely worth responding to. All I will point out is that Antidiskriminator was ARBMAC-banned from an article for tendentious and disruptive editing. He comes here with unclean hands, and should be pointedly ignored in this case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute. If the community wishes to impose sanctions I would appreciate it if the decision was made by uninvolved editors, objectively evaluating the exchanges in question - not a collection of biased, angry editors quite possibly out for revenge after my having dared to oppose their positions on an article talkpage.

If the community considers user conduct on that article worthy of review, then I suggest the whole mess be brought before ArbCom for an objective overall assessment of everyone's conduct, rather than singling anyone out like this. -- Director (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have some support for this notion. There's no guarantee they will take the case, but if they did, there'd be some genuine resolution. You should bear in mind though, Director, there is an outside chance this approach could end with more significant actions than just a topic ban. As an observer to that page, I'll be blunt with you -- you didn't come off well, especially in the civility department -- to my assessment anyway. Utilizing this solution may serve to spread the blame around a little, but if it's pure vindication you are looking for, I think you're likely to be disappointed. Right now, in the present discussion, a lot of energy is being wasted on the debate concerning whether the fight to introduce and maintain antisemitic material disqualifies you and Producer from contributing in certain related areas. ArbCom is unlikely to be distracted for long by such red herrings; they'll focus very quickly on the substantive policy matters, and I should be not at all surprised if WP:Civility becomes the chief issue in that discussion, whereas it has been severely underrepresented so far in discussions about what went wrong on that talk page. That being said, you will at least be afforded every opportunity to defend your position on equal footing with your detractors. In that respect, I think it may be the best way forward for all parties. Snow talk 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I said "if". I don't care about "spreading the blame", I just care that we do this fairly, objectivity is kind of "my thing". I don't care if I'm the only one who gets sanctioned, but I don't want it to happen because biased users with a specific interest gathered and posted a lot of "Support" votes. Input by new, uninvolved editors should be what matters here. The term "kangaroo court" does come to mind. -- Director (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel I need to state a few things: This pdf that is being persistently pushed is by some individual named "Valdas Anelauskas" and titled "Zionism and Russia" and readily available on Archive.org alongside thousands of other works by various authors. In any event I did not know that reliable sources are absolutely off limits if they've happened to have been quoted elsewhere by less reputable sources. For what it's worth my interest on the subject was piqued by Stanford University's "Jews and Communism" publication (hence the article name), later Slezkine, and more later by other sources. All that being said this article and this area of Wikipedia has put out such a toxic environment with its nonstop drama that, regardless of the outcome above, I'm willfully barring myself from editing in it ever again. I had been contemplating retiring from Wikipedia for a while now even prior to this whole ordeal and have chosen to follow through with it and do so. Therefore I am retiring indefinitely and am ceasing all further editing on any portion of Wikipedia. This my final and only comment on the matter and on Wikipedia. --Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that is sad, because en WP has lost a productive editor who contributed to featured content of which en WP should be proud. Editors bringing such matters to this or similar fora should remember that throwing a WP:BOOMERANG can result in your being hit in the back of the head when you least expect it. Some of the above has not been done in good faith, but in pursuit of personal agendas. This discussion has only included a very narrow and largely involved slice of the en WP community, and this should be taken into account by closing administrators. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean Valdas Anelauskas, member of the white nationalist Pacifica Forum? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If we can hold Producer/Potočnik to his self imposed exile, I think that in itself will make many people very happy. No further action will be necessary. USchick (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't care about the exile either way, I still think the user should receive a topic ban for Judaism to prevent them spreading further ideas about the Jewish people at their discretion. It would otherwise be a good thing if they were able to edit other parts of the website. I think the very least administrators should do is show initiative and prevent the potential circulation of further anti-Semitic propaganda on the website? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That's true. A person who retires can unretire. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I still fail to see the supposed "animosity" that Peacemaker67 and Antidiskriminator speak of. Where has any any one on here expressed any strong hostility towards director? Just because I have an editing history on the afD page for Jews and Communism, one of the several articles in question, my opinion becomes invalid? My first direct interaction with Director happened after the creation of this topic ban proposal, so how could I have had a "vendetta" against Director? In fact, at this point, I don't even agree with the nominator in regard to giving Director a topic ban, only Potocnik. The notion that an editor has to be entirely clueless of a situation when he joins the discussion associated with it in order to have a valued opinion makes no sense. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there clearly isn't all that much animosity toward Director because, at the moment, a plurality of people oppose his topic ban. He has definitely won over a lot of people by his apology, and that is how it should be. The question is whether a topic ban is needed to prevent further damage to the project, not whether he needs to be dragged to the town square and horsewhipped. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is some animosity, especially between Atlanticire and Director, but not enough to render the entire topic ban irrelevant, or to render the opinions of everyone who contributed to the afD page irrelevant (as some people above have suggested). My opinion on Director has been that I'm incapable of judging him because no one is on the same page as to what it is he actually did, but to me it's clear that Potocnik/Producer is incapable of editing Judaism related articles from a NPOV. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

To User Potocnik @ 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) above. Sorry to see you go. Somehow I suspect it is just a case of a "broken-wing defense". Time will tell. You know, whenever I see you or Director edit or opine during this entire laborious labyrinthine byzantine Jews & Communism discussion, the words of an English poet I studied many decades ago come to mind:

"...A truth that’s told with bad intent

Beats all the Lies you can invent.

It is right it should be so;

Man was made for Joy and Woe;

And when this we rightly know

Thro’ the World we safely go..." (From William Blake's "To See a World..."[160]).

Based on the unyielding ongoing self-righteous defenses you and Director offer up all the time, evidently you fail to grasp the profound import and implications of what the words "...A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the Lies you can invent!" mean. If you would, or could, then none of this horrendous and divisive debate would be necessary as the discussion would stop being one of "chalk and cheese" as the two of you try making it all about "sources" when the real problem is one of the core underlying negative and malicious intent of the way it's set up that comes across based on its presentation and your torrid defenses of what is ultimately indefensible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Good point on a "broken-wing defense".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Systemic failure to provide oversight in this case

The article "Jews and Communism" was created, as we know now, using material from an extremist anti-Semitic website as a source without attribution. Two days after its creation, it was nominated for deletion but the result was "no consensus"[161]. I find it disturbing that closing admin RoySmith says in his closure that one of the charges against the article is that it is "Attack page (anti-semetic)" but does not address that in his remarks, saying "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism?" and the answer is that there is no consensus, so he allowed this very clearly anti-Semitic attack page to continue to be promulgated on this site. Then there was a deletion review, closed by Sandstein as "no consensus" [162], again, the very clear anti-Semitic content did not seem to be disturbing any admins or oversighters on this site. A long AN/I started by Director [[163] with the stated aim of removing "those folks who hang around being disruptive obstructions" from the article and which developed into a discussion of his behaviour, was eventually closed by v/r as "no consensus". "No consensus, no consensus, no consensus, not to become an anti-Semitic website, go away and leave us alone, and don't edit war or call each other names or you will be expelled from school for a day or two." I must say I was very disappointed that Jimbo Wales, in the discussion on his talk page, said he would look at the article and give his opinion, but he never did, and the discussion was archived with no further comment from him [164]. All this did attract the attention of two admins who honourably did try to intervene and improved things a little,Jehochman and Stephan Schulz, but what were all the rest of you doing? Another AN/I I started about edit-warring [[165] was also just ignored by admins for days and days until it was closed by Spike Wilbury as, guess what, "no consensus" [166], but at least he did then step into the article talk page and try to do something. Maybe because I know a little about early 20th century Russia, that stuff in the article about Jews killing the Tsar immediately indicated to me that this was as clearly pushing extreme anti-Semitism as if there were an article on WP about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" saying that it shows a Jewish plot to take over the world. I said so over and over but no one in authority seemed to take any notice, you would have hoped that someone might have looked into it. I am the person who found the connection between the article on the white supremacist website and the original WP article, and it really wasn't that hard,all I had to do was google the quote about "Jewish violins" killing the Tsar and there it was. All these bureaucratic procedures, lists of rules, blah blah blah, should not have prevented somebody doing something to remove poisonous racist crap from this website but the people who could have done that seem to be timid and afraid of doing anything and wait for someone else to deal with it or for it to "go to ArbCom", oh yes, spend five months collecting "evidence" and going through infinite quasi-legal hoops. The article is still onsite, though at least without the horrible "Jews killed the Tsar" stuff. Please excuse the rant, I needed to get that off my chest, it can be hatted if someone wants to do that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 identifies the central issue in this matter: Can Wikipedia resist concerted efforts to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception? In the time from February through May 2014, it signally failed to do so. The virulent anti-Semitism of the original article should have been evident to all, and much of it persists to this day despite the efforts of literally dozens of editors and the investment of hundreds of hours. The attention of administrators, and indeed of Wikimedia board members, should have been focused by the original AfD, the Jimbo discussion, the two long, long threads at AN/I, and plenty of direct correspondence.

This was not an obscure or difficult issue requiring expertise, some dispute about mathematical series or the best name for some forgotten Balkan outpost. The article was filled with evident canards -- and it linked to a fairly extensive Wikipedia article filling in the historical background on the smear! We have the whole cast: the ugly Jews, the Jews in banking and finance, the secretive Jews, the Jewish traitors. We argue that all sorts of people were really Jews because their ancestors were Jewish. And on the talk page, as here, we have the repeated dismissal of opposition because, after all, it's just those Jews again coming to WP:VOTE, and everyone knows how they stick together.

Wikipedia is in serious trouble. It is hemorrhaging editors. Its reputation is already low, and scandals like this page diminish it. Worse, it seems clear that Wikipedia cannot and will not resist serious efforts by a small team of concerted editors who, as was the case here, can easily override policy and consensus by pretending to adhere to the forms. I've used Wikis since Ward’s Wiki was new; I've been keynote at WikiSym and I've been program chair; I’ve written wikis. Never -- not even during the great wiki mind wipe of 1999 -- have I so completely doubted the efficacy of the WikiWay. The conclusion seems inescapable that Wikipedians have lost the ability to distinguish routine contention from opposition to racist and anti-semitic distortion; if we cannot do that (and I see scant evidence that we can), the wind will blow through the empty corridors of Wikipedia?

Could it happen? If you think not, think again. Events like Jews and Communism bring Wikipedia into disrepute. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, an engineer at Google can press a button and, overnight, Wikipedia could go back to Page Rank 3, taking our traffic. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, donations will dry up. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, the remaining editors will be even more dominated by the hacks and the charlatans, the zealots for obscure movements, the gamified WikiLawyers looking for one more scalp and one more barnstar. This can still be fixed, but it can not be fixed by kicking the can down the road and nodding sagely that, if the anti-semites were regrettable, some of their opponents were sometimes intemperate. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, with our current policies and guidelines, Wikipedia can not manage this, even if it had the manpower. Part of what I believe is required is no more and no less than a very careful reconsideration and revision of WP:BLPGROUP. Legal systems around the world have often recognized that marginalized classes of people are the subject of a systemic bias (in fact, this is almost tautological), and respond to this fact with positive (that is, proactive) structures, such as heightened scrutiny, which attempt to address said bias.

The belief that one can address this bias with better intentions but without that sort of teeth has been disproven time and time again, there's quite a bit of research that a blind approach leads to likely unintentional (if not intentional "turning a blind eye") discrimination (e.g., [167]. See the research on stereotype threat, not just our article, but the actual research, to understand one of the dynamics that may underly this intractability.)

There are very, very difficult questions ahead if people were to agree with me, about how to construct such a system. Legal systems in the United States and around the world continue to struggle with those same questions, in part under the guise of standards of scrutiny. I don't know what the best solution looks like, one that actually provides some reasonable protections but that is resistant to gaming. But I think it has finally come time to admit that we need something more in the way of policy than what we have. Propagating this material has and continues to do harm to living people, even if that harm is diffuse. BLP requires we do something, but BLPGROUP denies us the tools required to do anything. If months of propagating Nazi hate literature isn't a good enough reason for change, I don't know what the (redacted) is. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the above two comments. I am not Jewish, by the way, so not recognising that article as horrendous anti-Semitism because how are you supposed to know if you're not Jewish, is no excuse. All anyone had to do was google "Jews killed the Tsar" and see what sheer evil they were confronted with, but it seemed no one wanted to make that small effort and almost all just looked the other way.Smeat75 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This is the portion of this issue that concerns me the most. We had over two-thirds of editors stating in the 1st deletion attempt that the article was an attack page based on the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism, but User:RoySmith overruled the community and ruled "no consensus". I am well aware of the fact that admins have to take all relevant arguments into consideration, and that AfDs are not a vote. But when you have two-thirds of the community pointing to what looks exactly like what it was, Roy should have been damn sure he was right with his overruling. He was not. And that should have been obvious to people who are informed about these types of issues. If he wasn't(or isn't) then he should not have taken the AfD. If he was, then I have to firstly question the competence of someone who couldn't see the obvious. Then to see it discussed in multiple venues, with no action, was disheartening. To say the least. If editors think it's just melodramatic for the editors who stated they don't want to edit someplace that would allow such malfeasance, they haven't been involved enough with the disgusting minds of the Institute for Historical Review(shudder). The worse kind of antisemites. Smart, educated, informed and with a hatred of Jews that can't be matched. Like Uncle Bilbo one minute, and then when they see the ring/Jew, they attack. Should never have gotten to this point. Dave Dial (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Been following this with increasing horror in the past few days. Made my first edits tonight, though recall having a brief run in on this a week or so ago on the articles for deletion discussion. I left before a closure was made. (I think I was in denial since) :/) Has the closing admins given a full explaination of their rationale in closing? If the admin have clue - I have always respected Sandstein's judgement before - then they showed a huge lack of horse sense and gut based clue. Shit stinks. We can all smell. Sounds like the majority of the community smelt the stench. The admins didnt get it. This shows a worrying insensitivity to elements of the comminity IMO Irondome (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It does show significant oversight in this instance, I don't think having an attitude that the article is only antisemitic because an antisemitic source was found to scapegoat is a good thing, although it certainly proves it without question. I think I speak for many editors, at least reading through the comments here, in saying that the article read as antisemitic propaganda before the source was found that designated it as such, and the admins in question should have listened to the communities outcry concerning it. After all, one of the principles of the website is ignore all rules if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and the policies of the website were definitely used intelligently here to defend the article. I'm not sure whose discretion it is whether or not a particular group is worth defending from hate speech, or if this website, with its global influence, should have a clear stance on this, but if I were asked, I would certainly say that antisemitism has no place here, and that it should indeed make rules against hate speech --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That will just lead to the circular argument, already represented on that talk page ad nauseum -- that it wasn't really hate speech, just sourced facts that happened to make some uncomfortable for "personal" or otherwise small-minded reasons. Look a number of people here have commented that this situation was more complicated than it needed to be and that we ought to have new rules to deal with this type of situation, but there are two problems with that as I see it: 1) It's all well and good to make such a statement, but no one has proposed specific mechanisms or procedures that could be employed for such scenarios that wouldn't cause more problems than they solved and that wouldn't be subject to the same kind of mental/semantic gymnastics that kept this article alive for as long as it was despite being in conflict with existing policies. And 2) Complicated is just the way Wikipedia is sometimes. We had a heated content discussion compounded by battleground behaviour; welcome to the project and bear in mind that such debates have gone on for a lot longer, including on topics of significant social sensitivity. As of today, the page is blanked, likely to be briefly deleted. It won't be coming back in it's recent form, though I daresay claims found within it will rear their ugly head elsewhere. And there will be dedicated contributors with common sense and the will to protect the project in those scenarios too. Yes, administrators acted with perhaps an excess of caution, but don't we like (and demand) caution in our admins, typically? They balance a lot of different considerations, and possible vandalism for the purposes of fringe ideologies are just one of them, if one of the more serious ones. If anything I'd say this situation is just reflective of the need for more admins, as they do seem stretched thin at times of late, and getting administrator attention, let alone attention admin possessing both the time and will to weather the storm of a situation where they can only choose amongst courses of action that are all going to be contentious with one group or another can be difficult at times. But I don't think we need new policy for this contingency, and if we do, it needs to be more refined than "Do something!". If anyone feels the need for new more specific rules is pressing, though, take the matter to WP:Village Pump (policy) after the conclusion of this discussion and the AfD, and don't forget to ping me. Snow talk 02:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was an argument earlier in the debate that suggested a revision of WP:BLPGROUP. That may help in this instance. I think you're probably right about the request for more admins. It's possible that they simply didn't have the time to look it over properly. It's a difficult situation and I guess that returns to the matter of Producers disruptive editing. This sort of behaviour generally leads to admin response, and events such as this will serve well as an example for future possible article creations --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's right, I forgot about the BLPGROUP suggestion. Well...maybe. It's quite difficult to say anything definitive about how useful it would be without knowing the exact change proposed. And altering BLP to include protections to broad groups would redefine the concept of uphill battles. Now, as I said above, I'm not sure what change is warranted by these circumstances, but if someone were convinced that a new level of oversight was required here, I'd suggest they look in the direction of the recently updated discretionary sanctions system. It could be put before ArbCom that Judaism (or more specifically, the Jewish people) should be added to the "current areas of conflict" list for the DS system. This would allow admins to apply discretionary sanctions relating to activity on the topic without as much concern about fall-out, since sanctions are allowed for even moderate violations of policy in such cases. Using it to combat the creation of an undesirable article would be a little bit of a twist on the system's usual purpose, which is to maintain and protect existing articles from disruptive activity, but I daresay the general function -- protecting the project in a specific content area prone to heated debate, vandalism, and general disruption, are the same in both cases. I think if you take this and the related discussions to ArbCom, you've a decent shot at getting some significant oversight. Snow talk 06:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You do raise some good points. These things aren't always the fault of admins. Once enough of the community had been made aware of the article, the consensus seemed to sweep towards delete. Maybe we could also push to using Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias more frequently as a resource? It has some utility on the Talk page but not a significant amount. If it were more popular and had an amount of active watchers, it could help deal with the creation of articles such as this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I see it differently. The decision to close the AfD as "no consensus" was perverse. 9/10 administrators would have closed it as "delete." Let's hope the current AfD is not also closed as "keep." At DRN, many of the "Endorse" keep votes said they thought it should be deleted but respected the discretion of the closing administrator. To me that makes no sense, because what then is the purpose of DRN. Add to that many of the regulars there are "inclusionist" tipped the balance. But it's precisely because many editors are sensitive to anti-Semitism that most editors favor deletion.

The main policy reason for deletion is notability. If the topic were notable, we would be able to identify a body of literature to use as a source and could determine what was significant to the subject and what the different views were. It would not be possible to base the article on an IHR article, because it would not reflect the weight shown in a hythothetical article about the subject in a reliable source.

The problem I see is that there are lots of articles that are just synthesis, where someone picks two words and puts them together and creates their own topic. Generally these pass AfD where the odds of getting an article deleted that should be deleted are about 50%. For example left-wing nationalism and right-wing socialism have survived AfDs, although no one has agreed the definition or scope. So a libertarian writer said the Republican Party is right-wing socialist because both parties are socialist, and a New York Times reporter in the 1950s said Peron was a right-wing socialist because he was right-wing and his policies seemed socialist. And of course Tony Blair was on the right of the nominally socialist Labour Party so that's multiple uses of the term.

TFD (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

agreed,'Wikipedia's existence is contingent on preserving a modicum of respect from the mainstream public. One more episode of wikipedia's admins deciding to tolerate a bit of "well-sourced" racism could well land the uproar on the front page of he Times or Le Monde. the next day, Google demotes wikipedia's page rank, and it's all over. Easy calls need to be easy; this was not a tricky question, and the corps of admins failed abjectly. If we can't find policy to bar anti semiotic and racist cant, what the *** are admins, or policy, for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I hardly think that "anti semiotic" writing would cause Google's algorithms to react that way. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, a deletion review is only to determine if the closing admin acted within policy. Not for deciding if the AfD was decided "right". Most closing admins know how to close an AfD or RM within policy so that it cannot be overturned by review. So I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on the review, because even if the closing admin used IAR, it would be within policy to endorse the close. Dave Dial (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Question - can anyone suggest an appropriate venue to continue to discuss this issue once this thread is closed? By "this issue" I mean the failure of the system to remove gross racist/anti-Semitic material, the reluctance of admins to deal with the matter and what I would describe as a widespread tendency among them to avoid contentious disputes and leave those to someone else.Smeat75 (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Smeat, the appropriate locations for such a discussion are WP:Village Pump (policy), or this very noticeboard (in a new thread, of course, though I do tend to think the Village Pump is a better location in general and especially under the current circumstances). Wherever you host the discussion itself, a posting concerning it at WP talk:Centralized discussion is advisable to increase participation. I've also suggested above that those looking for additional oversight in this area might consider viewing the recently overhauled discretionary sanctions system, with an eye towards petitioning ArbCom to add topics concerning the Jewish people to the list of topics covered by the system. Snow talk 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thought that the article should stay, but that the content should be modified to be more appropriate. So the first AfD wasn't only about "removing gross racist/anti-Semitic" content but whether the topic itself should stay. You are not summarizing the first AfD accurately. Content can be always modified later. If you are claiming that everyone who voiced that the topic of Jewish people in historical communist movements is a notable topic are racists, anti-Semitic and somehow linked to sites like Stormfront, you are bordering on a personal attack. --Pudeo' 22:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is something disturbing in how long time it took to root this out, including the first failed AfD. I think that Jimbo Wales and others who feels some overall responsibility for the project should look into this and in general we as a community should do an evaluation of what went wrong like it’s done here by Smeat75 and Bernstein It’s a case that deservs broad attention so people keep it in mind if something similar happens. Some kind of formal recognition that this was something else than an ordinary content dispute may be in order One point of learning may be that when there is sincere concern that an article is fundamentally flawed and unsound (extremism, hoax or similar) the concern can not be put aside by «no consensus»; one solution would be to direct such cases directly to ArbCom (and blank the article until the case is settled). In this particular case there most probably was a consensus to delete, but the point is that "no consensus" with no formal follow-up shouldn't be an option when there is very deep concern for the state of an article. Iselilja (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Iselilja, I think that is an idea worth pursuing. I noticed that on RoySmith's talk page, he is the admin that closed the first AfD, there are two warnings from bots telling him that he shouldn't have removed the template for Articles from Deletion from Jews and Communism the day it was nominated for deletion and he shouldn't have removed other peoples' comments from the discussion. I looked at the edit history of the deletion discussion and the article and talk page but I could not see any edits from him removing comments. I don't know if there is some way that admins can erase things from edit histories as well as removing comments. I have asked him to explain on his talk page [168].Smeat75 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Forget that comment above, he has replied and it seems to be confusion caused by a malfunctioning bot.Smeat75 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see this edit for what appears to be a logical explaination for how this happened. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User RoySmith (talk · contribs), a few points:

1. Until this moment I had no idea you were an admin, why don't you indicate that on your own user page with some sort of icon or statement so that it avoids confusion and misunderstanding and it be clear you are one when you get involved in controversially closing controversial AfDs such as the now notorious Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism especially? In some previous discussions I had no idea you were an admin, and now I had to do a special search to find out and confirm that you are an admin. Or maybe I am missing something and my PC just doesn't pick up the icon?
2. It would be fascinating to know your thoughts now that as a direct result of your initial decision to override a clear more than two thirds majority, actually almost a two to one majority (22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep) of many users in the original AfD -- who all said then what is now going to happen as a result of the second AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)), i.e. WP:TNT because the original article is a direct copy of material taken from a bunch of disgusting neo-Nazi pseudo-research -- it has now come to this sorry state that has created so much bitterness, a huge split in the WP community and possible sanctions against the creators and defenders of the Jews & Communism article. Just look at what they are going through now, they could have been prevented from harming themselves had you nipped this in the bud based on a solid majority, not to mention what this is doing to WP as this cancerous topic metastasizes and grows even more toxic in its ongoing mushroom cloud radioactive fallout.
3. It is not too late to explain yourself. Even Director it's staunchest defender now realizes the sheer blunder and sees the wrong of it and calls for the article to be blown up, even though he was obviously very fond of the topic and fought to the death to defend it regardless of how rotten it all was as anyone with a working nose/conscience could smell that. There needs to be a rational answer that shows some remorse and retraction on your side and not some gibberish about "policies" or whatnot in a distracting flurry of WP:LAWYERING as to how you could have allowed such a disaster to go on and unfold as it has been doing still with no end in sight (and certainly no responsible oversight) at this time. You overlooked a simple rule of real life or in any democracy as Abraham Lincoln put it "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." [169]
4. You must take your share of the responsibility for what has transpired and you must offer an unconditional apology for allowing neo-Nazi hate onto WP, even if out of massive ignorance or well-intentioned motives, but there cannot be any excuse for a gross failure of judgement on your part and your part alone. If you don't you should be subject to some sort of very serious sanction for your failure and the damage it has brought upon WP and its good name.
5. You should also reverse your closing of the first AfD with the simple explanation that it was taken from an indefensible source and had you known you would never have done what you did.

To sum up, not only was there no oversight when there were many chances to do so especially during the frivolous ANI requests launched by Potocnik and Director [170] [171] and others' pleadings at ANI [172] and even on Jimbo Wales' page [173] but in your case the "oversight" (and as an admin you have that responsibility at all times) that allowed this to happen was not just passive but actively counterproductive right off the bat as is evidenced right now by all the fallout from this fiasco and the abyss it has opened up at the feet of WP. Your response is awaited. Thank you so much in advance, IZAK (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just assumed if people wanted to know if I was an admin, they could look me up on Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. I certainly don't make a secret of it. However, if you think it would be useful for me to put something on my user page, I would be glad to oblige. As for the rest of the rant above, my explanation was in my closing statement for the AfD. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get dragged into this slugfest. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that post Izak, well said, I completely agree with all of it.Smeat75 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue was brought up at deletion review and there was "no consensus" to overturn the "no consensus" decision of the AfD.[174] While that is not a ringing endorsement, and does not mean the closing of the first AfD was correct, it does mean that we are not likely to get anywhere pursuing this it. TFD (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Involved / uninvolved editors

• Comment on the issue of involved versus uninvolved editors:

I first became aware of this article when it was mentioned at ANI following the first AfD. The title alone drew my attention rather strongly.

I suspect a large number of editors may be in the same position, because the increase in the number of respondents between the first AfD and the second AfD is really very substantial.

I would suggest (but leave it to others to judge) that the line between 'involved' and 'uninvolved' be drawn at those editors who were involved before the first AfD, because surely part of the point of the AfD and ANI process is to get input from the wider community; it could seem perverse to then ignore the views of those members of the wider community who choose at that point to comment.

L&K, Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I was made aware of it just under a week before the second AfD was opened due to the two RfCs on the article talk page. I imagine many of the "involved" editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy Jews and Communism has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"many of the "involved" editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy Jews and Communism has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on". Exactly. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's going/gone away as an issue now as "non-involved" have since posted and made the response more balanced. But the issue was not so much involved/noninvolved but one side of a content dispute (call it "involved") loading a discussion on behaviour here with little input from those who had not taken a position in that content dispute. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, there are very few editors who support blatant anti-semitism (or other forms of racism and bigotry), and hence in this case most editors will be on one side of the content issue. In this case, these editors also were the ones on the receiving side of Directors comments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is what I understood the concern to be as well. But then, clarification on this matter was ignored for a good bit as several editors pointed out that a majority of the editors who had responded to this thread (even at the time this issue was first raised) had never been involved in any form of content dispute with either party, having become "involved" at the juncture of the still-ongoing AfD. Despite these efforts at clarity, the characterization of this discussion as mostly the effort of a mob with an axe to grind against the pair being discussed persisted, and I fear it will now muddy the waters some for the duration of the discussion. I do tend to agree with DeCausa that the concern has been addressed some by the arrival of more editors through the normal noticeboard traffic, as was largely inevitable, but this aspect has now gained so much traction, I think the spectre of "revenge" votes stands a good chance of being factored into any response taken here at a much higher level than it ever should be, as the parties out to make an example of these two, while present, are only a slim, slim minority in the discussion. Two, maybe three contributors, depending on how you parse their motives.

Allow me to clarify the extent of my own involvement in the pages and discussions of relevance here -- not because I want to make the case for why my perspectives on the whole affair should be given non-mitigated weight (this whole discussion is going to get absurdly congested if each party feels compelled to delineate where they came into the matter and in what context the operated, which is what I was afraid was about to happen), but because I think my case is fairly indicative of those editors who might be described as quasi-involved -- that is to say, they participated in the most recent AfD, the ANIs, or the article talk page, but were never on opposing sides of a content issue with either of the editors who are the subject of this discussion. I came to be aware of the toxic situation on that article through the more recent of the two ANIs and I commented twice in that discussion (here and here); the gist of my comments was that, while no one should be proud of what was going at that page, the two most problematic personalities, from what I had observed, were Director and Producer, who were vastly more likely to denigrate the perspectives of their opposition, to make personal attacks, to make implications of bad-faith and ulterior motives without evidence, and generally fail to observe WP:Civility broadly. The two just seemed completely incapable, at least by that point in the discussion, of coping with the notion that others disagreed so strongly with them and every one of their responses to opposition contained some degree of vitriol. I had hoped that a little community attention, including from admins, might put the pair, and others tending towards a combative mindset, on better behaviour, but I saw no really productive benefit in getting involved in the ongoing, and devolving, debate on the article talk page over the crux of whether the content in the article itself was antisemitic and/or synthesis and stayed well-clear of it, but I continued to be concerned about the abandon with which civility standards were trampled there and the general battleground attitudes at work, so I put the talk page on my watchlist. I made one brief comment on the talk page, directed at Director after he speculated on the motives of another editor in a matter that didn't even directly concern him and then told said editor to "go away"; I informed him that neither action was in his purview, that it was uncivil and that it seemed consistent with the WP:OWN behaviour many involved editors had accused him of. I never had a direct exchange with him or any other party over the content itself, nor was I personally the subject of derogatory comments from anybody (which may make me unique in the history of that article). My last involvement with the article was inthe second AfD wherein I never made a formal vote and tried to make it clear that my main concern was not the content itself, but how broke the process of discussion itself was on the page and that, regardless of whether or not the content was antisemitic or not, or appropriately sourced, some editors there were in their right to believe the situation could never be fixed through usually collaborative effort because of the battleground mentality that presided there.

I think this type of story is much more common to the editors who have commented above than is the scenario of an editor who duked it out over the content of the article (and more lucky me, for the fact that I didn't have to step into that quagmire). Was I involved? Well, only to the extent that I observed a great deal acrimony and editors with less than acceptable stance on civility and commented as such. In the cases of others who did the same, or even commented narrowly within the last AfD and never interacted with Director or Producer, I think it's a serious mischaracterization to dismiss their perspectives as biased, given the entire point of a discussion such as this is to consider behavioural issues. Again, I think the call for a topic ban is premature, for Director at least. But that doesn't mean I want the valid opinions of other editors quashed or treated as tainted simply because they happened upon this mess a little earlier than others. Snow talk 21:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Balaenoptera, that's pretty much everyone. I don't agree with that. I'd rather go for the second AfD since the point of having "uninvolved" editor input is that those editors haven't been advocating content changes and hence are more objective in viewing behavior as such. -- Director (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That said, I imagine most of those involved in the second AfD had not been directly involved with you on the article, that is to say, the "history of disruptive editing" in question --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I said before the second AfD, and I was just going along with the notion of an "AfD-based" criterion. Editors viewed as "involved" should I think obviously be simply those involved in content disputes on the article talkpage. -- Director (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologise, I misread "I'd rather go for the second AfD" as meaning those involved in it. That makes more sense --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we all need to stop talking about this in terms of a timeline and specific landmarks, prior to which no editor who observed the mess is capable of being given full weight here. That approach, aside from being artificial and reflected nowhere in policy, removes any consideration of context. Administrators are not simpletons and we do not need to provide guidelines as to which editor's perspectives are to be "trusted" more than others -- nor do I think we would be welcome in making the effort. Any responding admins have every link at their disposal here to review the comments and involvement of all parties and to decided whether they are presenting a factual account of events or being led by prior bias. I don't think you have much to be concerned over, Director - as things are moving, it seems you will likely avoid any kind of topic ban, if not by the hugest margin. But regardless of whether or not that prediction bears out, it's not our place to be deconstructing the motives and general capacity for neutrality of one-another with regard to this already convoluted situation, at least not with the broad strokes that are now being suggested. Snow talk 22:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm an AfD regular. I noticed this at AfD the first but didn't comment because I didn't understand the content (so i was unlikely to provide a unique insight) and saw that there appeared to be a significant number of different voices. I'd probably do the same if a similar situation arose again with similar content and similar arguements at AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the content as presented was not understandable. That's why people were trying to edit it to something that made more sense. It says a lot about an article, when you come across an encyclopedia article and walk away with no better understanding of the subject matter. lol USchick (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note - I noticed the nomination (2nd one) on the "Articles for Deletion" page as I was defending another article that had been nominated the same day, so I suppose that would qualify me as "uninvolved"? Even so, if we are to say that only 'uninvolved' editors can exert opinions about an issue, we would have to consider that without involved parties to exert their testimony on what happened, we would be largely clueless as to what actually happened. Of course we shouldn't interpret the opinions of involved editors as a "neutral and unbiased perspective" that should directly affect the outcome of the case, but the opinions of involved editors are still valuable in the regard that they help us understand what actually happened. You're never going to have a "witness to a crime" sitting on the jury, but that doesn't mean their opinion and what they have to say shouldn't be said. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point.
  • DIREKTOR and PRODUCER/Potočnik are subjected to very serious accusations
  • it is necessary to present evidence for such serious accusations. Such evidence can, of course be presented and discussed by all editors, both involved and uninvolved. Closing (uninvolved) administrator will consider the strength of the argument when deciding if accusations are justified
    1. if such accusations are proven not to be justified all editors who made unjustified accusations should be boomeranged
    2. if accusations about some kind of travelling circus (active not only in topics relating to Jews, but also in other topic areas like communism, ARBMAC, ... ) would be proven, then all members of that travelling circus should be banned from all topic areas they were active.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) cut out the hysterics and histrionics please. It's an open and shut case as anyone can see. First of all on Potocnik's current user page [175] it says he has "{{retired}}", it would seem as an open admission of mea culpa and therefore you should quit your defending him when he himself has gone and even Director admits that the original offending article must be deleted, so what you are doing now makes absolutely no sense at all! Kindly calm down and reconsider your actions or you will land up defending what cannot and should not be defended. This summarizes the situation in simple terms. On 27 February 2014‎ Potocnik posted an article on "Jews & Communism" [176]. This is what the behavior of Potocnik and Director has amounted to as evidenced by almost every diff from them since (far too many to list here, feel free to click on them all at Potočnik (talk · contribs) and Director (talk · contribs)) their behavior throughout is a classic case of violating WP:POINT; WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:WAR, WP:BATTLEGROUND and of violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA for which they were eventually blocked and warned [177] [178] [179] [180] by user Jehochman (talk · contribs) and that is just the tip of the iceberg. What is happening to them now can be explained in four simple steps: 1 Potocnik, then known as "PRODUCER" with lots of "citations" posts an article called "Jews and Communism" that he and Director, then known as "DIREKTOR" working in almost indistinguishable tandem like in a WP:GANG, defend to the death, ridiculing, belittling and attacking any users who get in their way to keep their WP:CONTROVERSY material up all the time in violation of WP:OWN. 2The article is eventually proven to be a proven "cut and paste" carbon copy of tendentious pseudo-research from an indefensible and hate-mongering antisemitic neo-Nazi site and organization (this is assuming you understand the implications of doing that). 3 Potocnik and Director realize they have been caught red-handed. First they change and downgrade their user names and then Potocnik says "goodbye" and Director admits his blunders and joins calls to "delete" the offending article. 4 However, every single edit, revert, rollback, attack that Potocnik and Director undertook, and a vast majority of their comments and actions on the talk pages and beyond, shows the vehemence, nastiness, downright scariness and open and arrogant disregard for the contributions of others, of the many experienced editors also too many to mention by now but they are all in the article' edit history, for anyone to see just how much effort went into salvaging even this wreck of an article and even so facing a barrage of unjustified and unjustifiable harassment from the Potocnik and Director team and a few others who thought it was just "marvelous" to help them in an effort to defend every detail and especially the original article's clear and obvious anti-Jewish and antisemitic slant (that Director euphemistically used to refer to as its "scope") all in the original article and much in it during its existence that easily can be seen by anyone with clear unbiased eyes and has the time and stomach for it by clicking on virtually most of the diffs available on their user histories at User Potočnik (talk · contribs) and Director (talk · contribs). Feel free to do so, it's all there, but please do not create panic and confusion when it is all very clear. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Tactical Remorse

Above, Director writes:

...However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. -- Director (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This false equivalence (and this personal attack) should make clear to any reader that Director's remorse is merely a tactic. Once again, Producer and Director are working in apparent concert here: Producer retiring in silence while Director is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that he has been defending anti-semitic cant. Note, too, how even now Director stands by his "reliable non-cherry-picked" sources; the only thing wrong with the ghastly article, and with his staunch defense of every insinuation, distortion, and lie it contained, is that it was also plagiarized. Those, like myself, who wish to preserve NPOV are "biased POV pushers" and attempts to remove specious arguments are balance the article are "disrupting". Director sees only the technical violation -- the indefensible plagiarism -- and is expressly prepared to do it all over again. He doesn't, even now, regret the faults of the article; he regrets getting caught in a copyvio that makes it harder for him to defend it right now.

Note, too, that once more Director chooses to single out an editor he thinks to be Jewish, claims to be deeply wronged ("personal attack and slander of the highest order"!) and emphasizes the collective danger of plural "POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article", which he intends to be heards as a reference "other editors" by admins but which will be understood as an allusion to "the International Conspiracy Of The Jews" by certain other parties [181]. And once again he threatens editors with reports, trials, sanctions (If he were I, I bet he'd point to the word "slander" above and escalate WP:NLT immediately.)

After all, how could Director be expected to know the anti-semitic leanings of an article he didn't write? How could the admins be expected to know? Perhaps by reading it? Director is correct to observe that one difference between him and me (and almost everyone else!) in this matter is that he has been wrong, and in the wrong.

Director hopes that this very limited display of remorse will save his Wikipedia account, and with it some time, inconvenience, and some small residual influence. The effort is clumsy: thorough contrition would have cost him nothing, but clearly he cannot stomach that. Whether Producer will be rejoining him here under the same name, under a new name, or whether the two were ever distinguishable, is an interesting question to which it seems unlikely we shall ever learn an answer. Once more, two editors acting in close cooperation are poised to emerge from this shameful and costly disaster with scant effective sanction.

What damage could editors this dedicated wreak if they thought things though? Director and Producer act in such tight concert that they seem to be socks; more clever operatives would adopt more distinct personae who sometimes agreed, sometimes differed, and who had distinct interests. More resourceful operatives would recruit a parcel of agents to work with them from distant locations -- a few people in Bangalore, a few in Russia, perhaps a small office in Ireland -- each editing quietly and each prepared to chime in when needed at AN/I or Arbcom or AfD to back them up. Smarter operatives would choose a cause (or perhaps a client?) less hideous. Two zealots pursuing a lost and discredited crusade have tied Wikipedia in knots; what couldn't a sensible and unscrupulous PR team with achieve with a few dozen internet accounts and a few thousand dollars? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. Editor who worked with them and chimed in at this AN to back them up... That resembles what one editor did here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, if you have an accusation, you should be brave enough to make it. Please don't hide behind a vague allusion of impropriety. MarkBernstein is actually doing something after years of neglect from the entire community. What are you doing? You seem to be supporting people who knowingly discriminate. As Antidiskriminator, the only question is why? Does your personal relationship to their part of the world have anything to do with it? Is this some sort of nationalism? I'm not accusing, I'm asking in an effort to understand. Please enlighten us. USchick (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My comment was related to editor who is, like me, opposed to ban here. I already presented an explanation about him coming here to create a false narrative which paint all three of them in a good light, forgetting to mention their block logs. One (diff) at Ante_Pavelić article (to which three of them are one of main contributors) made me additionally worried and convinced that it is necessary to:

1. gather as much evidence as possible about the activities of this group and if evidence prove accusations
2. to reveal all members of this group
3. to reveal all topic areas in which they operated
4. to impose appropriate bans to all of them in order to prevent them to continue their activities in future

Limiting discussion only to one article (Jews and Communism) and one nation (Jews) would probably be discriminatory.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Your comment "That resembles what one editor did here" sounds like a veiled accusation against MarkBernstein. Based on your explanation, that's not the case, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood. I would caution about expanding this nomination to include other areas outside Jews and Communism, because that would be a witch hunt. They have previously been sanctioned in other areas. It appears, after that, they took their show on the road to other areas of interest, using the same tactics. My goal is to separate these two, and if they wish to separate by choice, that's fine with me. It would be nice to back it up with some sort of enforcement, just in case they change their mind. If people wish to do an in-depth investigation of a potential terrorist plot that may involve lots of other people, I think that's outside the scope of this nomination. USchick (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note to User Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs): Stop living in the past. In the past few days, much water has passed under the bridge that you seem to be blind to. Potocnik has voluntarily "retired" from WP and Director agrees that the "Jews and Communism" article must be deleted because it's essentially a fraud now proven to be copied from an article from a neo-Nazi organization. In fact, the entire article has now been completely blanked by an admin [182] as a copyright violation because the material comes from NAZIS. Do you even know what that means?? Nazis, yes Nazis, writing about the "history" of the Jews, that's like having Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf become the official WP version and the evil "standard" of all things Jewish!!! Do you even see the absurdity of that?? And that is what Potocnik wanted to sneakily foist on WP and what Director defended to the death til it blew up in his face!! At this point in time, by blindly defending Potocnik and Director you are verging into behavior than can only be classed as trolling and flaming in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. I would strongly suggest you quit whilst you are still ahead and go edit in some other non-controversial area that you enjoy. You would be well-advised to read WP:REICHSTAG that may help calm your frustrations and jitters at this point. Thank you so much, IZAK (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• You did not understand my position here. I do not defend PRODUCER/Potocnik and DIREKTOR. Many editors presented very serious accusations against them for tag-teaming aimed to tendentiously edit wikipedia. My position here is that it is impossible to deal with this partially.
  1. If gathered evidence justify accusations, the bans should be issued to:
     1. all members of this group
     2. for all topic areas in which they operated
  2. If not, editors who wrote serious accusations without justification should be boomeranged.
• I sincerely apologize if I am wrong, but I think that issuing ban only to one member of the team for only one limited topic area is what is absurd here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator is right; I did not understand Izak's point, it seemed way off-base. He was actually saying the opposite of what Izak was criticizing him for. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

An Error, And A Shame

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.

---

I don't know the correct form, etiquette, or indeed forum for posting this. Forgive its incorrect placement if it is in fact wrongly situated.

In my opinion, BMK's closure of this is a mistake, and the failure of admins to take action is an injustice. I further observe that a just-begun complaint against me at AN/I, which BMK also closed in the same manner, concluded with the suggestion that this was the appropriate venue for discussion.

It further seems prudent to maintain a discussion area on this topic and its aftermath briefly, as the AfD is due to be closed shortly. This discussion may be generating a good deal of heat, but it is in the immediate interests of the project that it take place here and not -- as may otherwise be the case -- on editorial pages and in magazines.

Finally, it astonishes me that no admin and (for that matter) no board member has seen fit to take action here. I had assumed that the delay was procedural -- that it made good sense to await the conclusion of the AfD and then to dispose of this matter. Does any admin wish now to step forward and affirm that this matter has been correctly handled throughout? That this is a reasonable way for WIkipedia to operate, and that Jews and Communism is a valuable asset to the project, one to which the community of editors can point with pride? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mark,I also strongly protest the closure of that thread by a non-admin on the grounds that it is "disruptive". This is more of the "go away and leave us alone" mentality that has plagued the issues around this article from the beginning. If we cannot discuss those issues here, where can we discuss them?Smeat75 (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was actually considering closing the threads last night, and decided not to purely because I didn't need the inevitable follow up drama in my life. Had I closed them, however, I would have instituted the topic ban for Potočnik, and closed the topic ban thread on Director as not having sufficient consensus, but with an admonishment that he escaped a topic ban by a thread. I will say that I feel Beyond My Ken's close to be insufficiently well thought out and his rationale insufficiently detailed. I will not, however, revert it (because I don't need the inevitable follow up drama in my life).

To MarkBernstein, I will comment that header titles like "An Error, And A Shame" go a great way towards robbing the poster's comments of any credibility. An overly dramatic, non-descriptive title does nothing except make people roll their eyes at the title, and that influences how they read everything that comes after it. Dramatic pleas and admonishments in bold text also do nothing for your case. Really, you might have actually gotten the close you were looking for if you didn't come across as being, well, a rant. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I would strongly support the line that Sven would have taken. That closure would have satisfied the evident concerns of the community I suspect. Irondome (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sven Manguard, at some point I think you have to expect that reasoned debate will devolve into outrage if unvarnished racism can be aggressively defended here without penalty for its defenders. I am way beyond furious, which is why I rescue myself from this discussion. Coming from an editor who writes mostly about guitar effects, I think this says something.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been marred for months Jews and Communism. The article could not be substantially improved, for its self-appointed defenders acerbically reverted any attempts to ameliorate its viciousness. The article could not be deleted because the article's few defenders were able to establish a case for the lack of consensus and ably used the project's disciplinary process against all comers. The only available recourse within Wikipedia was a second AfD that would establish a consensus. To establish a decisive consensus, it was (and, alas, remains) necessary to be emphatic.

AM I a rant? I have keynoted WikiSym, and served as its program chair. I have written and nurtured wikis since long before Wikipedia began. I have invested a great deal of time on this AfD, which I composed with great care and which has demanded constant attention. I chose to consult this forum rather than a larger and more conspicuous platform because I believed this forum would be better for the project. I have done this under my own name and on the record; any person who wished to know who this emphatic interlocutor might be has only to glance at my user page or Google my name.

I deserved better of the project. And I deserved better of you. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

An article that promotes blatant anti-Semitism is on this site for months and those who protest about it are told "don't be dramatic, don't rant, go away and shut up". It isn't right.Smeat75 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You've gotten so emotionally involved in the outcome of this debate that yes, you are in fact, being a rant. Right now, in the post immediately above this one, you are being a rant. Before, when you started making statements expressing your outrage, using bold text, you were being a rant. Being a rant isn't a permanent thing; I am sure that in other discussions, at other times, you're not a rant. The issue at the heart of this discussion is a valid one, and your opinion on the matter is also valid. How you have chosen to express that opinion in this discussion, however, is problematic. Any uninvolved reader can tell immediately that you are putting way too much emotion into everything you say, and that reflects badly on your comments. You really do need to take a step back and let all of this play out without you, because it's very obvious that you are burning out over this. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're talking about me and not MarkBernstein. I've been spitting furry for days, but Mark has somehow managed to intelligently and patiently explain himself throughout this whole process. I can't fathom how he does it. Ok, that is all.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who he is talking about, my guess is Mark, but maybe he means all three of us.Smeat75 (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

can we stick to the point here please. I am well aware of the intense frustration, trauma and hurt this horrible issue has generated, but can we get this closure overturned. I would favour and support a closure of the type advocated by Sven. Irondome (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DD2K for reopening the nomination and asking for admin action. USchick (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. My guess is that BMK is just frustrated by the constant bickering. So to keep the discussion at a level below the histrionic phase, let's just let an admin close the proposals without any more back and forths. There is no need to continue pointing out the obvious, everything is there for anyone to see. So please, everyone, I beg of you to stop making one post after the other. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):This does need an admin close, taking into account the arguments, the quality of consensus and the self-bans offered, and taking any consequent actions. Just announcing that the drama must stop, at once, won't work. But I quite understand Sven's unwillingness to take it on. Would it be easier if we - or rather you the admins - proceed as with some difficult RFCs? You could announce that a panel of three admins will share the burden of closing, indicate how long that's likely to take, and close the thread to further input pending the formal close. I suspect that would be acceptable if the delay was reasonable - and I'd imagine a couple of days or so to form the panel and deliberate would seem acceptable. NebY (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would support that approach. Lets be done with it, and not just kick it down the road. Irondome (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

For my part, I am just astonished that I can now be openly called a psychotic fanatical racist by a sockpuppeteer, on this my project of many years, without so much as an admonishment. That the user MarkBernstein can write one blatant attack essay after another, deliberately misrepresenting and disregarding the facts, playing on people's uninformed outrage, without someone pointing him to NPA; pointing out that attacking a fellow user in such a manner, repeatedly, without support, is slander of the highest order. I'm just waiting for his next essay, where he will again omit basic facts, thus paint me as a monster, and "appeal" to everyone's "decency", implicitly (or even directly) calling any opposition bigoted if they do not accept his fantastical perceptions. This is highly malicious, manipulative behavior, that should not be thus tolerated on our project, under any circumstances. -- Director (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need worry. This thread (and others) has become no more than the "outraged" talking amongst themselves. I don't think it now attracts much outside attention. It probably is time for it to be put out of its misery. DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2014 (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.

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.

Admin help at UTRS

Some help reviewing blocks at UTRS would be appreciated. The appeals are piling up and I can't review all of the cases awaiting review (as the blocking admin, or having declined previous requests). The last reviewed appeal was by me 24 hours ago and there are 17 appeals outstanding. Mops at the ready! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Remind me where the list of appeals is located. I'm an admin, but I usually don't look for unblock requests. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I knocked 10 out. @Arthur Rubin: They are on UTRS https://utrs.wmflabs.org/.--v/r - TP 06:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TParis. There are still 6 appeals outstanding if anyone's game.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And now all clear! TParis and Yunshui, your CU requests are complete. Cheers for the help everyone!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to apply for a UTRS account about a month ago ... it never took the panda ₯’ 23:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, there was a glitch with the captcha which has now been fixed. Please try again if you're still interested.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone with greater power than I ...

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.

---

While actionning Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Total_Drama_characters_(2nd_nomination) as "delete", I obtained the following error:

Deletion error on List of Total Drama characters. Error info:bigdelete : You can't delete this page because it has more than 5,000 revisions

Could someone with Hulk-smash powers deal with the actual deletion. I'm still "happy" to be called the deleting admin in case of DRV the panda ₯’ 23:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've put in a request to the stewards to action this. @DangerousPanda:, what's your interface language set to – does it happen to be British English or something? The default message that you get when using the US English setting contains a link to the steward requests page. Graham87 03:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda, would it be possible to redirect that page to Total Drama instead of deleting it? With 26k revisions, I am uncomfortable deleting it, since such pages should only be deleted in exceptional circumstances. If nothing else will work, I'll try to get in touch with a system administrator to OK the deletion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the problem with the interface message could be corrected by updating MediaWiki:Delete-toobig/en-gb and MediaWiki:Delete-toobig/en-ca (the two variants of English recognized by the software) to the same text as MediaWiki:Delete-toobig. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: The consensus was to delete, not redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Thanks, I've done this to both the variants of the MediaWiki:Delete-toobig message. Graham87 08:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that consensus was to delete, however, the internal policy regarding deletion of large pages suggests that there must be some important need for them to be deleted - I see no such need here, thus why I'd like to examine other options. However, the role of stewards is to implement community consensus, so if no alternatives are viable for this case then I'll continue with the deletion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why should the fact that it's been edited (it seems terribly) for such a long time require any additional discussion? AFD decided delete. Now all is needed is someone who can delete the page and hopefully not take down the site in the process.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: After (finally) getting a hold of one of the devs, looks like a shell delete is the best way to handle this. The page will be deleted shortly. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And deleted by Hoo man. Sorry for the delay guys. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (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.

AIV and Abuse Filter

What is the deal with the abuse filter being tripped and reported on AIV? What do we do? It's being caught, so there is really no action to take, particularly I am getting at filter 608, blocked or banned user. Just review and delete, or what? I haven't really seen any instructions for that.-kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

IP repeatedly adding/removing trojan horse names

I was hesitant to even being this up, because the net effect to the article is pretty negligible, but there's an IP, 182.73.252.2, repeatedly adding non-notable trojan horses to the list at trojan horse (computing) and then removing them a short time later (less than an hour, and usually just a few minutes). For example, today: added and removed 32 minutes later.

The only reason I decided to start a thread here is because it seems plausible that someone might do this thinking they're boosting search listings? Or introducing the ideas in the hope that someone else will notice and restore it? Strange. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Who knows? Whatever his or her reasons, refusal to discuss them in response to your polite request may be a sign of disruptive editing, but let's try again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Martyrs infobox

I just moved {{Infobox martyrs}} to {{Infobox martyr}} (and its doc page, likewise). It's actually for groups of martyrs, so I was in error. Please will someone revert both moves? Apologies for the inconvenience. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries,  Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)